Month: December 2012

Making the Big Leagues

Well it has finally happened, I have finally received my first death threat via this blog’s e-mail address. Overall the threat was a fairly standard affair, consisting of the same tired ramblings one has come to expect from gun control advocates:

Dear Christopher Burg,

How does it feel being responsible for the death of children? Shit stains like you are directly responsible for Sandy Hook! It’s time somebody put you gun fucks in your place. Your [sic] pretty fucking stupid putting your real name on your site. I live in Minnesota as well and I’m going to find you and fucking kill you. Your days are numbered asshole. Its [sic] open season on NRA shills!

I will give my secret admirer some credit for having decent spelling in grammar. A few points must be deducted for the misuse of your instead of you’re and its instead of it’s. These are rather minor issues though and are commonly made by individuals who haven’t yet entered a 6th grade English class. Benefit of the doubt regarding his age will be given to my secret admirer as I don’t want to discourage an inspiring writer.

With that said I think my secret admirer will be relegated to writing canned vampire romance novels. I say this because he shows a remarkable lack of creativity in his threat. That shouldn’t discourage my secret admirer though as the sales of canned vampire romance novels such as Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey have been phenomenal. One doesn’t have to be a genre defining author to make money. With that said if my secret admirer is reading this and wants to be a genre defining author instead of a writer of canned vampire romance novels I have some advice. First he needs to drop the NRA shill remark. Advocates of gun control have been using that line for ages now and it demonstrates a lack of creativity. Spice things up a little bit. There are other gun rights organizations out there. He could refer to me as a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) shill or a Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO) shill. Better yet he could stop basing his insults on organizations appearing on my blog’s side bar and try writing something entirely his own. A truly creative writer shouldn’t be playing follow the leader, he should create his own games.

I would also recommend he reduce his reliance on the word fuck. He probably believes it’s a very edgy word to say right now, and at a young age it certainly is, but such an over reliance is generally off putting as it makes writings appear unintelligent. I’m sure this is a problem that will correct itself with time.

Overall I give my secret admirer a seven out of ten. It’s far better than a majority of death threats I’ve seen posted by other gun rights activists but could certainly stand some improvement. I hope my secret admirer takes the criticisms I’ve made in the spirit they’re meant and not a personal attack against his character. I would be interested in seeing more death threats from my secret admirer in a few years to see how much his art form has improved.

Watch the World Go Insane

Since the shooting in Connecticut it appears that the world has gone insane. Instead of rationally waiting until all the facts are in and proper analysis has been performed on what played out during the shooting anybody and everybody seems to be scurrying away from guns as fast as possible. Effective immediately Dick’s Sporting Goods is ceasing sales of certain semi-automatic rifles:

Dick’s Sporting Goods, one of the largest sporting goods retailers in the world, says it has removed all guns from its store nearest to Newtown, Connecticut, and is suspending the sale of certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles from its chains nationwide.

Whatever. I purchased one firearm from Dick’s, a Remington .22 to be exact, and the experience was horrible. The individual working the gun counter had to call up a manager, which took 20 minutes, before I could even begin filling out the 4473 form. During the entire process the manager was staring me down and constantly saying, “You have to fill that form out correctly or you can’t buy the gun.” Beyond implying I was too incompetent to fill out a 4473 she was also treating me like a suspect in a crime. Needless to say I’ve never purchased anything from them since and plan to continue my boycott with the announcement of this news.

Dick’s aren’t the only ones being dicks. Cheaper Than Dirt! announced via Twitter that they will cease online firearm sales:

Cheaper Than Dirt! is suspending online sales of firearms effective immediately.We are reviewing our policy internally, and will continue…

Cheaper Than Dirt! has enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with gun owners for a long time now, it’s sad to see that they’ve decided to terminate it. Who else has decided to terminate their relationship with gun owners? Cerberus Capital Management. Cerberus has announced that they will begin selling off Freedom Group immediately:

U.S. private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management said on Tuesday it will immediately begin selling its investment in gunmaker Freedom Group in light of last week’s school shooting in Connecticut.

Cerberus acquired Bushmaster in 2006 and later merged it with other gun companies to create Freedom Group, which reported net sales of $677.3 million for the nine months ending September 2012, up from $564.6 million in the same period a year ago.

Apparently even evil capitalist profits aren’t a good enough reason to stand in support of gun owners. Never let it be said that corporations will do anything for money. Either way this news may lead to the breakup of Freedom Group, which is a good thing in my opinion. Too many major manufacturers are owned by Freedom Group and I would prefer to see the firearms industry decentralize a little.

Who else is moving as fast as they can to distance themselves from the firearms industry? Televisions networks. First the Discovery Channel announced that it’s canceling American Guns:

A Discovery rep told FOX411 that “American Guns” – which is out of production and not currently broadcasting new episodes – has been canceled and will not return for a third season. This comes as something of a surprise given its growing popularity. The show had a 50 percent ratings increase for its second season premiere, and one of its stars, Renee Wyatt, recently said she would “definitely” be interested in returning for season three. The rep, however, would not link the show’s cancelation to the Connecticut school massacre.

The best part about that story though has to be the following statement:

“I know you all have to make money but would Discovery Channel PLEASE consider ceasing to broadcast the show in the U.K.? Sadly your program makes buying/owning guns seem fun, glamorous, even normal,” wrote one.

Oh my gods, the show makes owning firearms seem fun and even normal? Perhaps that’s because owning firearms is fun and perfectly normal. Sure, it’s not considered normal in the United Kingdom but it should be.

In the end I’ve never watched an episode of American Guns so I can’t really comment on how good or bad it is. What I do know is that the Discovery Channel isn’t the only network running away from the firearms industry as fast as it can, NBC has announced the cancellation of 3Gun Nation:

Citing the recent tragedy in Newton, CT the NBC Sports Network, broadcast home of popular shows such as 3Gun Nation has placed an indefinite moratorium on the broadcast of any firearms related outdoor shows.

Once again I never watched 3Gun Nation so I’m rather indifferent about this announcement.

It seems everybody is in panic mode right now. As I mentioned yesterday, this nation is now run by individuals who prefer to react irrationally before all of the facts are in. Instead of developing policies based on proper analysis of factual data people rush to the television networks to get some face time in order to make an announcement that they hope will advance their political careers. Politicians aren’t the only individuals who do this, major corporations also do this.

Gun Control is a Form of Collective Punishment

One of the more disturbing trends found in collectivist ideologies is the concept of collective punishment. Collective punishment is the idea that an entire group should be punished for the actions of a single member of that group. Not surprisingly this idea has generally found acceptance in collectivist ideologies, which view individuals are minor components of the grand social machinery. Socialism was founded on the idea of punishing the bourgeois class. At first the bourgeois class consistent of everybody who privately possessed means of production and, even if a particular member of the bourgeois class did nothing to harm another person, socialist doctrine generally supported punishing that private holder of production. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the bourgeois class quickly became a catchall for counter revolutionaries.

Fascism is another socialist ideology that ascribes to the idea of collective punishment. Nazi Germany is the pinnacle of fascist collective punishment. During the reign of the Third Reich entire groups; including Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals; were exterminated because, it was claimed, members of those groups brought harm to the German people. In German the term Sippenhaft was used to describe the idea of collectively punishing a entire family for the wrongdoing of a single member. Sippenhaft, as a concept, has existed in Germanic law since the middle ages but was made prevalent once again by the Nazi Party in Germany and, later, the Communist Party in East Germany.

The United States inherited the generally individualistic ideology of Britain. Due to the more individualistic nature of those societies the legal system has very few references to collective punishment. At one point in time was unusual to hear a person living in either society to directly call for collectively punishing entire groups for the misdeeds of individual members of those groups. Unfortunately both societies have move away from generally individualistic ideologies and have slowly adopted more aspects of collectivist ideologies. As traditionally individualistic cultures, specifically the United States, have progressed further down the collectivist road the idea of collective punishment has become more acceptable. Unlike collectivists societies that outwardly adhere to ideologies like socialism and fascism, the United States doesn’t not overtly perform acts of collective punishment. Instead of rounding up entire families and placing them in prisons the United States has opted for a more underhanded method of collectively punishing groups, legislation.

When an individual does something to harm others the common response in the United States is to find what groups that individual belongs to. Being social creatures humans are easy to connect to social groups. Once a connection has been made demands are quickly made to legislation against that specific social group. If the wrongdoer is an anarchist cries are made add anarchists to the list of known terrorist groups. If the wrongdoer is a member of the Tea Party cries are made to add the Tea Party, or so-called right-wing extremists, to the list of known terrorist groups. If the wrongdoer is a member of racist group cries are made to enact legislation that prohibits racist speech. Not surprisingly when a wrongdoer is a gun owner cries are made to enact legislation that punishes all gun owners.

Gun control is nothing more than a form of collective punishment. Enacting gun control legislation restricts the liberties of gun owners but doesn’t punish the person who committed the act that resulted in the demand for more gun control. If somebody shooters several people with a handgun gun control advocates start screaming for a ban, or at least tighter restrictions, on handguns. The killer faces multiple charges of murder but nonviolent owners of handguns, that is to say the majority of handgun owners, face future charges of possessing a prohibited weapon or are restricted from buying particular handguns in the future.

From the beginning gun control has been a form of collective punishment. The first gun control laws were implemented to prevent African Americans from obtaining firearms. In that case the entire African Americans community was being punished whether they brought violence against another human being or not. Gun control hasn’t changed much in its long history. From collectively punishing African Americans to collectively punishing gun owners the idea of gun control has always been one of punishing entire groups for the, oftentimes perceived, actions of individuals in those groups. To use the ever beloved car analogy gun control legislation would be akin to banning Ford Fusions because a single man got drunk, drove a Fusion, and killed another person in a collision. Instead of punishing the drunk drive a vehicle prohibition would punish car owns, specifically those who like Ford Fusions.

Collective punishment is a frightening idea. Since we’re all members of various social groups and it’s highly probable that somebody in every social group will commit an act of aggression against another human being it’s likely that every could face punishment under a collective system. I oppose collective punishment and believe only a wrongdoer should be punished.

Something that Amazes Me Regarding Shootings

Something that always amazes me about shootings is the way everybody seems to play fast and loose with the facts. If you’ve been paying attention to the news revolving around Friday’s shooting in Connecticut you’ve probably heard that the shooter use an AR-15 and that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the shooter’s car. You’ve probably also heard that the shooter’s mother was a teacher and was entirely unconnected with the school.

The media, in its frenzy to get ratings immediately after a disaster, is often willing to report rumors as facts and seems unwilling to perform actual journalistic groundwork. Instead of researching and presenting facts the media reports on information obtained through second-hand interviews with individuals whose connection with the events in question are usually questionable.

The media’s coverage of the Connecticut shooting reminds me of their coverage of the Zimmerman case. Immediately after Zimmerman’s fatal confrontation with Martin media outlets were reporting about Zimmerman’s racist statements and stalking of Martin, neither of which panned out to be true. Now we have contradicting information being reported about the Connecticut shooting leaving those wanting facts high and dry.

I really wish the media would take their time and report on facts as they’re confirmed instead of rumors as they’re developed. As it currently stands we probably won’t have an actual picture of what happened for a week or two. This fact won’t stop gun control advocates and politicians from acting though. Already there are calls for a new “assault weapon” ban even though we don’t know for sure if the shooter used an “assault weapon” (better known as a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle). Our society is now based on reactionary policy instead of policies developed around confirmed facts.

The Difference Between the Pirate Bay and the Library

Representatives of the recording, publishing, and movie industries constantly gripe about Internet piracy. They claim rampent piracy will lead to the death of music, literature, and movies because individuals will no longer pay money for them. Considering this why don’t those industries gripe about another source of obtaining such media for free? You never hear those representatives complain about public libraries, do you? Why is that? It’s because public libraries are too inefficient:

It begs the question why every author, filmmaker, and musician isn’t up in arms about the New York Public Library’s rampant sharing, while there’s a ton of opposition to the sharing habits of BitTorrent peers who use The Pirate Bay. After all, The Pirate Bay’s community shares significantly less than the New York Public Library: just 1 million items in 2008 (and the collection certainly hasn’t grown 5000% since then). The reason that The Pirate Bay is offensive, and the New York Public Library is not, is because of its efficiency.

Before the New York Public Library can share an item with you, you first need to schlep all the way to 5th Avenue and 42nd Street in Manhattan. Then you have to walk around the massive building to find what you’re looking for. That is, if the item isn’t checked out. See, the New York Public Library has a peculiar system of storing their items: in finite, physical form. If you want to read a book or watch a film, there are only a few copies available. You can take an item home for a limited time (which forces other people to wait until you return it), but only if you live in New York State.

Were libraries as efficient as online piracy sites representatives from the recording, publishing, and movie industries would be demanding their immediate shutdown. So remember, you can borrow intellectual property for free so long as you do it in an inefficient manner.

You Just Can’t Trust Anybody Anymore

Brace yourselves, I have some rather surprising news. It appears that a couple of politicians have, get this, performed a complete 180 on an issue position. Senators Mark Warner and Joe Manchin, both candidates with “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association (NRA), have come out in support of reinstating the “assault weapon” ban:

Two US Senators became the first of America’s pro-gun advocates to break ranks on Monday night as they called for a ban on assault weapons in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings.

[…]

The two Senators – both Democrats but with “A” ratings and previous endorsements from the powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby group – both spoke out to argue publicly that the death of 20 Year 2 children was a “game-changing” moment for America’s divisive gun debate.

These two senators have demonstrated why the political means can never be a tool to achieve liberty. Politicians cannot be trusted. They may claim to support gun rights one moment but will turn on you the second it stands to advance their political career. Senators Warner and Manchin have demonstrated that they care nothing for gun rights and would prefer to throw gun owners under the bus in order to get their name on headlines and, in all likelihood, advance their political careers. Nothing about this development should surprise anybody though, these politicians are just doing what politicians do.

What Eliminating Gun-Free Zones Can Do

Since the shooting in Connecticut two camps have emerged. The first camp are those who demand stricter gun control laws and the second camp are those who demand loosening current gun control laws. I’m firmly in the second camp. As I’ve continued to advocate for the elimination of legally established gun-free zones I’ve heard many arguments against allowing those who can carry firearms to do so on school grounds. Most of these arguments are rather absurd.

Some proponents of gun control claim that students will wrestle guns from teachers and begin shooting their fellow students. This argument is irrelevant because, as these school shootings have demonstrated, students wanting to shoot fellow students are already brining guns into schools. In addition to that fact it’s unlikely that students will know which teachers are carrying. Another common argument against legalizing carry on school grounds is the concern about negligent discharges. Again this argument holds almost no water because negligent discharges can only happen if a firearm is removed from its holster. What reason would a teacher have to remove their firearm from its holster unless there was an active shooting? It’s not like a teacher is going to pull their gun out to show the kids. Other opponents to legalizing carry on school grounds claim teachers won’t have sufficient training to properly engage an active shooter. This claim, like the previously mentioned ones, is almost entirely irrelevant. If you look at the history of these mass shootings the shooter almost always commits suicide upon meeting any form of armed resistance. In a vast majority of cases a teacher wouldn’t have had to engage the shooter, they would have simply needed to present a firearm and the shooter would have committed suicide.

This brings us to the point I want to make. What would legalizing carry on school grounds do? The first and most important thing it would do is reduce response times. When an active shooting occurs they usually last until armed resistance arrives. Usually armed resistance comes in the form of police officers. Unfortunately police are unable to appear instantly when a shooting begins so the shooter has free reign for several minutes. Arming teachers would allow response times to be lowered from minutes to seconds. Having an individual on site able to present armed resistance would mean an almost immediate response could be available. During an active shooting response time is the most important factor since, as I mentioned above, shooters often commit suicide upon meeting any armed resistance. Furthermore even if the shooter doesn’t commit suicide upon meeting armed resistance their attention will likely be diverted to the armed resister and not directed at the children.

In addition to reducing response times legalizing carry on school grounds would raise the cost of performing shootings on school grounds. Since schools are legal gun-free zones those with murder in their hearts know that they are almost guaranteed several minutes of free reign before armed resistance arrives. This makes schools relatively cheap targets for wannabe murderers. The low cost of performing violence on school grounds is a likely factor for the frequency at which mass shootings occur on school grounds. Most mass shootings seem to take place in legal gun-free zones. Knowing that there could be armed teachers or faculty members on school grounds increases the odds of encountering armed resistance from almost nothing to highly probable. Increasing the cost of performing violence will likely lead to a reduced rate of violence being committed.

Legalizing carry on school grounds stands a real chance of deterring mass shootings at schools. Unlike gun control, which relies on murders obeying the law, legalizing carry on school grounds doesn’t rely on the behavior of murders. Instead legalizing carry on school grounds merely erects a barrier between school grounds and those wanting to commit violent acts on those grounds. It’s a far more intelligent response to school shootings than enacting more laws for murderers to ignore.

Mass Killings Haven’t Become More Frequent

After a mass shooting two things can always be counted on. First the victims will be forgotten while the shooter will live on in infamy. Second politicians will start demanding more gun control. As if on queue a politicians by the name of Jerrold Nadler is claiming that these shootings are becoming more frequent and therefore stronger gun control laws must be implemented:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents portions of New York City, said he was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s statement on Friday afternoon that the mass shooting, which claimed the lives of 20 young children, requires “meaningful action” by Congress, but hopes those words turn into concrete legislation.

“These incidents, these horrible, horrible incidents … are happening more and more frequently. And they will continue to happen more and more frequently until someone with the bully pulpit, and that means the president, takes leadership and pushes Congress,” Mr. Nadler said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz.

Fortunately his statement is unfounded:

Even before Portland and Newtown, we saw a former student kill seven people at Oikos University in Oakland, Calif. We saw gunmen in Seattle and Minneapolis each kill five people and then themselves. We saw the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” at a theater in Aurora, Colo., devolve into a bloodbath, as 12 people died and 58 were wounded; 24-year-old James Holmes was arrested outside.

And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

[…]

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Once again we find those demanding more gun control either playing fast and loose with the facts or deliberately lying in order to advance their agenda. The truth of the matter is that these mass killings aren’t becoming more frequent, they have always been a rather random anomaly. The chances of being killed in one of these mass shootings is very rare as the occurrences of mass shootings themselves are very rare. These facts matter not to the politicians demanding more gun control laws because they know exploiting mass shootings can lead to political gain. By clamoring for more gun control legislation Mr. Nadler is getting his face on television and making it appear as though he cares about the children who were murdered. In reality Mr. Nadler is likely unable to name a single victim of the shooting.

Obama’s Crocodile Tears

After the shooting in Connecticut Obama, apparently believing not tragedy should be wasted, went on television and gave a speech. The speech was the usual political affair with vague statements about the need for change and some shed tears. Shedding tears was a nice touch but they can be considered nothing more than crocodile tears. While Obama lamented on the death of 20 children in Connecticut his drone strikes have murdered 168 children in Pakistan:

As many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years as the CIA has intensified its secret programme against militants along the Afghan border.

When Obama said there needs to be “meaningful action” he was right. He can start but ceasing further bombings in Parkistan, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern countries. More children have been killed by American drone bombings that the last several school shootings combine.