Tag: Gun Rights

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.

Residency Requirement for Buying Handguns Struck Down

Since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 it has been prohibited for individuals without a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to purchase a handgun outside of their own state. If you wanted to acquire a handgun from an individual or dealer in another state it had to be transferred to an FFL in your state. A federal district court in Texas just ruled that provision of the Gun Control Act unconstitutional:

A federal district court in Texas overturned a 1968 gun law prohibiting the sale of handguns to out-of-state residents, granting those who live in Washington, D.C., the ability to travel to an out-of-state gun store, buy a handgun and bring it home without a middleman.

The ruling takes aim at the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited handgun sales to out-of-state residents and was defended by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who argued that the law doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.

Proponents of lifting the ban said the 1968 law had become dated given technological advances in instant background checks, which are performed every time a gun is purchased from a federally licensed firearm dealer. It also prohibited a robust national handgun market from developing, as rifles and shotguns can be purchased regardless of state residency, but handguns are not.

This is good news since the restriction made no sense when it was passed and makes even less sense now. However I’m guessing federally licensed dealers aren’t going to start selling handguns to out of state buyers until the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) give them permission. Angering the ATF, which is very easy to do, is a quick way to lose your FFL and therefore your business.

As the story notes the real winners will be the residents of Washington DC since the city has no federally licensed dealers.

Michael Bloomberg Demonstrates the Racist Nature of Gun Control

History isn’t a topic researched thoroughly by enough Americans. This is unfortunate because history has so much to teach. Consider the modern gun control movement. Few proponents of gun control realize that their movement was founded on racist ideas. Gun control in the United States started as a way to prevent newly free blacks from acquiring arms. If you want a quick overview of this history the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership put together a good documentary a few years back:

For those who prefer to read history Clayton Cramer put together a short, well-cited summary. The more things change the more they stay the same. Today the big player in American gun control is Michael Bloomberg. Considering his stated support for the New York Police Department’s stop and risk program, which heavily discriminated against black and Hispanic individuals, it’s not surprising to see racist motives in his push for gun control:

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

Statistics are a funny thing. If you massage numbers properly you can get whatever result you want. But if you look at the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ (FBI) Uniform Crime Report for 2013 you will see that the age range of 15 to 25 isn’t the majority. There were 12,253 murders reported in 2013 and a majority of the victims fell in the age bracket of 25 and above. Furthermore 5,537 victims were white, 6,261 were black, 308 were listed as other, and 147 were unknown. Nowhere could you get the 95 percent figure Bloomberg cites.

But it’s not surprising, considering his above mentioned history, that he’s specifically targeting young male minorities. History of the gun control movement, after all, arose because people wanted to disarm that particular segment of society. Even so it’s rare that you see a gun control proponent so openly state such a desire.

People Shouldn’t Wish Violent Criminals Be Armed

As I was combing through the Internet I came across a rather interesting article titled Why Your Gun Makes Me Nervous. The reason I found the article interesting is because of the first two paragraphs:

There’s a mantra quickly repeating in my head: “Please have a badge. Please have a badge. Please have a badge.” It’s a steady heartbeat as I begin a conversation with a shop clerk and reposition myself so I can peer over her shoulder.

I’ve already seen the bulge in his jacket, and it’s clear from the size and shape that he has a holstered gun. Now my eyes are quickly scanning, hoping to find a law enforcement badge clipped to his belt.

The author wrote an article to explain why guns make her nervous but her two opening paragraphs describe her desire that the person she spotted carrying a gun be a member of a violent gang. You could simply replace her first sentence with “Please have the appropriate gang colors. Please have the appropriate gang colors. Please have the appropriate gang colors.”

I can sort of understand a person being nervous seeing an armed individual in public just because it’s not something thought to be common. But for some reason many people nervous about seeing armed individuals are at ease when they see a badge. A badge, mind you, that indicates the individual’s job involves expropriating wealth from the populace and kidnapping people who break arbitrary laws written by men in marble buildings.

Consider this excerpt from the article:

I do not know this man, have no knowledge of his profession, personality or character. I am unaware of his mental state, of why he feels the need to carry a weapon into a bookstore.

When I see a cop I don’t know them, their personality, or character. I am also unaware of their mental state or why they feel the need to have a job that requires initiating violence against nonviolent people. In fact a badge doesn’t reliable tell you what an individual’s profession is since anybody can get a badge and pretend to be a cop.

Everything the author wrote about the armed individual is equally applicable to a police officer. The only difference is that a cop’s job is to put your in a cage whereas any other armed individual is probably just in the bookstore to buy a book.