Tag: Gun Rights

A Stark Difference in Threat Model Responses

Anybody who has been following the Internet drama festival that is GamerGhazi/GamerGate knows that the Internet has been at operational level full retard for a few weeks now. One side of the debate, if you want to call it that, is trying its damnedest to preserve what it believes to be the gaming culture. The other side of the debate is trying to overturn what it believes to be deep seated misogyny within the gaming culture. There is also a third faction, the Internet trolls, that have been manipulating the other two sides like a masterful puppeteer for shits and giggles.

I find Internet drama entertaining so I’ve been watching this exchange since it first blew up. But nothing about this little debacle has really been worth writing about on this blog. Until now! Anita Sarkeesian, one of the feminists who has attracted the wrath of the GamerGhazi/GamerGate community, was schedule to speak at Utah State University. She cancelled because she found out that the laws in Utah allow individuals to carry concealed firearms on campus:

The university consulted with federal and state law enforcement and had determined it was safe to go ahead with the presentation.

But Sarkeesian pulled out after learning from university officials that concealed weapons would be permitted, as long as attendees have a valid concealed firearm permit in accordance with Utah law.

This shows a stark difference in thinking that I find rather interesting. In her opinion the combination of a death threat and permitted individuals being allowed to carry a concealed firearm to her speaking event constitutes a danger to her person. Were I in her shoes I would feel the opposite.

Permit holders by and large are more law abiding than non-permit holders. Obtaining a carry permit requires passing a background check. Passing a background check requires one not have a history of violent crime. So we know that a permit holder, statistically speaking, is more law abiding and has no history of violent crime. Permit holders are also less likely to commit murder than police officers, which is why I’d prefer being surrounded by permit holders than having police officers providing security.

Another thing to consider is the importance of response time during active shootings. In many cases active shooters end up killing themselves upon running into armed resistance. Armed resistance, in the instances where the active shooter doesn’t commit suicide, forces the shooter to focus on somebody other than innocent bystanders. When individuals are allowed to carry concealed weapons to a venue the response time to an active shooting is potentially instantaneous.

Sarkeesian obviously has a different threat model than my own. She likely sees armed individuals, in any capacity other than police (judging by her desire to have somebody perform pat downs of individuals attending her talk) , as a potential threat. Because of this she doesn’t want permit holders carrying firearms to her event. Our threat models also differ in how we treat Internet death threats. My threat model disregards Internet death threats (which I have received enough of in my life to paper a room in my dwelling if I printed them out) since they’re almost always sent by angry teenagers full of impotent rage. Her threat model obviously treats Internet death threats far more seriously.

In the end each person must create their own threat model and act accordingly. As an individual with an interest in security I find the criteria people use to develop threat models and the responses they create based on those models fascinating. I would love to know the criteria used by Sarkeesian after this GamerGhazi/GamerGate fiasco to develop her threat model and the responses she has created based on that model.

My Recent Foray Into Lead Ammunition Ban Lunacy

I was feeling particularly masochistic yesterday so I opened up the Star Tribune and read through the Letters to the Editor section. On October 11th an individual wrote a letter explaining why a lead ammunition ban isn’t a great idea:

In the Oct. 3 article “Wildlife experts think hunters should consider nontoxic copper,” I was disappointed to read that activists are once again railing against traditional ammunition.

As the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will tell you, there have been no documented cases of lead poisoning in humans by eating wild game. Wild game harvested with traditional ammunition is safe, and to say otherwise is nothing but a scare tactic.

Bald eagle population levels are at an all-time high (even though traditional ammunition has been used for centuries), and even critics of traditional ammunition in this article agree it is not a threat to the eagle population.

Using lead ammunition is safe, so why does this issue get so much press each fall? What is the ultimate goal of traditional ammo critics?

There are some who would like to see all hunting and guns completely gone. They obviously can’t say or do these things outright in states like Minnesota, a state proud of its hunting heritage, so they must weaken our traditions. They chip away at them slowly, and they start with traditional ammunition.

Joe Drexler, Hastings

The point that Mr. Drexler made is a valid one. Gun control loons always try to take a light year when you give them an inch. But another opinionated individual totally missed that point:

An Oct. 11 letter writer sees a vast, antihunting conspiracy by the copper-ammunition crowd to take away one tiny hunting tradition at a time and ultimately end game hunting in Minnesota.

First: That there has been no case of human lead poisoning from ingesting lead shot and spatter doesn’t mean that the very-well-documented science of harm from lead ammunition to water fowl and other bird species is false. The writer may think that the bald eagle population is robust; I don’t.

Second: If the writer really wants to be authentic in his choice of traditional hunting “ammo,” he’d best go out and find a nice tree limb to make a bow from. (Sorry, no fiberglass-compound bows.) His traditional arrow shafts and real feather fletching, along with a gut drawstring, will be of his choosing. I hope he’s adept at making flint arrowheads.

Bob Brereton, St. Paul

Emphasis mine. That part just made me laugh. Mr. Brereton apparently feels that bald eagle populations aren’t robust and his feels obviously matter here. I think that really sets the tone of this letter as well since it shows that the issue is about feelings and not about facts. But the part that really made me laugh was the last paragraph where Mr. Brereton said that those wanting to use traditional ammunition should go back to the bow and arrow. Although Mr. Drexler’s letter used the term traditional ammunition his argument had nothing to do with lead ammunition being a hunting tradition. I’m fairly certain Mr. Brereton purposely missed the point because anybody with enough intelligence to write and mail a letter should be able to read and comprehend what Mr. Drexler wrote.

Mr. Drexler is correct though, this push to ban lead ammunition for hunting is just an attempt to get a camel’s nose under the ammunition tent. The history of gun control in this country is also a history of incremental restrictions. In 1934 we were told that machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, and a random assortment of firearms simply labeled any other weapons needed to be more tightly controlled. This control came in the form of a $200.00 tax stamp and approval from local law enforcers and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). After that gun control advocates demanded that the sale of all new firearms occur at federally registered dealers. Part of the new sales policy was that a record of the buyer had to be kept by the dealer. Then the gun control loons expanded on that by mandating that every person purchasing a new firearm be required to pass a background check. With its nose firmly under the tent the gun control camel then demanded a ban on standard capacity magazines and any firearm that it found aesthetically offensive.

Now gun controllers want to restrict lead ammunition. While I cannot read minds and therefore cannot know their intentions for sure I feel it is reasonable to not believe that they’re concerned about wildlife. More likely they want to ban lead ammunition because it’s affordable. Most gun control policies seem to be thinly veiled attempts at making participating in the shooting sports more expensive.

Five Years Old? Draw Something That Vaguely Resembles a Gun? Then You Must be Suicidal!

I honestly had a difficult time coming up with a title for this post because it contains more stupidity than a title rightly ought to describe. A five year-old kid in Mobile, Alabama drew something that vaguely looked like a gun. Since this is the nation of zero tolerance that picture required an immediate and overwhelmingly moronic response:

MOBILE, Alabama (WPMI) – An Alabama mother is furious that her 5-year-old daughter was forced to sign a school contract stating she wouldn’t kill herself or anyone else at school.

School officials told Rebecca, who did not want to give her last name, they had to send 5-year-old Elizabeth home after an incident in class.

“They told me she drew something that resembled a gun. According to them she pointed a crayon at another student and said ‘pew pew’,” Rebecca explained.

I’m not even sure what the line of thinking was here. The kid drew something that looked like a gun, which I understand requires immediate action from school administrators this day and age. I also understand that the response must be devoid of recognizable logic. But requiring the kid to sign a contract, which is unenforceable since she isn’t 18 and therefore irrelevant, stating that she won’t commit suicide? That’s just bizarre. The school administrators couldn’t believe the kid was either suicidal or a threat to fellow students otherwise they would have required more than a signature from a kid on a contract that wouldn’t accomplish anything on the best of days. Perhaps the school administrators are trying to get an incident of mental illness on the kid’s record in the hopes of making it more difficult for her to buy a gun in the future. Or, more likely, the school administrators are trying to embarrass the kid as much as possible in the hopes of linking anything involving guns with bad experiences.

Don’t Be Stupid and Other Observations By Captain Obvious

Opponents of open carry often claim that anybody who open carries a gun will have it taken from them by an attacker. After a lot of huffing and puffing they finally have an example to point to:

William Coleman III was robbed of his Walter- brand P22 just after 2:00 a.m. October 4 in Gresham by a young man who asked him for it — and flashed his own weapon as persuasion.

Coleman, 21, was talking to his cousin in the 17200 block of NE Glisan St., after purchasing the handgun earlier that day, when a young man asked him for a cigarette, police said.

The man then asked about the gun, pulled a gun from his own waistband and said “”I like your gun. Give it to me.”

Coleman handed over the gun and the man fled on foot.

Now opponents of open carry can feel justified for all of the time they spend bitching, moaning, and whining about how terrible openly carrying a firearm is. Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media covered most of the important points to take away from this story. I do, however, have one point to add.

I took to Google Maps to verify that the location mentioned in the story was a residential area. It is. Although that’s not super important to what I’m going to say it’s a worthwhile criteria point to mention. The big red flag, to me, is that the thief asked to bum a cigarette. Asking to bum a cigarette, begging for some change, or approaching somebody and asking for directions are common tricks thieves and other violent criminals use to close the gap between themselves and their intended prey without, they hope, raising any red flags. Because of this these things should all raise immediate red flags. If you’re standing at a house at 02:00 and somebody starts walking up to you asking for a cigarette you should immediately be on the defensive. It’s not common, in my experience at least, for random strangers to walk up to people in residential areas and ask them for a cigarette. That kind of behavior is more common at bars where people are grouped together and smoking.

When you’re suspicious of a person you should also be very watchful of their hands. According to the story the thief drew his gun from concealment. The moment a suspicious man’s hands being moving towards a potential weapon your hands should probably begin moving towards your weapon. Especially when you’re advertising that you are in possession of a valuable object such as a firearm. In most cases a person openly carrying a firearm should be able to draw their firearm quicker than a person carrying concealed. At least if they’re paying attention.

While there are times when I open carry I prefer to carry concealed for the same reason I prefer not to have my phone visible when walking around; I don’t like to advertise being in possession of highly sought after items. Guns, like iPhones, are highly sought after by thieves. If you’re open carrying you’re advertising not only an ability to defend yourself but also that you possess something worth stealing. Hence you need to also need to be aware of your surrounding. Not only must you be aware of your surroundings but you must project the fact that you are aware of your surroundings. Thieves usually rely on distraction. They tend to prey on individuals who are distracted and avoid individuals who are obviously aware of what’s going on around them. Although I can’t be sure I believe it’s fairly safe to assume that the victim in this story wasn’t paying a whole lot of attention to what was going on around him.

Laugh as Daily Kos Recognizes How Powerless Its Precious State Really Is

A milling machine specifically designed to complete 80% AR lowers was released and sold out? Quick, call in the gun control loons! Daily Kos, one of the more prevalent publications serving the market of hysterical pants shitters has caught news of Cody Wilson’s Ghost Gunner and its phenomenal sales, which means it had to release an article explaining why the sky is falling and we’re all going to die:

I suggest you read the articles linked. It is both interesting and frightening. It really illuminates the sophomoric pseudo-intellectual flaws of the libertarian movement. It also shows that the practicality of their anti-government rhetoric is non-existent. On the one hand, they are democratizing gun ownership, and on the other, they are creating a world that is willfully deaf to all of the damage guns have done and continue to do.

Actually the linked articles, which describe the release of the Ghost Gunner and the fact that it sold out within 36 hours, illuminates the effectiveness of the ideas proposed by market anarchists within the libertarian movement. It certainly illuminates the practicality of our anti-government rhetoric.

Case in point, the release of this invention, which was developed by a handful of individuals, rendered gun control meaningless. Anybody can buy an 80% lower and anybody can buy a Ghost Gunner. That renders every gun control law on the books irrelevant. And if the laws are changed and the sale of 80% lowers is prohibited then an improved Ghost Gunner can be released that turns out completed lowers from solid blocks of aluminum. If laws are passed that prohibit the sale of milling machines then we will build them ourselves from commonly available parts.

Market anarchism often focuses on technical solutions for solving the problem of statism. The Ghost Gunner has solved the problem of the state deciding who can and cannot own an effective means of self-defense. Tor hidden services have solved the problem of the state deciding what can be posted on the Internet. Bitcoin has solved the problem of the state deciding what kinds of products can be traded amongst individuals. Cryptography continues the solve the problem of the state snooping through communications in an attempt to silence the disobedient. It has been becoming apparent for some time that market anarchism works. As a corollary to that market anarchism also demonstrates that statism can’t last.

Sorry (OK, I’m not actually sorry) statists but your precious state is powerless. Liberty is winning now that many of its proponents are no longer playing your stupid political games.

The NRA Gave Me Cancer

I have a lot of issues with the National Rifle Association (NRA) but, in general, I believe the organization means well. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, view the NRA has the direct spawn of Satan. Anything that goes wrong in the world is, according to the gun control loons, the direct fault of the NRA. For example, did you know that the Ebola crisis is the fault of the NRA? I’m not joking on this one. Gun Free Zone linked to an article that would be absolutely hilarious if the author wasn’t being serious:

Every day brings more details about the first case of the Ebola virus to be diagnosed in the U.S. And while experts say there is essentially no risk of a significant outbreak here in the states, much of the public remains worried. A poll by Harvard found that 39% of U.S. adults are concerned about a large outbreak here, and more than a quarter fear someone in their immediate family could get sick with Ebola.

If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

So the fear of Ebola is directly caused by the NRA because it somehow, through its Illuminati connections I’m sure, has prevented a surgeon general from being appointed and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is totally not telling people that the likelihood of Ebola spreading in the United States is remote.

Although I’m accustomed to gun control loons blaming the NRA for everything wrong in the universe this accusation takes matters to an entirely different universe. First of all I can’t remember any previous surgeon general dispelling fears about previous epidemics such as the yearly flu that was always slated to kill us all. As far as I know the person who filled that position has never even put a dent in the mass media’s rampant fear mongering. Additionally I’m not aware of the NRA having connections to the Illuminati, Bilderberg, Rothschilds, lizard people, or any other group conspiracy theorists such as the author of the linked article are so accustomed to claim is pulling the strings behind the scenes. If the NRA did have such connections I would imagine, as a member, I’d see some pretty stellar benefits.

Really all there is to do about this accusation is point and laugh. It’s downright nutty. In fact it’s probably nuttier than many of Alex Jone’s insane ramblings. Next week I’m sure the author will have a fascinating investigative piece that will determinate that the NRA is headed by Literally Hitler.

Upcoming Minnesota Carry Day Events

This year the Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum is host two Minnesota Carry Day events. The first event, which takes place on October 11th, will be held at Zylstra Harley Davidson in Elk River, Minnesota:

minnesota-carry-day-2014-elk-river

The second event takes place on October 18th and will be held at St. Paul Harley Davidson in, as the name implies, St. Paul, Minnesota:

minnesota-carry-day-2014-st-paul

Both events are free to attend and will have information sessions scheduled throughout each day. The information sessions will cover more than gun-related stuff. For example, both events will have a self-defense session aimed at kids and sessions on non-lethal self-defense.

Behold the Ghost Gunner

Many gun rights advocates complain that anarchist don’t do anything to advance gun rights. While they’re pander to politicians, attend meetings, and advocating for or against legislation they see us not doing so and assume we’re just sitting around with our thumbs up our asses. But we work smarter, not harder. With the realization that any political gain can be reversed down the road we look for ways to bypass the political machinery altogether.

One of the anarchists on the forefront of the gun rights battle is Cody Wilson. He brought us the first notable 3D printed handgun. Now he’s bringing us a milling machine designed specifically to produce AR lowers:

When Cody Wilson revealed the world’s first fully 3-D printed gun last year, he showed that the “maker” movement has enabled anyone to create a working, lethal firearm with a click in the privacy of his or her garage. Now he’s moved on to a new form of digital DIY gunsmithing. And this time the results aren’t made of plastic.

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.

Gun control is irrelevant in a world where anybody can manufacture a firearm. And that’s the goal, make politics irrelevant by utilizing technology:

Wilson’s goal of enabling anyone to privately fabricate an untraceable gun is part of a larger anarchist mission: To show how technology can render the entire notion of government obsolete. He’s spent the last two years developing firearms designed to be printed as easily as ink on a page, neutering attempts at gun control. “This is a way to jab at the bleeding hearts of these total statists,” Wilson says. “It’s about humiliating the power that wants to humiliate you,” he says.

Why beg masters for scraps from the liberty table when you can build your own liberty table and eat as much as you want? A popular agorist saying is “Agora! Anarchy! Action!” In it’s even on a poster

agora-anarchy-action

The keyword is action. Anarchists, I would argue, have a tendency to directly take action over the statists’s tendency to ask others, specifically politicians, to take action. We prefer to get our hands dirty, which is necessary when you’re working for radical change. I do wish politically active gun rights activists well but if the political atmosphere starts looking bad again us anarchists will ensure that any guns banned by the state are readily available to as many people as possible.

Gun Control Remain Racist After All of These Years

Gun control in the United States has its beginnings rooted in racism. From the start it was about disarming African Americans and still manages to accomplish that today:

If you live in 60624, the ZIP code where the shooting took place, you don’t expect your streets to be safe. In the last 30 days, that neighborhood has recorded more homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and narcotics charges combined than any other ZIP code in Cook County when measured on a per capita basis. Its population is 98 percent black and averages a median income just above the poverty line.

It also is one of the ZIP codes that registers the fewest active concealed carry firearms permits per capita in the county, according to concealed carry numbers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The Washington Times.

Ditto for the crime-ridden neighborhoods of Englewood and West Englewood. Combined with West Garfield Park, out of their 114,933 total residents, only 193 concealed carry licenses have been issued — less than 0.17 percent of the population.

It’s a completely different story in affluent Palos Park, located in southwestern Cook County. The 60464 ZIP code boasts a negligible crime rate: Only one homicide has been committed in 10 years, according to the most recent state police data. Ninety-six percent of its residents are white, earning an average income of $121,000.

It also has the most concealed carry licenses in Cook County this year, with 1.24 percent of its residents authorized to carry a gun.

[…]

Illinois residents say the disproportionate statistics all boil down to cost. Of right-to-carry states, Illinois has the highest registration and training fee, costing an applicant about $650 on average for fingerprinting, taxes and logistics — excluding the price of the gun.

On average people who advocate for gun control are the same people who argue that African Americans are discriminated against and because of that suffer under poverty far more than Caucasians. Doesn’t that make them hypocrites for demanding more expensive hoops to jump through in order to obtain a permit to carry? This also makes them hypocrites for calling gun rights advocates racists when, in fact, we are advocating that African Americans enjoy the same ability to defend themselves as everybody else.

Be Afraid You Stupid Slaves

It’s been apparent for a while that the amount of gun-related articles on this site has decreased. Part of this is because I’ve already covered a lot of topics related to firearms and I don’t like to repeat myself. But the other part is because I’m sick and tired of the fear mongering common in many firearms publications. When making an argument for self-defense you don’t need to delve into fear mongering. Statistics and human behavior provide all of the reasons for legal self-defense that you need. Yet many people in the firearms community demand boogeymen and right now, as is so often the case, that boogeyman is who our masters are telling us to fear: Muslims.

Take this story of the Oklahoma man who entered his former place of work and supposedly beheaded one employee and stabbed another before being shot dead:

Sgt. Jeremy Lewis says the alleged suspect, 30-year-old Alton Nolen had just been fired when he drove to the front of the business, hit a vehicle and walked inside.

He walked into the front office area where he met 54-year-old Colleen Hufford and began attacking her with a knife.

Sgt. Lewis confirms the type of knife used in the attack is the same kind used at the plant.

Lewis confirms that Hufford was stabbed several times and that Nolen “severed her head.”

At that point, Lewis claims Nolen met 43-year-old Traci Johnson and began attacking her with the same knife.

Officials say at that point, Mark Vaughan, an Oklahoma County reserve deputy and a former CEO of the business, shot him as he was actively stabbing Johnson.

As with any story the important part of this one are the actions that occurred during it. Details about the attacker and his history are interesting but there’s seldom irrefutable proof that those details were what lead to his actions. In this case the attacker had a criminal record and was a Muslim convert. You know what that means, make the story about the dangers of Muslims because they’re the new boogeyman. And that’s exactly what some gun publications are doing:

We warned earlier in the week about the threat of “soft target” terrorist attacks by organized terror cells sweeping over our undefended southern border. What we forgot to mention in that missive is the threat of Islamic converts on our own shores, who seem every bit as zealous and dangerous.

Emphasis mine. That’s the opening paragraph to the article. The takeaway seems to be that we, as gun owners, should be afraid of anybody who has converted to Islam, which is a stupid thing to be afraid of. Let’s look at the statistics. There are an estimated 6 to 7 million Muslims in the United States. With such a high population you would think people would be getting murdered by Muslims in this country left and right. But they’re not because Muslims, just like the rest of us, are predominantly nonviolent. Just like any other major religious group, the number of violent individuals within Islam is a minority.

What proof does anybody have that the attacker’s conversion to Islam played any part in his violent actions? Unless concrete evidence exists showing the man’s religious conversion was the reason for his attack implying that it was is speculative at best.

So what should be taken away from the actual story? That predicting when violence will occur is very difficult. This is because violence is often immediate and can happen anywhere. Just because you’re at home or at work doesn’t mean you are shielded from violence. Likewise you usually can’t predict when violence will occur. Any self-defense plan you create should taken these points into consideration. Having a self-defense plan that doesn’t rely on accurately predicting when violence occurs or where it will occur will do you far more good than a plan that relies on such predictions (and that’s why a plan based entirely around avoiding certain areas isn’t very good). Fear mongering encourages people to focus on the details that are seldom useful when developing a self-defense plan. Self-defense plans, being risk management strategies, needs to be developed around solid facts not speculation.