High school student, unarmed, saves a bus full of his peers in Mississippi from a girl who boards the bus wielding a .380 caliber pistol. Â This is the exact kind of behavior the powers that be discourage, but quick thinking and quick action on his part saved the day. Â When it comes to self-defense, the things we carry are just tools. Â The real weapon is you.
Category: Guns
USSA Press Release on HSUS Astroturfing
The US Sportsmen’s Alliance has quite welcomely helped raise the alarm on the HSUS astroturfing operation I uncovered when they commented on my blog last week.
Guns in National Parks
If you were to listen to Brady Campaign material, National Parks are the safest places in the world. Â Well, yes, they are generally pretty safe. Â Just like most places in the United States, save maybe places like Detroit. Â But the problem in National Parks is there’s no recourse to the authorities, or to good samaritans. Â If you find yourself in trouble in a National Park, you’re largely on your own.
That’s why the trend toward larger illicit marijuana grow operations on federal land is should be disturbing:
Each camp is typically tended around the clock by guards who may be equipped with assault rifles, night-vision goggles, walkie-talkies and radios to monitor law-enforcement chatter.
I’ll be honest, considering when I’ve hiked out west, I’ve enjoyed traveling a bit off the beaten path, this makes me wonder if just having a pistol is enough, or whether an AR-15 might be a better option. Â You end up getting into it with drug gangs, you’re effectively on your own. Â Law enforcement help is going to be hours away. Â I’m going to suggest if you’re going hiking on federal land that have been found to have grow operations, you need to carry thinking more along the lines of combat rather than a street confrontation. Â If you think that’s paranoid, consider this:
So far this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, federal agents have raided 487 pot farms on forest-service land, where they destroyed 2.6 million marijuana plants, seized 138 firearms and made 369 arrests on felony drug charges.
That’s not a small problem, when you consider the how few federal lands are involved.
Is This a Problem in New York City?
Bloomberg is looking to crack down on drinking while carrying a firearm. Â I wouldn’t have too much issue if there was a legal limit for carrying, much like there is driving, but I take exception to the mayor’s claim that:
“Carrying while intoxicated is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated and should be just as illegal,†Bloomberg said at a Wednesday campaign announcement discussing three anti-gun law proposals. Alaska, Missouri and other states already have laws prohibiting carrying a firearm while drunk.
Is it though? Â In 2006, 13,470 people were killed in alcohol related motor vehicle accidents. If you factor in other drugs, that number increases by about 7600 to 21,047. In 2006, there were a total of about 642 accidental deaths from guns. Â Even if you include intentional deaths from guns, that number only rises to the same level as the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities. Â That’s without even controlling for alcohol or other impairing substances being a factor. Â Clearly this is not as large a public safety issue.
So while I would have little objection to carrying a firearm over some legal limit being a minor misdemeanor, and cause for revoking a license to carry, I have a big issue with it being treated as more dangerous than drunken driving. Â It is clearly not. Â The punishment should fit the crime, and Bloomberg’s proposal, of a year in jail and 10,000 fine, does not.
What I think Bloomberg is doing is attempting to create more legal hazards, in anticipation of the Courts gutting a lot of New York City’s gun laws. Â Facing the possibility of no longer being able to make gun possession largely illegal in the Big Apple, Bloomberg will do the next best thing; make it so outrageously hazardous legally that no one bothers. Â I would call that the New Jersey method. Â It’s very effective, and difficult to take to court.
What Gun Shows Are These Guys Attending?
From pocket-size assault weapons and sniper rifles that can kill a man a mile-and-a-half away to incendiary armor-piercing bullets, you can find what you’re looking for at gun shows across the United States.
You know the article is going to be a doozy when it starts out like this.  Pocket-size assault weapons?  I’ve never seen one of those, personally, but I suspect they are talking about the Magpul FMG 9, which appeared at SHOT.  Aside from being a submachine gun rather than an assault weapon, it’s not legal to sell to civilians. But why let facts get in the way?
In hidden-camera photos and videos captured by researchers at the University of California, Davis, men roamed gun shows with assault rifles slung over their shoulders and pistols tucked in their belts, available for sale with no waiting period, background check or paper trail.
Yes, because outside of California, where Wintenmute does his “research”, it’s legal to sell a firearms in a private sale if you’re not “engaged in the business” of selling them. Â If you’re selling firearms at a gun show as a gun dealer, you need a federal license, and the background checks for transfers. Â Conveniently left out is the fact that this is the case whether you’re at a guns show or not. Â Just last week I bought an M1903 Springfield from a guy I shoot with under the same “loophole.” Â No gun show involved.
“California is a good example of the fact that you can regulate gun commerce … without putting (gun shows) out of business,” Wintemute said.
He said he almost never saw individual sales or straw buys in California. But large gun shows take place in Reno and Phoenix.
Well, let’s take a look at California, and compare to states that border it, all of which have gun laws that are considerably less strict, and none of which regulate private sales of firearms at gun shows or anywhere else. Â California’s violent crime rate is 523 per 100,000. Â The combined violent crime rates of Arizona, Nevada and Oregon are 468 per 100,000. Â The burden ought to be on those who advocate limiting people’s freedom, to show that their policies will actually make the public safer. Â They’ve never been able to demonstrate that it does.
Brady Problem in a Nutshell
Seth Godin I think hits on the reason the gun control movement has difficulty finding a voice today:
Enormity doesn’t mean really enormous. It means incredibly horrible.
The problem with enormity in marketing is that it doesn’t work. Enormity should pull at our heartstrings, but it usually shuts us down.Show us too many sick kids, unfair imprisonments or burned bodies and you won’t get a bigger donation, you’ll just get averted eyes.
If you’ve got a small, fixable problem, people will rush to help, because people like to be on the winning side, take credit and do something that worked. If you’ve got a generational problem, something that is going to take herculean effort and even then probably won’t pan out, we’re going to move on in search of something smaller.
Not fair, but true.
I think the Bradys have a big enormity problem. Â Some of it isn’t their fault. Â I wouldn’t discount the effect it had on the population, either consciously or unconsciously, that a handful of extremists with box cutters and a plan managed to topple two of the largest man made structures on earth, kill 3000 people, and start two wars that would kill many thousands more. Â What good is gun control when you can kill thousands with box cutters? Â The Bradys even pile on to the enormity problem by pointing out there that guns take 10 9/11s a year.
In contrast, our movement has gotten very adept at fighting one battle and one issue at a time, and small, achievable steps. Â Godin has a good point that people don’t want to be on the losing side.
Manufacturing Confusion
Thirdpower points to some campaign flyers for candidates in Illinois that are basically trying to scare voters into thinking machine guns are legal in Illinois (they aren’t) and that clearly we need to ban them.
At best, Representative Kathy Ryg is completely ignorant about what she proposes to regulate, and at worst is lying and deliberately misleading her constituents.
Impact of NRA Annual Meeting
For Pittsburgh, the decision to put politics above Second Amendment rights would be a huge pain for the local economy. The last time the Steel City hosted the organization’s annual meeting, they brought in $15 million to local coffers. The NRA was the first major convention to visit the city’s new convention center in 2004 and has remained one of the largest events Pittsburgh has ever hosted. Predictions for 2011 showed that gun owners would fill approximate 9,000 room nights and draw just as many visitors to the region as the record breaking 2004 event.
Seems like a lot of money for a cash strapped and job scarce city to be throwing away over something that doesn’t even make any sense.
Guns Everywhere! It’s Mass Hysteria!
We would be the first to concede that the gun provisions are legally dubious, given that in this case — regrettably — state law would seem to preempt anything Pittsburgh might enact. Empowering the police to be mind readers of intent is also troublesome. City Council should tread warily when these proposals are discussed in chambers tomorrow and a sunset provision would be reasonable.
So it’s questionably legal, but the Post-Gazette will support it anyway, because police can’t be mind readers. Â I guess that means they can’t be expected to delineate between peaceful and non-peaceful protesters too, so we might as well just tear gas them all!
I can understand Pittsburgh’s concerns about the G-20. Â These meetings attract all manner of violent, idiotic people. Â But I what I’ve failed to understand is what the City Council is trying to accomplish with this ban. Â Either someone is engaging in riotous behavior, or they aren’t. Â Police are legally permitted to use deadly force against rioters under Pennsylvania law, and I would certainly agree that use of deadly force against rioting protesters with guns would be justified. Â I’m just not sure what extra power the City of Pittsburgh thinks this will give them that they don’t already have. Â Protesting peacefully is lawful. Â Rioting behavior is unlawful. Â If there’s people planning to riot at the G-20 with guns, I’m not sure they are going to care all that much that the City of Pittsburgh says you can only riot as long as you’re not carrying 67 models of firearms.
Pocono Record Mistaken About No Fly List
The Pocono Record endorses the idea of denying Americans fundamental rights based on their presence on a secret government list that no one knows how to get on, or how to get off. Â Doesn’t sound so reasonably when you put it that way, does it? Â Especially when you consider if you happen to be a person unlucky enough to share a name with someone on the list, you’ll never be able to exercise your rights again. Â Shame on the Pocono Record for promoting such tripe.