Category: Gun Rights

A New Low for Gun Control Advocacy

The gun control battle was put to bed some time ago. Time and again the end of the world scenarios gun control advocates predicated failed to come to fruition. In fact violent crime rates have continued to decline even as gun restrictions have been loosened. Even though one could argue that the declining violent crime rate is unrelated to the loosening of gun restrictions the claim that gun restrictions reduce violent crime has been proven false.

Maybe it’s because they never learned critical thinking in school or it may be related to the fact that there’s a lot of money in shilling for gun control thanks to big money tyrants like Michael Bloomberg but gun control advocates can’t admit that their claims are wrong. So what’s a gun control advocate to do? Make shit up, obviously! And not just a handful of minor fabrications. The time has come for some new level bullshit. Now to prove gun control works real states must be compared to entirely fictitious states:

The state in question is Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened its laws for handgun purchases. It raised the age requirement from 18 to 21, thus cutting off part of an age group that’s statistically prone to violence. It also required purchasers to apply for a permit at their local police station, which would perform a more extensive background check. Finally, the permits would not be approved without proof of attendance of an eight-hour safety course.

So, there was a clear before-and-after the implementation of these laws to track gun-related homicides. The question is how to find an appropriate population to serve as a control for Connecticut.

Quite cleverly, the authors created one. Rather than looking for a single state that matches Connecticut’s demographics, they performed a statistical analysis that created a synthetic state that tracked Connecticut’s pattern of firearm homicides before the law’s passage. This state was composed of a weighted rate from a number of different states. So, for example, neighboring Rhode Island accounts for about 70 percent of the synthetic state’s composition, Maryland another 15 percent. Then the authors created a similar synthetic state that tracked Connecticut’s non-firearm homicides.

(Because the study period overlapped the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, where a number of Connecticut residents worked, that year was dropped from the non-firearm analysis.)

The synthetic state analysis also took into account a large number of factors that tend to influence rates of homicide, such as the percentage of the population at or below the poverty line, the percent between 15 and 24 years of age, and the number of police per unit of population.

For homicides from all causes other than guns, the synthetic state tracked Connecticut both before and after the passage of the 1995 gun control law. A few years after the implementation of implementation of the law in late 1995, however, firearm homicide rates diverged, with Connecticut’s continuing to drop along a previous trend, while the synthetic states (like the national average) saw this rate stabilize.

This is a level of fail that’s almost impressive. Gun control shills are so desperate that they’re now claiming gun control works because statistical studies of make-believe states say so. I could also prove whatever point I wanted if I based my claims on the results of a statistical study of a state I made up.

Go home gun control shills, you’re drunk.

Making It Doubleplus Illegal

Everything can be solved by a prohibition. At least that’s what the statists believe. Back in the day the movie Die Hard had everybody convinced that a Glock handgun was made of plastic and porcelain and could therefore get past metal detectors. Although this was entirely fabricated the politicians latched onto it and pass the Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires the inclusion of at least 3.7 ounces of steel in any firearm so it can be detected by metal detectors. With the advent of 3D printed firearms many politicians again have their panties in a bunch. Several of them have taken action and introduced a bill that would require metal be included in any firearm design:

Plastic guns can be even more dangerous than traditional firearms because they’re harder to detect, says Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

The Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act, backed by Israel and several other Democrats, would prohibit the manufacture of entirely plastic guns. The legislation would require a major component of every gun to contain enough traces of metal to be detected.

Israel plans to unveil the legislation Tuesday during a press conference at LaGuardia Airport in New York City, where he will draw a connection between his bill and recent high-profile airport security lapses.

“If detectable weapons can make it through security checkpoints, how can we expect to catch wrongdoers carrying undetectable plastic firearms?” Israel told The Hill. “What could be worse than a gun that can be used on an airplane, but cannot be detected on the security line because it’s plastic?”

“It’s time to modernize our airport security so the American people can count on it,” he added.

So entirely plastic guns will now be doubleplus illegal! That will obviously solve the problem!

The number of laws on the books is now so extensive that even the politicians don’t know them all. Manufacturing entirely plastic guns has been illegal for a long time. In addition to the fact this bill is entirely redundant we also have the fact that 3D printed firearms still fire regular cartridges, which are made of metal. A plastic firearm with no ammunition is a worthless weapon. There is also the problem of who is administering airport security:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) failed a recent sting operation in which undercover agents sneaked fake explosives and weapons through airport security in 67 out of 70 tests, or about 95 percent of the time.

According to Israel (the politician, not the country) TSA’s 95 percent failure rating is one reason to pass this bill to make what is already illegal illegaler. I’m not sure how that makes sense since TSA hasn’t been missing plastic guns but actual metal guns. Something tells me Israel isn’t the sharpest tool in the congressional toolbox (but he is a tool).

It would be improper of me to not point out the most obvious flaw in Israel’s clever plan. Anybody who is willing to sneak a weapon onto a plane to kill people is not going to comply with a law that requires them to include metal in their 3D printed firearm. This law is therefore pointless on two levels.

Basic Safety Equipment Legalized in Minnesota

The guys and gals over at Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) have demonstrated once again that, unlike the charlatans over at Minnesota Gun Rights, they can get shit done. Through some miracle of the gods suppressors will be legal to own in Minnesota starting on July 1st:

Minnesota became the 40th state to allow civilian ownership of National Firearms Act-compliant firearms suppressors with Gov. Dayton’s signature last week.

The bill began life as a House measure that, although it threaded its way successfully through that chamber as a stand-alone proposal, had to be folded into a huge judiciary policy bill that addressed a number of widely varied issues to survive in the Democrat-controlled Senate where it passed in a veto-proof 55-9 vote.

Although Dayton cautioned lawmakers that he would not approve a bill legalizing the devices, saying, “I’m not aware that there is any part of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that gives us the right to bear a silencer,” the Governor in fact signed the legislation without comment along with three other bills last Friday morning.

The bill contained other provisions that are helpful to Minnesota gun owners such as limiting the state’s power to confiscate firearms during an emergency situation. I look forward to finally being able to attach a piece of basic safety equipment to my firearms. It’s too bad that the National Firearms Act requires me to hand $200 over to the gun runners at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for the privilege of using safety equipment but such as the way of the state (you can’t get anything nice without giving the mob its cut).

Supposed Study on Violence Omits Violent People

Gun control advocates have spent a great deal of time and money trying to prove that their religious crusade is scientific. The result of this has been a seemingly endless stream of shoddy research. Their latest study tried to argue that nine percent of Americans have anger issues and easy access to firearms:

Almost 9 percent of American adults — or about 22 million people — have a history of impulsive angry behavior and have easy access to at least one gun, according to a study published last week in the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law.

Furthermore, about 1.5 percent of people — about 3.7 million people — have impulsive anger issues and carry guns around with them when they are outside their homes.

What does the study mean by impulsive angry behavior? The paper is locked firmly behind a pay wall, like most of these studies, so it’s anybody guess unless they pony up. None of the articles discussing this research firmly define what impulsive angry behavior is and therefore the term is useless as it could mean anything from yelling at a misbehaving child to punching an unruly drunkard.

But this study has a major flaw:

(People whose job required them to carry a firearm, such as police officers, were excluded from the study.)

Why would a study about anger management issues and access to firearms leave out a portion of the population known for having anger management issues and access to firearms? The only reason I can come up with is that gun control advocates don’t want to ruffle the feathers of police officers because they know police officers are necessary to enforce any form of gun control. Therein lies the fallacy of gun control. Gun control requires guns to enforce and it is therefore not about controlling access to firearms but monopolizing it.

If you want to study the affects of anger and firearm access you can’t omit police officers. They are the perfect demographic for such a study because they also suffer almost no consequences when they act on their anger, which means you get a glimpse at what people with anger management issues really want to do with firearms. Without including them you can’t begin to estimate the impact consequences have. Somebody who suffers from impulsive angry behavior, whatever that is, and has access to firearms may pose no risk whatsoever because they still realize that there are consequences to using a firearm to act on their anger. Had the study included police officers one could estimate the value consequences have at preventing people who suffer from impulsive angry behavior from acting on their anger.

Leaving out the affect consequences have on behavior renders the study irrelevant. The researches could’ve asked people with impulsive angry behavior if they have access to an automobile and still learn nothing because asking that question doesn’t establish the affect consequences have at preventing them from ramming their vehicle into another vehicle that just cut them off.

It Prints Money

It’s not very often that a politician who supports gun control proposes a gun related bill that I support. The planets must have aligned though because Rosa DeLauro, some politicians from Connecticut, is putting forth a bill that is meant to eliminating semi-automatic rifles with aesthetically offensive features. Instead of banning them outright though DeLauro’s bill would give gun owners who turned in their aesthetically offensive rifles a sizable tax credit:

The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act expected to be reintroduced next week by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would provide gun owners with an incentive to turn in their firearms to local police departments.

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

Though DeLauro is in favor of stronger guns laws that would completely ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, she emphasized this bill would not force gun owners to turn in their firearms.

The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.

I wonder how long it took her staffers to come up with that title. Setting aside her absolutely idiotic view about aesthetically offensive rifles this bill is actually a good idea. Why? Because it allows anybody who can legally possess a firearm to print money:

Wilson’s latest radically libertarian project is a PC-connected milling machine he calls the Ghost Gunner. Like any computer-numerically-controlled (or CNC) mill, the one-foot-cubed black box uses a drill bit mounted on a head that moves in three dimensions to automatically carve digitally-modeled shapes into polymer, wood or aluminum. But this CNC mill, sold by Wilson’s organization known as Defense Distributed for $1,200, is designed to create one object in particular: the component of an AR-15 rifle known as its lower receiver.

For the initial investment of $1,200 plus some additional money for blocks of aluminum you can net yourself a potential $2,000 tax credit every year! Or you could invest in a 3D printer and manufacture plastic lowers for even greater profit! The possibilities are limitless. You could then use the money you saved on your taxes to buy yourself a nice AR-15, SCAR, Tavor, or other modern rifle.

Sounds too good to be true? If you read the legislation there are no exceptions for home manufactured firearms. It merely says the weapon must be legally possessed and it is legal for anybody who can possess a firearm to manufacture one so long as they don’t transfer it to another person. The bill then lists what it considers an “assault weapon” to be and AR-15s are prominently on the list. Furthermore the lower is the piece legally considered a firearm on an AR-15 so you don’t need to surrender a fully assembled rifle. Unless I missed something, which is always a possibility, there is nothing in this bill that would bar somebody from manufacturing a cheap AR-15 lower and turning it in for a tax credit every year (sadly the bill does limit a person to only one tax credit per year).

Imagine if every person who could legally possess an aesthetically offensive rifle turned in a cheap chunk of plastic every year to enjoy a $2,000 tax credit. It would really help bleed the state dry. For that reason alone I support this bill and hope others will join me in my quest to utilize it to its maximum potential.

When You Can’t Fool Politicians You Can’t Fool Anybody

Those who are involved in the gun rights battle in Minnesota are likely familiar with the name Minnesota Gun Rights (MGR). The organization claims to be Minnesota’s no-compromise gun rights organization but as far as anybody can tell the organization is just a front to relieve gullible gun owners of their money. Between the organization’s shady ties and the evasiveness of its supporters whenever they’re asked what MGR does it isn’t difficult to see why many, including myself, believe it to be a scam.

It appears that MGR has been unable to fool even the biggest scam artists in Minnesota, the politicians. I was made aware of letter signed by several Minnesota politicians that warned gun owners of MGR and noted that legal action has been initiated against the organization. The original document can be found here [PDF]. For those who don’t want to open a PDF file here is the text of the document:

An open letter to our constituents, and to all Minnesota gun owners:

As your representatives, we are committed to protecting and restoring your Second Amendment rights, and we are fortunate to have many allies and supporters in this mission. Unfortunately, there are also fakers – people who would take advantage of you, and claim to fight for your gun rights, while doing nothing, and sometimes hurting them, all to get your money.

One such pretender is a fund-raising operation in Des Moines, calling itself “Minnesota Gun Rights.” This operation, like its affiliate, “National Association for Gun Rights” (NAGR) relies on constant postal mailings, warning you of terrible gun control if you don’t send them money.

We are on the front lines, fighting for your gun rights every day at the State Capitol, and we can tell you: we’ve never seen these Iowans fight for Minnesotans’ gun rights. They have not helped us to write and pass pro-2A legislation, they haven’t brought supporters to the Capitol, and they haven’t even mentioned the pro-rights bills we’ve advanced this year, including Rep. Anderson’s suppressor legalization, Rep. Nash’s Capitol carry notification bill, Rep, Lucero’s interstate sales bill, Rep. Fabian’s carry reciprocity bill, or Rep. Newberger’s emergency powers bill.

Instead, these Iowa schemers have attacked strong pro-Second Amendment legislators – legislators like us, who are working for your rights – when those legislators don’t pledge loyalty to these pretenders. They have attacked our party leadership, and the real, grassroots organizations that have worked for decades to pass right to carry, range protection, and stand your ground, and who were key in blocking a raft of gun control bills in the last legislative cycle.

Worst of all, they are fraudulently using the name and signature of one of our pro-rights legislators, Glenn Gruenhagen, to fundraise from Iowa.

Although Rep. Gruenhagen, once, long ago, as a favor to a constituent, allowed the operation to use his name, he has repeatedly ordered this group to stop using his name, but they continue to fraudulently send letters over his signature. Rep. Gruenhagen has been forced to initiate legal action against these fraudsters.

We urge you to exercise caution when you hear from people who claim to fight for your rights. We depend on real grassroots Second Amendment groups like the NRA, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) and the Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee (MNGOPAC) to help us fight for your rights, and we urge you to support these groups.

Don’t be fooled by the fake, out-of-state “Minnesota Gun Rights.” They’re not working with us, and they’re not working for you.

If you have any questions, we always want to hear from our constituents, and we urge you to contact us.

There isn’t much else to say about MGR. If it can’t even convince politicians, which usually takes nothing more than lining their pockets with a bit of cash, that its a legitimate organization then there really is no hope left.

Again I will urge my fellow gun owners here in Minnesota to refrain from giving money to MGR. Nothing I have seen so far leads me to believe that the organization is anything other than a massive scam and even its supporters seem entirely unwilling to discuss what the organization has done other than hold biannual super secret meetings that are never publicly announced.

More State Manipulation of Statistics

I have another example of the state manipulating statistics to create a desired narrative but this time it’s domestic. It turns out that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has manipulated the statistics on the number of mass shootings:

FBI figures released last September appear to show so-called “mass shooter” attacks and deaths have dramatically increased since 2000. The report asserted there were a total 160 such incidents in public places between 2000 and 2013, with attacks dramatically increased to 17 in 2013 from just one in 2000. The statistics also showed murders jumping to 86 from just seven over the span.

But Lott’s group said a major flaw is the fact that the data was gleaned from news reports, and noted recent accounts were more accessible, and thus over-represented. Recent cases of the far more common “active shooting incidents” were added to legitimate cases of mass shooting incidents, making the more recent years covered by the report appear to have a large increase in both mass shootings and deaths from them.

The media most often took the numbers at face value, allowing for the perception of an increase in mass shootings and deaths from them, Lott said. A counter report by the CPRC shows that if the biases and errors were corrected, the Bureau’s data would show that the annual growth rate for homicides in mass shootings had been cut in half, Lott said.

Why would the FBI do this? In all likelihood it did this to create a narrative that violent crime is increasing so it can justify demanding more funding from Congress. It’s also possible that they are trying to help the state justify additional gun control measures since armed individuals pose a threat to the members of the violent FBI gang. But, in all honesty, I think it’s more the former than anything since the FBI has a history of creating phony crimes for it to solve so it can make a case for additional funding.

Gun Owners of America are Bigots

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is one of those organizations that gun rights activists seem to either love or hate. Those who love the organization do so because it positions itself as never compromising. Its detractors point out that GOA doesn’t have any notable influence.

My position, as an anarchist, is that all forms of gun control are an initiation of force by the state against the people. Any gun control law requires the threat of force so an act as simple as purchasing a suppressor, which is a piece of safety equipment in all honesty, without state approval can lead to a government agent murdering you (if, of course, you refuse to go along with them when they come to kidnap you). I also believe that everybody has the right to defend themselves. That goes for men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender individuals, Christian, atheist, Jews, and Muslims. GOA, on the other hand, believes that your religion dictates whether or not you have a right to self-defense.

In that interview, at the 15:50 mark, Larry Pratt says, “Guns Owners of America is a Muslim-free zone.” That’s a direct quote. He then goes on to claim that Muslims disarm everybody wherever they rule. Of course countries such as Iraq, which is ruled by Muslims, allows gun ownership under certain terms. Those terms aren’t that dissimilar to the terms set by many European countries that are ruled by Christians. Religion has little to do with gun ownership laws. Despots everywhere want their subjects disarmed.

In addition to being wrong Pratt also admits that GOA isn’t no compromise. The no compromise position would be that everybody has the right to own firearms. Period. But GOA doesn’t hold that position. It holds the position that if you’re Muslims you are undeserving of even participating in the political process of gun rights advocacy. Pratt is a bigot and has allowed his bigotry to pollute his gun rights organization.

If you are a member of GOA I would urge you to cease sending the organization money. Any gun rights organization that discriminates based on religion isn’t advocating for rights but mere privileges. Right now they’re discriminating against Muslims but later down the road they very well could discriminate against somebody else Pratt doesn’t personally approve of.

Edit: 2018-03-16: The original link to the interview is no longer available. However, the interview can still be heard here.

Cody Wilson Puts Out Bounty for Carbon Fiber 3D Printer

Cody Wilson has done a great job demonstrating the futility of gun control though his efforts of creating functional firearms with 3D printers. But 3D printing a firearm with plastic has major limitations. Fortunately a company has released a 3D printer that uses carbon fiber. Unfortunately they won’t sell to Cody because they know he wants to use it to print a firearm and the company apparently isn’t cool with that. But once you release your technology to the public it cannot be control and Cody is determined to get his mitts on one of these 3D prints. So determined in fact that he’s offering a sizable bounty for one:

Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson says he pre-ordered the Mark One about a year ago for $8,000, but was told last Friday in a phone call with a MarkForged salesman that the company refuses to sell him one, citing terms of service that disallow private citizens from using the machine to make firearms. So instead, Wilson is offering what he describes as a “bounty” to anyone who can get him MarkForged’s new carbon fiber printer.

“Anyone who’s got access to one, any reseller, any individual or business or entity that can deliver it to me, I will give them fifteen grand,” says Wilson, who has also released a YouTube video advertising his offer. “I’m going to get this printer. I’m going to make a gun with it. And I’m going to make sure everyone knows it was made with a MarkForged printer.”

Herein lies the problem for those who want to control technology. Once you sell your technology to somebody they can easily turn around and sell it. If they stand to make a nice profit they will likely be willing to sell. $7,000 is a tidy profit and I’m guessing Cody isn’t going to have any problem acquiring the printer.

Self-Defense is for Thee Not for Me

I firmly believe that every human being has a right to self-defense. That believe is what motivates my opposition to gun control (as well as the fact that gun control can only be enforced with the violence of the state). A source of constant amusement for me are advocates of gun control who believe only certain people, themselves always included, have a right to self-defense. They usually don’t state this hypocritical believe openly but it shows in their actions. One example of this is when gun control advocates are arrested for carrying a gun:

David Malik, a well-known civil rights lawyer, was arrested Saturday afternoon after authorities discovered a handgun in his carry-on bag at a Cleveland airport, but the attorney said it was a simple mistake.

According to a statement by Malik, he had recently been target shooting with a concealed carry instructor when he apparently forgot to remove the gun from his bag. He then used the same bag to pack for the trip he had planned to take and inadvertently brought the .22-caliber handgun, along with ammo, to the airport. Authorities confirmed that the gun was unloaded.

[…]

Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, pointed out the irony of the case.

“What’s interesting about David is he is such an anti-gun person,” Loomis said. “He’s such an anti-violence person, and of all the things for him to get arrested for, that really surprises me.”

This isn’t an unusual attitude for gun control advocates to hold. They will constantly condemn personal firearm ownership and laws allowing individuals to carry firearms. Then they will turn around and buy and carry a firearm because they’re so super important that an exception must exist for them. It’s nothing more than evidence that they see themselves as somehow better than the average individual.

I believe a life is a life. My life is no more or less important than yours. Therefore my belief in my right to self-defense necessitates I also believe in your right to self-defense. Many advocates of gun control believe they should be defended either by a personally carried firearm or armed body guards but you shouldn’t enjoy the same right.