Category: Gun Rights

The Sheepdog Mentality

In the carry movement there is a popular analogy involving sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. People who use to this analogy generally compare most people to sheep, bad guys to wolves, and those who carry to sheepdogs. Although I’ve used to analogy before I’ve moved away from it because I feel the analogy is flawed as a sheepdog is tasked with defending others while those who carry usually do so to defend themselves. Alan points out another interesting flaw in the analogy:

Sheep dogs are someone’s property and they help control other property. It sounds like a liberal’s fantasy of society. You know, the flock carefully tended and controlled with the sheep dog doing the master’s bidding.

I never thought about that before but it’s true. Personally I’m not a sheepdog, I’m a human being. The firearm I carry is for self-defense not the defense of others (unless you’re somebody important to me). If shooting starts that doesn’t involve me or somebody of importance to me I’m booking it and calling the police. Some may say that’s cowardly and to those people I say yes it is. I’m not ashamed of being a coward if that means taking actions that best improve my chances of survival. Shoot outs are not good for my health so I’ll not participate unless somebody forces me to.

I’m Sure Our Laws Are Also Responsible for The Black Death in Medieval Europe

We’re going to play the destroy-an-illogical-argument-with-critical-thinking game. This game is easy, I’ll present a scenario put forth by some idiot who the newspapers have judged as being worthy of coverage and you use critical thinking to find a flaw in the presented argument.

The scenario is as follows; and arsonist has come to your home, doused it in gasoline, and set it ablaze. Using your ability to think critically try to determine where the blame for the blaze should go. I’ll give you a few seconds to think about it.

If you said the arsonist was to blame then you win. On the other hand if you decided lax United States gun laws or the country’s war on drugs was to blame you’re now qualified to be the president of Mexico (and you’re an idiot but I repeat myself):

His voice cracking with emotion, President Felipe Calderon said Friday that the United States bore some blame for “an act of terror” by gangsters who doused a casino with gasoline and set a blaze that killed at least 52 people.

[…]

But in unprecedented, direct criticism of the United States, Calderon said lax U.S. gun laws and high demand for drugs stoked his nation’s violence. He appealed to U.S. citizens “to reflect on the tragedy that we are living through in Mexico.”
“We are neighbors, allies and friends. But you, too, are responsible. This is my message,” Calderon said.

He called on the United States to “once and for all stop the criminal sale of high-powered weapons and assault rifles to criminals that operate in Mexico.”

Because of the United State’s “lax” gun laws the arsonists who burned down the casino were able to… purchase gasoline? With stellar logic such as that I’m sure our “lax” gun laws were also partially responsible for the black death in medieval Europe. Heck those same laws probably caused the recent earthquake near Washington D.C. as well.

Why does anybody take Calderon seriously? The guy is obviously incapable of making logical arguments and likely has trouble tying his shoes. What happened in Mexico was a tragedy by all means but blame needs to be aimed at those who committed the crime.

A tip of the old Australian hat goes to Snowflakes in Hell for bringing this absurdity to my attention.

Cognitive Dissonance Strikes Again

Although I don’t make it obvious sometimes I do feel somewhat bad for anti-gunners. I can’t imagine living my life in fear every day as anti-gunners do. They have a fear that somebody will bring violence against them combined with a fear of taking action. As they fear taking action they want somebody else to do so in their name, which is what leads them to demanding the government strictly control or outright ban the private ownership of firearms. Pro-gun people are ones who have no fear of taking action, and subsequently dealing with the consequences. They realize that you can’t rely on others for your personal protection and that the only person who can keep you safe is you.

I think deep down inside anti-gunners realize that their attitude is self-defeating but don’t want to think about it. It’s likely this realization is what leads them to practice cognitive dissonance. Lionge did a masterful job of pointing out the logically fallacies in a comment made by an anti-gunner. As par for the anti-gunner course his comment was removed from the anti-gunner’s site and no other pro-gun comments were allowed to appear.

This happens time and time again, after an anti-gunners makes an false claim or comment about firearms somebody in the pro-gun community calls them on it. Usually a short back and forth ensues until the anti-gunners deletes all the pro-gun comments and enacts complete moderation powers on the post to ensure no further arguments in opposition to their beliefs appear. I honestly believe this is a defense mechanism used by those afraid to act; if they had to critically think they would realize they have no real choice by to act and suffer any consequences of their actions.

Violence Policy Center Caught Lying Again

Part of the reason the battle for gun owner rights is so easy to fight these days is because our opposition’s lies are so easy to point out. Miguel over at Gun Free Zone caught the Violence Policy Center lying yet again.

Namely they claimed Louisiana has the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the United States when in fact Washington D.C. (you know that federal district with extremely tyrannical gun control laws) does.

Everybody Carrying a Firearm in North Carolina is Now a Criminal

Bad news for those of you living in North Carolina, a filed a suit over this last year but it doesn’t appear as though a verdict has been declared.

So what should you do? Well I would never recommend anything illegal… according to a just system of law where victimless crimes don’t exist. Personally if I lived there I’d just carry anyways, your right to self-defense isn’t suspended because some politicians decide to declare an emergency. In fact I’d argue that during an emergency is when you would need your firearm most. Anyways, we all need to perform a little civil disobedience once in a while.

What the Hell is Wrong With Britain

Uncle is asking what is wrong with Britain and I want to know the same thing:

London schoolchildren are eligible for 125,000 Olympic tickets but these will not include any featuring guns, as Games organisers and City Hall fear a backlash from the anti-gun lobby.

What the fuck? The Olympics are fucking televised more heavily than almost any sporting event on the planet, the kids can watch these shooting sports at home but won’t be allowed to go to the actual event? Where the Hell is the sense in that? What the Hell is wrong with Britain? This makes no sense whatsoever… wait, I see what’s going on here:

Georgina Geikie, 26, a Commonwealth Games bronze medallist and Olympic pistol hopeful, said she was “horrified”, adding: “This is a chance for children to look at guns in a different way. They are taking away the opportunity for the sport to blossom. How do we educate people that it is a sport if they cannot watch it?”

The Olympics portray firearms in a positive light which would be a direct conflict to the state’s stance that guns are evil spawns of Satan. Seeing such an event may make children realize that guns aren’t actually evil devices forged in the fires of Hell but simple tools which can be used for good things. This type of thinking could then lead to the kids, after growing up, eventually lobbying to restore firearms rights in Great Britain which would lead to the serfs arming themselves and thus not being as easy for the state to control.

This is disgusting statism at its highest.

From Now On I Demand Citations

Dennis Henigan, the President of the Brady Campaign, has another article up on the Huffington Post, and as usual it’s full of fear mongering and blatant lies. It’s almost comical to read through his pieces because they make a lot of claims but never have citations to back those claims. In the scientific community making claims that aren’t backed by evidence gets you laughed at and usually ostracized by your fellows until evidence is brought forth. I think it’s time that we started treating the gun debate like a scientific inquiry where all claims must be backed by evidence. Those of us on the side of gun ownership have been doing this for years so we can kick back for a while and relax, but those crazies in the anti-gun community need to pony up.

For some fun I’m going to go through some of the article’s claims because it entertains me:

Remember two summers ago when most Americans were appalled by the sight of guns openly carried by protesters at presidential speaking events and town hall forums on the health care issue?

Remember two summers ago when the anti-gun media tried to make the entire situation look like racial tension, even going so far as to fabricate evidence? If your side was willing to make shit up in order to push their agenda then you can bet your sweet ass that I’m going to demand evidence that demonstrates “most Americans” were appalled by the sight of guns being openly carried at those events.

When it comes to carrying concealed weapons, Perry certainly walks the walk. He has a concealed carry permit and proudly says that he carries a gun when he is out jogging.

I know you’re trying to make a case against Perry (which is really fucking easy by the way, I can’t believe you’ve fucked it up) but you have to realize that pro-gun people who are politically active far outnumber anti-gun people who are politically active. Thus this statement is going to cause more harm to your movement than good as it will improve the status of Perry in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun people. Usually if something works against your movement you simply ignore it and never bring it up.

He didn’t respond by saying the question is ridiculous. He didn’t say that in the close quarters of a rope line, with a multitude of people pulling and tugging at him, a gun could easily drop to the ground or be taken from him.

That’s why police standing in front of protest lines have their guns taken from them all the time… wait never mind, that doesn’t happen. Henigan this claim is idiotic, provide some proof of this happening or shut the Hell up.

He didn’t say that an armed candidate would be a nightmare for the Secret Service.

It must be quite the nightmare being the Secret Service actually taught Obama how to shoot.

Rick Perry apparently doesn’t think the question is ridiculous. In fact, his sarcasm suggests he has no objection to political candidates carrying guns to campaign events; he seems to imply that he may do so himself. One thing is clear. The governor has been so thoroughly marinated in pro-gun ideology that he is unashamed about taking it to its logical extreme.

There you ago again, making Perry sound favorable in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun population. I guess you’ve has been swimming in cognitive dissonance so long that you believe politically active anti-gunners outnumber politically active pro-gunners.

I wonder if this thought ever occurred to Rick Perry: If a would-be presidential assailant is undeterred by Secret Service agents with Uzis, why would he be deterred by a presidential candidate packing heat?

Objection, relevance? A potential assailant isn’t going to deterred by knowing that Perry isn’t carrying a gun so this entire statement is completely meaningless.

Yes, it is a good thing that senators can’t carry guns onto the Senate floor because the presence of guns, even carried by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, increases the risk that arguments and conflicts will escalate to lethal violence.

Let it be known that I’m declaring bullshit, either provide evidence of this happening or shut the Hell up. I’m not aware of a single case of an argument between one or more people legally carrying a firearm that escalated into a shoot out. You keep making this claim Henigan but so far have yet to provide any evidence.

It is the same reason that our national parks are less safe because (due to legislation sponsored by Senator Coburn himself) concealed carry of weapons is now permitted within their borders.

Once again evidence is needed, or as Wikipedia would say, “[citation needed].”

It is the reason that our streets, restaurants and coffee houses are less safe in states that have made concealed carry easier.

Again, you need to provide some evidence. This blog, as well as many other gun blogs, contain tons of evidence that demonstrates that violent crime has been dropping even though carry laws have continued to be liberalized (using the classical definition of the word).

It is the reason that college campuses remain far safer than the gun-saturated communities that surround them, because the gun lobby has been foiled in its efforts to force colleges and universities to allow concealed carry

You can’t compare apples to oranges. A proper statement would be, “It is the reason that college campuses that continue to ban students and faculty from legally carrying on site have a lower rate of gun-related crime than campuses that allow students and faculty to legally carry on site.” Of course that statement would also be false but at least it would be a comparison of like things.

They may well be the way things are in an American nightmare where, in political discourse, the guns speak louder than the rhetoric.

That’s why so many political debates between people carrying firearms turn into shoot outs… never mind, once again that’s not the case which makes Henigan’s statements irrelevant.

What Gun Registration Gets You

I’m not sure how many times I’ve been asked why I’m against gun registration. Usually people who ask me this aren’t aware of my complete disdain and absolute lack of trust in the state. Either way the question is often asked, I give my answer, and the person asking the question accuses me of being paranoid and killing puppies. The fact of the matter is trusting the government with the knowledge that you own firearms can only lead to one thing, confiscation. Miguel over at Gun Free Zone posted a story that demonstrates this very fact:

Raids yesterday morning by detectives working in Taskforce Acer 17 netted firearms police feared could be passed to criminals.

The weapons were held legally by registered gun owners, but police intelligence revealed 20 had “connections to family or associates who were persons of interest to the Acer Taskforce team”.

Officers simultaneously hit 21 properties at 8am to ensure the licence holders were complying with all conditions.

A total of 21 guns – including 15 shotguns and ammunition for an AK47 rife – were seized.

21 properties were hit simultaneously and every legally (according to the state) owned firearm was confiscated because the firearm owners had family ties to or associations with people who were being watched by the Acer Task Force. None of these people performed any criminal acts, they simply had some kind of tie to people being watch (not charged, so likely people who also did nothing illegal) by the state.

The government doesn’t want firearm registration to keep you safe, they want it to ensure they can steal your firearms whenever it damn well pleases. There is no legitimate reason to implement firearm registration and plenty of illegitimate ones. Anytime the state wants to expand their powers and knowledge you need to ask yourself why. Never trust the justification given by the state because that’s just a cheap method of getting you to go along with their plan to further expand their power. Ultimately there is always a nefarious purpose being any expansion of state power or knowledge, you just have to find it.

Only in Switzerland My Ass

Via Reddit I cam across a picture of a man carrying a rifle in the Apple Store:

At first glance I was assuming this picture was taken in Switzerland as that is a Swiss militia rifle but it took a while for anybody commenting to give the source of the picture. The post where this pictured originated from is titled “Only in Switzerland” which I feel insults various state in the United States.

This picture certainly isn’t a possibility exclusive to Switzerland, as a Minnesota resident with a carry permit I could toss my SR-25 over my back and walk into an Apple Store without fear of legal repercussions. As I’m a man who loves accuracy I would change the title to something like “Sadly, Only in a Few States” (state meaning either a country or a state in the United States).

What’s most telling about this photo is the reactions of those around the man, that is to say they’re not reacting. Nobody seems to notice or give a shit that somebody is carrying a rifle around on their back and that’s how it should be.

Anti-Gunners Proven Wrong Yet Again

This is why anti-gunners aren’t taken seriously anymore, every statement they make has been proven wrong. A year ago Virginia passed a law that allowed those carrying firearms to do so in restaurants serving alcohol. As usual the anti-gunners decried the passage of this law as some kind of harbinger of death that would unleash gunfire into every restaurant in the state. So what was the net effect after a year of this law being on the books? Not surprisingly crime in restaurants has dropped:

Virginia’s bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request.

Any logical person would admit their error after being proven wrong as many times as anti-gunners have. Sadly anti-gunners aren’t logical people which leads them to continue claiming that the sky is falling even though all evidence has proven otherwise.

A tip of the old hat goes to Uncle for this story.