Tag: Gun Rights

Citations and Anti-Gun Stupidity

Remember when I said that from here out I will demand citations when anti-gunners make claims? Here’s an example of why I am now making such demands:

Guns are not being manufactured in our neighborhoods. Somebody brings them in. Yet our Legislature and Congress refuse to do anything about gun trafficking.

Why can’t they require background checks before gun purchases at gun shows? The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has called gun shows a “major trafficking channel.”

Where did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) say that? What study specifically? Because according to the United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics less than 1% of crime guns came from gun shows:

In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

The reason they say 2% in that paragraph is because they’re lumping gun shows and flea markets together. The raw data given shows gun shows being a source of only 0.7% of guns possessed by inmates. You know what else? The Bureau of Justice Statistics also isn’t smuggling guns illegally into foreign countries unlike the ATF. Just pointing that out.

On top of that background checks are required to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers at gun shows and a vast majority of sellers are federally licensed dealers. If Mrs. Martens is so sure she can go and purchase a firearm without receiving a background check at a gun show I challenge her to try. From there she basically demonstrates that government regulations have lead to much of our social turmoil… while she’s demanding more government regulations. Hypocrisy thy name is Heather Martens:

We hear a lot about bad parenting, but less about the public policies that limit our ability to parent. The drug war has forced the mass incarceration of a generation of parents for drug offenses like possession of marijuana.

People of color are disproportionately sent to prison, despite similar rates of actual commission of crimes. Some parents can’t parent because they are in prison.

And when people come home after being in prison, they can’t get a job because most employers will not even look at an application from a person with any kind of prior conviction.

The result is that, for many people, it is easier to get a gun than to get a job.

So government regulations against the possession of certain substances have lead to parents being imprisoned which prevents them from being able to properly raising their children. Government regulations on the free market have lead to a collapsing economy which in turn has caused ever increasing unemployment. Yet if the government places further restrictions on firearms they will managed to not cause some kind of horrible series of side effects? That’s her logic? HA HA HA HA! I’m sorry I shouldn’t laugh but by Thor in Valhalla that’s a fucking hilarious attempt at logic if I’ve ever seen one. And she didn’t stopping shooting her argument in the foot there, not by any means:

The causes of gun violence are complex, while the effect of gun violence is very clear. It is devastating to families, communities and schools.

The causes of violence in general are complex. Yet with ever more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) gun laws violent crime has been on the decline nationally. On top of that violent crime in Minneapolis, the city where events have lead to the writing of the author’s article, is down.

That shows a negative correlation between stricter gun laws and decreases in violent crime but a positive correlation between more liberal (classical definition) gun laws and decreases in violent crime (again I’m not making the argument that correlation shows causality, I’m just pointing out that the author’s claims are wrong). Any person who had some basic cognitive capabilities would conclude stricter gun laws aren’t going to solve the problem. Finally she closes with the following:

It is time for us to stop assigning blame to others and to start looking at the policies we should support to make our communities safer.

If it’s time to stop assigning blame then why are you blaming inanimate objects? The blame is easy to assign, the person who initiated violence is at fault. Case closed.

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

Yeah I know I’m a bit late to the party on this but it’s better to be late than never show up right? H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, is a bill that once again attempts to require each state recognize carry permits from all other states.

I’m a big fan of any legislation that removes some teeth from the government (either state of federal). This bill would prohibit states from refusing to acknowledge carry permits from any other state (except Illinois since they are the last state without any form of legal carry). Although I have my doubts that this bill has a chance of passing I do hope it does. It would be nice if one of my so-called constitutionally guarantee rights were actually respected in this country.

The Sacrificial Lamb Has Been Found

The government has finally found its sacrificial lamb in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Fast and Furious fiasco, acting ATF director Melson. In fine government tradition of dealing with corruption not only was a single sacrificial lamb found but the lamb wasn’t actually sacrificed, instead it was simply moved somewhere else in the Leviathan:

The embattled head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is being replaced in the aftermath of a botched sting operation that allowed guns to knowingly fall into the hands of violent criminals in Mexico.

Kenneth Melson will be replaced as acting ATF director by U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday. Jones is expected to assume the new position on Wednesday. Melson is being reassigned as a senior adviser on forensic science in the Office of Legal Policy, the department said.

Your government at work.

Why We Need Guns in National Parks

The anti-gunners had their panties all in a bunch when legislation was passed that removed the prohibition against legally carrying a firearm in national parks. They went on tirades claiming there was no need for guns in these natural refuges. Well I’m here to tell you why we need the ability to carry guns in national parks; it’s because most animals are far more powerful than we are and without a weapon for self-defense we can’t hope to match them. As evidence I put forth the two grizzly bear related deaths in Yellowstone this year:

Wildlife agents are trying to capture a grizzly bear that killed a man in Yellowstone National Park, its second such fatality this summer.

The body of John Wallace, 59, from Michigan, was found on Friday along the Mary Mountain Trail.

Dan Wenk, a park superintendent, said there were no witnesses to the attack.

Fatal grizzly attacks are rare inside Yellowstone – the July attack on a Californian hiker was the first such incident in 25 years.

Although rare these things do happen and the only way a human can hope to stand up to something as powerful as a grizzly bear is if he or she increase their defensive capabilities. Anti-gunners will claim bear mace is equally or more effective than a firearm when defending against bears. I’m not an either or kind of guy and I would never criticize somebody for carrying a firearm and bear mace because some situations lend themselves well to one tool while other situations lend themselves well to the other. Having both increases your capabilities and should the bear mace not dissuade the bear from eating you a well placed shot from a high-powered firearm will likely do the trick.

The Sheepdog Mentality

In the carry movement there is a popular analogy involving sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. People who use to this analogy generally compare most people to sheep, bad guys to wolves, and those who carry to sheepdogs. Although I’ve used to analogy before I’ve moved away from it because I feel the analogy is flawed as a sheepdog is tasked with defending others while those who carry usually do so to defend themselves. Alan points out another interesting flaw in the analogy:

Sheep dogs are someone’s property and they help control other property. It sounds like a liberal’s fantasy of society. You know, the flock carefully tended and controlled with the sheep dog doing the master’s bidding.

I never thought about that before but it’s true. Personally I’m not a sheepdog, I’m a human being. The firearm I carry is for self-defense not the defense of others (unless you’re somebody important to me). If shooting starts that doesn’t involve me or somebody of importance to me I’m booking it and calling the police. Some may say that’s cowardly and to those people I say yes it is. I’m not ashamed of being a coward if that means taking actions that best improve my chances of survival. Shoot outs are not good for my health so I’ll not participate unless somebody forces me to.

I’m Sure Our Laws Are Also Responsible for The Black Death in Medieval Europe

We’re going to play the destroy-an-illogical-argument-with-critical-thinking game. This game is easy, I’ll present a scenario put forth by some idiot who the newspapers have judged as being worthy of coverage and you use critical thinking to find a flaw in the presented argument.

The scenario is as follows; and arsonist has come to your home, doused it in gasoline, and set it ablaze. Using your ability to think critically try to determine where the blame for the blaze should go. I’ll give you a few seconds to think about it.

If you said the arsonist was to blame then you win. On the other hand if you decided lax United States gun laws or the country’s war on drugs was to blame you’re now qualified to be the president of Mexico (and you’re an idiot but I repeat myself):

His voice cracking with emotion, President Felipe Calderon said Friday that the United States bore some blame for “an act of terror” by gangsters who doused a casino with gasoline and set a blaze that killed at least 52 people.

[…]

But in unprecedented, direct criticism of the United States, Calderon said lax U.S. gun laws and high demand for drugs stoked his nation’s violence. He appealed to U.S. citizens “to reflect on the tragedy that we are living through in Mexico.”
“We are neighbors, allies and friends. But you, too, are responsible. This is my message,” Calderon said.

He called on the United States to “once and for all stop the criminal sale of high-powered weapons and assault rifles to criminals that operate in Mexico.”

Because of the United State’s “lax” gun laws the arsonists who burned down the casino were able to… purchase gasoline? With stellar logic such as that I’m sure our “lax” gun laws were also partially responsible for the black death in medieval Europe. Heck those same laws probably caused the recent earthquake near Washington D.C. as well.

Why does anybody take Calderon seriously? The guy is obviously incapable of making logical arguments and likely has trouble tying his shoes. What happened in Mexico was a tragedy by all means but blame needs to be aimed at those who committed the crime.

A tip of the old Australian hat goes to Snowflakes in Hell for bringing this absurdity to my attention.

Cognitive Dissonance Strikes Again

Although I don’t make it obvious sometimes I do feel somewhat bad for anti-gunners. I can’t imagine living my life in fear every day as anti-gunners do. They have a fear that somebody will bring violence against them combined with a fear of taking action. As they fear taking action they want somebody else to do so in their name, which is what leads them to demanding the government strictly control or outright ban the private ownership of firearms. Pro-gun people are ones who have no fear of taking action, and subsequently dealing with the consequences. They realize that you can’t rely on others for your personal protection and that the only person who can keep you safe is you.

I think deep down inside anti-gunners realize that their attitude is self-defeating but don’t want to think about it. It’s likely this realization is what leads them to practice cognitive dissonance. Lionge did a masterful job of pointing out the logically fallacies in a comment made by an anti-gunner. As par for the anti-gunner course his comment was removed from the anti-gunner’s site and no other pro-gun comments were allowed to appear.

This happens time and time again, after an anti-gunners makes an false claim or comment about firearms somebody in the pro-gun community calls them on it. Usually a short back and forth ensues until the anti-gunners deletes all the pro-gun comments and enacts complete moderation powers on the post to ensure no further arguments in opposition to their beliefs appear. I honestly believe this is a defense mechanism used by those afraid to act; if they had to critically think they would realize they have no real choice by to act and suffer any consequences of their actions.

Violence Policy Center Caught Lying Again

Part of the reason the battle for gun owner rights is so easy to fight these days is because our opposition’s lies are so easy to point out. Miguel over at Gun Free Zone caught the Violence Policy Center lying yet again.

Namely they claimed Louisiana has the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the United States when in fact Washington D.C. (you know that federal district with extremely tyrannical gun control laws) does.

Everybody Carrying a Firearm in North Carolina is Now a Criminal

Bad news for those of you living in North Carolina, a filed a suit over this last year but it doesn’t appear as though a verdict has been declared.

So what should you do? Well I would never recommend anything illegal… according to a just system of law where victimless crimes don’t exist. Personally if I lived there I’d just carry anyways, your right to self-defense isn’t suspended because some politicians decide to declare an emergency. In fact I’d argue that during an emergency is when you would need your firearm most. Anyways, we all need to perform a little civil disobedience once in a while.

What the Hell is Wrong With Britain

Uncle is asking what is wrong with Britain and I want to know the same thing:

London schoolchildren are eligible for 125,000 Olympic tickets but these will not include any featuring guns, as Games organisers and City Hall fear a backlash from the anti-gun lobby.

What the fuck? The Olympics are fucking televised more heavily than almost any sporting event on the planet, the kids can watch these shooting sports at home but won’t be allowed to go to the actual event? Where the Hell is the sense in that? What the Hell is wrong with Britain? This makes no sense whatsoever… wait, I see what’s going on here:

Georgina Geikie, 26, a Commonwealth Games bronze medallist and Olympic pistol hopeful, said she was “horrified”, adding: “This is a chance for children to look at guns in a different way. They are taking away the opportunity for the sport to blossom. How do we educate people that it is a sport if they cannot watch it?”

The Olympics portray firearms in a positive light which would be a direct conflict to the state’s stance that guns are evil spawns of Satan. Seeing such an event may make children realize that guns aren’t actually evil devices forged in the fires of Hell but simple tools which can be used for good things. This type of thinking could then lead to the kids, after growing up, eventually lobbying to restore firearms rights in Great Britain which would lead to the serfs arming themselves and thus not being as easy for the state to control.

This is disgusting statism at its highest.