Tag: Gun Rights

Teletherapy

One of the hot topics in the gun control community is prohibiting people who suffer from mental illnesses from obtaining firearms. Setting aside the fact that such a prohibition is impossible we are still left with the fact that such a prohibition would further discourage people suffering from mental illnesses from seeking help. Mental illness has a major stigma here in the United States. People often perceive others who suffer from a mental illness as weak. There is also a common misconception that mental illnesses are permanent. I’m sure most gun control advocates who are pushing to prohibit people who have a history of mental illness from owning firearms are banking on the latter misconception. In the United States a person who sought treatment for a mental illness would likely become prohibited from owning firearms for life because the general attitude in this country is that mental illnesses can’t be helped.

This leads me to an interesting start up that is focusing on providing teletherapy:

Is the digital age sending the old therapist’s couch the way of the reference librarian, the CD, and the travel agent? Could be: several recent studies have found that therapy via the Internet is just as effective as face-to-face treatment. In 2012, a Veterans Affairs study found that teletherapy reduced patients’ psychiatric hospital admissions by about 25 percent, which means it could produce cost savings as well.

What I find more interesting about the prospects of teletherapy is the potential for anonymity. It would be easy to setup a system where the doctor didn’t know the actual name or face of the person they were treating. While the intimate nature of a patient-therapist relationship would almost guarantee that the therapist could find out the identify of their patient the potential to remain anonymous may be enough to encourage those needing help to seek it. Having an anonymous way of seeking help for a mental illness would render America’s two primary misconceptions irrelevant, which would be a step forward in my opinion.

My Adventures in Open Carrying

As you probably know whenever I go for bike rides I open carry a firearm. I don’t do this for political activism, I just have no practical method of concealing a firearm when I’m riding a bike. Through all of my rides I haven’t had a single negative encounter. Yesterday afternoon I decided to take a ride into Minneapolis. As I approached Minneapolis I saw two bike cops ahead of me. Since they were pedaling slowly I decided to pass them. What did they do? Nodded to me. Then, on my way back, I passed them again underneath the Twins Stadium. Again, they nodded and otherwise ignored me.

How have I managed to openly carry a firearm in, what is probably, hippy infested bike trails in Minneapolis? How did I managed to encounter the same two cops twice without them hassling me? The answer to both of these questions is easy: I’m not a dick. If you read Gun Nuts Media’s post about how to properly open carry you’ll notice that bullet point one and ten are both don’t be a dick. Not being a dick is probably one of the most effective methods of living a good hassle-free life.

At all times I attempt to conduct myself in a professional manner. Sometimes I fail at this, but most of the time I’m pretty calm and collected. As an anarchist I’m not a big fan of police. They’re the state’s enforcers and, in our society especially, do far more to harm people than good. But I don’t scream “Fuck you, pig!” every time I see a police officer. Why? Because there is nothing to be gained from being a dick. It harms my advocacy of anarchism as a peaceful philosophy, it harms my advocacy of gun owners being peaceful people, and it may harm me physically. If you’re a dick to somebody they’re probably going to return the favor.

As the Gun Nuts Media article systems, don’t be a dick when you’re openly carrying a gun. It makes us gun owners look bad. I will also add in that you shouldn’t be a dick even when you’re not carrying a gun. It makes everybody you associate with look bad and it makes everybody’s life miserable.

My Line in the Sand

Thanks to a few guys carrying rifles into Starbucks the topic of dickish gun owners has cropped up. Most of this discussion has revolved around the more zealous advocates of open carry. You know the ones, they sometimes walk into coffee shops with rifles and shotguns slung across their backs. I’m not going to waste more time berating those individuals, I think they’ve been reamed thoroughly already and, frankly, I don’t really care. But since we’re on the topic I thought it would be a good idea to bring up another group of gun owners that come off as dickish in the eyes of the public: the “lines in the sand” guys.

One of my anti-state friends was recently approached by a few individuals who had formed a militia. From the description these people weren’t forming a militia in the sense of community protection. Their primary goal appeared to be fighting a revolutionary war against the federal government should it cross their, probably highly mobile, line in the sand. Assuming these characters aren’t feds (feds love to form faux revolutionary organizations in an attempt to lure peaceful anti-statists into a compromising position), they represent a group that certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the general public.

“Line in the sand” people are quick to point out that this country was founded on a group of revolutionaries who rose up and violently overthrew the British. While that’s true, most people living in the United States today don’t believe things are currently as bad as they were back then. In the eye’s of the general public the only thing wrong with this country is that the right people aren’t in charge. According to them everything wrong would be righted in a day if only the Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians were given complete control. If you’re calling for violent revolution most people think you’re jumping the gun.

I have no problem with gun owners pointing out that one reason for gun ownership is to keep the state at bay. History has demonstrated that governments tend to become a bit more tyrannical when the people it claims lordship over are unarmed. But it still sounds a little crazy to people who see the state’s tanks, aircraft carriers, and drones and have no concept of fourth generation warfare tactics. It’s one thing to discuss the hypothetical situation where the populace would need arms to overthrow a tyrannical government, it’s another thing to say that you are going to personal take up arms to overthrow a tyrannical government if it crosses that precious line you drew in the sand. Doing the latter makes the general public see you as a bloodthirsty monster that is looking for an excuse to cap some feds. It reflects poorly on yourself as well as fellow gun rights advocates who are trying to remove the public’s erroneous belief that gun owners are violent.

Another problem with the “line in the sand” people is that they usually move their line in the sand whenever it’s crossed. When you keep revising the one thing that will cause you to start a violent revolution people stop taking you seriously. And it’s not just your rhetoric people stop taking seriously, people laugh at others who never put their words where their mouth is. By drawing a line in the sand, declaring that you will start a war if that line is crossed, and moving that line back when it’s crossed you are setting yourself up for ridicule. Actions speak louder than words so if you’re not actually planning on going to war when your line in the sand is crossed do yourself a favor, shut up. You make yourself look like a damned fool and, by association, cause the public to take what fellow gun rights activists with a grain of salt. That’s a problem when trying to discuss statistics that demonstrate a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates.

As always, I’m not saying you can’t be a “line in the sand” person. But every action has consequences. Some consequences are positive and some are negative depending on your position in life. For gun rights activists who are trying to help people see that gun owners aren’t violent psychopaths the consequences of the “line in the sand” attitude is negative.

Semiautomatic 3D Printed Handgun

I guess my prediction came true. The year hasn’t even closed yet and we now have designs for a semiautomatic 3D printed handgun. As with most 3D printed firearms so far it’s an ugly thing but one that uses several easily acquired firearm components:

***UPDATE: Files available on Defcad.com and Fosscad Twitter!***
I have designed a .22 LR Semiautomatic firearm. Unlike former designs such as the Shuty, this design uses almost all plastic parts (All non-plastic parts currently except the FCG cannot physically be plastic or a semiautomatic will not function) and uses weights to bring the bolt to a correct weight. You will need the following parts:
*3D Printer with ABS capability
*AR-15 FCG
*AR-15 Buffer Spring
*Ruger 10/22 Mag Spring
*AR-15 Firing Pin
*1x8mm metal insert (Case extraction)
*.44 bullets to weigh down bolt (More info in the .readme)

It’s very interesting to see how quickly 3D printed firearms are advancing. The rate of advancement really shows how powerful cooperation between a group of people from around the world can be. Thanks to 3D printer technology we are beginning to see a world where prohibitions on physical goods are infeasible. I believe it’s also important to note that these prohibitions aren’t being killed by political activism but by direct action. People from around the world who believe in freedom of information created designs for physical objects that can be replicated by anybody with a 3D printer, which are becoming cheaper and more capable every day.

At Least the ATF is Consistent

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) have a track record of losing things. For several years the ATF has been “losing” firearm across the Mexico border and now the agency has lost 420 million cigarettes:

The US agency tasked with stopping illegal tobacco trafficking lost track of 420 million cigarettes purchased in undercover operations, justice department auditors have found.

In addition, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) made $162m (£100m) selling tobacco undercover, it found.

To those who want to grant the ATF more power so it can further control firearms I ask you this: How is an agency that can’t even keep track of cigarettes supposed to effectively control firearms? Furthermore, I must point out that it is unlikely that anybody within the ATF will be punished for this loss. Once again we must acknowledge that the state fails to punish wrongdoers within its ranks and that make government jobs attractive to the irresponsible. Putting irresponsible people in positions of power is always a recipe for disaster.

Zero Common Sense Strike Again

Whoever came up with the idea of zero tolerance polices must have been a very poor prophesier. When you remove the ability to consider the context of situations you end up with a system that rules everybody guilty of something. Public schools, which are supposed to be bastions of tolerance and understanding, have numerous zero tolerance policies. These policies lead to idiocy like children being prohibited from taking over the counter medications. They also lead to students who play with Airsoft guns on their own property being suspended:

Like thousands of others in Hampton Roads, Khalid Caraballo plays with airsoft guns. Caraballo and his friend Aidan were suspended because they shot two other friends who were with them while playing with the guns as they waited for the school bus.

The two seventh graders say they never went to the bus stop; they fired the airsoft guns while on Caraballo’s private property.

[…]

Khalid and Aiden aren’t only suspended, they were recommended to be expelled for a year for “possession, handling and use of a firearm.”

The case revolves around whether the students were on private property or at the bus stop. Let’s assume, for a moment, that the school administrators who weren’t at the bus stop when the incident happened somehow were correct when they declared where the student were standing. Even if the students were at the bus stop they weren’t on the bus nor were they at school. How can the school administrators claim jurisdiction over the bus stop and private property in such an absolute way that they feel suspending, and possibly expelling, those students is within their power? How does it make sense to suspend and possibly expel students for playing with toys? There is no victim and therefore no crime. The only “crime” is a violation of the school’s zero tolerance policy, which must state the mere thought of a firearm constitutes a violation and can lead to expulsion.

The school administrators are threatening to ruin the students’ lives without having any proof of wrongdoing, let alone wrongdoing on school governed property. This is insanity is the inevitable result of zero tolerance policies.

We Need to Talk

Everybody in the firearm community has heard about Starbucks’ request. Whether that open letter persuades you to stop frequenting Starbucks is your business and I fully respect whatever decision you make. But we need to talk about overreaction for a minute.

Us gun owners are used to dealing with gun control advocates who, regardless of their claims, have an end goal of abolishing non-government ownership of firearms. It’s natural for us to get angry when we hear somebody like Dianne Feinstein demanding Congress pass a law prohibiting the most popular rifle in the United States. We don’t like people trying to take our shit. But we must also realize that just because a person or organization isn’t on our side doesn’t mean they’re on the other side.

The reaction from both the gun rights and gun control sides regarding this Starbucks request has been completely overblown. I’m not going to spend much time addressing the gun control community because, from my point of view, their reactions are commonly overblown. But those of us in the gun rights community should hold ourselves to a higher standard than our intellectual opponents. That means stating facts, not fabrications.

I can’t even count how many members of the gun rights community have said Starbucks is banning guns in its stores. That’s a flat out lie. In fact the letter clearly states that guns aren’t being banned and that the request that gun owners not bring their firearms into Starbucks’ stores will not be enforced. There’s a huge difference between requesting gun owners not bring guns into a store and prohibiting gun owners from bringing guns into stores. If you’ve been telling people that Starbucks’ is banning firearms knock it off. You’re not helping anybody by making gun owners look like liars.

I would also like to specifically address the gun owners who have taken this opportunity to continue their personal crusades against open carry. To you I have only this to say: fuck off. OK, I actually have more to say. You guys have been sitting on your high horse prophesying doom and gloom for gun owners because some have the audacity to not conceal their firearms. I’ve got news for you sunshine, most of us who do open carry, whether it be all the time or periodically, have had no negative interactions. I open carry whenever I’m on a bicycle because concealing my firearm is almost impossible. When I stop at intersections or take a break I often have very pleasant conversations with other bikers. Not once has a fellow trail rider freaked out or otherwise acted in a negative way towards me. I’m not hurting any cause. A vast majority of people who open carry are in the same boat. The problem isn’t open carry activists, it’s assholes.

Every community has its set of assholes. These people usually take the form of attention whores. They want people to pay attention to them and perform outlandish deeds in order to get the attention they so desperately crave. If you walk into a store openly carrying a gun, make your purchase, and go about your business you aren’t hurting anybody or any cause. If you walk into a store openly carrying a rifle, yell “Hey everybody, I have a big ass rifle! Look at me!”, make your purchase, and go about seeking attention from everybody by marching around with your rifle for no reason whatsoever then you are an asshole. The line between not asshole and asshole isn’t even that thin. It’s almost 100 fucking yards thick! 99 percent of the time you can determine whether or not you’re going to cross that line by asking a simple question: will doing this make me an asshole? If you have to ask if something will make you an asshole it almost certainly will.

My point is it doesn’t matter if you’re openly carrying a gun or not; if you’re an asshole people are going to reactive negatively. I’ve seen plenty of gun rights activists who oppose open carry act like completely douche bags when questioned by somebody who is either anti-gun or neutral in the gun debate. Being rude doesn’t help anybody, period. If you want to bitch about a group of gun owners bitch about the ones being jerk-offs. That reminds me, I also have something I want to say to the asshole in the shooting community: fuck off. You’re the reason so many people outside of the shooting community view us as uneducated attention seeking rednecks.

That’s really all the critical things I have to say (for now). On a non-critical note, if you feel as though Starbucks no longer wants your business then feel free to stop going there. Just as Starbucks has every right to deny business to people you have every right to not frequent businesses. Vote with your feet and tell anybody who is curious why you’re voting that way. I’ve never been a frequent Starbucks customer. While I do like Starbucks’ coffee I can’t justify the cost when making my own is so much cheaper. But I won’t boycott Starbucks over its recent requests. My reading of the letter leads me to believe Starbucks isn’t coming out against gun owners but against being used as a political pawn. I understand that position; I don’t like being used as a political pawn either. Starbucks never said I couldn’t bring my gun into its stores. It simply asked nicely that I don’t, unless I want to.

Starbucks Requests Gun Owners to Stop Openly Carrying in Stores

It was bound to happen, Starbucks has put out an official request that gun owners no longer openly carry firearms into its stores:

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

As usual this decision has ignited very strong emotions on both sides of the gun debate. Many gun owners, at least on my social media feeds, are very upset and some have even begun to call for a boycott of Starbucks. Gun control advocates are cheering this as a success because they believe they have convinced Starbucks to ban firearms from their stores. I think both of these reactions are out of proportion.

Starbucks hasn’t banned firearms from its stores, it has merely requested that gun owners no longer openly carry firearms into its stores. The second to final paragraph makes this clear:

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I’m not upset at this request. After all, openly carrying rifles into Starbucks was bound to turn sour. Political debates are lose-lose scenarios for businesses. No matter what side of a debate a business supports it runs the risk of alienating a portion of its customer base. That’s why most businesses make no statements regarding a political debate unless the issue stands to cause direct harm to its bottom line.

People often allow their personal bias to color their judgement. Some gun rights activists and gun control advocates saw Starbucks’ neutrality as a pro-gun stance. This incorrect judgement lead gun rights activists to hold Starbucks Appreciation Day and gun control advocates to hold Skip Starbucks Day. Both sides turned neutral Starbucks into a political battlefield and, as the company’s request makes clear, that was not a position it wanted to be in:

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

In other words, Starbucks feels as though both sides have been acting like assholes and interfering with its simple desire to just sell some fucking coffee. Now, unfortunately, some gun rights activists and gun control activists are probably going to take Starbucks’ neutrality as an anti-gun stance and continue pushing political agendas in its stores.

I will close by saying this: if a person or organization doesn’t want to involve itself in a political debate then that wish should be respected. Neither side of the gun debate should demand boycotts of Starbucks or host political demonstrations on Starbucks’ property. Starbucks hasn’t prohibited carry in its stores so those wanting to open carry while getting a cup of coffee may still do so. Just be respectful of Starbucks’ neutrality. Don’t make a public spectacle of yourself. Those of you who fall on the anti-gun side should do the same. Be respectful of Starbucks’ neutrality and don’t start yelling at people carrying guns. If you mind your and we mind our business everybody sitting in Starbucks’ who doesn’t give a shit about either of our causes will be happier.

More Irresponsible Cops

Most advocates of gun control that I’ve encountered aren’t gun control advocates, they’re advocates of a two class society. The two classes they’re interested in creating are the armed and the unarmed. In their fantasy world the armed class, made up exclusively of government agents such as police officers, would exist to rule over the unarmed class, made up of everybody else. For some reason these gun control advocates believe that a badge and costume are the only things that can prevent an otherwise rational and peaceful human being from turning into a bloodthirsty murderer when given possession of a firearm. Those of us who keep tabs on how the police handle firearms known the truth: most police officers are woefully inadequate when it comes to handling firearm. This, couple with the near immunity from responsibility, make incidents like this alarmingly common:

Officers fired three shots at 35-year-old Glenn Broadnax in the Saturday night confrontation a block west of the famous tourist district, hitting two women on a nearby corner in the process, a police statement said Sunday. Broadnax was walking into traffic in front of the Port Authority bus terminal, apparently trying to be hit by cars, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

He dodged police who tried to take him into custody, then mimicked shooting a gun at officers, prompting the officers to return fire with real bullets, Kelly said.

“At some time he reached into his pocket, took out his hand and simulated as if he was shooting at them,” Kelly told reporters late Saturday.

Two officers fired three shots before the unarmed Broadnax was brought down with a Taser, the NYPD said. He has been charged with menacing, obstructing governmental administration, riot, criminal possession of a controlled substance, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, the NYPD said in a statement issued Sunday morning. Those charges may change once he goes to court, however.

A 54-year-old woman was shot in the knee and a 37-year-old was grazed in the buttocks, police said. Earlier, they had said the younger victim was 35.

Let’s consider this story for a second. First, the police officers claim that the suspect mimicked firing a gun at them is quite likely spurious. Unless the officers involved can show some concrete proof of their claim I’m apt to believe their story is a fabrication meant to absolve them of responsibility for shooting two innocent bystanders. Second, the involved police officers have an odd continuum of force. They deployed lethal force before deploying less-likely-to-be-lethal force, which brought down the suspect. Third, the officers had a hit percentage of zero. They fired three rounds, all of which missed the target and two of which hit innocent bystanders. Had I, or any other non-state agent who legally carries a firearm, done such an act I would be facing prison time.

That brings us to the biggest problem with a two class society. In a society where one class is armed and the other unarmed the former cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. Today non-state agents who legally carry firearms are held legally responsible for any rounds they discharge, which is the way it should be. State agents enjoy legal protects from being held responsible. When you are not held responsible for your actions you become much more willing to act recklessly. If gun control advocates actually wanted to reduce violent crime they would be focusing their efforts on disarming legally privileged police officers instead of non-state agents who are held legally responsible for their actions.

3D Printed Pepperbox Handgun

3D printed guns are all the rage today. Those of us who believe in the free flow of information, advancing technology is beneficial, and gun rights are cheering the continuous advancement of these infinitely replicable pistols. The other side of the table, the Luddites who believe modern technology must be wiped from the face of the planet, are being hysterical. I’m happy to say that my side is winning. What’s interesting is that the advancement of 3D printed handguns is starting to take a similar path as the original advancement of handguns. The currently limitation, besides the ones caused by the nature of the materials being used, has been an inability for 3D printed firearms to fire more than one round at a time. That problem has been solved with the introduction of a 3D printed pepperbox handgun:

Consider, for example, the Hexen pepperbox, which has stainless steel liners for its six barrels and is undergoing constant strengthening and improvement as discussed over in the DefCad forum. The video below shows the Hexen successfully fired (actually, it appears to be a related five-shot model), using 6mm Flobert (low-powered .22) ammunition.

The designer, Franco, even printed ammunition holders for the pepperbox, along with a tool for ejecting expended cases (both pictured above).

At this rate I’m beginning to think we’ll see functional 3D printed semi-automatic pistols later this year or early next year. Reality isn’t kind to those who try to suppress the advancement of technology. Every law put into place to stop people from acquiring guns will be rendered meaningless once 3D printers become more widespread and 3D printable firearms become reliable. Technology has a way of overcoming state barriers. Anybody who thinks they can use the state to stop technology is a deluded fool.