Remember on Friday that the Brady Campaign cited a study which I derided as a workplace version of the “43 times more likely” Kellermann study. Firearms and Freedom has a more detailed post that hits on why the study is bogus. Pretty much, the study starts off biasing itself by selecting workplaces that have already had a violence incident as its case study.
Year: 2008
More Anger from Antis
Mike Adams details some anger issues with an anti-gun professor at the open holster protest at UNC Wilmington.
Quote of the Day
From Barack Obama, on what he thinks about DC’s gun ban:
I don’t like taking a stand on pending cases.
Translation: “I agree with the law, but I have to win Indiana or I might be screwed when it comes to wooing superdelegates.” I don’t know why he’s so worried when he has AHSA’s endorsement.
The Sound of Silence
The Tribune once again notes that gun control advocates are remarkably silent. That’s because gun control activists are remarkably few, especially once you get outside of Chicago and New York City metro areas.
Petition to Impeach Mayor Nutter
Someone started a petition to Impeach the Mayor of Philadelphia for passing the gun control ordinances. I fully agree with the sentiment here, but since City Council is the body to carry out the proceedings, and they are complicit in passing the bill, I doubt this is going to go anywhere. Also, I would advise anyone starting a petition to make sure they are using the proper spelling of the words “advice” and “break.”  I normally hate to be the spell check guy, but it kind of stood out.
CMP Rationing Ammo
It’s a sign of the time I suppose, from a CMP email:
AMMUNITION PURCHASE LIMIT: During the past 60 days we have experienced a ten-fold increase in orders for HXP .30-06 ammunition. This activity has significantly reduced our inventory. To ensure that the current inventory last another few years, effective immediately we are establishing an individual maximum purchase limit of ten cases of .30-06 HXP item # 407-Case and 10 cases of item # 415 per year.
NEW HXP .30-06 AMMUNITION PRICES:Â New prices are: Item #407-Case – $238 per case; item #407-Can – $60 per can; item #415 – $134 per case; item #415-CN $67 per can. New prices are effective 5 May, 2008. CMP will honor the old price for all orders already received, but not yet processed.
It’s disappointing, but I’m not sure there’s going to be any more cheap .30-06 once the HXP runs out. One thing I think gun owners need to work on changing is the prohibition on the US military selling surplus ammo to civilians. While that won’t help the .30-06 situation any, it might help reduce prices for more modern military calibers. Cutting off military surplus ammo is also one of the chief dangers of international arms control. HXP is of Greek manufacture. Imagine a world where no one can sell anything to civilians. Think about how many of your favorite guns are foreign made, and you see how this becomes a big problem.
Police Assault Rifles
There’s been a lot of talk on the blogosphere this weekend about Mayor Daley of Chicago outfitting police with M4s. While I’m a proponent of a well-armed police force, I will suggest that rifles capable of fully automatic fire have no place in police work. That’s not to say I have a problem with police having AR-15s, and I do believe that the submachine gun has a role to play in tactical units, but issuing military M4s to patrol officers is probably a foolhardy publicity stunt on the part of the mayor.
The only real purpose for automatic weapons is to suppress enemy fire, to allow members of a squad to advance, or to defend against a human wave attack, where there’s a need to take down multiple targets on a battlefield. In police work the object should be well aimed fire, and for that semi-automatic AR-15s should be sufficient for that purpose.
Feel free to disagree with me in the comments, but I’d hate to think what would happen the first time an officer flips off the safety a bit too energetically. I also tend to think what’s prohibited to civilians, because it’s a “military weapon of war,” ought to also be prohibited to police forces.  If the police need it and can use the firearm for self-defense, so can I. If I can’t have it, because it’s not useful for self-defense, then it’s not useful for police self-defense either, right?
This brings me to a thought I’ve had since oral arguments in Heller. Would a good test for the second amendment be any arm that’s in common police use is protected? Keep in mind that the courts, according to every export on this subject that I’ve ever talked to, are going to be completely unwilling to rule that the second amendment is without limit, and are absolutely not going to be willing to rule that it protects explosive ordnance, such as rocket launchers, and anti-tank weapons. A common police use standard, I think, would probably be pretty reasonable. What do you think?
Interesting Article on Heller
I read this paper that Dave Hardy linked to. I agree with Dave that it’s a very good read, in the sense that they outline a lot of the racial overtones that have been part of the history of gun regulation and the gun culture. But I can’t agree with the conclusion, which is that the courts and legislatures should defer greatly to local concerns about restrictiong weapons in urban environments in response to the overwheliming problem of black-on-black violence.
It’s either an individual right, or it isn’t. If it is, we don’t restrict that right in local jurisdictions because inner city communities can’t control their own problems with gangs and violence. Urban blacks, who are not criminals, and who live in these communities that are affected by violence, have every bit as much right to have a firearm to protect themselves from criminals as I do. In fact, their need is more dire than mine. Even if 70% of blacks in inner cities would like to see guns banned, the nature of a right is that the 70% does not have the power to tell the othe 30% they may not have the means to protect themselves.
Maybe it is because I was born after the Civil Rights Movement, it’s difficult for me to view the modern gun rights movement in any way related to the antebellum “gun rights” movement in the south, the racist Jim Crow laws, or the 1967 California law, that pretty clearly had racial motivations. Ultimately, I find the conclusion offered in this paper no better than others that prescribe magic pills, because I think they misunderstand the most important cultural issue that the gun debate is a metaphor for, which is the individual vs. the collective society.
The gun rights proponent ultimately views that his individual right to protect home and hearth trumps any community illusion that security is a collective rather than individual function. At this point in our history, I think it’s time to put these racially tinged debates behind us and get to the root of the issue, which is that every human being has the right to defend home and hearth, regardless of the desires of the political elites to collectivise security. Certainly there’s been enough of that on all sides of the racial debate at this point.
Al Gore Unable to Keep Boomershoot Snow Free
Boomershoot looks to be a snowy event this year, despite Al Gore. I’m glad to hear that they are blowing up a low flush toilet in honor of Dave Barry. Hail Joe, we who are about to poop salute you!
PSH About Workplace Violence
I might actually be able to say I agree with The Brady Campaign that the parking lot laws that are being passed in various states are wrong, but this is just so much PSH that it almost makes me want to support them.
A May 2005 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns were prohibited.
Reading over the study, it suffers from many of the same flaws the infamous Kellerman study it cites suffers from, namely it allows the reader to jump to a conclusion that because workplace homicide correlates with gun policy, that it must be gun policy that causes workplace homicide. If allowing concealed weapons license holders to carry at work caused homicide in the workplace, then the Brady’s would have us believe that this demographic, which has shown itself to be exceptionally law abiding everywhere else, will suddenly start murdering people when it comes to workplace disagreements.
The study also doesn’t pass the smell test, in that it seems rather absurd to believe that a workplace policy on guns would actually prevent someone intent on mowing down his coworkers. Do derranged and disgruntled sociopaths wake up in the morning, load up the AK-47, and then think “Oh, but damn, the employee handbook says I can’t.” I don’t think even the Brady’s are warped enough to believe that.