Tag: Gun Rights

Ukrainians Understanding the Arguments for an Armed Populace

Unless you’ve been living under a rock or only watching American news media you’re probably aware of the current crisis in Ukraine. While many media outlets have made it appear as though violent revolutionaries are fighting an otherwise peaceful government the truth is the Ukrainian police have been committing a lot of the violence. To this end the Ukrainian Gun Owners Association has put forth an argument favoring the unconditional right of Ukrainian citizens to bear arms:

Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens.

After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law.
As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.

People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution.

Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!

Armed people are treated with respect!

I have no idea of influential this organization is but it’s still interesting to see such an organization and that it is arguing in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Ukraine is a prime example of what happens when the state is better armed than the people. While such disparity of force doesn’t mean the people cannot hold their own against the state it does mean that more people will die in order to beat back the state’s thuggery.

Like You and Me, Only Better

There has been some controversy regarding the National Football League’s (NFL) stance of not allowing any armed individual, except working members of a stadium’s security detail, into its stadiums. Many people point out that the NFL, as a private entity, has the right to set whatever rules it wants. I personally think the organization receives too much tax victim money to be considered a private entity. But the State of Texas has made its stance clear, off-duty police officers will be allowed to carry firearms into the state’s NFL stadium:

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – The National Football League has implemented a new stadium policy that would ban off-duty police officers from carrying guns into games…except in the state of Texas.

According to the NFL memo, “off-duty officers who attempt to bring firearms into an NFL facility will be denied entry.”

But a Texas state law overrides the NFL policy. As long as officers attending the game check in at a specific gate and inform Security where they are sitting – they can have their gun.

I’m sure many people are cheering this decision. If it applied equally to all permit holders in Texas I might care. But as the law is currently being enforced it’s just another example of law enforcement receiving additional privileges over us lowly serfs.

This will likely be the outcome mirrored by other states. Decrees will be issued that allow off-duty officers to carry firearms into NFL stadiums while us regular folk will be left to the mercy of the stadium’s security detail. If only us little people could afford to buy lobbyists like police unions and the NFL can.

Smart Guns and Fear Mongering

The topic of smart guns crops up periodically. Gun control advocates tend to believe smart guns are the magical technological solution to gun crime and gun rights advocates tend to believe smart guns are an infeasible idea that will never see widespread adoption. I think the concept of smart guns is interesting for different reasons than normally expressed. One of the science fiction series I really enjoy is The Lost Fleet. In it the marines have firearms that automatically cease firing when they are aimed at an individual that is identified as friendly and resume firing when that individual is no longer in the line of fire. This allows the marines to kick in the door and gun down enemy soldiers without worrying about friendly fire. It’s a great idea and one that will likely find its way into firearm technology some day. I look forward to seeing such technology some day.

But there is a lot of fear mongering over introducing electronic components into firearms. An example of such fear mongering can be found in this article:

But apart from reliability, which is by itself enough of an objection to ensure that most gun buyers will never go near a smart gun, there’s another objection that I’ve not yet seen raised to the smart gun. As a guy who knows a thing or two about technology, I’d like to raise the objection now: the smart gun and the second amendment, at least as many modern gun owners understand the latter, are fundamentally incompatible. Here’s why.

In September of last year, Apple introduced a technology that would let police remotely disable protesters iPhones. So if the police think that you might film them while they’re doing their thing, they could set up a “no pictures” zone by sending a wireless signal to disable the smart phone cameras in a certain vicinity.

[…]

Now, substitute “phone” in the above quote for “gun,” and you’ll see where I’m going with this.

Cops are going to love the idea that they can turn off suspects’ guns before doing a no-knock raid, but it’s hard to see gun owners getting fired up about it.

If you’re one of those folks who believe that the second amendment is the people’s last bulwark against tyranny, then you’re probably never going to buy a gun that the government magically render inoperable. To give the government the ability to remotely disable your weapon would turn the second amendment, at least in the “first the soap box, then the ballot box, then the ammo box” sense, into dead letter.

Firearms that can be remotely disabled is one potential feature that could be included in smart guns but is by no means a mandatory feature. The concept of smart guns isn’t incompatible with the Second Amendment. Some of the features may go against the generally accepted spirit of the Second Amendment but that doesn’t mean the technology isn’t compatible.

Firearms like those that appear in The Lost Fleet series are entirely compatible with the spirit of the Second Amendment. So are firearms that automatically adjust their point of aim for windage, distance, powder load, bullet weight, and other variables involved in aiming.

While I’m on the subject of smart guns I think it’s also worth addressing the reliability fears. The most common criticism of smart guns is that the introduction of additional features will decrease reliability. This is true, the more complex a device the less reliable it becomes. However acceptable reliability is still a subjective thing. Semi-automatic rifles are more failure prone than bolt-action rifles. Every major military and police force has chosen to take the increased failure rate of semi-automatic rifles because additional firepower they bring to the battlefield are immense. Electronic optics are another example of a devices that can introduce additional failure points in a firearm design that have become widely accepted.

My point is that the additional capabilities offered by more complex technologies tend to exceed the additional failure rates they introduce. Oftentimes these new technologies being life with a very high rate of failure and through refinement becomes extremely reliable. Additional technologies made possible by introducing more electronics into smart guns will follow this trend.

The idea behind smart guns isn’t inherently bad. There are even valid reasons to want a firearm that cannot be fired by anybody by yourself. Instead of fearing future firearm technology we should be embracing it. So long as the technology is voluntary there is no reason to oppose it or try to drum up unnecessary fear of the technology. Making arguments against laws that mandate any firearm technology is certainly appropriate but making arguments against the technology itself is, in my not so humble opinion, short sighted.

Arguments Equally Applicable to Everybody Else

Individuals within the Minnesota law enforcement community are unhappy about the National Football League’s (NFL) policy that forbids anybody other than on-duty officers working at a stadium from carrying a firearm into that stadium. I don’t really care about what policies the NFL sets since I’ve never been a fan of football handegg. But I find the lawsuit that the Minnesota law enforcement community has brought against the NFL interesting:

An association representing Minnesota police officers is suing the National Football League over a policy that prohibits off-duty officers from bringing their weapons into an NFL stadium.

The part I find most interesting are the justifications given for the lawsuit:

Attorneys argue that many off-duty officers keep their concealed weapons with them so they can respond to an incident or intervene during crimes if they come up, meaning they can “protect the public at a moment’s notice.”

The attorneys also argue that officers often have personal threats against them and their families because of their role in prosecuting criminals and that having a concealed weapon gives them a certain level of security.

These very arguments being made to allow off-duty law enforcement agents to carry firearms into NFL stadiums apply to every one of us who chooses to carry a firearm. We often carry firearms to protect ourselves and our loved ones at a moment’s notice. Many of us who choose to carry a gun do so because personal threats have been made against us (thankfully I’m not in this lot but I know a couple of people who are). If this suit ends in the favor of the plaintiff if could open the door for a lawsuit from individuals holding valid carry permits.

Normally I would point out that the NFL, as a private entity, has every right to make whatever rules it wants for its property. But so much of the property held by the NFL was paid for by money stolen from tax victims that I find it difficult to argue that the public doesn’t have a legitimate claim to approve or disapprove of stadium rules.

We’re Going to Need More Cages

Via Shall Not Be Questioned I came across an opinion piece from a guy who wants Connecticut to strictly enforce its new “assault weapon” registration law:

Connecticut has a gun problem.

It’s estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.

[…]

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

Let’s consider the logistics of what the author is advocating. It’s estimated that tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners failed to comply with the new “assault weapon” restrictions. The author wants Connecticut law enforcement agents to use the background check system to discover who may own an “assault weapon” and have him kidnapped and held in a cage for five years. Connecticut already has overcrowded prisons so new facilities would have to be constructed. Back in 1995 the Connecticut General Assembly responded to a request to know the costs associated with building new prison capacity. The cost per bed in Connecticut, at that time, was estimated to be $50,388.

Using a very conservative estimate of 20,000 noncompliant gun owners (since there are multiple tens of thousands I went with the lowest possible figure of 20,000) and 1995 prices to build new cages (because that’s the most recent information I was able to obtain) the state of Connecticut would be look at paying out $1,007,760,000 just to add the capacity necessary to cage all of these gun owners. Again, this figure is a low ball figure since the cost of constructing a new cage is higher than in 1995 and the number of noncompliant gun owners likely exceeds 20,000. But we get the idea that the costs of doing as the author recommends would be mind bogglingly high.

And what would Connecticut get out of spending over one billion dollars to enforce its new law? Not a damn thing. Merely being in possession of an aesthetically offensive semi-automatic rifle doesn’t make an individual violent. The satisfaction that could be obtained from doing what the author advocates is vengeance against the disobedient. If we want to go down that route I’m sure I can find several felonies the author committed in the last week and demand he be caged for them.

Gun Control Activist Arrested for Carrying Gun into a School

It’s only Tuesday and the irony scale has already been pegged. Gun control advocates have a list about a mile long of places that they don’t believe guns should be allowed. While the list ultimately encompasses everywhere the most forbidden of all places are schools. Needless to say it was only a matter of time until a gun control advocate decided to carry a gun into a school:

BUFFALO, N.Y.(WIVB)- More than a dozen cop cars, the SWAT team, K9 units and the Erie County Sheriff’s Air One helicopter swarmed Harvey Austin Elementary School in Buffalo on Thursday after reports of a man with a gun near the school or on the grounds. Dwayne Ferguson, head of the Buffalo chapter of MAD DADS, was taken into custody. He will be arraigned Friday.

[…]

Police believe the 52-year-old may have been the person that prompted the 911 call. Police say they do not believe he had any ill intent and Ferguson has a valid permit for the weapon.

[…]

News 4 interviewed Ferguson in March of 2013 at a rally in support of the NY SAFE Act. At the time, Ferguson stated the law did not go far enough.

“Our kids are not buying assault weapons, they’re buying pistols and they’re buying them right out of community stores and back here in the school. So this is serious. It needs to go further than what it is,” he said.

There’s really not much else that needs to be said here. But need has never been my driving factor and there are a few things I want to say about this.

First, the amount of hypocrisy displayed by Mr. Ferguson is so thick that it’s palpable. It was only last year that Mr. Ferguson was upset that the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act didn’t go far enough. His primary hangup regarding the SAFE Act seems to be that it didn’t restrict handguns enough. Specifically he didn’t believe the law went far enough to prevent children from acquiring handguns. As it turns out Mr. Ferguson possesses a permit that allows him to carry a firearm that he feels isn’t restricted heavily enough. Then, to peg the irony scale, he brings that handgun into a school. If he is concerned about children obtaining handguns illegally (because it was still illegal to transfer a handgun to a child before the SAFE Act) wouldn’t you think he would try to prevent children from coming into close proximity to handguns?

Second, stories like this lead me to believe that many gun control advocates aren’t sincere. They spend a lot of time talking about the need to restrict access to firearms but what they really want is to restrict people they don’t like from accessing firearms. I haven’t met a gun control advocate yet that believed police officers and military personnel shouldn’t possess firearms (after all, those groups will need firearms to enforce gun control laws). There are also a large number of gun control advocates that believe “important” people (as defined by them) should be allowed to carry firearms because they’re better than you and me. In the case of Mr. Ferguson it seems he believes he is one of these “important” people, which isn’t surprising considering how egotistical many gun control advocates are (after all they do know what’s best for you).

Third, the reaction by the police was absurd. A dozen police cars, SWAT team, K9 unit, and helicopter aren’t necessary for a report of an individual carrying a firearm. If the initial report involved an actual shooting then I could see such a militaristic response but the act of carrying a firearm isn’t in of itself dangerous. But our society has become so incredibly fearful that we believe any report of a man carrying a gun, especially in a school, warrants the deployment of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of firepower before even a cursory investigation is performed. The first response to the initial call should have involved the 911 operator asking whether or not the individual in question was acting in a violent manner. If he wasn’t then I could see sending an officer or two to the school to inform the individual that carrying a gun on school grounds is illegal and that he should exit the building and place the firearm in his vehicle before returning.

This story demonstrates so many issues I have with gun control advocates and the state in general. Between the irony, hypocrisy, and overreaction I can’t help but sit in here and shake my head.

Smith and Wesson Pulled Out

Of California that is:

Smith & Wesson announced late Wednesday that they will no longer market new semi-automatic pistols in California due to the state’s microstamping law.

California currently requires that all handguns sold in the state be approved to meet all current laws and added to a roster. Once approved, the manufacturer has to pay $200 per model, per year to remain on the list. However, if the laws change, such as the state’s recent implementation of microstamping, the guns on the list would have to be reexamined.

There are currently 1,152 approved models in the state’s database. In an alert sent out by the Calguns foundation last week, this is expected to nosedive dramatically in the coming years.

In a statement released from Smith yesterday, “Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.

I think California’s microstamping law is going to raise some interesting questions regarding gun bans. Although outright gun bans are supposed to be illegal, unless the state is basing its decision on aesthetically offensive characteristics, it may be legal for a state to require nonexistent technology before a firearm will be approved for sale. That is effectively what California has done with its microstamping law.

Reducing Gun Violence and Enacting Gun Control Laws Aren’t Synonymous

Yesterday I opened a copy of the Star Tribune sitting in the lunch room at work and found, unsurprisingly, a letter to the editor arguing for gun control. While letters arguing in favor of gun control are a dime a dozen in the Star Tribune I decided to post this one here because it demonstrates a common logical error in the gun control movement:

I was moved by the article written by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (“Fighting gun violence day by day, step by step,” Jan. 9). She describes the incredible difficulty she has had to face after a coward with a gun shot her in the head. But she has survived, is recovering well and is committed to ending gun violence along with her husband, Mark Kelly.

I support her efforts and, along with thousands of others in our state and millions across this country, realize the necessity of making our communities safe from gun violence. People victimized by guns have rights, too.

Truthfully, it has never been about the loss of Second Amendment rights nor about government confiscation, despite what the public has been told by the gun industry. On the contrary, common-sense laws that require universal background checks, prevent illegal gun traffic and straw purchases, and allow the collection of data from gun sales and crime have been proven to save lives while still maintaining the right to own guns.

Let’s work together to get this done. Our cause is just and growing, and we will not be silenced.

JAY THACKER, Shoreview

Mr. Thacker is arguing for a need to reduce gun violence and to enact gun control laws. His argument implies that the two are synonymous, which they aren’t. We live in a period that has seen a dramatic increase in the number of firearm sales and an overall reduction in violent crime. Increases in firearm sales have been due to multiple criteria including a governmental push for stricter gun control laws and a rapid increase in the number of carry permit holders. We’re not simply experiencing an increase in the number of firearm sales but also in the number of firearms being carried by individuals.

Gun control laws have the sole purpose of reducing the number of firearms in circulation. The belief of gun control proponents is that decreasing the number of firearms in circulation will reduce the rate of gun violence. That belief has been proven false by the above mentioned points. Therefore we must look at other reasons for the overall reduction in the rate of gun violence that we are enjoying today. I’m not foolish enough to believe that there is a single reason for the reduced rate of gun violence but I do believe that an armed society is a polite society plays a sizable part.

Increasing the number of firearms being carried on the street also increases the potential consequences for performing a violent crime. Assaulting, raping, or murdering somebody becomes more dangerous when the more members of the potential victim pool are able to effectively defend themselves. This potentiality is mutually exclusive to the potentiality that reducing the number of firearms in circulation also reduces violent crime rates. Since we are experiencing a period of higher gun sales and lower gun violence we must conclude that the beliefs of gun control advocates are false. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the beliefs of gun rights advocates are factual but those beliefs haven’t been proven false yet and a lot of evidence supports such beliefs.

If one is serious about wanting to reduce gun violence they should abandon their advocacy of stricter gun control laws. It’s demonstrable that gun control laws aren’t having an effect on gun violence rates. This means that gun violence rates must be effected by other factors. These factors must be discovered and understood before an effective method of reducing gun violence rates can be pursued. Therefore I urge those wanting to reduce gun violence to invest their time and resources into uncovering factors that effect gun violence rates. Once we have a better understanding of the causes of violence in a society we can work to address those issues.

Man Murdered by Retired Cop for Texting in a Theater

Normally I wouldn’t have much to say about this story other than one man murder another in cold blood. But advocates of gun control have been using this story to argue for banning the lawful carrying of firearms in movie theaters. That requires us to have a little discussion:

The shooting suspect, identified as retired Tampa police officer Curtis Reeves, 71, became annoyed when a couple sitting in front of him were texting during the movie’s previews, according to the Pasco County Sheriff’s office.

Police said that Reeves asked Chad and Nichole Oulson several times to stop, and then Reeves left the theater. When Reeves returned, Chad Oulson asked Reeves if he reported his phone use to the theater managers, police said. That prompted an argument which ended when Reeves pulled out a gun and shot Oulson in the chest, police said.

The first point that is worth mentioning is that the shooter was a retired police officer. I bring this point up because most gun control advocates are in favor of allowing the police to keep carrying firearms. In fact gun control is entirely dependent on police officers having a means of inflicting violence on those who would violate any firearm restrictions.

The second point that is worth mentioning is that the shooter was obviously prone to violence. This could be due to his years as a police officer or he could just naturally have a predisposition to preferring violence. Either way, if he was willing to shoot somebody for texting he would almost certainly be willing to beat them to death for the same.

As a side note I will also add that the retired cop may have become too used to being held unaccountable for his actions. Most cops are shielded from the consequences of their malicious actions and that tends to breed an atmosphere of irresponsibility. This former cop may have shot the gun because he was shielded from accountability for so long he forgot that actions have consequences. Regardless of how I look at it I can’t find a way to blame the firearm or the fact that people can lawfully carry firearms into theaters.

Man Harassed for Possessing a Standard Capacity Magazine

We knew this was going to happen:

Norwalk Police wrote a summons for Tyrone Watson, 30, of Bridgeport, on Sunday for possession of a large capacity magazine on or after Jan. 1, 2014, that was obtained prior to April 5, 2013. His court date is Jan. 17.

An officer stopped Watson’s vehicle on Water Street at 1:25 a.m. Sunday, because the officer felt that Watson was tailgating him, police said. The officer let Watson’s car pass, then pulled him over, police said.

While trying to find his license and registration, Watson took out his pistol permit and quickly put it back, according to police.

The officer asked if Watson had a weapon on him, and Watson replied that he was carrying a gun, police said.

The officer secured the handgun for the duration of the motor vehicle stop and while making the pistol safe, the officer noticed that the pistol had 11 bullets in its magazine and none in its chamber, police said. The magazine had a capacity to hold 15 bullets, according to police.

A portion of Connecticut’s new gun laws, which went into effect Jan. 1, make it illegal to have a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets. Large capacity magazines purchased prior to the passage of the new law had to be registered by Dec. 31.

With the simple change of the data a gun that has been legally carried by a man became illegal, at least in its standard configuration. Now the man will have to waste his time and money trying to defend the fact that he continued to use the specified equipment for his carry piece. Another arbitrary government decree causes another innocent person to be harassed by the state’s thugs.