Thanks Dennis. We didn’t want to get out there and jump right in with the public policy implications, but we do appreciate you letting everyone know that Norway has strong gun laws, and that they have pretty clearly failed in this instance. I’m going to guess the vast majority of the American public has no idea that Norway has “strong gun laws” that “don’t work.” We do appreciate you helping get that message out there. Keep up the good work.
Month: July 2011
Ten Year Felony? Slap on the Wrist!
As Dave Hardy notes, the WaPo has finally gotten around to acknowledging Fast and Furious as an actual scandal, but naturally their star anti-gun reporter Sari Horwitz, can’t do it without a healthy dose of deception and apologism:
Agents along the border had long been frustrated by what one ATF supervisor later called “toothless†laws that made it difficult to attack gun-trafficking networks. Straw buyers — people with no criminal record who purchase guns for criminals or illegal immigrants who can’t legally buy them — are subject to little more than paperwork violations. Even people convicted of buying AK-47s meant for the cartels typically just get probation for lying on a federal form attesting that they were buying the guns for themselves. With such a light penalty, it is hard to persuade those caught to turn informant against their bosses. And federal prosecutors rarely want to bring such charges because they do not consider the effort worth their time, according to ATF supervisors.
In what world is a ten year mandatory prison sentence and a quarter of a million dollar fine “toothless?” That’s up there with armed robbery. It took me three minutes to look that up and double check my facts just to be sure. I’m not at all convinced it would be that hard for Ms. Horwitz. I can only assume the reason she’s reporting untruths is because the truth doesn’t fit the narrative, which is the need for more laws.
And this is unfortunate, because the rest of it this lengthy article otherwise pretty good.
Brian Anse Patrick on “Living for 32”
For those of you who haven’t read Brian Anse Patrick’s book, I highly recommend it. It’s one of the most thorough analysis’ of the concealed carry movement, and how it became successful, out there today.
Via NC Gun Blog, Patrick now takes a look at Colin Goddard’s film, “Living for 32.”:
If one knew about guns and gun violence from watching television entertainment and popular movies, then Living for 32might be perceived, as goes the standard movie review line, as a powerful and hard-hitting film. But it is not designed for people who substantively know. The film reinforces preconceptions of mass media-audiences. Such audiences, I know from my research, tend to construe guns as a symbol of evil. They exhibit generally an undifferentiated perception of firearms, appearing to perceive them from within the stereotypical limitations of the lurid media stories to which they have been repeatedly exposed, i.e., “gun is bad, therefore un-gun good.†Such systematically misinformed persons, for example, mostly cannot differentiate the national concealed carry movement, with its millions of licensed honest citizens safety-trained and background checked, from felonious illegal carry by criminals such as Cho (Patrick & Hart, 2011). Non sequitur passes as profundity for such an audience.
Biased? Maybe. But my experience and observations reflect that this is a correct observation. One of the problem the Internet has presented to our opponent is it’s moved the debate model away from mass media, where our opponents message predominated, to more of a national conversation, where voices and viewpoints have more equality. Ignorance has a difficult time surviving in this environment, and our opponents message depends on that.
I had contacted the film’s promoters a month or so previous about arranging a showing. I wanted especially to have my American Gun Policy seminar honors students see it, but after an initial cordial response the promoters stopped responding to my emails. The UT showing was apparently arranged in collaboration with the local foundation-funded antigun professional, the director of a local “coalition,†invisible except for the director and a secretary, who greeted me at the door.
We will venture into the lions den, and with enthusiasm, confidence and vigor. They refuse to engage in any kind of discourse where they are unable to control the agenda. More than anything, that is what will doom their movement to continued failure. Patrick also comments on how Brady is successfully targeting the target audience with their propaganda:
Additionally, the epidemiological model perfectly suits the values of the audience—My Second Commandment of Propaganda is “Reflect the values and beliefs of the audience.†The human services faculty tend toward what might be called an administrative hermeneutic or worldview. They see themselves as scientific social managers, experts who apply knowledge to social problems. The idea of the heroic social scientist or human services professional battling an epidemic is right up their alley, providing not only a sense of a secure, manageable world, but also of a personal ego-enhancing position of relatively high status in this world.
Exactly. The problem in this case would seem to be the god complex.
ATF, FBI Sold Guns to Felons
Howard Nemerov points to evidence that shows ATF and FBI collaborated to sell guns to people who were convicted felons, who otherwise could not pass a NICS check:
When asked about the breakdown, Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the NICS System, said the FBI had no comment. However, an ATF agent who worked on the Fast and Furious investigation, told Fox News that NICS officials called the ATF in Phoenix whenever their suspects tried to buy a gun. That conversation typically led to a green light for the buyers, when it should have stopped them.
I don’t think I really care whether or not Holder says he didn’t know about it. This happened on his watch and he should step down. This operation is looking more and more reckless and illegal every day.
Ohio Courts Dodge Second Amendment Issue
The case involves someone convicted of a drug misdemeanor so minor, there’s not even jail time for it. The court mentions the Second Amendment argument, and then proceeds to completely ignore it. Eugene Volokh notes:
So it seems that the court is concluding that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect people who have even a minor misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction — not a felony, not a violent misdemeanor, not even a misdemeanor that could yield any time at all in jail, and not anything that involves a finding that the defendant is an illegal drug user right now — without at all explaining why this should indeed be so. Strikes me as pretty hard to defend; or am I missing something here?
I’d say it’s pretty hard to defend, and I find it interesting how many lower level courts just want to dispose of the Second Amendment issue, usually through citation of the “longstanding prohibitions” language in Heller. I think it’s probably constitutional to deny Second Amendment rights to people addicted to drugs much in the same manner as people who are mentally ill. But that prohibition shouldn’t be permanent. It seems ridiculous that someone could suffer a lifetime prohibition for a crime that doesn’t rank much higher than a traffic ticket.
Dum Dum Bullets
Lots of talk on the internet and media about the Norwegian killer using “exploding bullets.” I’m going to bet this is not the case, and this is an instance of Norwegian doctors not having a lot of experience treating gunshot wounds. Most rifle rounds are going to fragment and cause horrific wound channels.
The term dum dum bullet is somewhat antiquated, and to use it to describe modern JHP ammunition is not really correct. The name comes from the Dum Dum arsenal, near Calcutta in British India, where they were invented. Their inventor was Neville Bertie-Clay. The bullet he invented is today what we would call a soft tip, or soft point, which is now commonly used in hunting, but rarely used for police or civilian self-defense rounds.
It’s been disheartening but not surprising watching how ignorantly the press is misconstruing what “Dum Dum” bullets actually are. They are, essentially, common hunting rounds. They do not explode inside the body. Rifle rounds, traveling typical speeds of about mach 2.5 to mach 3, generate enough energy to cause horrific wounds in their own right. That’s why they are used in hunting.
Liquor Control Woes
Speaking to reporters in his Capitol offices last week, Scarnati, R-Jefferson, said legislators need to “take the handcuffs off” the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board by allowing the agency to vary its prices by region and to try different mark-ups for different products. Allowing the agency to act more like a private business will drive up the state’s potential asking price for the current system, he said.
The problem here is that when you have monopoly pricing power, you have to put handcuffs on the body that wields that power. The PLCB does not and can not act like a private business because it is not a private business. The Capitol Ideas article speaks of Scarnati’s concern that we do not know the true value of the system. They could give it away for all I care. My goal is a decent selection of bourbon and scotch without having to smuggle it across the neutral zone.
Don’t Worry Robb
Robb notes that he was filmed on TV committing a felony, based on a section of Florida law that would seem to prohibit firing in a shooting range. By my reading of the statute, because discharging a firearm at a shooting range is not “wanton or malicious,” this crime can’t be applied to such an act.
Obvious Headline of the Day
“Norway’s tough firearms laws prove easy to ignore” I’ve been watching some of our opponents over the weekend coming to terms with how this happened. How did he get the gun? You know, we’ve been telling you it doesn’t work. Either way, one thing is certain, Norway’s gun laws are about to get much tougher.
Even as an opponent of gun control, if you asked me what kind of potential killer gun control would be most likely to deter, I would have suggested mass shooters, since they usually come from law abiding backgrounds, and may not have the black market connections to illegally obtain firearms. But that doesn’t appear to be the case. These kinds of mass killings seem to happen in countries with strict gun laws as readily as those in countries with relatively free gun laws. The death tolls seem to be generally higher in the more restrictive countries as well.
Einstein or Marylyn Monroe?
Go have a look at this image, and then take off your glasses. This has been making it’s way around, and I thought it was pretty neat. I’m not actually near sighted enough without glasses that I see the alternate image, so I had to blur my eyes a bit.