Sebastian – Page 610 – Shall Not Be Questioned

New Gun Control Blog

A New Trajectory. Looks to be a project of CeaseFire Oregon. We can see it starts out with some interesting statistics. Not sure what value you can draw by correlating generic death with gun ownership. Is it reasonable to even assume someone who died of cancer, stroke, or heart disease had any reasonable relationship to gun laws? It’s starting with a nonsensical premise. The next graph is at least based on a reasonable premise, but it’s very similar to the analysis I did here, here, and here, which showed absolutely no correlation to crime rates and gun control laws, and a very mild inverse correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crime. The correlation seen by New Trajectory appears because “gun deaths” include suicide by gun, which I speculated probably does, unsurprisingly, correlate with gun ownership, much like tall buildings likely correlates to jumping suicides.

But I applaud our New Trajectory blogger for trying to speak to the issue with more than just emotions.

Bloomberg: Large Magazines Save Lives

He’s speaking in the context of police officers, who everyone know have magical training, but he admits it, whether he cares to or not. That’s also an implicit admission that guns, including magazines that hold more than ten rounds, can contribute to public safety.

But, I suppose, only when they are in the hands of police, who have magical abilities the rest of us can’t possibly possess, if you ask our opponents. If your hands, they are only used for murdering as many people as fast as possible. Think for a minute about what you have to think about your fellow citizens to believe such nonsense.

Draft McCarthy Bill

Thanks to Jacob, we have found a draft copy of the bill McCarthy plans to introduce. Here’s the features.

10 round limit
Importation completely prohibited.
Transfer completely prohibited
Manufacture completely prohibited
Grandfathering for current owners only.
Exception for law enforcement because they need “to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” apparently.
Ten year prison sentence for violation.

Needless to say the response to this bill isn’t “no.” It’s “Hell no!” Under this law, I could become a felon for giving a magazine to Bitter. There’s no exception to transfer except for law enforcement. Technically handing one to your friend would be a felony.

You can all take your ball and go home now, gun control folks, the answer is no. She’s introducing it Tuesday. I’d suggest calling shortly thereafter, to tell your critter you expect it to go nowhere. Don’t take anything for granted.

UPDATE: Some more features, looking more closely:

Would ban stripper clips that hold more than 10 rounds.
Would ban any gun with a fixed tubular magazine that was not a .22 that held more than 10 rounds.
Ban any gun with a fixed magazine capacity that is more than 10 rounds of any caliber, if magazine is not tubular.
Would ban all belted ammunition, or parts that could be use to make up a belt.
Would ban any repair parts for a magazine if the repair parts could be used to make a magazine.
Presumably retired law enforcement need to shoot as many people as fast as possible too, because they are also exempted.

UPDATE: Yes, looking over it, this will ban some guns folks. This isn’t just a magazine ban.

Glorious Day for Pennsylvania

Today is the last day of the Ed Rendell Administration.

Magazine Change

Two talk show hosts go through a shooting course, one with a gun that takes a 17 round magazine and another with a gun that takes 8 round magazines. The two times differed by less than two seconds.

The Rush to Buy

Even New Yorkers are buying more pistols. And as KOAT in, Albuquerque, NM notes, the shooting has generated renewed interest in gun ownership.Â Considering what prompted the rush, I’m not going to celebrate this. I’d rather have 5 people not be dead, and no one injured. But I would point out that all our opponents are accomplishing with their exploitation of this tragedy is to put more guns in homes, to convince more people to carry, and otherwise encourage an interest in shooting among the law abiding.

Good Judgement is a Reason for Gun Control

From Slate:

But before we embrace Zamudio’s brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let’s hear the whole story. “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained onÂ Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ ”

But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out…

TheÂ Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio “grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall” before realizing he wasn’t the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn’t pull out his own weapon was that “he didn’t want to be confused as a second gunman.”

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon

In my opinion, Zamudio exercised better judgement than many police officers would have. He should be commended for that. Not turned into a poster child for gun control by people who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Any guy willing to run towards the sound of gunfire, and exercises good judgement, is OK in my book. Radley Balko is also indignant.

Larry Prattling

Had to steal an Uncleism for the title. A few days ago Weer’d noted that he heard Larry on a local radio show blasting Congresswoman Giffords for her position on the Second Amendment. That struck me as a bit tasteless, given the circumstance. I asked him to find a recording, and he has managed to do that.

But listening to the whole thing in context, I don’t think what he said about Giffords was all that tasteless, because the host asked him about her record. I was more appalled by his speculation about what party the dead folks belonged to:

“There was at least one guy who was a Republican that was killed, and that was the federal judge. But the others we might presume could have been Democrats… don’t know.”

The host cut him off at this point, which is probably lucky for Larry. I don’t know where he was going with that, but I’m betting it wasn’t good.Â Other classy moments?

“Your [Carolyn McCarthy’s] solution is to leave us all victims, the way your husband was. He was in a gun free zone when he was mowed down by Colin Furgeson.”

I don’t like the woman’s politics either, but I’m not too keen on using her dead husband to make a point, along with the reminder that he was “mowed down.” It’s one thing to think it. It’s another thing to say it on a public forum, while you’re speculating on what to tell her. This is the kind of stuff I expect on Internet forums, not from a self-professed leader in the pro-gun movement.

Where Else But the Internets

Musings on asparagus pee. For the record, I’m not a fan, though I like fresh asparagus.

Virginia Court Ruling Upholds Public University Ban

I tend to agree with Eugene Volokh on this one. The Court did not need to reach the “sensitive place” analysis, because there are other ways it could have been upheld. I’m starting to end up in the Josh Blackman camp, somewhat. I think Heller and McDonald were important decisions in many ways, but only one that will end up protecting our extreme flanks at best. The rest of this is going to remain a political issue. Ultimately, the greater effect these two rulings may be in the minds of the people, rather than in the minds of federal judges.

Word has it that Justice Kennedy was at the memorial service, along with former Justice O’Conner. I fear this could bring gun rights progress in the federal courts to a screeching halt if it’s making someone like Kennedy reconsider his position, or how far he wants to take the right. It’s my impression the Heller and McDonald majorities were very weak, otherwise we could have gotten stronger language from the Court. Did it just get weaker? Time will tell.

Ultimately the Bradys may be right that this only takes the extremes off the table. What they don’t realize is that’s likely fatal for them, and will merely delay our journey to get the Second Amendment treated as seriously as other rights which are part of the American landscape.