Responsibility

The “unbiased” Washington Post has a survey posted on their website with the question being “Are gun stores responsible for crime?” Not only is this the question but some people actually are voting yes on it.

I’m completely flabbergasted as the idea that gun stores should be responsible for the actions of their customers. Although is cliche I’m going to use the classic car analogy. Should a car dealership be held responsible if one of their customers kills a kid while driving intoxicated? Almost nobody I know would answer yes to this but somehow some people feel the rules should be different for gun stores. What logic or sense is there in the idea of holding gun stores responsible?

In order for a gun store to sell a gun they must be a federally licensed dealer. Having a federal firearms license (FFL) is the de facto definition of being a gun store. When you hold an FFL there are certain restrictions and regulations put into place. First you must have every customer fill out an ATF Form 4473 which records the firearms sold, the firearm’s serial numbers, and the person information of the purchaser.

After this form is completed the FFL holder must call the FBI’s National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) hot line and provide the information on the 4473 to the person on the other side of the line. With this information in hand the NICS is used to run a background check on the purchaser. There are three results possible from this; go, no-go, or delay. This means the FBI ultimately grants permission on all sales performed in gun shops.

Shouldn’t this be considered enough on behalf of the FFL holder? If you want to blame somebody else for the actions of a criminals why not blame the FBI? They ultimately approved the sale.

What I would like to hear is justification from somebody who thinks gun stores should be held accountable for the actions of their customers. This justification must also include reasoning why gun stores are special and should be treated differently than other stores (unless of course you believe all stores should be held accountable for what their customers do with items that have been purchased at the establishment).

Guns are the only things I’m aware of where people say sellers should be held accountable for the actions of purchasers. Every other thing on the planet is assumed to be an item of no conscious and the user is ultimately held responsible for any misuse. Hypocrisy pisses me off almost more than anything else.

Cars vs. Firearms

One common thing use pro-gun people like to state is far more people are killed each year in automobile accidents than firearms. The idea behind this is simple, since anti-gunners claim we need to control guns because they kill so many people then we must also strictly control automobiles. I’m doing some research into automobile fatalities (not in any way related to firearms) and decided since I have the data at hand I might as well do a comparison.

Behold the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration trend data (NHTSA) on fatal automobile accidents. Now behold the 2008 (chosen because 2008 is the latest data on the NHTSA website) Unified Crime Report expanded homicide information. Specifically I’m looking at the FBI data on weapons used in homicides.

Since the FBI data only goes from 2004 to 2008 that’s what we’ll stick with.

In 2004 9,385 people were murdered with firearms while 38,444 were killed in automobile accidents. 2005 showed a similar trend with 10,158 people being murdered with firearms and 39,252 people killed in automobile accidents. 2006 continues this trend with 10,225 people killed with a firearm and 38,648 killed in automobile accidents. Guess what happened in 2007? Same thing, 10,129 killed with firearms and 37,435 killed in automobile accidents. Finally we have 2008 where the trend continued as 9,484 people were murdered with firearms and 34,172 were killed in automobile accidents.

In the United States it seems the number of people killed in automobile accidents is a little under four times the number murdered by firearms. If anti-gunners are actually concerned about peoples’ safety they would be lobbying for stricter car control laws instead of gun control laws. Anyways that’s just an interesting observation I made.

This Could Mean Two Things

No surprise to anybody here, Rahm Emanuel has announced that he’s going to run for the mayor of Chicago. Due to the mob mentality in that city he’s pretty much guaranteed to win. This really could mean two things. First Chicago is going to stay the cesspool that it currently is and its denizens’ right to keep and bear arms will continue to go ignored. It also means the work environment at the White House must have really turned to shit. Think about it, mayor of any city is a damn side lower position than being the White House Chief of Staff. Things must be pretty week at the home of the Obamessiah.

That’s Impossible

Apparently an Al-Qaeda plot has been uncovered by I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E:

An al-Qaeda plot to carry out co-ordinated attacks in the UK, France and Germany has been uncovered, Western intelligence sources say.

Small teams of militants were to seize and kill hostages, similar to the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, the sources said.

Sorry but that idea is completely impossible. The Mumbai attack required the user of firearms and firearms are strictly controlled in the UK, France, and Germany. Hey I’ve got an idea. Since gun control has worked so well at preventing mass shootings let’s make suicide bombing illegal! What didn’t anybody think about that?

We’re Moving Up in the World

Uncle notes that us gun owners are moving up in the world. How do we know this? Well is seems second amendment rallies make lists of terrorist-related threats:

Metcalfe’s annual Second Amendment rally, which attracts gun owners from across the state, was mentioned in an April bulletin to state Homeland Security officials by the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response, a York-based nonprofit paid $103,000 by the state.

Remember kids standing up for your rights guaranteed by the laws of your country is a terrorist activity! Only a terrorist would demand that their rights, guaranteed by the country’s own laws, be respected.

Canadian Will Keep Wasting Millions of Dollars

Every Day, No Days Off informs us that our friends up north have decided to keep wasting millions of dollars on a point long-gun registry. This is both a blow to the civil rights of Canadian as well as a boon from criminals whom ignore the registry anyways and know any slight inconvenience for citizens self-defense is a convenience for crime.

If It Doesn’t Work Just Do It Again Only Harder

Snowflakes in Hell has informed us gun ban activists are at it again in Germany. A German woman went on a shooting spree killing four and injuring another 18. When strict gun control laws aren’t preventing shootings what’s the best way to deal with it? According to gun ban activists ban guns entirely.

I’ll never be able to wrap my head around the idiocy of these people. It’s been shown time and time again that enacting draconian gun control laws doesn’t prevent gun violence. In the real world where I operate most of the time when something doesn’t work we stop doing it and try to solve our problem in a different manner. If you’re using a hammer to pound in a screw and getting sub par results the answer isn’t to get a larger hammer but to get a different tool all together.

Gun ban activists seem to be believe if something isn’t working you just need to do it harder. German already has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books and they still have to deal with shootings every now and then. Britain which almost has a complete ban on gun ownership also have to deal with shootings periodically. People are going to go crazy and kill others. If somebody is willing to commit murder they’re willing to break gun control laws. Knowing these two things maybe the best option is to loosen gun control laws and allow people to arm and defend themselves. Obviously gun control laws aren’t doing a damned thing.

Herp Derp

Seriously whenever I hear somebody go on an anti-gun rant anymore all I really hear coming out of their mouths is, “Herp, derp, duuuhhhrrrr, I… like… turtles.”

A college student tries to make an argument against campus carry and ends up sounding a little… special:

The students and faculty on any campus should strictly focus on academic pursuits. Security teams hired by the college should likewise focus on the constant protection of those students and faculty. We all have a role in the big picture.

Yes students and faculty should strictly focus on academic pursuits and not even venture into developing a social life, exercising, working a job to pay rent, etc. The remark about the security team is where I felt this student went a little retarded. By that very logic nobody would need to carry a gun because the police will protect you! Of course the police can’t be everywhere and neither can a campus security team which is why the phrase, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away” was coined. In a situation involving a crazy asshole shooting up a campus you don’t have time to wait for a security team if the crazy asshole happens to be in the same classroom as you.

It isn’t logical to deploy a security force on a college campus whose mission is to provide a safe environment only to minimize their ability by disarming them.

Who in the fuck said anything about disarming the security teams on campus? Allowing concealed carry on campus means students and faculty can carry firearms, it doesn’t require the on campus security teams be disarmed in the process.

There are college campuses of various sizes all across the country that have professionally-trained and properly armed officers on their security teams.

And there are campus in the country that allow students and faculty to carry their firearms on the premises. How many school shootings have you heard of occurring in Utah?

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a grass-roots organization that supports concealed carry. Their website lists a number of “common arguments” for allowing licensed adults to carry on campus. They attempt to answer each argument with a very rational explanation. It really is just rationalization. That’s what I mean when I say there are two sides to the issue.

Ah yes the argument of an anti-gunners, “The other side is just trying to rationalize their side of the argument by using stupid facts and logic and other stuff that hurts my brain. I, being anti-gun of course, don’t rationalize my beliefs and just tell you you’re wrong if you disagree with me because seeing guns makes me lose control of my bowels.” Let’s look up rationalize in the dictionary:

  • apologize: defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning; “rationalize the child’s seemingly crazy behavior”; “he rationalized his lack of success”
  • cut: weed out unwanted or unnecessary things; “We had to lose weight, so we cut the sugar from our diet”
  • structure and run according to rational or scientific principles in order to achieve desired results; “We rationalized the factory’s production and raised profits”
  • think rationally; employ logic or reason; “When one wonders why one is doing certain things, one should rationalize”</li
  • remove irrational quantities from; “This function can be rationalized”

Looking at the various definitions it seems rationalization is what you want to do. At least I prefer to remove irrational quantities and think rationally by employing logic and reason.

Regardless of any rationalization by the SCCC, allowing more guns on campus will logically result in a higher probability that a gun will be used against the campus population.

Utah… look it up. After you do tell me how many mass shootings have occurred on their campuses since they enacted their law allowing students and faculty to carry firearms on campus.

According to SCCC data, about 10 percent of adults are licensed and carry concealed guns nationwide. If I knew one out of every 10 people on campus was packing heat, I would be distracted—period.

That’s your problem—period. If you’re distracted by the thought of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms you should be distracted by the potential people currently carrying guns on campus illegally.

It’s one thing for someone to take the state’s course to become licensed. It is something else entirely to predict how a student with four hours of safety training will react under fire.

They’ll react a damned side better than a student under fire without any means of self-defense that’s for sure (and by that I mean they’ll have a chance at staying alive).

Students and faculty carrying concealed guns would be no less vulnerable to the crazy, armed madman who comes on campus bent on destruction than they are now. There would just be more guns involved, more bullets flying and a greater probability that someone is unintentionally injured or killed.

Actually they are less vulnerable because they have the means of stopping the crazy, armed madman. Having a concealed weapon doesn’t mean you are impervious to bullets, it means you have a chance to fight and win. That tipping of the scales further into your favor does make you less vulnerable.

Honestly, no one would expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando and make all the right decisions in a “kill or be killed” situation that could easily be over in less than a minute.

No one does expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando. You don’t need to be an elite commando to put two rounds into another man’s chest. I also love his optimism that the campus security teams will be able to end the situation easily in under a minute. Are they always geared up and do they have teleportation devices on their persons?

I can’t buy the concept that someone with no experience of defending himself against violent crime can suddenly protect himself and others, just because he is the one with the concealed gun.

Strangely enough many people with concealed carry permits also take additional training in self-defense. Even if they don’t having a firearm at least evens the odds of survival which is the whole fucking point.

I don’t want that pressure on me, and I don’t want to put it on my friends and professors.

Maybe you should stop to consider the fact that your friends and faculty may want that “pressure” (pressure to have a means of fighting back that is). If you don’t want that pressure that’s fine, nobody is making you carry a firearm. It’s not called mandatory carry, it’s a choice you can make and those who advocate for campus carry simply want that choice.

I am a big fan of the U.S. Constitution.

You can’t go on an anti-gun tear and then say you’re a fan of the United States Constitution. That’s an oxymoron if there ever was one.

There is not a more civilized place to be than on a college campus. That said—I like to think we have a better chance of remaining civilized and safe, if we don’t get used to the “wild west” approach to campus security.

Yeah, because we know gun-free zones have never been locations of shootings… oh wait.

Where Not to Eat

I do love convinced so when somebody offers a list of places to avoid I’m often quite grateful. If you live in Tennessee Uncle posted a site that lists restaurants that ban firearms.

Personally after looking at their site I believe they’re trying to get restaurants to ban guns but really I think the site will be used more by gunnies to find places to avoid. I find it strange that there are movements out there to to bar non-felons with no history of mental illnesses or domestic violence from frequenting establishments. Even strange in my opinion is the fact some establishments agree with these movements. If I ever own a business I’d prefer customers whom I knew to not be felons and have no prior history of mental illness or acts of domestic violence.