Tag: Gun Rights

Why are Gun Control Advocates so Violent

Gun control advocates like to position themselves as peaceful individuals however they have a habit of advocating violence against those who disagree with them. Consider this op-ed written by an advocate of gun control:

Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad. The B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.

I’m not sure when the National Rifle Association (NRA) advocated armed rebellion (I must have missed a mailing) but even if they did it’s not worthy of a firing squad. Being an anarchist I find the crime of treason to be bullshit in of itself but even those who recognize the state as a legitimate entity must also acknowledge that advocating armed rebellion, which the NRA hasn’t done as far as I know, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless the NRA was actually involved in an armed rebellion against the state they couldn’t be found guilty of treason.

Beyond advocating violence the author also invalidates his own argument. In the above paragraph he implies that armed rebellion is not the proper way to resolve disagreements with the duly elected government. However, in the previous paragraph he argues that might makes right:

And how does choosing a white, rich old man with an offensive degrading speech about the war of “Northern Aggression” as NRA president forward a sense of reasonableness? History lesson: It was an awful Civil War won decisively some 150 years ago. Over slavery. The Confederacy wanted to keep African-Americans in chains and President Lincoln didn’t.

Sure, there were states’ rights issues, but nullification, secession, and treason were settled at Appomattox Courthouse. Sure, Reconstruction left a bad taste. But, resurrecting these same things, the way South Carolina is as we speak, is to invite a return to the whole concept of a Union.

This man isn’t too bright if he thinks the Civil War was about slavery. If that were the case slavery would have been illegal in the Union but it wasn’t. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation would have only ended slavery in Confederate states that refused to rejoin the Union by January 1863. Slavery was one minor issue amongst a great many. What started the session movement that preceded the Civil War was the United States government’s continuous encroachments on the powers reserved for the individual states. In other words the Confederate states were sick of the federal government and decided to vote with their feet. They left the Union peacefully and formed a confederacy.

The Union wasn’t very happy with such open disobedience. Eventually the war broke out and the Union used violence to coerce the Confederate states to rejoin the Union even though the duly elected government of the Confederate states chose a different option. According to the author armed rebellion against a duly elected government is treason except when it’s not.

The closing of this op-ed is where the real content is. In three short paragraphs the author demonstrates just how much of an authoritarian blood thirsty psychopath he really is:

Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.

To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”

Except it won’t be a boot. It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good.

According to the author he is normally a peaceable man except when people disagrees with his position on gun control. He’s all for murdering those people with guns. In fact he wants to suppress free speech so badly he’s willing to use weapons of war to kill anybody who expresses an opinion different from his own. Think about that for a minute. A man who opposes guns wants tanks, fighter jets, and Hellfire missiles used on people who have, according to his accusation, done nothing more than express an opinion that differs from his own. I’m starting to think that the author has a shrine to Pol Pot somewhere in his domicile.

Also, if the author doesn’t believe people with rifles can stand up to the American war machine he should read The Sling and the Stone by Colonel Thomas X. Hammes. The United States hasn’t fared well against poorly equipped opponents.

In Washington DC No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Washington DC really is a hive of scum and villainy. Good deeds are frowned upon so severely that performing one will result in you being fined:

The horrific incident that spawned the investigation occurred on a Sunday afternoon in late January as 11-year-old Jayeon Simon and his friend rode bicycles near Eighth and Sheridan streets Northwest in the Brightwood neighborhood. According to court records filed in D.C. Superior Court, three unleashed pit bulls pounced on Jayeon and attacked him.

Seeing the attack, Mr. Srigley went inside his home to get his Ruger 9 mm pistol while several other men hopped over fences to get away from the dogs, court records state.

From behind the wooden fence of his front lawn, Mr. Srigley began firing at the dogs.

Good on Mr. Srigley, his actions likely save that boy’s life. However the local police were unhappy with one minor detail:

Authorities last week made an agreement not to prosecute a Northwest D.C. man who used his unregistered handgun to kill a pit bull in order to stop it from mauling a child in his neighborhood.

Most people, at least I hope, would overlook the fact that Mr. Srigley used an unregistered firearm. After all he did save the live of a child with it. In fact such a scenario may point out a flaw of mandating all firearms be registered. If people like Mr. Srigley can use an unregistered firearm to save a life why should he be burdened by registration laws? Considering the massive number of hoops and hurdles, not to mention the sheer costs, one has to jump through to legally obtain and register a firearm in Washington DC it’s likely Mr. Srigley wouldn’t have had it had he complied with the law. Had he not been in possession of a firearm one boy would likely be dead. But logic doesn’t play into the state’s decrees:

As part of the agreement, Benjamin Srigley, 39, was required to pay a $1,000 fine but will not have criminal charges filed against him for the three unregistered firearms and the ammunition that investigators found in his possession, said Ted Gest, a spokesman for the office of the attorney general.

“We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” Mr. Gest said.

They took into account that Mr. Srigley saved the boy’s life and that consideration still leads to a $1,000 fine? That’s cold. But what else can you expect from America’s most corrupt city? Let this be a lesson to everybody, don’t go into Washington DC thinking you can help people. The local police department isn’t going to let you off the hook for doing good.

Gun Control is More of a Fantasy Every Day

In a way I almost feel sorry for advocates of gun control. While they may be able to get some laws passed in certain individual states it matters not because fabricating firearms in the home is becoming easier every day. Somebody managed to print a functioning evolution of the Liberator on a consumer-grade 3D printer:

When high tech gunsmith group Defense Distributed test-fired the world’s first fully 3D-printed firearm earlier this month, some critics dismissed the demonstration as expensive and impractical, arguing it could only be done with a high-end industrial 3D printer and that the plastic weapon wouldn’t last more than a single shot. Now a couple of hobbyists have proven them wrong on both counts.

One evening late last week, a Wisconsin engineer who calls himself “Joe” test-fired a new version of that handgun printed on a $1,725 Lulzbot A0-101 consumer-grade 3D printer, far cheaper than the one used by Defense Distributed. Joe, who asked that I not reveal his full name, loaded the weapon with .380 caliber rounds and fired it nine times, using a string to pull its trigger for safety.

Here’s a video of the gun firing:

At this point it’s pretty safe to say anybody with a decent 3D printer can print a firearm. Still, a $2,000 3D printer is out of the price range of many people, but that’s OK. Let’s not forget the person who created an AR lower out of hand tools and polymer. There was also the guy who fabricated an AK receiver out of a shovel.

Gun control has been a fantasy for a long time but it keeps becoming more of a fantasy every day.

Blogger Burnout

While I seldom involve myself in the great gun blogging community shenanigans there are events that do occur that I feel are newsworthy. One of my favorite bloggers to read, Linoge over at Walls of the City, has announced that he’s ducking out of the game. I will miss his writings but I understand his reasoning:

Now that we have gotten the stuff you do not care about out of the way, on to the things you might care about. As you may have noticed, I did not update this site for over a week, and, honestly, you had better get used to it. In addition to typing being a literal pain, I do this whole “weblogging” thing for me, not you, and, frankly, it has stopped being fun. I am tired of defending my Constitutionally-protected human rights from people who do not give a damn about my rights, me as a human being, or anything except their need to feel good, acquire power, or both. I am tired of watching my country be actively destroyed, knowing that nothing I can say or do will realistically change the outcome. I am tired of dealing with the passive-aggressive frakwits, back-stabbing, elitist prats, and/or self-appointed, petty gods-in-their-own-minds who seem to be infesting the gunblogging community these days… which, probably, was inevitable once it started moving from “community” to “industry”.

I went through this same phase some time ago. There is only so much one can say regarding guns and gun rights until they begin repeating themselves. At one point you eventually counter every argument advocates of gun control can bring forth (they seldom develop new arguments after all) and are left regurgitating the same stuff you’ve written 100 times before whenever some zealot who hates your guts for the sole reason that you disagree with their belief slithers across your path. Repetition sucks the fun out of life, especially when you’re repeating unpleasant encounters with people who hate you because you’re you. Such annoyances are amplified when people who claim to be part of your community begin moving against you.

Unless you’re being paid to write the burden of repetition eventually becomes greater than the joy attained from writing. Reaching this point, along with gaining a new understanding of statism, is what caused me to shift my focus from writing primarily about guns and gun rights to writing material about anarchism, alternatives to statist environmentalism, online privacy and security, etc. I enjoy writing but I don’t enjoy many of the side effects of writing about guns and gun rights. Between gun control advocates who want us dead and infighting within the gun rights community it can be a pain in the ass to blog about guns.

I’m surprised the blogger burnout rate isn’t higher in all honesty. There are some downright nasty individuals in the gun control movement and many very opinionated individuals in the gun rights movement. In such an environment stress can build quickly and fun can cease to exist. Did I mention that the pay sucks?

Adam Kokesh Arrested

Adam Kokesh, the man who has won some notoriety in the gun rights community for planning an armed march in Washington DC, has been arrested:

Former marine, radio host and political activist Adam Kokesh was arrested at a marijuana legalization assembly in Philadelphia today, according to video and Facebook posts.

In a video of the Smoke Down Prohibition rally, policemen can be seen entering a crowd of activists, and shortly afterwards emerging with Kokesh in tow.

According to his Facebook page, Kokesh was reportedly hauled away in a white Chevy Suburban, although he “hadn’t even smoked yet,” while “other protesters were actually smoking and released after arrest…”

When I discussed Kokesh’s planned march I mentioned the possibility of his arrest happening before the event. It’s no atypical for the state to begin harassing somebody who is publicly making a mockery of its power so it comes as no surprise that the man who is planning to lead an armed march on Washington DC has not been arrested. At this point the arrest could be pure harassment or it could lead to actual charges, which would make this entire situation far more interesting.

Movies are Now Reality

John Tierney, a politician from Massachusetts, is introducing a bill that would require all firearm to be equipped with technology that prevents them from being used by anybody besides its owner. What makes this case interesting isn’t the legislation but Mr. Tierney’s justification:

A House Democrat inspired by the last James Bond movie has offered legislation to produce handguns with “personalization technology.”

The idea is to produce guns that can only be used by the gun’s owners. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) cited the latest James Bond movie, “Skyfall,” as inspiration for the bill.

Technology appearing in movies is now real? Awesome!

Seriously, my life is going to be so much better with a giant walking robot!

Be Afraid

Reporters from The Daily Mail demonstrated, what they thought to be, the danger 3D printed firearms pose to society at large:

The Mail On Sunday today exposes the massive international security risk posed by a gun that can be easily made with new 3D printers.

We built the weapon, which is capable of firing a live round, from blueprints available on the internet – then smuggled it on to a packed Eurostar train.

Two reporters passed completely unchallenged through strict airport-style security to carry the gun on to a London to Paris service in the weekend rush-hour, alongside hundreds of unsuspecting travellers.

The reaction you’re supposed to have is, “Oh. My. God. Violent psychopaths are going to board our trains and planes with 3D printed guns and kill us all! Quick, government, save us!”

The reaction you should have is, “So? New technological advances have always outpaced current security measures.”

What the reporters discovered was an inherit danger in 3D printed firearms, it was an inherit danger in relying on security measures to protect you from evildoers. We humans, being creative creatures, have a knack of bypassing every security measure we implement. Did you put a lock on your door? No problem, a determined burglar will merely pick it open. Did you put a very secure lock on your door? No problem, a determined burglar will kick in one of your basement windows. Did you install a security system that automatically alerts the police if somebody enters your home? No problem, a burglar can be in and out before the police have a chance to respond.

We see this with airport security. Violent criminals have tried all manners of devious methods to bypass airport security. Metal detectors are ineffective at finding explosives. Bag checks can work if explosives are in a bag but fail if the explosives are concealed in a shoe. Body scanners can work to see concealed weapons, unless that weapon is smuggled in a body cavity.

Do 3D printed firearms really pose a great threat to passengers of trains and planes? Potentially, but not because the device can bypass security at gates. The threat comes from the centralized security models usually implemented on mass transit systems. Once you’re beyond the gate you’re almost entirely defenseless because it’s assumed that the train is a secured because passengers were required to go through the designated security checkpoint. In reality a clever person can either bypass those checkpoints or smuggle weapons through them.

There is no such thing as a “secured area.” Whatever mechanisms are used to secure the “secured area” can be bypasses, which will make that “secured area” and “unsecured area.” The only real option when it comes to implementing security is to decentralize is. Relying on a security checkpoint is akin to relying on police protection. Both systems have a handful of major failure points. If I can get a weapon beyond a security checkpoint I will likely enjoy free reign. So long as I can commit my crime before the police arrive I have a good chance of escaping, or at least completing my intended goal.

Being able to smuggle a 3D printed gun past security is only a threat because the people in the “secured area” are almost entirely defenseless.

You Can’t Stop the Signal

It finally happened, the state finally made it’s move to suppress 3D printable firearms:

On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable “Liberator” handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group’s website Defcad.org, while it reviews the files for compliance with export control laws for weapons known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson’s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.

“Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with final [commodity jurisdiction] determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled,” reads the letter, referring to a list of ten CAD files hosted on Defcad that include the 3D-printable gun, silencers, sights and other pieces. “This means that all data should be removed from public acces immediately. Defense Distributed should review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any other data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.”

I think we all knew this was coming. To tell the truth I hoped it would come. This was the overt act of censorship that was needed kick the Streisand effect into action and, in so doing, ensure that the 3D printer models created and hosted by Defense Distributed will never die. As it stands the number of seeds for the Defense Distributed files has jumped to several hundred. I’ve even found a Tor hidden service that is hosting the files (you need to use the Tor Browser Bundle to access that link). As I’ve heard several people say, you can’t stop the signal.

As I stated in my post explaining methods to render the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) irrelevant, the need for anonymity and strong encryption is greater today than ever. The state is trying to spy on our communications and censor material posted online. While some may wish to beg the state to allow information to flow freely we know they aren’t going to comply. Because of their desire to control information we must bypass their ability to detect and censor information they find objectionable.

When the state makes attempts like this to censor information it allows us to test our ability to preserve said information. As it stands more people have downloaded the 3D printer models provided by Defense Distributed than would have if the state hadn’t made an effort to censor the models. In fact I’ve had several friends who were uninterested in 3D printed guns ask if I knew where to get the files. Now that the files have been declared verboten everybody wants a copy. The state really shot themselves in the foot with this one.

How the Iron Law of Prohibition Relates to Firearms

While I understand that the most zealous gun control advocates are unlikely to listen to me because they believe I’m a psychopathic murderer who wants to kill children I know that there are a lot of logical individuals who currently advocate for gun control because they believe it will lead to a safer society. This post is for the latter group. I recently came across an interesting post on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website discussing the effects of cannabis prohibition:

Super potent pot is not a market failure. It is simply the result of government prohibition. In fact, it is one of the best examples of the iron law of prohibition. When government enacts and enforces a prohibition it eliminates the free market which is then replaced by a black market. This typically changes everything about “the market.” It changes how the product is produced, how it is distributed and sold to consumers. It changes how the product is packaged and in particular, the product itself. The iron law of prohibition looks specifically at how prohibition makes drugs like alcohol and marijuana more potent. The key to the phenomenon is that law enforcement makes it more risky to make, sell, or consume the product. This encourages suppliers to concentrate the product to make it smaller and thus more potent. In this manner you get “more bang for the buck.”

During alcohol prohibition (1920-1933), alcohol consumption went from a beer, wine, and whiskey market to one of rotgut whiskey with little wine or beer available. The rotgut whiskey could be more than twice as potent of the normal whiskey that was produced both before and after prohibition. The product is then diluted at the point of consumption. During the 1920s all sorts of cocktails were invented to dilute the whiskey and to cover up for bad smells and tastes.

The iron law of prohibition states that “the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes.” When a substance is prohibited the sellers and buyers of that substance have a vested interest in delivering the most bang for buck because the more of that substance they possess the harder it is to conceal. Small amounts of cannabis can be concealed in film canisters, flashlights (just take out the batteries), cell phones (once again, remove the battery), and any other object that has a hallowed out space. Large amounts of cannabis cannot be concealed so easily and therefore detection by law enforcement becomes much easier.

While the iron law of prohibition relates to drug prohibitions I think it’s also applicable to other forms of prohibition. Let’s look at the type of firearms preferred by violent criminals:

New state stats show that firearms were responsible for more than 58% of the murders statewide last year — but the biggest problem was handguns.

Of the 769 homicides reported in 2011, 393 were the result of handguns. There were 16 deaths by shotgun, five by rifle, and 33 by an unknown “firearm-type,” the state Division of Criminal Justice Services reports.

The Department of Justice’s Guns Used in Crimes [PDF] report backs that claim:

Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns. pages 1 & 2

This makes sense when you consider the iron law of prohibition. Much like cannabis buyers and sellers, violent criminals, especially ones who are prohibited from possessing firearms, have a vested interest in firearms that can be concealed from law enforcement. Laws prohibiting individuals from lawfully carrying firearms didn’t discourage people from carrying firearms, it merely made the need to possess concealable firearms greater. The same can be said for prohibiting certain individuals from carrying firearms, they now seek firearms that can be easily concealed.

This brings up an interesting consequence of enacting even stricter gun control laws. What would happen if advocates of gun control were able to achieve their goals of a partial or complete prohibition against firearms? Firearm manufacturing and transfers wouldn’t stop, they would simply move underground (or further underground in the case currently prohibited firearm transfers). In addition to moving underground the demand for firearms that deliver more bang for their buck would increase. Firearms would likely become more potent by decreasing in size, becoming more difficult to detect, and, potentially, increasing in power. Resources would be invested in working around the prohibition by making firearms that are more difficult for law enforcement officers to detect.

As it currently stands the demand for difficult to detect firearms is relatively low. Those of us who carry a concealed firearm want one that is difficult for the average person to detect but we usually care little if our firearm is easy for law enforcement agents to detect. Resources are put into making concealable firearms but not undetectable firearms. Criminals tend to favor currently produced firearms because they are cheaper than developing alternatives (everything is subject cost-benefit analysis). Few criminals are going to invest the resources in producing more potent firearms when currently available firearms are good enough. That would likely change under a stronger or complete prohibition. Suddenly the investment in resources to develop very difficult to detect firearms would make sense.

Prohibitions have consequences. When alcohol was prohibited in the United States manufacturers began distilling extremely potent liquors to deliver more bang for buck. The current cannabis prohibition has resulted in a similar outcome, cannabis today is far more potent then it was before the prohibition. A firearm prohibition would likely result in the same outcome, firearms would become more difficult to detect and potentially more powerful. This is something that advocates of gun control should consider when asking themselves if a prohibition would actually lead to a safer society.

The Bringers of Violence

As I pondered the outcome of Kokesh’s armed march on Washington DC I assumed that if violence was to break out it would happen because the state initiated it. As it turns out Washington DC’s police chief may prove me right:

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier was firm in her response. “If you’re coming here to protest government policy, great,” she told NewsChannel 8 yesterday. “If you’re coming here to break the law, we’ll take action.” She added, “There’s a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.” Lanier better hold true to her admonition because nothing good will come of this.

In other words they won’t allow anybody with guns into Washington DC and if anybody with a gun tries to enter Washington DC the police will send people with guns to stop them. That sounds rather hypocritical now that I think about it.