Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Making It Doubleplus Illegal

Everything can be solved by a prohibition. At least that’s what the statists believe. Back in the day the movie Die Hard had everybody convinced that a Glock handgun was made of plastic and porcelain and could therefore get past metal detectors. Although this was entirely fabricated the politicians latched onto it and pass the Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires the inclusion of at least 3.7 ounces of steel in any firearm so it can be detected by metal detectors. With the advent of 3D printed firearms many politicians again have their panties in a bunch. Several of them have taken action and introduced a bill that would require metal be included in any firearm design:

Plastic guns can be even more dangerous than traditional firearms because they’re harder to detect, says Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

The Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act, backed by Israel and several other Democrats, would prohibit the manufacture of entirely plastic guns. The legislation would require a major component of every gun to contain enough traces of metal to be detected.

Israel plans to unveil the legislation Tuesday during a press conference at LaGuardia Airport in New York City, where he will draw a connection between his bill and recent high-profile airport security lapses.

“If detectable weapons can make it through security checkpoints, how can we expect to catch wrongdoers carrying undetectable plastic firearms?” Israel told The Hill. “What could be worse than a gun that can be used on an airplane, but cannot be detected on the security line because it’s plastic?”

“It’s time to modernize our airport security so the American people can count on it,” he added.

So entirely plastic guns will now be doubleplus illegal! That will obviously solve the problem!

The number of laws on the books is now so extensive that even the politicians don’t know them all. Manufacturing entirely plastic guns has been illegal for a long time. In addition to the fact this bill is entirely redundant we also have the fact that 3D printed firearms still fire regular cartridges, which are made of metal. A plastic firearm with no ammunition is a worthless weapon. There is also the problem of who is administering airport security:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) failed a recent sting operation in which undercover agents sneaked fake explosives and weapons through airport security in 67 out of 70 tests, or about 95 percent of the time.

According to Israel (the politician, not the country) TSA’s 95 percent failure rating is one reason to pass this bill to make what is already illegal illegaler. I’m not sure how that makes sense since TSA hasn’t been missing plastic guns but actual metal guns. Something tells me Israel isn’t the sharpest tool in the congressional toolbox (but he is a tool).

It would be improper of me to not point out the most obvious flaw in Israel’s clever plan. Anybody who is willing to sneak a weapon onto a plane to kill people is not going to comply with a law that requires them to include metal in their 3D printed firearm. This law is therefore pointless on two levels.

Handling a Self-Defense Situation

Christopher Cantwell, who officially endorse me as a social justice warrior, got himself into a rather unpleasant self-defense situation. I’ve heard him discuss it on Free Talk Live and read numerous opinions about how he handled the situation. As this story is an intersection of anarchism (Cantwell, even though many of his writings would indicate otherwise, does consider himself an anarchist as I’ve learned) and gun rights I thought I’d offer my opinion (and don’t say you didn’t ask for it, you’re on my site so obviously you want to know what I think).

From what I’ve read and heard the situation began when Cantwell came across a physical altercation and pulled out his camera to record it. The people involved in the altercation decided they didn’t want to be recorded and the situation quickly escalated to the point where Cantwell felt threatened enough to draw his gun.

Cantwell and I may both be anarchists but we likely disagree on more things than we agree on. I mention this because it’s something I share with many gun rights advocates (the disagreeing with Cantwell part, not the being an anarchist part) and the general attitude of many of them seems to be that Cantwell acted stupidly. Because of the video and what he said about the situation I’m left to believe that the primary reason they find what he did to be stupid is because they just generally don’t like the guy and are unwilling to compliment him. The reason I believe this is because he actually handled the situation well.

The first criticism being aimed at him by his detractors is that he involved himself in the situation. Anybody who has taken a self-defense class will tell you that involving yourself in altercations between unknown individuals is not a wise idea. Of course standing aside could result in somebody being murdered. Therefore the question becomes whether the legal liability is so great that your conscious will allow you to walk away as somebody is potentially being murdered. I think Cantwell took a good middle path by recording the altercation. By doing so really can’t be said to have escalated the situation since his “involvement” was nothing more than being a witness. He didn’t approach the group and command them to knock it off or take sides. Instead he did the same thing any security camera would do, bear witness and make a record of what happened.

When the people involved in the altercation took notice of him they initiated another aggressive situation, this time involving Cantwell. First they commanded him to turn off his camera and then approached him when he refused. At this point leaving the camera on was the wisest decision he could have made because it create a record that shows he didn’t instigate the situation and even made an effort to back away. That’s a key point, as the aggressors approached he attempted to maintain space by backing away.

Where I disagree with that he did is when he informed the aggressors that he had a gun. My quibble with this is that you remove the shock factor drawing your firearm has and potentially convince you aggressors to draw their firearms that you were unaware they had. Having surprise on your side is good in a self-defense situation because it can cause your aggressors to stop for a second as they process the new circumstance. This is a minor quibble though as the situation didn’t change. Warning them that he was armed didn’t convince them to back off nor did they pull weapons on him. In the end it was one of those mid-situation tactics that you really have to decide for yourself based on the situation at hand as it’s unfolding.

In the end he drew his firearm and that convinced his aggressors that they should stop approaching and threatening him. As with most self-defense situations involving the defender drawing a firearm the situation was resolved without any shots fired, which is the best possible outcome when things have reached that point.

I really can’t see where Cantwell committed any major self-defense faux pas. People could argue that he didn’t have to involve himself by recording the altercation but if it ended up in a murder people would probably criticize him for not recording it. By choosing to record the situation rather than break it up he ensured his involvement was minimal and stood little chance of escalating matters. It’s a good middle ground between legal liability and decency.

Self-Defense is Not Victim Blaming

I came across a link on my Facebook feed of a page showing pictures of women being photographed with the objects they carry to defend themselves. My first response was to note how poor the items pictured were for self-defense. But then I came across something:

She believes the objects they’re holding represent a “larger reality of victim blaming”.

[…]

“These loaded objects on key chains where trinkets should be really do portray how women are expected to always be on guard to protect themselves…when the rapists should not be raping,” she said.

Self-defense isn’t victim blaming, it’s simply being prepared for a potential life threatening situation. While I agree that rapists shouldn’t be raping the fact of the matter is the universe is a cruel place and only grants us the ability to control our own actions. That means we must prepare ourselves for situations created by other people. Rape isn’t the only scenario where one may have to defend themselves. Assaults, muggings, burglaries, attempted murders, and an extensive list of other violent crimes are all situations one can find themselves in that were created by somebody else. Having a means of self-defense is no different than keeping a first-aid kit in your vehicle. Life happens and sometimes it requires the application of bandages.

Victim blaming can only exist when there is a victim. Telling somebody to have a means of self-defense, not to walk down a dark alley alone on the bad side of town at night, wear a seat belt, and lock their doors at night are not instances of victim blaming because no victim exists. When victim blaming comes into play is after a crime has been perpetrated. If you tell a rape victim they were at fault for being raped because they didn’t carry a gun then you are victim blaming. The victim wasn’t at fault for the crime. Only the person who initiated the aggression holds any culpability.

Having a means of self-defense is an acknowledgement that bad people exist. It’s also an acknowledgement that you cannot control their actions but can take measures to increase your odds of resisting them. Victim blaming is the belief that a person is somehow responsible for somebody else choosing to attack them.

Dealing with Riots

The Baltimore Police Department has managed to protect the community by causing a great deal of civil unrest. This is the perfect opportunity to discuss the most effective strategies for surviving riots. Being a gun blog you’re probably expecting me to tell people in Baltimore to buy a gun. Buying a gun for self-defense is a good idea but when we’re dealing with riots there is a more effective strategy:

Riots are not good situations to be caught up in. There are no factions with definable goals that can be satisfied to convince everybody to go home. If you’re caught up in a riot you risk being injured or killed by rioters or police officers who aren’t interested in figuring out who is a rioter and who is merely caught up in the mess. Protecting yourself in a riot is a situation you have to treat as yourself (which includes your family and friends) against everybody else. Any honest self-defense instructor will tell you that your odds of survival go down as the number of opponents goes up.

A lot of people will advise you to hole up in your home, which is certainly better than roaming around on the streets. But you really have to ask yourself if your home and the things in it are worth the risk of sticking around. Stuff, in my opinion, isn’t worth the risks of hanging around during a riot (after all, that’s what I have insurance for). I believe the most effective way of protecting yourself during a riot is to run away.

Running away is actually the most effective means of self-defense in most scenarios. Any physical altercation, no matter how great the advantage you think you hold is, can result in serious injury or death. It’s best to avoid a fight if at all possible. In the case of riots this may involved leaving town, getting a hotel, and waiting for things to cool down. True, your house may be a burned out shell when you return but you’ll almost certainly be alive, which is the primary goal of self-defense.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t buy a gun. A gun is a tool you can resort to if avoidance isn’t an option. For example, if you have a small child with you you may not be able to run from an aggressor. In the case of a riot you may encounter an aggressor or several as you’re leaving town. Having a gun is a good idea but it should be treated as your last resort. Avoidance should be your first tactic.

Supposed Study on Violence Omits Violent People

Gun control advocates have spent a great deal of time and money trying to prove that their religious crusade is scientific. The result of this has been a seemingly endless stream of shoddy research. Their latest study tried to argue that nine percent of Americans have anger issues and easy access to firearms:

Almost 9 percent of American adults — or about 22 million people — have a history of impulsive angry behavior and have easy access to at least one gun, according to a study published last week in the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law.

Furthermore, about 1.5 percent of people — about 3.7 million people — have impulsive anger issues and carry guns around with them when they are outside their homes.

What does the study mean by impulsive angry behavior? The paper is locked firmly behind a pay wall, like most of these studies, so it’s anybody guess unless they pony up. None of the articles discussing this research firmly define what impulsive angry behavior is and therefore the term is useless as it could mean anything from yelling at a misbehaving child to punching an unruly drunkard.

But this study has a major flaw:

(People whose job required them to carry a firearm, such as police officers, were excluded from the study.)

Why would a study about anger management issues and access to firearms leave out a portion of the population known for having anger management issues and access to firearms? The only reason I can come up with is that gun control advocates don’t want to ruffle the feathers of police officers because they know police officers are necessary to enforce any form of gun control. Therein lies the fallacy of gun control. Gun control requires guns to enforce and it is therefore not about controlling access to firearms but monopolizing it.

If you want to study the affects of anger and firearm access you can’t omit police officers. They are the perfect demographic for such a study because they also suffer almost no consequences when they act on their anger, which means you get a glimpse at what people with anger management issues really want to do with firearms. Without including them you can’t begin to estimate the impact consequences have. Somebody who suffers from impulsive angry behavior, whatever that is, and has access to firearms may pose no risk whatsoever because they still realize that there are consequences to using a firearm to act on their anger. Had the study included police officers one could estimate the value consequences have at preventing people who suffer from impulsive angry behavior from acting on their anger.

Leaving out the affect consequences have on behavior renders the study irrelevant. The researches could’ve asked people with impulsive angry behavior if they have access to an automobile and still learn nothing because asking that question doesn’t establish the affect consequences have at preventing them from ramming their vehicle into another vehicle that just cut them off.

How Not to Defend Yourself

Contrary to what many opponents to legalized self-defense claim there are many instances of individuals successfully defending themselves every day. From the aware individual who managed to avoid a violent situation by crossing a street at the right time to the individual who regretfully had to draw their concealed firearm and shoot their attacker successful incidents of self-defense are all around us. But there are people who mistake self-defense for vengeance. This story that happened in St. Paul is an example of vengeance:

Last night around 5:30 p.m. two armed robbers approached a man near the Hmongtown Marketplace at Como and Pennsylvania Avenues in St. Paul’s North End.

He pulled out a gun and exchanged shots with the would-be robbers.

Everything up to this point qualified as self-defense. Two armed robbers certainly make for a case where their target can reasonably assume that their life is in immediate jeopardy and lethal force is therefore justified. However the defender wasn’t satisfied with stopping there:

Then, when the robbers jumped in their car and tried to escape, he hopped in his car and chased them for more than a mile down Thomas Avenue.

Self-defense ends with the threat does. Once your attackers flee you can no longer claim self-defense if you continue responding aggressively. In this case the defender became the attacker when he chased down the fleeing robbers and engaged in a second gunfight with them.

I encourage everybody to learn skills that make them more able to defend themselves. Knowledge is one of those skills. You need to know the laws regarding self-defense otherwise you may end in a cage.

More State Manipulation of Statistics

I have another example of the state manipulating statistics to create a desired narrative but this time it’s domestic. It turns out that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has manipulated the statistics on the number of mass shootings:

FBI figures released last September appear to show so-called “mass shooter” attacks and deaths have dramatically increased since 2000. The report asserted there were a total 160 such incidents in public places between 2000 and 2013, with attacks dramatically increased to 17 in 2013 from just one in 2000. The statistics also showed murders jumping to 86 from just seven over the span.

But Lott’s group said a major flaw is the fact that the data was gleaned from news reports, and noted recent accounts were more accessible, and thus over-represented. Recent cases of the far more common “active shooting incidents” were added to legitimate cases of mass shooting incidents, making the more recent years covered by the report appear to have a large increase in both mass shootings and deaths from them.

The media most often took the numbers at face value, allowing for the perception of an increase in mass shootings and deaths from them, Lott said. A counter report by the CPRC shows that if the biases and errors were corrected, the Bureau’s data would show that the annual growth rate for homicides in mass shootings had been cut in half, Lott said.

Why would the FBI do this? In all likelihood it did this to create a narrative that violent crime is increasing so it can justify demanding more funding from Congress. It’s also possible that they are trying to help the state justify additional gun control measures since armed individuals pose a threat to the members of the violent FBI gang. But, in all honesty, I think it’s more the former than anything since the FBI has a history of creating phony crimes for it to solve so it can make a case for additional funding.

Banning Sharp Sticks

The problem with prohibitionist ideals is that it’s hard to decide where to stop. For the longest time the United States has had a mob of people demanding that firearms be banned. They do this under the auspices of safety. When asked if they want to ban clubs, sticks, and other weapons they scoff and claim you’re using a straw man argument. But when they get their way they quickly start moving onto other weapons. As a state that enjoys very restrictive gun control laws New York is finally at the point where other weapons are becoming political targets. One senator is going to present a bill that will band machetes:

The sale of machetes should be outlawed after several recent attacks, a Queens pol said Wednesday.

State Sen. Tony Avella plans to introduce a bill to ban the possession of the scary blades in New York.

“The fact that anyone can easily purchase this potentially lethal tool is just crazy,” he said.

[…]

Under Avella’s proposed legislation, the mere possession of a machete could lead to a year behind bars.

This bill is in response to a single attack. Well a single attack and a strong desire to perform a little political grandstanding. Machetes certainly are lethal weapons but they’re also extremely limited by their size. That is to say a machete is difficult to conceal. Police are quick to question and people are likely to avoid somebody walking around with a giant knife strapped to their body.

I often point out the futility of prohibiting an easily constructed device when the topic of gun control comes up. Making a machete is child’s play compared to making a firearm, which is always child’s play. You can just buy a piece of flat steel, grind down a handle, and sharpen one of the sides. So this bill is not only stupid but it’s even more pointless than gun control laws are.

Michael Bloomberg Demonstrates the Racist Nature of Gun Control

History isn’t a topic researched thoroughly by enough Americans. This is unfortunate because history has so much to teach. Consider the modern gun control movement. Few proponents of gun control realize that their movement was founded on racist ideas. Gun control in the United States started as a way to prevent newly free blacks from acquiring arms. If you want a quick overview of this history the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership put together a good documentary a few years back:

For those who prefer to read history Clayton Cramer put together a short, well-cited summary. The more things change the more they stay the same. Today the big player in American gun control is Michael Bloomberg. Considering his stated support for the New York Police Department’s stop and risk program, which heavily discriminated against black and Hispanic individuals, it’s not surprising to see racist motives in his push for gun control:

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

Statistics are a funny thing. If you massage numbers properly you can get whatever result you want. But if you look at the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ (FBI) Uniform Crime Report for 2013 you will see that the age range of 15 to 25 isn’t the majority. There were 12,253 murders reported in 2013 and a majority of the victims fell in the age bracket of 25 and above. Furthermore 5,537 victims were white, 6,261 were black, 308 were listed as other, and 147 were unknown. Nowhere could you get the 95 percent figure Bloomberg cites.

But it’s not surprising, considering his above mentioned history, that he’s specifically targeting young male minorities. History of the gun control movement, after all, arose because people wanted to disarm that particular segment of society. Even so it’s rare that you see a gun control proponent so openly state such a desire.

People Shouldn’t Wish Violent Criminals Be Armed

As I was combing through the Internet I came across a rather interesting article titled Why Your Gun Makes Me Nervous. The reason I found the article interesting is because of the first two paragraphs:

There’s a mantra quickly repeating in my head: “Please have a badge. Please have a badge. Please have a badge.” It’s a steady heartbeat as I begin a conversation with a shop clerk and reposition myself so I can peer over her shoulder.

I’ve already seen the bulge in his jacket, and it’s clear from the size and shape that he has a holstered gun. Now my eyes are quickly scanning, hoping to find a law enforcement badge clipped to his belt.

The author wrote an article to explain why guns make her nervous but her two opening paragraphs describe her desire that the person she spotted carrying a gun be a member of a violent gang. You could simply replace her first sentence with “Please have the appropriate gang colors. Please have the appropriate gang colors. Please have the appropriate gang colors.”

I can sort of understand a person being nervous seeing an armed individual in public just because it’s not something thought to be common. But for some reason many people nervous about seeing armed individuals are at ease when they see a badge. A badge, mind you, that indicates the individual’s job involves expropriating wealth from the populace and kidnapping people who break arbitrary laws written by men in marble buildings.

Consider this excerpt from the article:

I do not know this man, have no knowledge of his profession, personality or character. I am unaware of his mental state, of why he feels the need to carry a weapon into a bookstore.

When I see a cop I don’t know them, their personality, or character. I am also unaware of their mental state or why they feel the need to have a job that requires initiating violence against nonviolent people. In fact a badge doesn’t reliable tell you what an individual’s profession is since anybody can get a badge and pretend to be a cop.

Everything the author wrote about the armed individual is equally applicable to a police officer. The only difference is that a cop’s job is to put your in a cage whereas any other armed individual is probably just in the bookstore to buy a book.