Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Gun Control Remain Racist After All of These Years

Gun control in the United States has its beginnings rooted in racism. From the start it was about disarming African Americans and still manages to accomplish that today:

If you live in 60624, the ZIP code where the shooting took place, you don’t expect your streets to be safe. In the last 30 days, that neighborhood has recorded more homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and narcotics charges combined than any other ZIP code in Cook County when measured on a per capita basis. Its population is 98 percent black and averages a median income just above the poverty line.

It also is one of the ZIP codes that registers the fewest active concealed carry firearms permits per capita in the county, according to concealed carry numbers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The Washington Times.

Ditto for the crime-ridden neighborhoods of Englewood and West Englewood. Combined with West Garfield Park, out of their 114,933 total residents, only 193 concealed carry licenses have been issued — less than 0.17 percent of the population.

It’s a completely different story in affluent Palos Park, located in southwestern Cook County. The 60464 ZIP code boasts a negligible crime rate: Only one homicide has been committed in 10 years, according to the most recent state police data. Ninety-six percent of its residents are white, earning an average income of $121,000.

It also has the most concealed carry licenses in Cook County this year, with 1.24 percent of its residents authorized to carry a gun.

[…]

Illinois residents say the disproportionate statistics all boil down to cost. Of right-to-carry states, Illinois has the highest registration and training fee, costing an applicant about $650 on average for fingerprinting, taxes and logistics — excluding the price of the gun.

On average people who advocate for gun control are the same people who argue that African Americans are discriminated against and because of that suffer under poverty far more than Caucasians. Doesn’t that make them hypocrites for demanding more expensive hoops to jump through in order to obtain a permit to carry? This also makes them hypocrites for calling gun rights advocates racists when, in fact, we are advocating that African Americans enjoy the same ability to defend themselves as everybody else.

The ATF Doesn’t Acknowledge Meat Popsicle as a Race

Race is a hot issue as of late (truthfully race has been a hot issue throughout the history of the United States). Between the propensity of police officers in certain cities targeting people of certain races with much higher frequency and whether or not there’s enough diversity in the technology market everybody is talking about race. That’s probably why the Washington Times is finally asking why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is asking everybody purchasing a gun from a federally licensed dealer what their race is:

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

I have two theories regarding this. My first theory has to do with Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF operation to smuggle guns to Mexican drug cartels. Perhaps asking whether the gun purchaser is Hispanic is a way to speed up searches for Fast and Furious-related firearms. OK, I’m partially joking about that. My actual theory is that the ATF is demanding to know each buyer’s race for the same reason it asks each buyer if they’re prohibited form owning a firearm: the government likes to collect information redundantly. When you submit to a background check your personal information, including full legal name and current address, are submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). That information should be enough for the FBI to do a search for you in its database. If your name comes up all of your identifying information is already available to the agency since it was recorded during your arrest or involuntarily confinement to a mental health ward.

It’s the same stupidity that forces you to fill out paperwork when filing your taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) already has all of the information it need to send you a bill since your employer is so helpful to withhold taxes from your paycheck. There’s no need for you to fill out any tax forms other than deductions. But the IRS isn’t efficient by anybody’s regard so it demands you provide it with the information it already has access to because that’s how government works.

Armslist.com not Responsible for Murder Committed with Weapon Obtained via Site

There has been a lawsuit open against Armslist.com because an individual obtained a weapon from a person who advertised it on the site and used it to commit murder. Much to the dismay of gun control advocates Armslist.com has been declared not responsible for what happened:

The case decided Tuesday by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals concerns a woman murdered in 2011 with a .40-caliber handgun that a Seattle man advertised on Armslist for $400. A Canadian man bought the weapon.

Demetry Smirnov, the gun purchaser, murdered Jitka Vesel in Chicago with that weapon after an online romance soured. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. The man who sold him the gun, Benedict Ladera, was handed a year in jail for illegally selling the firearm, as federal regulations prohibit the transfer of weapons to people in another state or country, the appeals court said.

There is no other way this case could have been ruled in a logical universe. It isn’t possible for one individual to know the intent of another individual just like it is impossible for a third-party to know the intent of two individuals who happen to use its services. Claiming that Armslist.com was responsible for what happened would be no different than claiming Google was responsible for a murder because the weapon used was traded between two individuals via Gmail.

Of course there are a lot of gun control advocates who believe otherwise. Their belief stems solely from the fact that they want to see fire and brimstone brought down upon anybody who is in any way involved with a firearm (except for their armed guards, of course). There is no logical argument for such a position though, it’s merely the product of a desire for petty hatred. Fortunately the 7th Us Circuit Court of Appeals understood this and save another business from unnecessary legal burden.

We Have to Do Something

I didn’t pay much attention to the anti-gun kick Rolling Stone magazine was on last month. For some reason I came across its article the supposedly explains how gun control advocates can win against the National Rifle Association (NRA). The article is mostly bullshit but one item stood out to me because of how blatant it was:

4. Act, Don’t Dither

When catastrophic events like Newtown unfold, there’s an impulse from many elected officials to slow down, to gather facts, to ensure that cooler heads prevail. Politically, this is why gun-control dies.

This point is so blatant yet so correct. It’s true that gun control dies when the facts come in, which is why gun control advocates need to exploit tragedies immediately if they hope to gain any success. But I would argue that any movement that dies because of facts isn’t a movement worth fighting for.

I think the biggest reason gun rights have been winning against gun control is because the latter relies on deceit and falsities. Gun control’s heyday was the era directly preceding the information age. Before widespread Internet connectivity it was much easier for gun control advocates to control the message and conceal the facts. Now that so many people have access to the Internet the facts are impossible to conceal and the facts speak pretty clearly in favor of gun rights. So the only hope gun control has a succeeding is making a move before the facts have actually been gathered.

Another Loophole Created by Gun Control Advocates

Anybody who has been involved in the gun rights movement for any length of time knows that advocates of gun control love to toss around the word loophole. Loophole, when used by advocates of gun control, simply means a legal method of an individual to possess a firearm. Shannon Watts, the head of Michael Bloomberg subsidiary Moms Demand Action (MDA), tweeted yesterday about needing to close the gun rental loophole because of its link with suicides:

Because I’m a helpful guy I decided to read the linked article to see how this horrifying problem is affecting every man, woman, and child in the United States. As it turns out the problem this loophole is supposedly responsible for isn’t much of a problem:

Following a death this January at the Los Angeles Gun Club, the Orange County Register scoured coroners’ data from just three counties and found 64 cases of gun-range suicide over a 12-year period.

64 cases in 12 years? That’s an average of approximately five suicides per year. So far this year six people have been killed by lightning strikes in Florida. The reason the problem of suicides at gun ranges is seldom discussed is because it’s exceedingly rare. More lives would be saved by finding a way to mitigate lightning strikes in Florida.

Humans in general perform poorly at assessing risk. Proof of this exists in this week’s Ebola scare even though the risk of contracting Ebola is very rare. Like the people currently losing their shit over the non-threat of Ebola virus, advocates of gun control have been losing their shit over any non-threat they can somehow associate with firearms. I advise advocates of gun control to stick to issues that actually harm people such as American imperialism and police brutality… oh yeah, they never mention those, which is funny considering they want those agents of the state to have a monopoly on gun ownership.

If at First You Don’t Succeed

You know what they say, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again. But then again sometimes it’s smart to quite while you’re ahead, which is what this dude should have done:

Beaudoin broke a door lock and entered a home about 5:20 a.m. in the 4200 block of Hwy. 53. Homeowner Neil Reller grabbed a shotgun and struggled with Beaudoin, striking the intruder on the head several times with the gun so hard that the stock broke off the weapon.

Were I hit in the face with a shotgun stock so hard that it broke the stock I think I would have called it a night. Mr. Beaudoin was obviously a more determined man than I:

Beaudoin, his face covered in blood, fled in his vehicle about 8 miles to the southeast and showed up at the Himes’ home in the 5700 block of Hwy. 53. He told Ethel Himes that he had been assaulted. When Himes let Beaudoin inside, he threw her onto the living-room floor, choked her and beat her head on the floor.

Brad Himes came upon the struggle and went to his bedroom for a handgun. Beaudoin followed the son and lunged at him, prompting Brad Himes to shoot the intruder.

A sheriff’s deputy gave first aid to Beaudoin, who died at Rainy Lake Medical Center.

See what I mean? Sometimes it’s a better idea to just say “Fuck it.” and give up. While I’m sure Mr. Beaudoin thought he clever plan of claiming he was assaulted was fool proof it’s never a good idea to get into a physical confrontation after recently getting your ass severely kicked. This is especially true when getting shot is a realistic outcome, which is always the case when invading a home.

It’s Not Technically a Lie

Friday the goons over at Moms Demand Something or Other Action (MDA) posted the following tweet:

Here’s a screenshot just in case the tweet falls down the memory hole (which seems to happen with alarming frequency on any Twitter account controlled by gun control advocates):

moms-demand-peer-nations

This caused Linoge and myself to wonder what a “peer nation” is:

wtf-is-a-peer-nation

We see with this tweet by the folks over at (MDA) a common tactic used by gun control advocates: massaging data. In almost any of the reports issued by any of the major gun control organizations there are terms such as “developed nations” and now “peer nations” scattered about within. These terms have no definite meanings, which makes them convenient stipulations on the data being used.

I could, for instance, claims that a “peer nation” is any nation that relies predominantly on coal to generate electrical power, possesses one or more aircraft carriers, has a population made up predominantly of people who hail from another part of the planet, consume beef as a primary form of meat, have no laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol but heavily restrict its sale and manufacturing, and has at least two cities with a population greater than one million. Doing so would lead to absolutely useless data but I could make claims without technically lying. This is what gun control advocates have been resorting to. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start with the results they want and continue to add stipulations onto what qualifies as a developed or peer nation until they get the data necessary to match their results.

I’m reminded of government provided statistics on inflation, unemployment, and other economic matters. They always look good. Even when things are bad the government provided statistics make them look at the very least OK. When you look into how the government calculates those statistics you see that it adds on a tremendous number of stipulations and when those stipulations aren’t enough they add a few more.

The thing is if you have to add so many stipulations to get the results you want then you’re working with meaningless data. Massaging data until you get a desired result doesn’t allow you to identify anything of value. You have to start with an honest data set, calculate the results, and work from there. But like the government, gun control advocates know if they worked with an honest data set they wouldn’t have a case.

Why Advocating for Gun Control in Gun Publications Carriers Consequences

The Atlantic has an article titled Why We Can’t Talk About Gun Control. In it the termination of Dick Metcalf from Guns and Ammo is discussed as an excuse for why this nation, supposedly, can’t have a discussion about gun control (you know, except for all of the discussions about gun control that happen every damn day):

In the column, Metcalf wrote that he did not believe it was an infringement of the Second Amendment to require some training before a person can have a concealed carry. He added that states can have a universal background check law without him feeling infringed upon.

That did not go over well.

The column appeared in the December 2013 issue of Guns & Ammo, but subscribers started getting it in late October. Within three days, Metcalf said, as responses poured in—by mail, in forums, and on social media—from what he called the pointed end of the bell curve, people who “think the constitution is the only law we need,” Metcalf was labeled a “gun control collaborator” and “modern-day Benedict Arnold.”

“What struck me most about what happened to me was that this huge media corporation [Intermedia, the owner of Guns & Ammo] was absolutely unprepared for the onslaught of social-media negativity,” Metcalf said, “when we went over that line and dared ask the question, whether people might think about whether or not regulation is by definition infringement.”

The tone of the article insinuates that us gun owners are such extreme nut cases that we tirelessly censor any attempt in the media to discuss gun control. Let me explain this from a different angle, namely from the angle of a gun owner and gun rights activist. As a gun owner I am the demographic that Guns and Ammo targets. It makes money by selling magazines primarily to its target demographic. When your target demographic involves gun owners and gun rights activists publishing articles that basically raise a gigantic middle finger to them is bad for business. Not surprisingly when Metcalf went on his little rant about supporting mandator background checks for all firearm transfers, a legalese way of making something as simple as gifting one of your firearms to your own fucking child a crime unless you also paid $20 to a federally licensed dealer to do nothing more than make a phone call to a federal agency, it irked Guns and Ammo’s target demographic. Why would gun owners and gun rights activists want to pay money to be told that they are potentially dangerous people who should not be allowed to possess a firearm unless some faceless bureaucrat working for one of the most violent governments currently in existence says so?

But here’s the thing, Metcalf hasn’t been silenced by us evil gun owners. His employment with Guns and Ammo was terminated but he’s still free to write for another publication. In fact there are many publications, including The Atlantic itself, that are more than happy to pay writers money to toe the gun control advocates’ line. Hell Michael Bloomberg would probably pay big money for a writer who was bullied by us big mean gun owners.

So The Atlantic’s assertion that there can’t be a conversation about gun control is flat out bullshit. It’s true that many of us who own guns aren’t willing to pay money to have gun control preached at us but we’re not stopping anybody from preaching. I’m also not willing to pay writers to call me a misogynist. That doesn’t mean that we can’t have a conversation about whether or not I’m misogyny for liking an author’s works, it simply means that I won’t fund the damn conversation.

Sheet Metal Guns

It’s time again to point out how futile the concept of gun control really is. I’ve discussed 3D printed firearms because they’re a neat demonstration of how manufacturing technology is advancing. But guns have been around for hundreds of years so it’s safe to say that manufacturing them isn’t too difficult. The Firearm Blog has a post about a semi-automatic pistol made from sheet metal. It’s an ugly looking thing but it supposedly works and the blueprints are available [PDF] for download.

What’s nice about this design is the simplicity of manufacture. Sheet metal can for the most part be shaped with hand tools. Although I doubt that this gun is terribly accurate it doesn’t have to be if used correctly (as in used at short ranges).

The Statists Over at Salon Confuse Me

I have to say that the statists over at Salon really confuse me. Via Gun Free Zone I had the opportunity to read this attempt at fear mongering by Salon. The author tries to argue that gun owners are terrorizing the nation but his opening paragraph presents a different story:

Here is a truth so fundamental that it should be self-evident: When legitimately constituted state authority stands down in the face of armed threats, the very foundation of the republic is in danger. And yet that is exactly what happened at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch this spring: An alleged criminal defeated the cops, because the forces of lawlessness came at them with guns — then Bureau of Land Management officials further surrendered by removing the government markings from their vehicles to prevent violence against them.

I’m not a big fan of Cliven Bundy. The guy comes off as a self-righteous asshole to me. But to claim he did anything wrong by trying to defend land against a marauding gang is pretty stupid. What the author claims to be a “legitimately constituted state authority”, a phrase that in of itself is oxymoronic, is nothing more than a gang of thugs roaming around claiming everything within an imaginary set of lines on a map as its own.

The author is trying to making the argument that Bundy, by managing to make the state reconsider its usual brutish tactics, terrorized America. But the “legitimately constituted state authority” has been terrorizing America, and the rest of the world, for over 250 years. George Washington himself marched an armed force against a handful of whiskey producers because they failed to pay Washington’s gang protection money. Today the tradition continues. If you do something the state doesn’t like it sends armed thugs after you in an attempt to intimidate you. Growing a little cannabis? You may find your home being raided by armed thugs at two in the morning who start by burning your child with a flashbang (an article in Salon about real terrorism) and shooting your dog. Exceeding the arbitrarily posted maximum speed? Expect a road pirate to pull you over, walk up to your car, and demand you pay his gang protection money or face potential kidnapping and imprisonment. And God help you if you’re homeless because the state is going to make your life even more of a living hell.

This is the problem with statists. They claim that the gang they support is legitimate. Anybody who crosses their preferred gang is terrorizing “the people”. It’s one of the most idiotic arguments that has ever been muttered because “the people” are being terrorized by the statist’s preferred gang.