Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Decentralized Security

Centralized systems are traditionally fragile. Universal healthcare systems tend to have supply issues that lead to rationing. Highway systems managed by the state tend to be under construction for good portions of the year (at least here in Minnesota) with nothing obvious to show for it. And centralized security systems tend to be easily bypassed. While the world seems doomed to continue down the path to centralization at least some people are noticing the need for decentralization:

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Allowing the populace to arm themselves is one of the more effective solutions for decentralizing security. All of the “blood in the streets” and “shootouts at high noon” that were predicted by gun control advocates have never arisen. In fact no area that as loosed its prohibitions against carrying firearms has experienced an increase in violent crime. The logical conclusion is that removing those prohibitions isn’t dangerous for the overall population. It also creates a great deal of uncertainty for violent person because they cannot know for sure who is and isn’t armed.

Bruce Schneier often talks about whether or not plots can be developed around security systems. It’s very difficult for a violent person to build a plot around random bag checks because of their randomness. But it is easy to develop a plot around modern police protection. For starters, police response times aren’t instantaneous. If prohibitions against carrying firearms exist and a violent person’s goal is to kill people he knows that he will have several minutes until the police arrive. Several minutes is a lot of time when we’re talking about mass murder. In addition to having several minutes of free reign a violent person also has a decent idea of the tactics used by the police.

Both of these things go away when prohibitions against carrying firearms are lifted. Since a person with a firearm can be anywhere response times are not guaranteed to be in minutes. Likewise, most people who carry a firearm have no received any standardized training, so the tactics used will be less predictable.

It’s much more difficult to design a plot around an armed population than a centralized armed force. Centralization is one of the key things exploited by practitioners of fourth generation warfare, which is a tactic that relies on decentralized forces to attack centralized forces. The more centralized a system is the more fragile it becomes. In many countries the police have a virtual monopoly on force. Those countries have an extremely fragile security system that can be exploited by decentralized forces. It’s nice to see at least one member of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) acknowledge this fact and I hope others will over time.

Why I Have No Time for Arguments in Favor of Prohibiting Criminals from Obtaining Firearms

One of the gun control community’s rallying cries is preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. I have very little time for this argument. It’s not that I want violent people to have a means of inflicting violence but, as Zero Hedge points out, the fact that we’re all criminals:

As James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and former defense attorney, notes in his excellent lecture on why it is never a good idea to talk to the police:

Estimates of the current size of the body of federal criminal law vary. It has been reported that the Congressional Research Service cannot even count the current number of federal crimes. These laws are scattered in over 50 titles of the United States Code, encompassing roughly 27,000 pages. Worse yet, the statutory code sections often incorporate, by reference, the provisions and sanctions of administrative regulations promulgated by various regulatory agencies under congressional authorization. Estimates of how many such regulations exist are even less well settled, but the ABA thinks there are ”nearly 10,000.”

If the federal government can’t even count how many laws there are, what chance does an individual have of being certain that they are not acting in violation of one of them?

As Supreme Court Justice Breyer elaborates:

The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.

For instance, did you know that it is a federal crime to be in possession of a lobster under a certain size? It doesn’t matter if you bought it at a grocery store, if someone else gave it to you, if it’s dead or alive, if you found it after it died of natural causes, or even if you killed it while acting in self defense. You can go to jail because of a lobster.

If the federal government had access to every email you’ve ever written and every phone call you’ve ever made, it’s almost certain that they could find something you’ve done which violates a provision in the 27,000 pages of federal statues or 10,000 administrative regulations. You probably do have something to hide, you just don’t know it yet.

The number of crimes that exist in this country is so absurdly high that the word criminal effectively has no meaning. Felon is another word that has no real meaning. There are so many crimes that qualify as felonies today that most of us unknowingly violate approximately three of them every day. To say that all criminals or felons should be prohibited from owning firearms is the same as saying everybody should be prohibited from owning firearms. Under the current legal system of this country we’re all criminals. That’s something you should be thinking about the next time a gun control advocate starts arguing that we need background checks for all firearm transfers.

Immunity from Consequences has Consequences

What happens when you grant a monopoly on violence to an organization and then grant that organization a monopoly on determining whether or not it used too much violence? Incidents involving over 100 round fired into a car occupied by unarmed individuals with no consequences for the shooters:

CLEVELAND, OH (WOIO) – Cleveland Police Chief McGrath announced results of disciplinary hearings for patrol officers involved in the deadly November police pursuit on Tuesday morning.

[…]

According to Chief McGrath, 64 patrol officers were found guilty of breaking policy. No one will be fired, and the longest suspension will be 10 days. 19 Action News has learned some officers were cleared.

[…]

On November 29, 2012, police chased a car with two people from Cleveland to East Cleveland. Officers first saw the car speeding and heard what appeared to be a gunshot coming from it. The driver refused to stop, and officers reported seeing a weapon in the car, but no gun was ever found. The 28-minute chase ended with officers firing 137 shots into the car, killing the driver, Timothy Russell and the passenger, Malissa Williams.

Firing 137 rounds into a vehicle in a city is pretty irresponsible by itself. But unloading that wall of lead because you heard something that sounded like gunfire is totally irresponsible. To make matters worse, the officers involved in the incident received nothing more than a paid vacation. In other words, the officers who demonstrated total irresponsibility suffered no negative consequences, which will almost certainly encourage such behavior in the future.

As a side note, advocates of gun control often ask why us advocates of gun rights are opposed to allowing the police to decide who can and cannot own firearms (advocates of gun control generally hide this demand under the label of “background checks”). The answer is simple: police officers in this country frequently demonstrate a complete lack of responsibility when it comes to firearm usage. I, for one, cannot see the logic in putting people who are irresponsible with firearms in charge of deciding who gets to own a firearm.

Teletherapy

One of the hot topics in the gun control community is prohibiting people who suffer from mental illnesses from obtaining firearms. Setting aside the fact that such a prohibition is impossible we are still left with the fact that such a prohibition would further discourage people suffering from mental illnesses from seeking help. Mental illness has a major stigma here in the United States. People often perceive others who suffer from a mental illness as weak. There is also a common misconception that mental illnesses are permanent. I’m sure most gun control advocates who are pushing to prohibit people who have a history of mental illness from owning firearms are banking on the latter misconception. In the United States a person who sought treatment for a mental illness would likely become prohibited from owning firearms for life because the general attitude in this country is that mental illnesses can’t be helped.

This leads me to an interesting start up that is focusing on providing teletherapy:

Is the digital age sending the old therapist’s couch the way of the reference librarian, the CD, and the travel agent? Could be: several recent studies have found that therapy via the Internet is just as effective as face-to-face treatment. In 2012, a Veterans Affairs study found that teletherapy reduced patients’ psychiatric hospital admissions by about 25 percent, which means it could produce cost savings as well.

What I find more interesting about the prospects of teletherapy is the potential for anonymity. It would be easy to setup a system where the doctor didn’t know the actual name or face of the person they were treating. While the intimate nature of a patient-therapist relationship would almost guarantee that the therapist could find out the identify of their patient the potential to remain anonymous may be enough to encourage those needing help to seek it. Having an anonymous way of seeking help for a mental illness would render America’s two primary misconceptions irrelevant, which would be a step forward in my opinion.

More Dogs Shot by Police

We can’t even get through an entire week without a report of another dog shot by another police officer. This time around police officers stormed a home looking for a man who hasn’t lived there in six years. Upon seeing dogs at this address they had no business being at they opened fire:

Warrant officers stormed a home overnight waking up a family and nearly hitting their dog with a gunshot.

Bienvenido Gutierrez said he and his fiancé, Nina Castro, heard noises coming from the back of their row home on Ashmead Street in the Germantown neighborhood of Philadelphia around 12:30 a.m.

Gutierrez told NBC10’s Jesse Gary that they then heard a knock on the front door and he let in about a half dozen First Judicial Warrant Unit officers who said they were looking for Gutierrez’s brother Joshua Gutierrez.

Gutierrez said he tried to explain to the officers that his brother moved out six years ago. He also said he warned the officers that there were two dogs in the home, including one pit bull sleeping in the same room as Gutierrez’s children — ages 7, 2, and 10 months.

So the National Security Agency (NSA) is spying on every phone call and e-mail message and the state still can’t figure out where people live? Also, why couldn’t the cops have walked up to the front door, knocked, and asked if the person they were looking for was there? It’s a pretty simple procedure and far less dangerous than trying to break into a home, especially when you’re not sure if the person you’re looking for is even there.

Zero Common Sense Strike Again

Whoever came up with the idea of zero tolerance polices must have been a very poor prophesier. When you remove the ability to consider the context of situations you end up with a system that rules everybody guilty of something. Public schools, which are supposed to be bastions of tolerance and understanding, have numerous zero tolerance policies. These policies lead to idiocy like children being prohibited from taking over the counter medications. They also lead to students who play with Airsoft guns on their own property being suspended:

Like thousands of others in Hampton Roads, Khalid Caraballo plays with airsoft guns. Caraballo and his friend Aidan were suspended because they shot two other friends who were with them while playing with the guns as they waited for the school bus.

The two seventh graders say they never went to the bus stop; they fired the airsoft guns while on Caraballo’s private property.

[…]

Khalid and Aiden aren’t only suspended, they were recommended to be expelled for a year for “possession, handling and use of a firearm.”

The case revolves around whether the students were on private property or at the bus stop. Let’s assume, for a moment, that the school administrators who weren’t at the bus stop when the incident happened somehow were correct when they declared where the student were standing. Even if the students were at the bus stop they weren’t on the bus nor were they at school. How can the school administrators claim jurisdiction over the bus stop and private property in such an absolute way that they feel suspending, and possibly expelling, those students is within their power? How does it make sense to suspend and possibly expel students for playing with toys? There is no victim and therefore no crime. The only “crime” is a violation of the school’s zero tolerance policy, which must state the mere thought of a firearm constitutes a violation and can lead to expulsion.

The school administrators are threatening to ruin the students’ lives without having any proof of wrongdoing, let alone wrongdoing on school governed property. This is insanity is the inevitable result of zero tolerance policies.

More Irresponsible Cops

Most advocates of gun control that I’ve encountered aren’t gun control advocates, they’re advocates of a two class society. The two classes they’re interested in creating are the armed and the unarmed. In their fantasy world the armed class, made up exclusively of government agents such as police officers, would exist to rule over the unarmed class, made up of everybody else. For some reason these gun control advocates believe that a badge and costume are the only things that can prevent an otherwise rational and peaceful human being from turning into a bloodthirsty murderer when given possession of a firearm. Those of us who keep tabs on how the police handle firearms known the truth: most police officers are woefully inadequate when it comes to handling firearm. This, couple with the near immunity from responsibility, make incidents like this alarmingly common:

Officers fired three shots at 35-year-old Glenn Broadnax in the Saturday night confrontation a block west of the famous tourist district, hitting two women on a nearby corner in the process, a police statement said Sunday. Broadnax was walking into traffic in front of the Port Authority bus terminal, apparently trying to be hit by cars, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

He dodged police who tried to take him into custody, then mimicked shooting a gun at officers, prompting the officers to return fire with real bullets, Kelly said.

“At some time he reached into his pocket, took out his hand and simulated as if he was shooting at them,” Kelly told reporters late Saturday.

Two officers fired three shots before the unarmed Broadnax was brought down with a Taser, the NYPD said. He has been charged with menacing, obstructing governmental administration, riot, criminal possession of a controlled substance, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, the NYPD said in a statement issued Sunday morning. Those charges may change once he goes to court, however.

A 54-year-old woman was shot in the knee and a 37-year-old was grazed in the buttocks, police said. Earlier, they had said the younger victim was 35.

Let’s consider this story for a second. First, the police officers claim that the suspect mimicked firing a gun at them is quite likely spurious. Unless the officers involved can show some concrete proof of their claim I’m apt to believe their story is a fabrication meant to absolve them of responsibility for shooting two innocent bystanders. Second, the involved police officers have an odd continuum of force. They deployed lethal force before deploying less-likely-to-be-lethal force, which brought down the suspect. Third, the officers had a hit percentage of zero. They fired three rounds, all of which missed the target and two of which hit innocent bystanders. Had I, or any other non-state agent who legally carries a firearm, done such an act I would be facing prison time.

That brings us to the biggest problem with a two class society. In a society where one class is armed and the other unarmed the former cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. Today non-state agents who legally carry firearms are held legally responsible for any rounds they discharge, which is the way it should be. State agents enjoy legal protects from being held responsible. When you are not held responsible for your actions you become much more willing to act recklessly. If gun control advocates actually wanted to reduce violent crime they would be focusing their efforts on disarming legally privileged police officers instead of non-state agents who are held legally responsible for their actions.

3D Printed Pepperbox Handgun

3D printed guns are all the rage today. Those of us who believe in the free flow of information, advancing technology is beneficial, and gun rights are cheering the continuous advancement of these infinitely replicable pistols. The other side of the table, the Luddites who believe modern technology must be wiped from the face of the planet, are being hysterical. I’m happy to say that my side is winning. What’s interesting is that the advancement of 3D printed handguns is starting to take a similar path as the original advancement of handguns. The currently limitation, besides the ones caused by the nature of the materials being used, has been an inability for 3D printed firearms to fire more than one round at a time. That problem has been solved with the introduction of a 3D printed pepperbox handgun:

Consider, for example, the Hexen pepperbox, which has stainless steel liners for its six barrels and is undergoing constant strengthening and improvement as discussed over in the DefCad forum. The video below shows the Hexen successfully fired (actually, it appears to be a related five-shot model), using 6mm Flobert (low-powered .22) ammunition.

The designer, Franco, even printed ammunition holders for the pepperbox, along with a tool for ejecting expended cases (both pictured above).

At this rate I’m beginning to think we’ll see functional 3D printed semi-automatic pistols later this year or early next year. Reality isn’t kind to those who try to suppress the advancement of technology. Every law put into place to stop people from acquiring guns will be rendered meaningless once 3D printers become more widespread and 3D printable firearms become reliable. Technology has a way of overcoming state barriers. Anybody who thinks they can use the state to stop technology is a deluded fool.

Using Violence by Proxy

Days of our Trailers posted about a comment made by a gun control advocate on the Moms Demand Action Facebook page. The commenter, named Kat Brandow, said “Don’t skip Starbucks! Go, and if you see people sporting guns, call the police. Easy. A few arrests will make everyone rethink what they are doing!”

This is a rather ironic statement for a gun control advocate to make. Consider what Mrs. Brandow is saying. She is advocating for people who don’t like guns to call people with guns to harass other people with guns. I think the biggest fact lost on many gun control advocates is the fact that police officers, who they often want everybody to rely on, carry a notable amount of firepower on their person and usually have more in their squad car. If you’re freaked out by a person carrying an AR-15 why would you want to compound the matter by calling in another person with an AR-15?

I theorize that many advocates of gun control, such as Mrs. Brandow, aren’t opposed to guns per se. What they oppose is anybody acting in a manner that they don’t personally approve of. If the target of their hatred wasn’t carrying a gun Mrs. Brandow would find something else to hate about her target. Were private gun ownership abolished she would probably be standing on a pedestal demanding everybody call the police on anybody who is overtly Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, white, black, brown, blue eyed, brown eyeed, libertarian, anarchist, into metal, or some other category that offends her personal idea of righteousness. The gun isn’t what she hate, it’s merely an excuse to hate. It’s little different than a racist who makes excuses other than race to hate people of a different race. If she truly opposed guns she wouldn’t be advocating for people to call other people with guns.

Before I close this post, I feel it necessary to point out that I’m not making this accusation towards all gun control advocates. But those who are advocating for people to call the police on gun owners for the expressed purpose of harassing them most likely are.

Gun for Me, Not for Thee

I’m left in awe of the ability politicians have for giving a long-winded response devoid of content in lieu of a short quip that would have done the same. After coming into office, Obama announced the release of the We the People Petitions. Supposedly the system is one where individuals can submit petitions and if that petition gets enough signatures within a specific span of time somebody from the White House will address it. The White House’s first slew of response let us know how popular petitions would be handled. Instead of giving any notable consideration to popular petitions they are simply ignored. Sometimes, I’m guessing when a petition is particularly uncomfortable for the White House, popular petitions vanish. Consider the history of We the People Petitions I’m not surprised to see this response:

A petition on the formal White House petitions website called for “gun free” zones to be extended to politicians, saying if it’s good enough for children in schools and other places where otherwise legal firearm carry by private citizens is prohibited, then it should be good enough for our country’s leaders, right?

[…]

Here is the response of the White House:

Working to Keep Everyone Safe

Thanks for your petition.

We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.

At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response.

But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.

That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.

A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.

You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.

The White House could have simply said, “Guns are for masters, not for slaves.” Instead it gave a lengthy response that said nothing and merely plugged Obama’s gun control plan. Seriously, this response is a marvel when you look at it as an example of a political statement that runs on in length but fails to answer the question posed.

I did find it rather humorous that the response mentioned the assassination of President as justification for granting the position a full-time security detail. It’s a response that spits in the face of every non-politician who has been murdered. More non-politicians have been murdered than politicians yet the politicians are the ones who both receive special protection and prevent us from defending ourselves. If that doesn’t shine a light on the state’s attitude towards us then nothing will.