Tag: Gun Rights

Failing to Find Fault with Stand Your Ground Laws

Miguel over at Gun-Free Zone pointed out the current results of the Florida study that was put together in an attempt to find fault with the state’s stand your ground law. Needless to say the study has found nothing demonstrating anything negative about the stand your ground legislation so they’re listing the study as inconclusive:

Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll has repeatedly said that the task force commissioned to look into Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law will make its decision based on facts, not emotions.

But Carroll and 18 other task force members learned Wednesday that those facts — like many stand your ground cases — can be difficult to pin down.

A University of Florida professor presented a slew of data tracking trends in crime, gun ownership and tourism since the 2005, but ultimately concluded that no definitive connections could be made yet to the stand your ground law.

“The data that we collected in response to the task force request is insufficient to provide a conclusion on this issue,” said professor Monique Haughton Worrell of UF’s law school. “It’s a complex issue, requiring complex analysis.”

That last paragraph is a long winded way of saying they want to continue collecting a pay check for performing this unneeded study. Why do I say the study is unneeded? Because stand your ground legislation is merely the legalization of self-defense, which one shouldn’t need special state permission to do. Stand your ground legislation merely states that you have a right to defend yourself against an aggressor anywhere you have a right to be. It doesn’t give you the right to murder somebody in cold blood or to trespass on another’s property and claim self-defense if you attack the owner when he tries to remove you. It’s common sense and shouldn’t even need to be legalized by legislation, legitimate self-defense should never be illegal.

More of the Same

During the Democratic National Convention (DNC) Dianne Feinstein announced that she was going to continue being bigoted towards gun owners:

Dianne Feinstein announced Wednesday that she’s re-entering the battle over gun control during her keynote speech to the California delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

[…]

She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce “an updated assault weapons bill.”

At the delegates’ breakfast, she said that, “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.”

Bigotry is irrational so it’s not surprising to see Feinstein invalidate her own argument for introducing a new “assault” weapon ban. Specifically she stated that, “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.” In many states it’s illegal to carry long arms of any sort unless they are unloaded and in a locked case. There is a federal prohibition against carrying firearms into public schools so one cannot legally bring an “assault” weapon into a classroom. Many theaters, including most of the theaters in the Twin Cities, post notification against carry weapons on the property. Each of the locations she mentioned have currently established restrictions (some are prohibitions left up to the property owner while others are legal prohibitions) against carrying “assault” weapons within. If current gun control laws have failed to stop weapons from entering gun-free zones how will passing more gun control laws change anything?

Feinstein is so obsessed with her crusade against gun owners that she doesn’t even see the fallacy in her own arguments.

The Real Threat

Advocates of gun control generally want to disarm “civilians” but allow military and police members to keep their firearms. Since gun control advocates always claim their crusade is done in the name of stopping violence, yet their justification and what they advocate directly conflict:

Two events this past week clearly illustrated a reality that has long been understood by firearm trainers, but is virtually unknown to the public – that most cops are really poor shots with a handgun, placing the public at great risk when they engage in shootouts with suspects, while many civilians who regularly carry guns are far less likely to hit innocent bystanders.

[…]

But how can this be? Aren’t police officers “highly trained” experts in the use of firearms? The short answer is NO. Contrary to the claims of politicians like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and the fantasy world of television, where law enforcement characters spend endless hours at the gun range honing their skills, in reality most police officers go to a shooting range only ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR. And when they get there, they usually fire no more than one box of ammunition – a mere 50 rounds.

True, there are exceptions – some of my cop friends practice regularly, including participating in “combat” shooting competition. As a result, they are highly skilled, and would likely be far more effective than most of their fellow officers, should they become involved in an actual shooting confrontation. But the problem is that they are exceptions.

Compare that to civilian handgun permit holders, many of whom practice monthly, if not weekly, and firing hundreds of rounds at each session. I myself shoot approximately 75 times a year (twice a week in Summer, and at least once a week in Winter). Now, I am a professional firearm instructor, and thus not the norm, but I can attest to the fact that I often run into my students at the range, so I am by no means an anomaly.

The real threat to public safety aren’t permit holders, it’s the police. Police officers have a dangerous combination of legal immunity from consequences resulting in their poor shooting and an utter lack of training with the weapons they care everyday. Little motivation exists for police officers to improve their skill as they are seldom held responsible for any “collateral damage” they cause. Meanwhile many permit holders are gun enthusiasts who practice shooting on a regular basis and realize there are severe legal consequences to shooting innocent bystanders. Who would you trust more with a firearm?

Carrying Multiple Guns

I had an interesting conversation with one of my friends regarding carrying multiple firearms. My friend is a big proponent of the “Two is one and one is none” philosophy and, as you can guess, he carries multiple firearms. Meanwhile I generally only carry my Glock 30SF. Carrying a gun or multiple guns is really an issue of risk mitigation.

The reason I carry a firearm is to give myself a fighting chance should another individual wish to initiate violence against me or mine. When I assess risk I determine that the chance of being violently attacked is greater than any detriment inflicted on my person from carrying a firearm. In all seriousness I’ve been carrying a firearm for so long that I don’t even notice it’s there. My holster prevents any sharp corners on my pistol from poking me and the most discomfort I get when carrying is sweat buildup under my holster in the summer (which I generally mitigate by switching to an outside-the-waistband holster and covering it with an untucked shirt). I also carry two additional magazines on my person because the risk of a magazine failing or being attacked by numerous assailants is higher than the discomfort of carrying the additional magazines (I wear 5.11 Covert Cargo pants that have two pistol magazine pouches in the front concealed pockets so there is no discomfort wrought from carrying additional magazines). What I generally don’t carry is an extra gun.

I do own a backup gun, a Ruger LCP, but carry it mostly in the front pocket of my coat during the winter (I wear a military surplus Swiss greatcoat in the winter and am unable to quickly access the Glock 30SF on my hip). There are also a few occasions where I’ve carried my LCP because maximum concealment was my primary concern (one case was at my grandfather’s funeral where the sight of any firearm would have caused unnecessary hysterics as many members of my extended family are hoplophobic). Needless to say my LCP gets quite a bit of use, just not as a backup gun. I haven’t found a method of carrying a backup gun that doesn’t involved discomfort. While I recognize there is a risk of my primary firearm failing so catastrophically that is becomes entirely useless it is fairly low. Glock pistols (along with most modern combat pistols) are generally known for their reliability. The chances of me being attacked are low but not low enough that I forego carrying a firearm. The chances of me being attacked and my carry gun failing are extremely low and I can’t justify the added discomfort of carrying another pistol for such a low risk.

During our conversation my friend admitted that the risk is low but asked if it was low enough to bet my life on. It is. There are other risks that are so low that I’m willing to bet my life on them. I don’t carry a rifle because the risk of being attacked by individuals clad in body armor is quite low, much too low to justify lugging around my LR-308 everywhere I go. Speaking of body armor, I don’t wear any. The risk of being shot do not outweigh the constant discomfort I would have to suffer if I wore body armor 24/7.

Life is risky and we must each assess the risk we face and mitigate it as much as we feel necessary. Some people feel the risk of being attacked and having their primary sidearm fail is high enough to warrant carrying a backup gun. Soldiers in foreign countries believe the risk of being shot is high enough to justify wearing body armor at all times, even in the desert. Most people seem to believe the risk of getting into an automobile accident are high enough to warrant wearing a seat belt. Ultimately we much each assess the risk we face and determine what methods are justifiable to mitigate that risk. There are no right or wrong answers and you and only you know the risks you face and what measures are justifiable to mitigate it. Gun control advocates make the mistake of believing they know what is justifiable for other people. They believe the chances of being attacked are so minor that nobody is justified in carrying a firearm. Are they right? No, because they do not know what risks each individual faces and therefore cannot know what is and isn’t justifiable to mitigate those risks.

It’s Good to See the Democrats Aren’t Failing to Disappoint

After the Republican National Convention (RNC) it appeared as though the Republican Party would be claiming a near monopoly on targeting specific demographics for state hostilities. Thankfully the Democratic Party appear to have come through at the last minute and returned balanced to an unbalanced equation:

The Democrats’ approach to gun control is far too timid and needs a boost of courage to be effective, some leading gun-control advocates are charging.

The draft language of the Democrats’ 2012 platform — set for a final vote this week in Charlotte, N.C. — argues that current safeguards protecting the public against gun violence are insufficient and urges “an honest and open conversation about firearms.”

The document also calls for “reasonable regulation” governing guns, including laws banning assault weapons and requiring all gun sellers — not just licensed dealers — to perform background checks on potential buyers.

While the Republican Party continues its crusade against homosexuals the Democratic Party continues its crusade against gun owners. I refuse to condemn my gay friends to a state that is hostile towards them and I refuse to condemn myself and my gun owning friends to a state that is hostile towards us. This is where I would make some quip about no longer being willing to vote for either party but I crossed that bridge a long time ago.

Isn’t it funny how politics always ends with one side gaining at the expense of another?

When No Right of Self-Defense is Recognized

When the right of self-defense isn’t recognized stories like this start cropping up:

The man is believed to have grabbed a legally owned gun after they were disturbed by the break-in early yesterday.

He is understood to have fired at the intruders who then fled the isolated house at Melton Mowbray, Leics, before calling the police.

Minutes later, an ambulance was called to treat a man with gunshot injuries nearby. It is understood that call was made by one of the suspected burglars.

The arrested man’s mother said: “This is not the first time they have been broken into.

“They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty.

In the United Kingdom self-defense often goes unrecognized by the state, which leaves individuals at a severe disadvantage when facing aggressors. Why should a man be put into a cage for shooting would-be burglars? In such situations home owners can’t know the intent of apparent burglars. Are they breaking into the home merely to take stuff or are they breaking in to hurt or kill somebody living there? The only certainty in such situations is that the people breaking into the home don’t have noble intentions.

Arresting home owners who defend themselves is nothing more than a form of victim blaming. Instead of arresting the aggressors the state arrests the victims, which sets a precedence that says home owners should wait until apparent burglars caused actual bodily harm before retaliating. Of course by that time the home owner would be dead or mortally wounded, but the state doesn’t care about individuals it only cares about power.

Where Gun Control Advocate Should Start Supporting

Advocates of gun control always want to take away guns from private individuals but have no problem with the state keeping its guns. While they claim to support gun control because they oppose violence the exact opposite is true since the state is the most violent user of weaponry:

Let me say immediately that I too believe in gun control. However, I do so in the light of the knowledge that by far the largest number and the most powerful guns and other weapons are in the possession of the government. First and foremost, of course, the federal government, which has atomic and hydrogen bombs, as well as ballistic missiles with which to deliver them, fleets of warships, and thousands upon thousands of tanks, planes, artillery pieces, machine guns, and lesser weapons. State and local governments also possess considerable weaponry, though less than the federal government. But just the revolvers, rifles, shot guns, clubs, tear gas, and tasers in their possession are capable of causing serious injury and death, and frequently do so.

Moreover, the threat of deadly force is implicitly present in every law, regulation, ruling, or decree that emanates from any government office, at any level. The threat of such force is what compels obedience on the part of the citizens. Even such an innocuous offense as a parking violation is capable of resulting in death if a person persists in not paying the fine imposed and, when ultimately confronted with arrest, resists by physically defending himself.

[…]

It simply doesn’t occur to many people nowadays that government could be the source not only of massive economic ills but of human deaths on a scale dwarfing the deaths caused by the worst individual psychopaths. The number of murders attributable to governments around the world in the 20th century, including those resulting from government-caused famines in places such as the Ukraine and Communist China, is estimated to exceed 260 million. Of this total, Communist China is responsible for more than 76 million, the Soviet Union for almost 62 million, and Nazi Germany for almost 21 million (R.J. Rummel, Death By Government [New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1994], note 1). Of particular note, approximately 2 million of the murders committed by Nazi Germany were in the form of mass shootings, similar in nature to those in Aurora and Oak Creek, but performed on a scale commensurate with the size of military units.

Even the most violent of gangs fail to hold a candle to the state when it comes to murder. If advocates of gun control really opposed violence they would be demanding the state surrender its arms before even looking at guns owned by private individuals. Needless to say, while the state maintains possession of its weapons private individuals must do the same. Without weapons we are at the mercy of the state and history has demonstrated that being at the mercy of the state is not good for one’s health.

Mutual Defensive Aid

The police are poor providers of defense and that leaves us having to provide for our own defense (yet continue to pay for the police “defense”). Many of us provide for our defense by carrying firearms but that only allows you to defend your person; when you leave your home it remains undefended. A solution for the problem of an undefended home is to work with your neighbors in mutual neighborhood defense, which is what happened here:

Police said a neighbor who has a gun carry permit spotted a burglar next door and put the man on the ground.

Officers said James Kelly Glover, 37, of 1421 Wright St., was still lying down with a handgun trained on him when they arrived at the address on Jenkins Road.

It’s unfortunate that many people in the United States don’t know their neighbors. Your neighbors can be one of the most reliable groups to rely on because of their close proximity. When you leave for vacation your neighbors can pickup your mail and keep an eye on your house. If your neighbor sees something suspicious in the neighborhood they can inform you so you can keep an eye out yourself. You can even borrow a cup of sugar from them if the need arises.

Neighbors are good to have an if you’re on good terms with them they may even stop a burglar from taking your stuff.

Protecting and Service the Crap Out of You

It’s a good thing New York City has such strict gun control laws. Without those laws potentially dangerous individuals may be able to carry firearms. Imagine the insanity! A minor scuffle could turn into a wild shootout with innocent bystanders being gunned down by crazy gun-totting lunatics. Fortunately this isn’t the case because Mayor Bloomberg has ensured dangerous individuals can’t obtain firearms. What’s that? Gun control laws don’t apply to police officers? They only apply to you and me? I guess that explains this:

All nine people injured in Friday’s Empire State Building shooting were hurt as a result of police fire, New York’s police chief has confirmed.

During the incident, which was captured by surveillance cameras, police officers shot dead a gunman who had just killed a former work colleague.

Commissioner Ray Kelly said bystanders had been hit by bullets or fragments of bullets striking objects.

[…]

“It appears that all nine of the victims were struck either by fragments or by bullets fired by police,” said Commissioner Kelly.

This is one of the reasons why gun control laws are idiotic. Advocates of gun control demand that firearms be taken away from nonviolent individuals while letting violent state thugs keep their firearms. In essence individuals who are basically immune from consequences resulting from misdeeds are allowed to carry firearms while individuals who have to suffer the consequences of their misdeeds are left defenseless. This case shows what happens when legally shielded individuals who couldn’t care less about the lives of individuals employ firearms, they throw caution to the wind and act as though any caused damage is irrelevant. An individual beholden to the law, that is to say people like you and me, are generally far more careful because we realize employing our firearms can result is negative legal consequences on top of the potential loss of lives.

Lawful Carriers of Firearms can Return to the Front of the Bus

It seems that the University of Colorado Chancellor, Phil DiStefano, wasn’t amused by Professor Jerry Peterson’s attempt to make students lawfully carrying firearms sit at the back of the bus:

University of Colorado Chancellor Phil DiStefano notified the Boulder campus faculty Tuesday afternoon that professors “do not have the right to shut down a class or refuse to teach” should they learn that one of their students is lawfully carrying a gun under a concealed-carry permit.

And, DiStefano added, any faculty members who do so will be in violation of their contracts and face disciplinary action.

I guess bigotry isn’t as pervasively loved at the University of Colorado Boulder as Peterson’s statement first lead me to belief. Thank you Chancellor DiStefano for having common sense and good judgement. Let me also thank Uncle for this story.