Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

I Think I Can Help

Good old Josh Sugarman. He’s one of those guys who always finds time out of his busy day of learning how to use a toilet like a big boy to make false claims about firearms. It seems he thinks Arizona is a big source of guns for the Mexican drug cartels:

Gun shows in Arizona are a significant source of military-style firearms for Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations. The anchor’s[Kelly] reference to Civil War guns isn’t even relevant since any gun manufactured before 1898 is not a “firearm” under federal law.

My question is how can you stop this when the very organization, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF), that is supposed to stop this is likely the source of the firearms smuggled across the border? Oh snap mother fucker. I guess the best thing we can do to prevent the supposedly smuggled guns is to shut down the ATF. How about Joshy, you on board? Nope? Ah, yes I’m sure that’s too logical for you.

An Example of Burden of Proof

I love it when examples make themselves apparent. Shortly after I posted about the whole idea that burden of proof is on the accuser Uncle posted a story where the accuser presents not facts to backup their claim.

The claim made by Salon author Gene Lyons is, “Guns costs more lives than they save.” The numbers provided to backup that claim? Nonexistent. The author provides a couple of unverified (no link or description of where the story originated from) stories where police officers were shot in the line of duty. Oh and the author flat out lies about this:

Anyway, here’s the thing: In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, handgun advocates argue that a well-armed private citizen could have saved lives by putting a decisive end to alleged gunman Jared Loughner’s mad act. Never mind that Arizona has the most permissive gun laws in the country. Indeed, the killer had broken no laws until he shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at point-blank range.

Emphasis mine.

Actually he committed a crime when he purchased the firearm because he was a user of marijuana which legally prohibited him from possessing a firearm.

See how that works? I made a claim and backed it up with citations of evidence.

How Would You Feel if Somebody Tried to Take Your Stuff

Anti-gunners constantly talk about compromise. They want us in the pro-gun community to compromise with them on gun laws. When we refuse they get upset and make claims that we must hate children or some other such emotion stirring argument. It becomes impossible for them to wrap their heads around why we’re so steadfast against them. You know why we’re so steadfast against them? Because they’re trying to steal our shit, plain and simple.

It’s not just anit-gunners of course. Laws have been passed to take away our incandescent light bulbs, our salt, our gas guzzling trucks, basically people all around are trying to use the law to steal other peoples’ shit. I mentioned yesterday that this week was the World Week for the Abolition of Meat and I wanted to setup a lunch at Fogo de Chao. I wasn’t kidding, I setup the lunch with a couple of my friends. Why? It’s not because I hate vegans, what you chose to eat is your own business. I set it up because I’m sick of the militant animal rights groups such a PETA trying to take my meat away from me.

When you try to steal somebody’s shit they are going to push back, plain and simple. When you try to steal somebody’s shit for reasons that make no sense you’re going to get an argument. How would you feel if I decided that cell phones cause cancer and successfully lobbied for a law banning the transfer of cell phones to private citizens? You probably wouldn’t be very happy would you?

For you anti-gunners who can’t wrap your head around any reason why we’re fighting to hard against you it’s because you’re trying to take our shit. You’re not trying to take it to make society safer (we’ve demonstrated time and time against that removing firearms from society just disarms the lawful while making society no safer), you’re trying to take it to make yourselves feel safer. You’re trying to take out shit for no good reason, that’s why we’re pushing so hard against you.

You don’t have a right to feel safe but we do have a right to defend our lives. Likewise it’s not legal to steal another persons’ possessions but it’s legal to own possessions.

Burden of Proof

Tell me if this has ever happened to you. You get into an argument with somebody dealing with politics and the second they can no longer argue against your facts they claim the source of your facts is funded by some lobbyist group whom agrees with what you’re saying.

And example of this came to my eyes a couple days ago. Somebody brought up the fact that Hawaii has a low rate of firearm ownership (he claimed 1 in 10 but gave no real source) and a low rate of gun related deaths while Louisiana had a high rate of firearm ownership (he claimed 1 in 2) and a high rate of gun deaths. I think the guy felt himself pretty damned smug that he came up with this statistic all by himself. The problem, as I pointed out, was his correlation didn’t hold. I decided to bring up firearm ownership information and gun related death information. My sources were the Washington Post (specially chosen because they have an anti-gun slant and thus really couldn’t be claimed to be bias in my favor) and SiteMaster (a good source of raw statistics usually).

I pointed out North Dakota has a similar rate of firearm ownership to Louisiana but has far fewer gun related deaths (and almost no homicides at all I might add) while District of Columbia has a very low rate of firearm ownership yet has the highest rate of firearm related deaths in the nation. Most logical people would have shut up at this point or admitted their argument was in error. Not this guy who decided to claim my sources were funded by the NRA.

Once somebody starts attacking the source of your information it is up to them to prove the potential conflict of interest. Most anti-gunners will just say something about the burden of proof not being on them just because they made the argument. The problem is the burden of proof is the responsibility of the one making the claim. I make many claims on this site but always try to provide some source of evidence supporting those claims. That’s because I’m making the argument and thus realize the burden of proof lies with me.

Whenever you make an argument you must be able to provide supporting evidence. This is how arguments work. The reason anti-gunners can’t seem to get a leg up is because they have no evidence supporting their claims. Look at the citations used by the Violence Policy Center or the Brady Campaign sometime. They often just cross-reference each other and claim it to be proof. And therein lies another thing about providing proof, you should provide it through neutral sources. I purposely go out of my way to avoid using NRA funded sources of information when arguing guns because I realize there is a bias. Often I’ll cite information provide by anti-gun organizations because I’m an asshole and like to use their information against them. But I try not to point people to the NRA or other gun-rights organization unless they’ve released a study that clearly provides citations to neutral sources (and sometimes even then I don’t because people will claim bias immediately).

Just remember if you’re going to get into an argument with an anti-gunner have verifiable facts at hand and be ready for them to attack those facts by claiming you used a bias source. Also once they claim the burden of proof isn’t on their hands even though they’re making the claims call them out on it. Don’t let this lazy shit fly.

The Need for 30 Round Magazines

For those anti-gunners who keep asking, “Why do you need 30 round magazines” Alan over at SnarkyBytes has your answer:

I have a machine gun that fires 1400 rounds a minute. It can empty a 30 round magazine in less than two seconds. It would empty a ten round magazine in less than half a second.

Also rights have nothing to do with needs. I have a right to keep and bear arms, it shall not be infringed, and there is nowhere in the Constitution that declares any authorization for any restriction to that right. If you can’t get that simple concept through your head then I fear for you, I fear you will forget something really important like how to breathe.

Right to Carry Law Moving in Wyoming

It seems Wyoming is destined to be the next state that “gives” its citizens the right to carry a concealed firearm. The Wyoming Senate committee gave their recommendation on approval at the right to carry bill. It’s nice to see logic can find hold in some places:

Matthew J. Huntington, a Cheyenne-based “freedom lobbyist,” told the committee that an armed citizen was at the scene in Tucson and ready to shoot to stop the violence. The gunman responsible for the shooting was tackled before the armed citizen could act.

“If that tackling didn’t happen, and the shooter loaded that second magazine and continued, that gentleman who was legally carrying would have been able to stop the threat at that point in time,” Huntington said. “The overall point is that when you make it easier for legally armed citizens to carry guns, you make it harder for bad guys to commit violent crime.”

Of course one of “the only ones” doesn’t like the idea and spouts hypothetical situations that haven’t been a problem in Vermont, Alaska, or Arizona so far:

Casper Police Chief Tom Pagel told the committee that any change to the state’s existing concealed carry system demands careful consideration.

Pagel said more than 21,000 people in Wyoming already have state concealed-carry permits. He said only 1 or 2 percent of applications result in denials.

“Where I see the potential risk to this is citizen to citizen,” Pagel said. “Something that might be a fight will end up with gunplay.”

Being the three states with right to carry laws in place don’t have any issue I think we can all just drop this “blood in the streets” argument.

Ron Paul on Gun Control and Violence

It’s no secret around here that I really hate politicians. I do have an exception to that rule and that exception is Ron Paul because he actually makes sense. He posted a very good writeup on his site about the recent surge in demand for more gun control. I think this sums things up very nicely:

Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to “do something” to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.

Remember our government officials are like you and me only better.

McCarthy Going for Full Gun Ban

I’m a little late with this news but Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell has posted information regarding McCarthy’s draft bill to ban ammunition feeding devices above an arbitrary size.

The transfer, importation, and manufacture of any ammunition feeding device (not just magazines it seems) would become illegal under this bill. I don’t know how they could enforce who I transfer magazines to as they usually don’t even have serial numbers to identify them and thus can’t really be tracked.

Likewise many firearms would also become illegal to transfer, import, or manufacture under this law. What firearms you ask? Basically any firearm that has a fixed magazine that can store more than 10 cartridges. Spare parts for standard capacity magazines also become verboten under the law.

What is funny though is police, active or retired, are exempt from this because they obviously need to kill as many people as possible (in McCarthy’s words describing standard capacity magazines). This makes sense because when you’re the government’s enforcement body you get special privileges over the peasantry.

Advocacy for NYPD to Boycott Glocks

We all know the true culprit in the Arizona shooting was the Glock pistol with high capacity “clips.” It certainly wasn’t the person wielding the gun and shooting people. That’s why idiots in support of gun control have been attacking Glock so heavily. It seems a new layer of stupidity has arisen with with people advocating the New York Police Department (NYPD) boycott Glock pistols because they sell 30-round magazines to peasants:

“If Glock will not stop selling these magazines to consumers, then the New York City Police Department should start buying the firearms they need from a different company,” Public Advocate Bill de Blasio said.

“The New York Post editorial board has rightly argued that the Glock-manufactured 30-round magazines, like the one used by clearly disturbed Jared Loughner, present an unacceptable risk to human life, and at the same time no justifiable civilian purpose.”

So in a time of budget crisis the NYPD should dump all of their pistols and buy all new guns, parts, retrain officers, and retrain armorers just because Glock does a perfectly legitimate and legal activity of selling magazines of an arbitrary size to peasants (saying civilians isn’t correct as the police are civilians as well).

What I find really stupid is the fact people are blaming the magazine. There are two conflicted reports going around on how the shooting was stopped. Some people are claiming he was tackled when he was in the middle of a reload while others are saying he successfully reloaded but the gun jammed when chambering a new round. Likewise tackling somebody during a reload requires you to already be in very close proximity since reloading a gun is a fast operation. If somebody is more than a few feet away it’s unlikely that they’d be able to close the distance before a shooter was able to get a new magazine into their gun.

If we’re going to blame tools we need to look at other things as well. Has anybody found out what kind of car the Arizona shooter drove? We should probably attack that as well since without it he couldn’t have driven there (if he used public transportation we need to ban that instead). We did the shooter buy his groceries? If he wouldn’t have been able to eat he wouldn’t have been alive and thus couldn’t have performed the shooting, we really should go after his preferred grocery story.

Rachel Maddow Flat Out Lying

I’ve always known Rachel Maddow was a complete fucking moron but I never realized just how stupid she really was until I watched her following clip (you’ll have to copy and paste since I won’t be a referral to this idiot’s site):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/41030180#41030326

It’s Rachel Maddow on guns and it’s even more idiotic than I imagined. First she goes on a little rant about the all plastic gun that Glock was able to make. Yes you heard me right, an all plastic gun that Glock made. She claims Congress then passed a bill banning entirely plastic guns because of this magical undetectable-at-airports gun. What she is referencing (but never tells you) is the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Basically they law states any gun that can not be detected by a walk through metal detector is banned from being manufactured or imported into the country. The law also provided an exemption for any firearm that was already in the United States.

If the law was passed and Glock never actually made an entirely plastic gun then what was Congress doing passing any such law? Probably the same thing Wisconsin was doing when they banned electromagnetic weapons for hunting. In other words they were banning something that doesn’t exist. So where did Rachel get her firearm knowledge? Probably from Die Hard 2.

She then moves on to bitch about “cop killer bullets” (and Dick Cheney). There is no such thing as “cop killer bullets.” When people refer to such mystical things they are talking about armor piercing ammunition which is defined very specifically in the United States via the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985. In the United States armor piercing bullets is defined as handgun bullets (rifle and shotgun ammunition is specifically exempt) constructed from specified material. It also exempts any ammunition that the Secretary of Treasury exempts for hunting purposes.

Next she asks if her audience would like an anti-aircraft weapon. HELL YEAH I would. You know how awesome it would be to own a World War II anti-aircraft cannon? Pretty awesome that’s for sure. Anyways she states that there are federal regulations against having anti-aircraft weapon in airport observation areas. This is another stupid law because I’ve been in airport observation areas and honestly there is no way to wheel and anti-aircraft cannon in there. Have you seen the size of those things? They’re not exactly small rifles.

Funny enough she’s still not done bitch about guns. She goes on to talk about how everybody is stating passing gun control in this country is impossible (which, sadly, it isn’t) but she things differently. The reason passing gun control in this country is difficult is two fold. First we have a right to keep and bear arms codified in the second amendment. Second we’ve seen gun control laws never actual prevent or lower violent crime rates they only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. If something has been demonstrated not to work time and time again why should anybody take it seriously?

She then follows by making a classic anti-gunner mistake, stating the “assault weapon” ban made purchasing standard capacity magazines illegal. That’s not even close to the case. The “assault weapon” ban made it illegal to manufacture new magazines with a capacity above 10 rounds unless they were meant for military or law enforcement personnel. The Arizona shooter could still have legally purchased a previously manufactured 30 round magazine even with the ban in place. Likewise she keeps calling them clips because she’s a moron who doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Then the real bullshit comes up, she claims information on gun control laws are “un-Googleable.” She also tells her audience that they shouldn’t even try to Google gun control laws but instead research them at a library. Yeah, sure. Guess what? I always find my information relating to gun laws using Google, it’s pretty easy. There isn’t some super gun lobby conspiracy to filter the Internet of all things gun law related.

If her staff can’t Google information related to gun laws she needs to fire them and hire new people. Either way that was the absolute worst piece I’ve seen done since the Arizona shooting and honestly don’t know how it could be topped.