Category: Gun Rights

Speculating the Reason Behind Releasing the Addresses of New York Gun Owners

Last week there was a bit of an uproar over a New York newspaper creating maps that show the names and addresses of registered gun owners in that state. In an attempt to defend its actions the paper released the following justification:

“We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president/news.

“People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods,” she said. “Our Freedom of Information request also sought specifics on how many and what types of weapons people owned. That portion of the request was denied.”

The more I read articles from advocates of gun control the more I’m beginning to believe that the publishing of those maps was nothing more than an attempt to bring harm to gun owners. Consider the potential consequences of releasing the names and addresses of gun owners directly after a politically charged event like the shooting in Connecticut. People were extremely angry and wanted an outlet for their aggression. The most popular outlet became gun owners, who were collectively blamed for the actions of the Connecticut shooter. By releasing the names and addresses of gun owners the newspaper gave angry individuals physical targets. Furthermore guns are known high-value items from criminals. Releasing a map of known gun owners also notified criminals of locations where guns are all but guaranteed to be. In fact the newspaper’s attempt to also obtain the number of type of firearms further adds to the possibility that they were trying to bring harm to gun owners. A house with multiple firearms is a more valuable target to criminals than a house with one or two.

It’s not a stretch to believe the newspaper really wanted to say “Citizens of New York, here are the addresses of those who threaten your wellbeing. Rise up, form lynch mobs, and kill them before they kill you!” and “Criminals of New York, here are the addresses of gun owners. Strike their homes, kill those dwelling within, and take their guns!” but were prohibited from legally doing so. Our society is one where advocating direct violence is socially ostracized but issuing thinly veiled threats, especially threats that can be written off as misunderstandings, are generally acceptable. Openly advocating the murder of gun owners wouldn’t generally go over well but providing potentially violent individuals with the information needed to unleash their aggression against gun owners goes without much real criticism.

Gun control advocates, while claiming to want peace, are often violent authoritarians. They want to state to use its capacity for violence against gun owners. When gun control advocates demand new laws prohibiting the ownership of specific arms they are advocating for the state to kidnap or murder any gun owners who refuse to surrender their firearms. People who advocate the use of violence against nonviolent individuals generally have little quarrel with any initiation of force so long as it’s used to advance their idea of the greater good.

So Begins the War in Illinois

It looks like the politicians in Illinois are planning to go for the throats of gun owners. Shall Not Be Questioned notified their readers that the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) sent out an alert detailing the dastardly deeds of their state’s politicians:

The ISRA has learned from a credible source that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton will introduce a so called “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday when the legislature returns for its “lame duck” session. Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday. If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.

Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called “assault weapons” but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.

This is a rather bold move, especially after an Illinois federal appeals court ruled that the state’s prohibition against all form of carry was unconstitutional. Although such a law is unlikely to hold up in court its passage could cause Illinois gun owners a great deal of misery since a majority of their firearms would be deemed illegal until the law itself was ruled unlawful. This could be a very interesting fight to witness.

The States Lashes Out at Those Who Obey Its Decrees

The state is an interesting monster. It uses coercion to make individuals abide by its decrees and then lashes out at those who obey its decrees. There is no winning strategy. Take the shooting in Connecticut. Even though the state mandates federally licensed firearms dealers perform background checks on any sold firearms the state has decided to harass the dealer who sold the shooter’s mother firearms:

Federal agents raided an eastern Connecticut gun shop on Thursday, the same gun shop that sold one of the weapons used by the Newtown elementary school shooter.

Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, assisted by police, moved in on Riverview Sales at 4 Prospect Hill Road in East Windsor at around 5:15 p.m., reported Len Besthoff of CBS 2 sister station WFSB in Hartford.

Of course the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms an Explosives (ATF) are trying to play innocent by claiming their raid had nothing to do with the Connecticut shooting:

All indications are Thursday’s raid was not directly related to the Newtown massacre investigation, but, as Besthoff reported, it was related to several other crimes committed at the store, including the recent theft of an AR-15 and the attempted theft of a .50-caliber long gun, both by a man with mental illness, Besthoff reported.

That’s a pretty shady cover story since both mentioned incidents involved individuals trying to steal firearms. In all likelihood the ATF is exploiting the Connecticut shooting in order to raise their status in the public’s eye. By raiding this shop the ATF is making it appear as though they’re trying to shut down the dealer that sold the firearms used in the Connecticut shooting. Reading the statements made about the shooting it seems the public isn’t interested in due process, they want to see anybody even remotely connected to the Connecticut shooter punished.

What’s interesting about this whole fiasco is that the store was legally required to perform a background check on the shooter’s mother. It was the federal government, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), that said the mother was fit to own firearms. Considering this fact the shop owner shouldn’t be the victim of state harassement since the state gave the OK for the sale in the first place. As we know that’s now how the state operates though.

The Need for Standard Capacity Magazines

Gun control advocates often ask why anybody needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Deciding legality based on need is a common trap authoritarians fall into. Due to the lack of specialized knowledge one cannot know what another person needs. For example, as Uncle pointed out people being attacked by multiple assailants would benefit from having standard capacity magazines:

Bullets flew during a deadly home invasion robbery as a homeowner traded shots with several suspects.

A suspect was caught and cuffed in connection with the deadly home invasion robbery. Police say the homeowner was rushed to the hospital after trading shots with several suspects and killing one of them.

Advocates of gun control claim that forcing a shooter to reload more often gives somebody else more windows to stop him. That logic works both ways. If a homeowner is being attacked by multiple assailants they leave themselves vulnerable more often if they have 10 round magazines. Once again we see something advocated by gun control supporters working against the lawful.

Reclassifying Semi-Automatic Rifles as NFA Restrictions

Dianne Feinstein continues her holy crusade to make criminals out of currently lawful gun owners. One of the scams she’s proposing would be to regulate semi-automatic rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA). For those who aren’t aware the NFA is the piece of legislation that requires individuals to obtain a $200 tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms an Explosives (ATF) in order to purchase an automatic firearm not prohibited under the Hughes Amendment, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, supressors, and anything else the ATF randomly classifies as an Any Other Weapon (AOW). In other words such legislation would require everybody currently in possession of a semi-automatic rifle to get the ATF’s permission and pay the agency a $200.00 tax stamp:

Notice her implicit lie. She claims that there are devices to convert semi-automatic rifles into fully-automatic rifles so they should be regulated under the NFA. The implication is that a converted semi-automatic rifle doesn’t fall under the NFA regulations, which is false. If you convert a semi-automatic rifle to be fully-automatic it is legally a machine gun. Since the Hughes Amendment prohibits civilian ownership of any machine gun registered after May 19, 1986 one would be committing a felony by converting their semi-automatic firearm. In other words what she’s proposing is asinine because converting a semi-automatic rifle into a fully-automatic rifle is already illegal.

What Firearm Registration Leads To

Advocates of gun control seem to think nothing bad can come from registering firearms. If you say you oppose firearm registration they’ll often call you paranoid or say some mutation of the phrase “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.” Why would a gun owner who has done nothing wrong oppose firearm registration systems? Because they can lead to fiascos like this:

The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

At the link you’ll find two maps. One map shows the location of every handgun permit holder in Westchester County and the other shows every handgun permit holder in Rockland County (both counties are in New York). If you click on any of the dots that appear on the map you’ll get the name of the permit holder and their address. What are the ramifications of such a map? Let’s say you were a criminal in search of a handgun or a burglar looking for high money merchandise, what would you do with this map? In all likelihood you would use this map to find known handgun owners, stake out their residences, and break in when nobody was home in the hopes of walking away with some handguns. Handguns are valuable items for thieves. These maps basically give thieves prospective targets to rob.

This is one reason why firearm registration systems are bad, they provide information to criminals on prospective targets for robbery. If gun control advocates are truly concerned with keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals they should oppose firearm registration schemes. Even if the information isn’t generally made available to the public it can be leaked by individuals who have access to the data. A list of handgun permit holders would be a valuable item and therefore an individual in control of such a database would have motives to leak it.

Something I’ve Often Wondered About Gun Control Advocates

There’s something I’ve often wondered about advocates of gun control. Most gun control advocates urge businesses to put up signs announcing that their property is a gun-free zone. On the other hand I don’t see many gun control advocates putting those signs on their homes. A professor at George Washington University is asking his fellow gun control advocates to correct that problem:

We should not wait for our elected officials, in President Obama’s good words, “to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” We should do our share. One way to proceed is to mark our homes, apartments and condos, with a “gun free” sign. Parents should notify their friends that they would be reluctant to send their child over for a play date unless the home was safe from guns. Residential communities should pass rules that ban bringing guns onto their premises, clearly marking them as gun free.

Anyone who puts up such signs will become an ambassador for gun control, because they are sure to be challenged by gun advocates to explain their anti-gun positions. Here are some pointers they may wish to use against the typical pro-gun talking points.

I think there’s a reason why most advocates of gun control don’t advertise their dwellings as gun-free zones, it acts as a notice to criminals that the cost of burglarizing the house or committing acts of violence against the residents is very low. Most advocates of gun control ask others to declare their property gun-free zones while they fail to do the same. It’s a double standard.

I actually agree with this professor’s call for gun control advocates to post their homes as gun-free zones. Such an action would demonstrate the gun control advocate’s sincerity. Furthermore I believe they should take it a step further by stating that police will not be called in the event of somebody breaking in or that the police will be commanded to respond unarmed. We all know that the police perform violence by proxy. When somebody calls the police they are implicitly asking the responding officers to use violence against an aggressor. Shouldn’t a gun control advocate demand the police respond unarmed? After all advocates of gun control continue to claim that being unarmed is safer than being armed even. They claim that anybody carrying a gun will just have it taken from them by an attacker. In the name of officer safety shouldn’t gun control advocates call 911 and say “Quick, there’s somebody in my house! Please send the police but for God’s sake tell them to leave their guns at the station!”

You are Cordially Invited

Apparently Dianne Feinstein is looking into performing a wealth transfer from gun owners to the state:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.

“We are also looking at a buy-back program,” Feinstein said today in a press conference. “Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.

“Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

The only appropriate response to this proposal is to say “Molon labe,” which means “Come and take them.” This proposal demonstrates the problem with firearm registrations, when the state inevitably decides to confiscate firearms they know who has them and roughly how many they have. Proposals like this are why we need to start setting up decentralized firearm manufacturing capabilities. It’s obvious the state wants to disarm all non-state agents, which isn’t surprising since it exists solely by expropriating from the people, but such a goal is literally impossible if anybody who wants a gun is able to manufacture one in their own home.

Additional Comments Regarding the NRA Press Release

I got through reading a transcript of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press release [PDF]. Everything thing I said in my previous post, which was based on a live blog of the event, still stands. I also have a few additional things I’d like to note. First there was this comment:

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

There is a great deal of irony in the NRA discussing the lack of a federal database in a negative light. A federal database for mentally ill individuals would be a disaster. Consider the stigma mental illness has in this country. Many people will not seek help when they are suffering a mental illness because doing so carries a great deal of social consequences. People who received psychiatric help are often seen as crazy. People in the United States also hold a general attitude that a mental illness is forever. How many people suffered from depression, post traumatic stress syndrom, and other temporary mental illnesses only to make a full recovery and lead normal lives? Do we really want these people to be listed in a federal database? Federal databases are already used by employers to weed out potential employees. Creating a mental illness database would likely lead to people in that database being unable to find meaningful employment. Federal databases aren’t a solution for violence and they aren’t a solution for mental illness.

Also consider the ramifications of a mental illness database. Who here could be diagnosed with a mental illness? Most Internet denizens could be diagnosed with some form of autism. If an adult version of oppositional defiant disorder is ever created I’ll be diagnosed with it. I suffer a severe case of psychological reactance (Does it show?), which could easily be labeled as a mental illness. Do we want to base the right to keep and bear arms on a mental illness database? Do we want our gun rights in the hand psychologists who determine what qualifies as a mental illness? What the NRA suggested is a dangerous path, one I don’t want to see this country travel down. We need to help those who need help. This means encouraging those who suffering from mental illness to get help. Considering the social stigma that mental illness carries in this country I don’t think creating a mental illness database is going to do anything but discourage those needing help from seeking it.

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice

This was a good point. The primary issue at hand is that violent criminals know the cost of performing violence in schools is relatively low because there are no armed personnel there. With that said, the NRA’s approach to correcting this issue leaves something to be desired:

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.

The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

In my opinion expanding the police state into public schools isn’t a good approach. I favor repealing laws that establish gun-free zones so that armed individuals can enter school property without first having to disarm. That solution raises the cost of performing violence in schools by removing the practical guarantee that no armed individuals are within. Having costume-clad guys with badges will further reinforce the police state on children. Furthermore I don’t feel comfortable having children guarded by individuals whose primary job description involves extorting wealth from people. A majority of police time is spent enforcing state decrees against nonviolent individuals who have harmed nobody. Do we want individuals guarding children when their job consists of kicking down doors in the hopes of finding other individuals in possession of a plant?

Putting bureaucracies in charge of protecting children is bound to fail. At the very least repealing laws that establish gun-free zones would allow local communities to develop more appropriate solutions to deal with school shootings. Ultimately though I think Jeffrey Tucker nailed it:

So armed guards it is, at least according to the NRA. Instead of letting school handle their own security and getting out from under the government’s central plan (see my article on this), the NRA is living up to the caricature and proposing that more weapons in anyone’s hands as the solution. The real solution is to deal more broadly with the issue of security itself.

[…]

Contrary to left and right, the solution is not more guns in the hands of the cops and other state officials, much less gun-totting teachers (or disarmed teachers and administrators, for that matter). The solution is to have schools deal with security in the same way that jewelry stores, banks, and private home owners deal with security issues.

One of the biggest problems regarding school security is that public schools don’t have any incentive to provide security. Children are practically mandated to attend schools that are either run or heavily regulated by the state. No consequences befall a school when something bad happens. Will anybody be prosecuted for failing to provide proper security to those children in Connecticut? No, because the state was tasked with that job and the state has a monopoly on determining who can and can’t be sued. Furthermore suing the state accomplishes nothing because it gets its money through extortion. If the state allow you to sue it and it grants you monetary compensation you merely motivated it to extort more money. The primary reason schools fail to provide security to students is because they are state managed institutions, meaning there are no failure conditions.

If you want to protect your children remove them from state managed schools. Homeschooling, unschooling, and agorist education solutions will allow you to regain control over your children’s education and safety. Why rely on the state? It has a proven track record of failing in the task of providing education and safety.

The NRA Press Conference

I haven’t had a chance to watch the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press conference yet but based on the live blog done by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned I’m not at all impressed. First I’ll point out the following notes:

Wayne now says the media is trying to hide a dirty secret that there are violent video games. He highlights a game called Kindergarten Killers that’s been online for 10 years.

Now he’s talking hurricanes and natural disasters. He then cites music videos that show violence – but who is airing music videos these days? He says that this stuff is the worst form of pornography.

He says that these issues bring cruelty into homes. He says that kids witness 16,000 murders in media by the time they reach 18. He says that the media is to blame.

Is this what the NRA has resorted to? They’re seriously trying to imply violent video games and media is, at least partially, responsible for the real violence we experience? Blaming violent media has been a favorite pass time for many groups over the ages but the simply fact is such blame assumes individuals are incapable of separating fiction from reality. I grew up playing violent video games, watching violent movies and televisions shows, and listening to violent metal yet I have never initiated violence against another human being. This is because I understand the difference between fiction and reality, as do most people. Blaming violent video games for real world violence pissed me off when I was a gamer and still pisses me off today. I’m not surprised to hear LaPierre trying to find something, anything, to blame but he should have focused his blame on issues that can actually lead to violence.

NRA, as the top instructor, is highlighting their law enforcement training programs and offering them to communities. He notes that NRA did use these training programs to help in WWII. He says they are developing a new model call National School Shield. It’s going to focus on many facets – access to schools and teacher training.

They have tapped former Rep. Asa Hutchinson to lead the National School Shield. NRA will pay for it. Schools get it free of charge. No money required by schools or communities to get the materials to get them talking about how to secure their school.

Wayne notes that we should be securing our schools at least as much as sports stadiums.

This concerns me as well. Securing schools as much as sports stadiums requires making schools even more like prisons than they already are. Many major stadiums have metal detectors, cameras everywhere, and guards performing pat downs on those entering the venue. Since stadiums are private institutions I don’t care how they run their operations. In his apparently desperate attempt to the Connecticut shooting on something LaPierre hasn’t considered the consequences of making schools more like prison. If he believes violent media causes violence in society then submitting children to prison style security is likely to make them more subservient to the state. As the state has a vested interest in disarm the populace it would seem counterproductive to the goal of protecting gun rights to instill even more obedience into today’s youth. Maintaining gun rights requires a populace that will stand up to the police state, not submit to it. Having children go through metal detectors, submit to searches of their persons and belongings, and being under the constant eye of Big Brother can only instill authoritarianism, which directly opposes the stated goals of the NRA.

I don’t want to spend all of my time lambasting the NRA without pointing at the conduct of gun control advocates. For some time now gun control advocates have been demanding a conversation about gun. Now that we’re having that conversation how do you think they’re conducting themselves? I’ll let you be the judge:

We have a Code Pink infiltrator getting in the way of Wayne. The Code Pink protestor is getting more attention since he’s being allowed to scream. The security didn’t remove the guy early enough.

[…]

Another Code Pink protester with credentials. She started screaming from the beginning. Now the media is interrupting Wayne on the protests. And he then starts attacking the media again. This is clearly a speech meant for NRA members & gun owners who support the policies of NRA members.

When they said conversation they must have meant a platform from which they could make their demands to a sizable audience while silencing all opposition. Advocates of gun rights have at least, for the most part, conducted themselves in a professional manner and have given gun control advocates the ability to speak their part unmolested. It’s too bad they won’t show us the same amount of respect.

I think the conduct of gun control advocates compared to the conduct of gun rights activists speaks volumes. The goals of gun control advocates are authoritarian in nature. They want to utilize the state’s capacity for violence to disarm non-state entities. Gun control advocates claim to desire peace but rely on the threat and use of violence against gun owners, whether they’ve done something wrong or not. Meanwhile the desires of gun rights advocates are the opposite. Instead of demanding authoritarian violence be initiated against nonviolent individuals gun rights advocates want individuals to go about their business peacefully. Those of us who advocate gun rights oppose punishing innocent people. We believe punishment should be reserved exclusively for those who have done wrong. This stark difference manifestes itself in the strategies used by each side. Gun control advocates attempt to silence any opposition, which is a very authoritarian tactic. Gun rights activists allow their opposition to speak and rely on argumentation, a very libertarian tactic. One side wants to control you while the other side wants you to be in control.

Even though I don’t like what the NRA said at their conference they at least conducted themselves in a professional manner. They waited one week before saying anything while gun control organizations moved in immediately to exploit the tragedy while it was still fresh. The NRA allowed gun control organizations to say their piece without interruption while gun control advocates attempted to shout down the NRA. In my opinion the most notable thing about this news conference wasn’t what was said by the NRA, it was what the gun control advocates did in an attempt to silence their opposition.