Tag: Gun Rights

I Think Gifford’s Creation of a Gun Control Organization Speaks Volumes

Gabrielle Giffords, the senator who was shot in the head in Arizona, has decides to start her own organization to advocate for gun control:

A former US congresswoman who survived a gunshot wound to her head during a mass shooting has launched a campaign against gun violence.

Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions initiative aims to raise money for gun control efforts.

While I’m not one to criticize somebody for capitalizing on an event that befell them I think Gifford’s creation of a gun control advocacy group speaks volumes. Whenever a shooting occurs the only proposed solution we hear from claimed opponents of gun violence is more gun control. It’s almost as if the movement has no creativity. Even the National Rifle Association (NRA) managed to come up with a somewhat new, albeit misguided in my opinion, solution with their School Shield program. Why can’t claimed opponents of gun violence ever come up with something new and exciting? Do they ever advocate looking into the possible mental health side of gun violence? No. Do they ever advocate looking into the possible economic side of gun violence? No. It’s always a gun grab.

I think the lack of creativity demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the general gun control advocate. They seem to believe in a rigid hierarchy where the state is at the top, they are in the middle, the average person is below them, and gun owners are the lowest of scum. Their only solution seems to involve taking orders from the top by mindlessly obeying the state, which has a vested interest in disarming those it exploits. It would be nice if these petty authoritarians could jump off of the hierarchical ladder and begin thinking for themselves. Perhaps then they could comes up with some innovative ideas to address the root problem of violence.

Pot See Kettle, Calls it Black

Sometimes the abject hatred gun control advocates hold for anybody who disagrees with them is so blatant not even the densest of men can miss it. Consider Gawker, an online media company that is, rightfully, held in a fairly low regard with a great deal of the Internet. Reporting found on Gawker websites can range from poor to abysmal and sometimes even involves overt hypocrisy, as is the case with John Cook’s article titled Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City. In all fairness the author admits that his title isn’t entirely accurate as he doesn’t believe all gun owners are assholes:

(And for the record, they are not all assholes. Some of them need guns for legitimate reasons for their jobs, like providing security for assholes.)

As the title of the article implies, Mr. Cook decided to point out his belief that most gun owners are assholes by being an asshole. He posted a list of every name of every gun permit holder in New York City. Nothing demonstrates the vileness of your intellectual opposition like attempting to publicly shame them. Fortunately gun ownership in the United States is still generally accepted rendering Mr. Cook’s attempt at public shaming almost entirely ineffective.

I appreciate the actions taken by gun control advocates such as Mr. Cook. Their childish antics demonstrate a lack of maturity and put into question their sanity, which makes my job much easier. I hope Mr. Cook invests the great deal of time necessary to comb through the phone book in an attempt to tie addresses (which he was angry about not receiving) to names. Such a holy mission would take a great deal of time and that would hopefully keep him too busy to write articles, which would help his employer save some face by not having articles appearing on their front page that appear to be written by a person with questionable sanity.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Miguel at Gun-Free Zone posted an interesting article ran in the LA Times in 2007:

Police discourage autopsies that might reveal a higher homicide rate in their jurisdiction, and pressure doctors to attribute unnatural deaths to health reasons, usually heart failure, the group alleges. Odds are, it says, that people are getting away with murder in Japan, a country that officially claims one of the lowest per capita homicide rates in the world.

“You can commit a perfect murder in Japan because the body is not likely to be examined,” says Hiromasa Saikawa, a former member of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police security and intelligence division. He says senior police officers are “obsessed with statistics because that’s how you get promotions,” and strive to reduce the number of criminal cases as much as possible to keep their almost perfect solution rate.

Japan’s annual police report says its officers made arrests in 96.6% of the country’s 1,392 homicides in 2005.

But Saikawa, who says he became disillusioned by “fishy” police practices and in 1997 left the force in disgust after 30 years, claims that police try to avoid adding homicides to their caseload unless the identity of the killer is obvious.

This article brings up a problem with reported numbers, they’re often massaged in order to make an issue look better than it really is. Numbers can be massaged in many different ways. Japan apparently tries to avoid labeling deaths as homicides, likely in an attempt to make the country appear safer by keeping the number of reported homicides very low. This isn’t the only case of such shenanigans being used to argue a case.

Consider Chicago’s policy of reporting homicides that occur indoors separately from those occurring outdoors. Chicago’s police justify the separate categorization for indoor homicides by claiming that police were unable to intervene whereas police intervention is possible outdoors. In truth the separate categorization was likely done in order to make homicide numbers look lower.

Number massaging occurs elsewhere. The United States is often cited as having the highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation. On paper this statistic makes it appear as though the healthcare industry in the United States is woefully lacking, especially when compared to nations that have state run healthcare systems. When you dig into each country’s methodology for calculating those numbers notable differences arrise:

A 2006 report from WHO stated that “among developed countries, mortality rates may reflect differences in the definitions used for reporting births, such as cut-offs for registering live births and birth weight.” The Bulletin of WHO noted that “it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth”; those who did not survive were “completely ignored for registration purposes.” Since the U.S. counts as live births all babies who show “any evidence of life,” even the most premature and the smallest — the very babies who account for the majority of neonatal deaths — it necessarily has a higher neonatal-mortality rate than countries that do not.

When two countries have different methods of calculating infant morality rates comparing official statistics from those two countries will give unreliable results.

One must keep in mind that reported numbers are potentially inaccurate. Inaccuracies may arise due to manipulating numbers before they’re reported (as Japan apparently does by failing to report many homicides as homicides) or by manipulating numbers after they’re reported (as Chicago does by categorizing indoor and outdoor homicides separately). When making arguments based on reported numbers one must use caution. Without knowing how those numbers were generated they become potentially worthless. A country’s homicide rate may be reported as low but you must know how those homicide numbers are generated to know for sure.

Investigating the Connection Between Psychotropic Drugs and Mass Murders

This is interesting:

The Board of Directors and membership of the International Society For Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry send condolences to the people of Newtown, Connecticut on their horrific losses. Our hearts go out to the parents of the children who were killed and to the families and friends of the adults who were killed.

We are calling for an inquiry into the connection between these acts of mass murder and the use of psychotropic drugs. Although the media have cited family members and acquaintances saying Adam Lanza was taking prescription drugs to treat “a neurological-development disorder”, we do not know if he was on psychotropic drugs. But we do know that James Holmes, the Colorado batman shooter, had taken 100 milligrams of Vicodin immediately before he shot up the movie theatre

(1). And we do know that:

  • Christopher Pittman was on antidepressants when he killed his grandparents (2).
  • Eric Harris, one of the gunmen in the Columbine school shooting, was taking Luvox and Dylan Klebold, his partner, had taken Zoloft and Paxil (3).
  • Doug Williams, who killed five and wounded nine of his fellow Lockheed Martin employees, was on Zoloft and Celexa (4).
  • Michael McDermott was on three antidepressants when he fired off 37 rounds and killed seven of his fellow employees in the Massachusetts Wakefield massacre (5).
  • Kip Kinkel was on Prozac when he killed his parents and then killed 2 children and wounded 25 at a nearby school (6).
  • In fourteen recent school shoots, the acts were committed by persons taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs, resulting in over 100 wounded and 58 killed (7).
  • In other school shootings, information about the shooter’s prescription drug use and other medical history were kept from public records (7).

This connection between psychotropic drugs and mass murder is not coincidental. There is enough evidence that antidepressants cause increased risk of suicide and violence for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its Canadian counterpart to require that drug companies include a “black box” warning to that effect on their packages. Our first knowledge of this association between psychotropic drugs and violence came from studies completed in the early 1950s, (8).

I haven’t heard of the International Society For Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP) and do not know whether or not the organization is respected or reviled in the psychiatric community. With that said if the above information is accurate it would certain warrant some investigation. Psychotropic drugs are interesting as they work by directly interacting with the brain. Since we don’t fully understand the workings of the human brain yet unintended side-effects may very well spring up from the use of such drugs. Either way I’ll post more if more comes up.

Forgetting History

I think a few people have a severe case of forgetting history:

A Jewish community strongly supportive of gun control plus Jewish lawmakers eager to enact new gun control laws may bring Jews into a lead role as the nation debates federal measures to rein in mass murders at its malls and schools.

Jews advocating gun control? Did these individuals fail to read the history of their own people? Are they entirely ignorant of the fact that Nazi Germany disarmed the Jews before the Holocaust began? How any Jewish individual could support gun control is beyond me.

Gun Control Advocates Looking to Throw Everything at the Wall and Hope Something Sticks

It looks like the advocates of gun control in the White House are going to try throwing everything at the wall and hope something sticks:

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

Typical government, when something fails to work they try it again, only harder. Since penalties for carrying guns near schools and giving guns to minors didn’t stop the school shooting in Connecticut the government is looking at making the acts of carrying guns near schools and giving guns to minors more illegaler. That’s the exact opposite of a solution. It goes without saying that somebody who has murder in their hearts and is planning to kill themselves after their despicable deed is done isn’t going to be swayed by the consequences of breaking any law. Punishment means nothing when you don’t plan to be around to suffer it.

It also sounds like the federal government is looking into creating a national database of gun owners. Since each sale would require a background check private sales would be illegal. By requiring a background check and having a national database of firearm sales the establishment of a national gun registry would be trivial.

Make not mistake the state is going to exploit the Connecticut shooting for everything it’s worth.

Illinois Gun Ban Stopped for Now

Apparently the gun control advocates of Illinois were unable to get the votes necessary to ram through the gun control amendments . They’ve been pushed back for now:

There’s not enough support in the Illinois Senate to impose tough new restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

In a setback for gun-control advocates in the wake of the killings of school children in Connecticut, the Illinois Senate was poised to adjourn Thursday without voting on two pieces of legislation aimed at limiting access to certain kinds of weapons and bullets.

Hopefully things remain this way but we all know the politician’s mantra is “If at first you don’t succeed try again harder.” Although I doubt the proposed ban would hold up in court if passed it would still required resources to be invested in, what would likely be, a long drawn-out court battle.

Criminalizing the Act of Combining a Box and a Spring

It has begun. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced the The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which would outlaw boxes with inserted springs that are able to holder more than 10 rounds of ammunition:

As lawmakers return to Capitol Hill today to kick off the start of the 113th Congress, Democrats are already priming for a renewed battle over gun control, announcing the introduction of a bill banning high-capacity ammunition magazines before the first House session had been gaveled in.

The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which is being introduced by Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and is co-sponsored by Diana DeGette, D-Colo., would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That standard was the federal mandate between 1994 and 2004 under the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

As can be expected from McCarthy, she is outright lying in order to justify this arbitrary creation of new criminals:

“These assault magazines help put the ‘mass’ in ‘mass shooting’ and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America,” said McCarthy in a statement. “These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people. We don’t even allow hunters to use them – something’s deeply wrong if we’re protecting game more than we’re protecting innocent human beings.”

I’m not sure where McCarthy gets her information but in Wisconsin you can hunt with standard capacity magazines. If you go to Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) page you will see the proof:

Question 6: Is there a magazine size limit for hunting deer?

Answer: There is not a magazine capacity limit for deer hunting. Hunters may use any size magazine to hunt deer (3 round, 10 round, 30 round are common). Hunters in “shotgun only” areas are able to use as many slugs as their shotgun will hold (no plug needed).

Restrictions on magazine capacity for hunting use is a state-by-state issue, there is no blanket ban on the use of standard capacity magazines for hunting in this country. Once again we see Carolyn “Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy making up malarkey in order to justify her blatant attacks against lawful individuals.

Now that you’ve heard what this legislation is purported to do let’s consider what will actually do. If passed this legislation would make the combination of a box and a spring illegal if that combination is able to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. That mean this bill would authorize state agents to kidnap, imprison, and even murder an individual who has that magical combination of extremely simple objects.

At the rate things are going merely having the knowledge of how firearms operate will be a punishable offense. I hope advocates of gun control are happy. In their zeal to prevent violence they managed to introduce legislation that will initiate violence against lawful individuals possessing simple mechanical devices.

Another Reason Why I’m an Anarchist

People are often surprised to hear that I’m a self-proclaimed anarchist. Society still seems to hold the stereotype of anarchists being molotov cocktail throwing, graffiti spraying, bomb making, angst-filled teenagers. Reality is far different. A vast majority of anarchists I know are extremely peaceful, in fact they are anarchists because of the state’s reliance on force to make others obey its commands. There are many reasons why I’m a proponent of anarchism, one of those reasons is the way lawful individuals can be redefined as unlawful individuals with the stroke of a politician’s pen. Look at the current fiasco happening in Illinois:

An Illinois Senate committee approved restrictions Wednesday on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, despite criticism from gun-rights groups that the measures go too far and amount to an assault-weapons ban “on steroids.”

This entire fiasco in Illinois is insane. First of all the legislation in question isn’t coming in the form of separate bills, it’s coming in the forms of amendments to other bills. One of the amendments is attached to HB0815, which purports to:

Amends the Illinois Nuclear Safety Preparedness Act. Makes a technical change to a Section concerning the short title.

The other amendment is attached to HB1263, which purports to:

Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Provides that for a person convicted of criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, criminal sexual abuse, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse when the victim of any such offense at the time of the commission of the offense was under 18 years of age and the person had within the previous 20 years been convicted of any of those offenses when the victim of the offense at the time of the commission of the offense was under 18 years of age, the sentence shall be a term of natural life imprisonment.

Why does an amendment restricting shooting ranges, semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity magazines have to do with nuclear safety or sexual assault? Not a damned thing. But making these amendments to other bills increases the chances that the restrictions will pass, which is the sole goal of the gun control movement at the moment. Make no mistake the legislatures in Illinois are not concerned about what is best for the people living within that state. Their goal is to punish all gun owners and that punishment is coming in the form of changing the state’s status of gun owners from lawful to unlawful. With the simple stroke of a pen the lawful can be changed into the unlawful.

At no point did Illinois gun owners begin performing mass acts of violence. Nothing has changed between the time prior to the Connecticut shooting and after the Connecticut shooting that justifies labeling all gun owners as unlawful individuals. But the state claims the authority to turn anybody into a criminal at any time and for any reason. I can’t support such ideas. There is no way to justify changing somebody from a lawful individual to an unlawful individual without that person having done harm. This is one of the reasons I’m an anarchist. I believe somebody should only be labeled unlawful if they have brought actual harm against another. Somebody shouldn’t face punishment because somebody else did nothing more than sign a piece of paper.

Speculating the Reason Behind Releasing the Addresses of New York Gun Owners

Last week there was a bit of an uproar over a New York newspaper creating maps that show the names and addresses of registered gun owners in that state. In an attempt to defend its actions the paper released the following justification:

“We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president/news.

“People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods,” she said. “Our Freedom of Information request also sought specifics on how many and what types of weapons people owned. That portion of the request was denied.”

The more I read articles from advocates of gun control the more I’m beginning to believe that the publishing of those maps was nothing more than an attempt to bring harm to gun owners. Consider the potential consequences of releasing the names and addresses of gun owners directly after a politically charged event like the shooting in Connecticut. People were extremely angry and wanted an outlet for their aggression. The most popular outlet became gun owners, who were collectively blamed for the actions of the Connecticut shooter. By releasing the names and addresses of gun owners the newspaper gave angry individuals physical targets. Furthermore guns are known high-value items from criminals. Releasing a map of known gun owners also notified criminals of locations where guns are all but guaranteed to be. In fact the newspaper’s attempt to also obtain the number of type of firearms further adds to the possibility that they were trying to bring harm to gun owners. A house with multiple firearms is a more valuable target to criminals than a house with one or two.

It’s not a stretch to believe the newspaper really wanted to say “Citizens of New York, here are the addresses of those who threaten your wellbeing. Rise up, form lynch mobs, and kill them before they kill you!” and “Criminals of New York, here are the addresses of gun owners. Strike their homes, kill those dwelling within, and take their guns!” but were prohibited from legally doing so. Our society is one where advocating direct violence is socially ostracized but issuing thinly veiled threats, especially threats that can be written off as misunderstandings, are generally acceptable. Openly advocating the murder of gun owners wouldn’t generally go over well but providing potentially violent individuals with the information needed to unleash their aggression against gun owners goes without much real criticism.

Gun control advocates, while claiming to want peace, are often violent authoritarians. They want to state to use its capacity for violence against gun owners. When gun control advocates demand new laws prohibiting the ownership of specific arms they are advocating for the state to kidnap or murder any gun owners who refuse to surrender their firearms. People who advocate the use of violence against nonviolent individuals generally have little quarrel with any initiation of force so long as it’s used to advance their idea of the greater good.