Dave Kopel recently did an interview with “Independent Thinking” out in Colorado to talk about his new book, Aiming for Liberty. He discusses whether anyone other than him has read all 12 of his books – 12! – and I realize what a terrible fangirl I am by not having read all of them. Perhaps more importantly, and relevant to the readers here, is how he debunks many myths of guns and crime while giving important context to the debate.
Taxonomy of Trolls
Looking up some information on various types of Internet Trolls, I think I found this one to be the most useful. Namely the first two posts in this. I’ve seen most of these types out there. This is probably the one most likely to be seen around these parts though:
The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:
- Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster’s Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.
- Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. “You guys are all just [descriptor].” “You’re a lynch mob.” “You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.”
- Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they’ve said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.
- Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.
- Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.
- Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark ofContrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.
Sounds familiar, I think. Of course, so does this one:
The Mutt. Alternatively known as Dogs or Yapping Dogs. Mutts are pack animals characterized by their loud barking – vociferous, repetitive, usually ignorant and irrational criticism of anything and anyone they do not like. Mutts frequently become obsessed with a few or even a single poster with whom they disagree, often for purely personal reasons. Like a dog gnawing at a bone, the Mutt will attack the object of its ire over and over again, making a fool of itself in the eyes of those who understand such childish behavior for what it is. Often one Mutt in a group of Yapping Dogs will act as the alpha of the pack, while the others chime in to voice their mindless (but loud) support for their leader’s opinions.
These two as well in our issue, and not just on the internets:
The Honorable Nitwit. Honorable Nitwits absolutely love to speak about honor. This breed invokes the concepts of honor, integrity, humility, and other traits straight from the Boy Scout Oath more often than a Klingon warrior on anti-depressants. Honorable nitwits are convinced that everyone around them suffers from a lack of honor – an idea they thoroughly fail to understand in attempting to use its lack to smear others.
The Old Warrior. The Old Warrior has been there and done that. He has little time to spare for those who have not been there and done that. The Old Warrior has been there and done that to such an extent, in fact, that he is always right. Anyone who disagrees with him, therefore, is wrong by definition and should shut the hell up. Old Warriors place a very high premium on one’s credentials relevant to the subject matter discussed – failing to understand the logical fallacy of appeals to authority.
And who does this sound like?
The Pretend-novice: Has an agenda to push but pretends to not to understand arguments against said agenda in order to push the agenda further. By appearing to be a new user, she can get away with combativeness without appearing aggressive or hostile and can always excuse any poor arguments as ignorance or genuine inquiry. (credit: ays)
There are certainly more types, but I found these to be the most humorous, and the types we seem to mostly normally come across.
Dennis Henigan Discovers the Grassroots
A very honest admission from Dennis Henigan, VP with Brady Center, about the difference between our two communities. He’s speaking of his book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy:
Third, the “hogwash†votes reflect not only motivation, but organization as well. It is fascinating to me that organized efforts have been underway to sink the book under the weight of “1-star†reviews. On several websites followers are urged to send in negative reviews of the book (without, of course, urging them to read the book first). Gunbroker.com urges readers to “bury this book,†while giving helpful instructions on how to do amazon.com customer reviews. The Maryland Shooters Association suggests that its members post some “good†(meaning bad) reviews on amazon. These efforts obviously have had some success. Amazon prominently displays an “average customer review†for each book, which for Lethal Logic struggles to reach “3-stars†against the organized “1-star†campaign.
Two forums does not organization make, I would say. I’m not even sure how highly trafficked those forums are compared to, say, AR-15.com or PAFOA. So if Dennis Henigan is feeling the heat now, I can’t imagine what he would think of a serious Zumbo level campaign. But have no fear Mr. Henigan, we in the gun rights community seem to reserve the greatest ire for our own, rather than you folks on the other side. I would not be so quick to judge a whole community by the actions of a few.
I am of the opinion that we should obtain and read the books and writings of our opponents. A confident movement does not feel the need to elevate itself by disparaging others, hiding from controversy, or seeking to achieve victory in the public debate by shouting down opposing ideas without taking them seriously or understanding them. That’s how we go from a strong and confident movement to a weak one. That’s how new tactics and strategies creep up on us and gain momentum.
Ultimately, without building our own intellectual and academic case for gun rights, and taking the opposing wisdom on guns seriously, we would have lost Heller. What Dennis is witnessing might be a demonstration of grassroots energy, which our side certainly has in spades over their side, but it’s displays a lack of seriousness that I think we need if we’re going to keep this ball moving. If you’re going to give Dennis Henigan’s book a bad review, I think you at least ought to read it and come up with some real arguments for why it’s bad.
Microstamping Hits the Badger State
Looks like we have another state considering this technology. The main problem with the technology, other than it being trivially easy to defeat, is that it won’t affect the existing stock of guns on the streets. If you look at ATF’s time-to-crime numbers, it shows that most crime guns have been on the streets for a long time. A lot of gun control proposals are, unfortunately for the other side, going to be rendered useless by the fact that the United States has had widespread firearms ownership for a long, long time.
So Many Exemptions
Can’t Fred Madden just admit this one-gun-a-month law is useless and repeal the damned thing? These exceptions proposed to New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law are useless too. There is no legal definition of “competitive shooter” or “collector.” Â There is a type of federal firearms license you can get in the latter category, but having this C&R is not in itself an exception. To get any exception to this law, you have to make an application to the New Jersey State Police, which presumably they will not enthusiastically grant within any reasonable amount of time. What are also the standards for showing you’re a competitive shooter? There is none. This is the most useless thing I’ve ever read:
The applicant shall certify, on a form prescribed by the superintendent, the specific exemption sought and the particular handguns to be purchased. This form shall be submitted to the superintendent at the same time as the permit to purchase a handgun, along with any pertinent documentation supporting the need for an exemption. The superintendent shall consider the veracity, accuracy, and completeness of the information provided in determining whether the applicant meets the requirements for an exemption pursuant to this section. In considering an exemption sought under paragraph (3) of subsection a. of this section, the superintendent shall not consider the merit or validity of the applicant’s collecting activities.
The superintendent shall not grant an exemption if he finds a reasonable likelihood that the public safety would be endangered by granting the exemption, including but not limited to instances where the applicant may be purchasing a handgun to give, sell or distribute to a person who would not qualify to purchase or otherwise acquire a handgun under the provisions of this chapter.
Either two things are going to happen. They will routinely deny exceptions, or they will largely grant all exceptions. In the former, this fix is worthless, and if the latter, the whole law is worthless. If we were silly enough to believe that New Jersey criminals were going to their local police, filling out all the forms for a license to own, and then the forms for multiple pistol purchase permits, submitting to a multi-point FBI background check, submitting references, place of employment, and all the other intrusive things New Jersey asks for to own guns. Now Senator Fred Madden would have us believe that adding one more form to the process is going to put a stop to criminals getting guns legally and selling them to other felons? Hogwash. The worst part is, I think he knows this is hogwash. But this is New Jersey, and politics is politics.
The Ignorance is Sometimes Just Too Astounding
Through the course of any given day I get a lot of editorials coming across my inbox that advocate for gun control. I ignore the vast majority of them, unless I see a new pattern, a new angle, or it’s exceptionally well done. If it’s just your standard tripe, which is most of them, I tend to ignore it. But occasionally, you’ll find an op-ed that is not so standard tripe. This turd glistens and gleans like few others:
Columbine High School in Colorado. Thirty-two killed at Virginia Tech. Last month, it was the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, where investigators questioned whether a better system for background checks could have averted the killings.
It came up again last week, when four police officers were gunned down at a diner in Washington State.
The Columbine kids broke a number of federal gun laws to get their guns. They used a straw purchaser, who could clear the background check, to buy their guns and transfer to them. That is what is known as a felony. How would making it more illegal help? The killer at Virginia Tech cleared the background check too, but that problem is already been fixed. Hasan was not on the terror watch list, and had no criminal background. How would any changes in the law have prevented that? The killer in Washington State was a convicted felon. It’s already a 10 year felony for him to possess a firearm. How can we make it more illegal?
At the same time, we wonder why anyone needs a handgun, which exists simply to kill people. And, for the most part, handguns are in the possession of people bearing bad thoughts and bad attitudes. Almost three-quarters of gun homicides in our country are committed with handguns.
Wow, you know, all those matches we run at my club with handguns must be a figment of my imagination, then, if they are only “meant to kill.” Also, if killing in all circumstances is wrong, and a stain on society, then why do we allow police to carry handguns? The police aren’t murdering thugs, are they?
One common excuse is regular folks need handguns to protect themselves from the bad guys. Did being armed protect those four police officers in Tacoma?
So by that logic, we should strip firearms from all police officers, right? Since they are completely and obviously useless for self-defense. This one situation obviously proves it!
Governments have tried. The attempts include: restricting firearms purchasing by youths; setting waiting periods for firearm purchases; establishing gun “buy-back” programs; restricting gun shows; issuing stiff sentencing of gun law violators and educating everyone about firearm safety.
None of these efforts has worked.
As tough economic times add to the stresses on everyone, it might be a good time to revisit the handgun issue. There are laws in place — in Michigan and across the country. It is time to make those laws tougher — before someone gets killed in the Quay Street parking lot.
We’ve tried all these things, and none of them have worked, so clearly we just need to redouble our efforts. Some of those things have clearly not worked, but some of them have. We know that cracking down on criminals lowers crime. We know adding police officers to the streets lowers crime. We also know that gun safety education works, since we’ve seen gun accidents decline while the number of guns has gone up.
The op-ed says they want to find a way to preserve the Second Amendment, but seems to be open to the idea of a handgun ban to accomplish that. How does the Times Herald reconcile that? How do they reconcile that with DC v. Heller? You can’t just say “make the law stricter.” How is this going to work? There’s a lot questions the editorial board is clearly not thinking seriously about, at the least, and at worst isn’t thinking about at all.
Medical Marijuana Debated in Keystone State
I don’t see what the big deal is, but then again, I’d be willing to decriminalize it generally. We’ve paid an awfully high price in terms of civil liberties trying to control what people put into their own bodies.
More Evidence …
Just a Heads Up on Pro-Gun Books
If you have another gunnie in the family who needs the perfect holiday gift, consider a couple of pro-gun books.
Rise of the Anti-Media: In-forming America’s Concealed Weapon Carry Movement by Brian Anse Patrick sounds interesting. I bit the bullet and bought it because Amazon has a great price on it – cheaper than the discount offered through the publisher. But, given that it’s published by a textbook house, it’s still a bit more than you may be expecting for one book. If you pre-order from Amazon, the price will not increase for you, and it could decrease. If it drops before it ships, you automatically get the lower price.
Aiming for Liberty: The Past, Present, And Future of Freedom and Self-Defense by my blogcrush Dave Kopel is also a great deal. If Sebastian doesn’t get back to finishing the book soon, I’ll be stealing his copy. The quotes Sebastian has been blogging have been great. It’s a great stocking stuffer. I see that Amazon is currently out of stock, but I suspect that it will be back in stock soon. And again, I don’t know how long they will have it marked down by about a third, so you might want to look at ordering now to reserve that price.
The Old Canadian Argument for Gun Control
I grow tired of seeing Canadian crime rates presented as evidence for the effectiveness of gun control, such as in the LA times article from yesterday. I meant to address this, but it was one of those things that took more time to put together than I had. International comparisons are always going to be suspect, because of the different ways that different countries count and categorize crimes. However, since the other side is fond of these comparisons, we can’t just summarily dismiss it. It seems reasonable to me that we should do as much as possible to compare like populations, and contain our variables to just the differing law as much as possible. It seems reasonable in this case to compare American states with their nearest Canadian providence in that regard. For this I will use statistics from the FBI, as well as some Canadian statistics.
| Canadian Province | Violent Crime Rate | Murder Rate | Bordering States | Violent Crime Rate | Murder Rate |
| New Brunswick | 256 | 0.4 | Maine | 118 | 2.4 |
| Nova Scotia | 307 | 1.3 | |||
| Quebec | 298 | 1.2 | |||
| Vermont | 136 | 2.7 | |||
| New Hampshire | 157 | 1.0 | |||
| Ontario | 277 | 1.4 | New York | 398 | 4.3 |
| Michigan | 502 | 5.4 | |||
| Manitoba | 629 | 4.5 | Minnesota | 263 | 2.1 |
| Saskatchewan | 671 | 3.0 | North Dakota | 167 | 0.5 |
| Alberta | 389 | 3.1 | Montana | 258 | 2.4 |
| British Columbia | 407 | 2.7 | Washington | 331 | 2.9 |
| Yukon | 722 | 9.1 | Alaska | 652 | 4.1 |
Rates here are per 100,000, and I tried my best to make the Canadian and American violent crime statistics use the same types of crimes. You will notice on the Canadian stats, there is a “Violent Crime” stat which is way way higher than any US state, because the Canadian government counts many crimes as violent that we do not. But the Canadian government lists statistics for crimes which are very similar to what the FBI uses. I also did not include Ohio, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, even though they technically share a border with Canada, because it’s a lake border, and our respective peoples would not reasonably travel without transiting through another state/province. Nova Scotia is counted because there’s ferry service from Maine.
When you break them down like that, it looks pretty different, eh? What conclusions can be drawn? For one, the US states that compare least favorably to their nearby Canadian provinces are the ones with the strictest gun laws (New York & Michigan). Interestingly, it shows that rural Western Canada, which has a stronger gun culture than the east, shows an opposite pattern from the US, with higher violent crime rates and murder rates. Yukon and Alaska are both more violent than average, probably due to the fact that the industries in these respective jurisdictions tend to attract young males, who are more prone to criminal activity.
Overall, Ontario compares favorably to New York and Michigan. But most of the other states have lower violent crime rates and murder rates to their respective Canadian provinces. Whatever conclusions you might want to draw from the numbers, I don’t think that gun control laws is a major factor here can be among them.