Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Bypassing Canadian Gun Control Laws

Gun control is such an interesting thing to debate. This is because advocating for gun control is pointless. Laws, being human constructs, will always be ignored, bypasses, and worked around. Take Canada’s gun control laws. While they’re not as draconian as many other nations’ gun laws they are still pretty strict. Fortunately some innovative people have come up with a novel way to get verboten guns into the country, attach them to automobiles going across the Canadian border:

The gun smugglers called him “fool” – one of many Windsorites they used to unwittingly mule firearms over the border.

Buried in volumes of recently released Toronto police documents is the frightening revelation that Windsor gun runners hide firearms and GPS devices in the cars of unsuspecting Canadians to sneak them through customs.

[…]

Police say Porter and the people who worked with him scouted out cars with Ontario licence plates in Michigan parking lots. Once they found suitable vehicles, police said, they would hide guns and GPS devices under the bumpers. Chrysler Pacificas, Dakotas and Jeeps were among the cars they looked for.

Sometimes they would follow the car, watching as it crossed the border. Other times, they would let the GPS lead them to the person’s home.

Speaking from a smuggler’s point of view, this method is pretty low risk. If the guns are discovered your hands remain clean. You may lose the gun but so long as you get enough across to meet your needs you’re victorious. Speaking from an unsuspecting mule’s point of view, this sucks because you’re at risk of being prosecuted under Canada’s bullshit object restriction laws.

But this demonstrates, yet again, why attempting to control objects is a foolish. So long as those verboten objects are in demand some entrepreneur will find a way to fulfill that demand.

Anti-Gun Activists a Such Friendly People

I think my favorite thing about being a gun rights advocate is how friendly, lovable, and peaceful our opponents are. Even though we disagree on the issue of guns we can still debate things in a civil manner and not stoop to death threats. Take Mike Malloy. You may not have heard of him. He’s a nobody with a talk show that has less listeners then my blog has readers. But he’s one classy dude:

I guess what I’ll do if I’m ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, I’ll just put on a berserk act.I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every god-damned cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they’re going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn’t shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.

See how wonderful he is? He’s not trying to start a bloodbath or get the police to murder people who disagree with him. Nope. He wants a peaceful world free of guns. Well at least free of guns not being used to murder people he disagrees with. But beyond that he’s one classy dude. And there are many gun control advocates just like him, which is why the gun discussion may be heated at times but it never stoops to threats of violence.

War Criminal Calls Gun Rights Activists Terrorists, Irony So Thick You Can Cut It

The one thing I do enjoy about the upcoming presidential race is Hillary Clinton. She’s like a perpetual irony machine. Every time she opens her mouth to criticize somebody she dislikes she ends up saying something hypocritical. One group of people she really hates is us gun owners. So she takes every opportunity afforded to her to insult us. Most recently she called us a bunch of terrorists:

During a CNN “town hall” yesterday, Hillary Clinton said she was disappointed that Congress did not pass new gun control legislation following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December 2012. “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation,” said the former secretary of state and presumptive presidential candidate. “We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

I wonder what minority holds more terroristic viewpoints. Gun owners who tend to be very peaceful or officials in the United States government who bomb foreign countries seemingly at random and then laugh about it (seriously, Hillary, that quote is the gift that keeps on giving)? Considering that I’ve never threatened anybody with violence nor wielded violence against another it’s pretty hard to say I’m terrorizing anybody. Hillary, on the other hand, was the head of the State Department for the government that, under the current administration, dropped bombs on civilians in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (and probably a few other countries that I’ve forgotten about).

I’d say if any minority holds terroristic viewpoints it’s her and her cronies.

Less Guns, More Crime

Gun control ninnies constantly claim that more guns equates to more violent crime. On the other hand intelligent people know that the number of guns doesn’t have any effect on the amount of violent crime. Only the number of violent criminals can effect the amount of violent crime. A demonstration of this is Russia. NPR recently ran a piece that likely made a lot of people in the gun control community cry:

There are fewer than 13 million firearms in circulation in Russia, compared with an estimated 300 million in the United States. That works out to about 9 guns per 100 people in Russia and closed to 100 guns per 100 people in America.

The most recent homicide statistics for Russia show that there were 21,603 killings in 2009.

According to the FBI, the United States had 13,636 homicides in 2009 with a population that is more than twice as large. More than 80 percent of those killings were gun-related.

If you give a gun to a saint you have nothing to fear. If you give a gun to a demon you have much to fear. After the fall of the Soviet Union much of Russia was basically up for grabs. As the people lived their entire lives under a brutal regime many of them decided to emulate the fallen union and become brutal overlords themselves (many of them, not surprisingly, were form members of the Soviet government). It’s not surprising to see the violent crime rate in Russia remaining high considering the atmosphere of the country. And it’s not surprising to see the gun control ninnies eating crow once again.

Check Your Gun Control Privilege

If you can’t beat them, join them. The social justice crowd spends a lot of time talking about privilege. What started out as valid point, that is some individual in society do enjoy privileges over others (for example, as a white male I’m less likely to be the target of police brutality), has become a mechanism to silence any and all opposition. If you don’t agree with somebody you are automatically accused of being privileged and therefore are no longer allowed to have an opinion (which, in my book, would mean the other person has an opinion privilege).

As this mess has gotten increasingly absurd I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible. But the more I think about it the more I realize that gun control is a form of privilege. Specifically it’s something that only those who the social justice crowd traditionally label as privileged can enjoy.

Consider Michael Bloomberg. He’s arguably the most influential advocate of gun control in modern times. Granted it’s pretty easy to be the most influential advocate of gun control when you’re a billionaire and can personally fund several gun control advocacy groups. But those billions of dollars allow him to fund something else: armed body guards. Bloomberg even has enough cash to pay for armed body guards for his fellow gun control advocates.

Gun control, as the name implies, is about controlling who can have access to firearms. One question that should always be asked when the topic of gun control comes up is who gets to decide who can own a gun. The answer is always the state. And who makes up the state? A president who enjoys a lifetime of Secret Service protection and millionaire white males. In other words most of the people deciding who can have a gun are the very people most social justice advocates point out as being privileged.

So gun control is great if you’re on the top of society. It just sucks if you’re not. Unless the state has deemed you worthy of possessing a firearm or can afford to hire people who have been deemed worthy to shadow you 24/7 you’re mostly reliant on the police for protection. That’s not a good position to be in as police response times increase. And if you live in poorer neighborhoods, places where people arguably need protection the most, you’re going to suffer even longer response times. The further you are from the top the longer it will take to get state protection, if you get it at all.

This brings me to the main point of this post. Gun control works for those who social justice advocates consider privileged because they control who can possess guns and can afford body guards. The rest of us are more or less on our own. Sure we’re given access to police officers who may respond to our call for help if they’re not too busy, tired, or hungry. But if you need immediate defense you’re screwed.

There are bad people in this world, which is unfortunate. But so long as those people exist the need for self-defense will likewise exist. Whether you like guns or not you cannot argue against them being effective tools for self-defense. They’re equalizers that render physical ability and skill mostly irrelevant. A woman bound to a wheelchair can effectively use a gun to defend herself against an athletic male who means her arm. An African-American male can effectively use a gun to defend himself against an armed police officer who is attempting to brutalize him. Any social, physical, racial, or gender privileges an attacker may enjoy are meaningless when his or her target has access to a gun for self-defense. Even targets suffering from most physical disabilities can render their attacker’s ableism irrelevant.

In the end it is the people who social justice advocates label as privileged thate are the primarily advocates of gun control. They are the ones who can decide who can have a gun. They are the ones who can afford armed body guards. They are the ones who can live under gun control without concern.

There Hasn’t Been 74 School Shootings

Advocates for gun control wouldn’t irritate me so much if they stuck to the truth. Granted if they did that they wouldn’t have a case for gun control but that’s another story for another time. One of Michael Bloomberg’s shell corporations, Everytown for Gun Safety, released a map that showed that 74 school shootings have occurred since the one in Newtown:

Tuesday’s school shooting in Oregon is at least the 74th instance of shots being fired on school grounds or in school buildings since the late-2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., according to a list maintained by the group Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for policies it believes limit gun violence.

The problem is the list is a lie:

Charles Johnson, a journalist and writer, started sorting through the list Everytown published. He spent hours yesterday on Twitter publishing his analysis, one by one. See below for embeds of his stream.

What he found is that the group was far off base in its classification of what constitutes a “school shooting.” Events that occurred after hours, accidental shootings, suicides, gang activity and even a shooting in self-defense somehow meet the group’s definition.

In the fine print of their report the group says, “Incidents were classified as school shootings when a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds.”

So Everytown for Gun Safety took every incident of a firearm being discharged on a school property and labeled it a school shooting. I don’t understand why anybody takes anything gun control groups publish seriously. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that they either outright lie or twist facts until they fit their agenda. Oh well, for the time being the media and a lot of people will lap up their lies so I will continue joining the rest of the gun rights movement in pointing out those lies.

Why I Bike With a Gun

I’ve noted several times how I always carry a gun when I’m biking. Many people, who generally don’t carry guns themselves, find this behavior odd. They demand I justify my action to which I usually inform them that I have no duty to do so (My polite way of saying “Why? Because fuck you, that’s why!”). But Every Day No Days Off posted video of a mountain biker being robbed a gunpoint that pretty much makes my case for me:

You never know when somebody bad is going to target you or what reason they will target you. That being the case it’s usually a good idea to be a prepared as possible. The biker was lucky that the thief only took his bike. It’s not difficult to imagine the thief simply shooting the biker since they appear to be out in the middle of nowhere.

Women Must Be Tiring of the Patriarchy

Social justice warriors spend a lot of time complaining about patriarchy. Well it looks like women in Washington state have took those complaints to heart and have taken steps to smashing patriarchy:

Between 2005 and 2012, the number of state residents receiving new concealed-carry permits tripled to 62,939. Now some 451,000 Washington residents are allowed to carry a hidden handgun almost anywhere they go, more than 100,000 of them women.

Notably, the growth rate for women getting new permits is twice as fast as that of men.

The thing that annoys me about a lot of social justice warriors is that they spend a lot of time demanding equality but seem to scoff at the idea that guns offer exactly that. Oppression generally requires force disparity. In order to ensure compliance an oppressor must have greater force than the oppressed (this is probably why governments have such a hard-on for gun control). As soon as the oppressed can command equal or greater force then the days of the oppressor become numbered.

I’m also a firm believer that using one oppressor to combat another oppressor still leaves you oppressed. The common strategy for social justice warriors is to use one of the greatest oppressors of our time, the state, to combat oppression by men and whites (ironically though the state is mostly made up of white men). This doesn’t actually solve the problem of oppression. On the other hand if you give women the power to fend of prospective oppressors then patriarchy isn’t easy to achieve.

So fight the patriarchy, encourage women you know get carry permits and assist them in whatever they need to do so.

Don’t Be This Guy

Most people realize that violence is a last resort option. But there are some who seem to believe that might makes right and will resort to violence or threats thereof alarmingly fast:

The father told Fox 9 News he’s still shaken by the encounter. He explained that when he and his daughter got down to the cul de sac, Drake began yelling from his porch. When the father responded to say, “I’ve got it,” Drake allegedly said, “If you don’t like my advice, get off the street.”

At that point, Drake appeared to get angrier — but as the father and daughter prepared to leave the area, Drake allegedly went inside his home, grabbed a Remington 870 shotgun, pointed it at the father and threatened to kill him.

Drake’s wife eventually came out and pulled the gun away, but police said he didn’t appear repentant when he was booked. In fact, he allegedly told officers, “Maybe next time. I should have shot him.”

Mr. Drake played a dangerous game and got off lucky. His threat certainly provided a reasonable belief of immediate great bodily harm or death to his neighbor. Under Minnesota law the neighbor would have almost certainly been legally justified in using deadly force. I doubt Mr. Drake understands how fortunate he is to be alive today because when you write a check in violence they will often be paid in blood.

I’m not sure what went through the neighbor’s head. Being threatened with a shotgun is a scary enough prospect but having his 7 year-old daughter with him at the time probably made for the worst situation he could imagine.

The Pointless Finger Pointing Continues

In addition to California’s “weak” gun laws, mental illness, misogyny, and white privilege the shooting in California is now also the fault of America’s gun culture! But that’s not all! As an added bonus the shooting was also the product of toxic masculinity! As I said everybody is running as fast as they can towards this shooting to exploit it for their personal gain. I’ve not seen a flock of vulture this ravenous since Sandy Hook.

I’m still waiting for the article that blames this incident on Republican created “anarchy”. If anybody reading this comes across such an article please send it my way posthaste.