… bringing facts into it. Clayton Cramer takes a look at the actual results of Universal Background Checks for gun buyers in the states that have them.
It is not enough to feel that this will make a difference; we need to make evidence-based decisions about what laws to pass. Those who refuse to do math are doomed to talk nonsense.
Even though this wasn’t valid in New York City, what do you suppose would have happened to the NYPD cop who hassled Mrs. Roosevelt?
What could go wrong? All these Democrats are proposing is to make a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights subject to the whim of unelected bureaucrats who can suspend it by placing your name on a secret list you can’t see without any due process and no judicial review.
Oh, and they claim that banning gun purchases by persons on the terrorist watch list would have stopped the Boston Marathon bombers. How? Will pressure cooker purchases be subject to background checks? Or the common household chemicals available at most supermarkets that can be used to homebrew explosives?
You know, it would be easier for these control freaks to run our lives for us if they’d simply repeal the Bill of Rights wholesale.
UPDATE–Prof. Reynolds notes that what the politicians control they use against us.
To borrow a word: Indeed.
And more and more Americans are beginning to say, “No, thank you.” Why? Peggy Noonan suggests this answer in a post at WSJ.
A major problem for those who want an immigration bill is lack of faith in government to do all the jobs it’s set itself well. People don’t trust it to be able to execute—to do, adequately, the thing it’s set itself to do in its big new laws. We always look at the motives and politics behind a big bill, and talk about that. But simple noncrisis execution—the ability to track and deal with a Tamerlan Tsarnaeu, or to patrol and control a huge border—is a big reason why which people lack faith. Because, you know, they read the papers.
Most of us have to work pretty hard to get things right. Babe Ruth had a lifetime batting average of .342—which means he failed to make it to first base almost 2/3 of the time. Government doesn’t seem to be doing nearly as well as the Sultan of Swat, and as it has become more unsuccessful in many of its basic functions, it has tried to meddle in area outside its rightful sphere. Managing public safety is one thing. Regulating Big Gulps is another.
Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism outlines the history of what I call “nannystateism,” a form of socialism with a smiley face. The control freak forms of socialism split into two main streams a bit over a hundred years ago. In Europe, they wound up with totalitarian forms such as Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, and Russian Communism. They were police states. In America, we flirted with police state socialism during the Wilson Administration, but returned to normalcy during the ’20s. When the Progressives returned to power during the Great Depression and the Second World War, the horrors of the gulag and the holocaust kept Americans away from that kind of state brutality. Instead of control through fear, our politicians have tried to practice control through gift giving.
And so we have a kind and gentle form of control freak meddling by the government. The path we’re on doesn’t lead to Orwell’s Room 101, but it seems headed to a place very like Huxley’s Brave New World. The problem is that there isn’t enough soma to go around, and there probably never will be. Most of us will have to work to support ourselves and our families. So when folks see that a couple of immigrants who never had jobs were supported well enough that they had cell phones and nice clothes and leisure time to party and guns and explosives with which to attack us, they naturally begin to wonder about what’s going on. Some will ask, “Where’s my share of the goodies?” Others will ask, “Why are we supporting these creeps?”
I hope that the second group is larger.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is under 21 and therefore not eligible for a gun license in Massachusetts. He now faces the possibility of a mandatory one year jail term for carrying a firearm without a license.
Perhaps he can serve that time on federal death row.
It’s been reported that the police who engaged in a gunfight with the Tsarnaev brothers last week fired over 200 rounds of ammunition. They didn’t kill the older brother outright. The autopsy says that he died of gunshot and blast wounds (from his own explosives). The younger brother was wounded but still in action a day later.
And Gov. O’Malley wants the already below-normal 20 round limit on magazines here in Maryland reduced to 10 rounds.
It’s also been reported that neither of the Tsarnaev brothers ever filled out any state paperwork for any of the handguns they used.
And Gov. O’Malley wants to fingerprint folks who fill out the paperwork to legally buy handguns.
Joe Biden invents bogus illegal gun buyer statistics on the fly. Video here.
Such blatant misrepresentation of the facts earns five out of a possible four pinocchios.
The Senate has voted, and none of the “anti-gun” legislation (as Dingy Harry called it) has survived. Indeed, the proposed bans on modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines were soundly defeated.
Good.
UPDATE—Snicker.
Senator Reid makes a slip of the tongue and accidentally tells the truth about his legislation.
The new gun control law passed by the Maryland Legislature created the following section in the Criminal Law:
§ 4-102 (b) A person may not carry or possess a firearm, knife, or deadly weapon of any kind on public school property.
The prohibition on knives has no exception for cafeteria staff. Or tableware in the cafeteria.
UPDATE—@MSchumacher asks, “Baseball w no bats?” A fair question. I seem to remember that Al Capone murdered someone with a baseball bat.
UPDATE 2—Conviction of a violation of this section can result in 3 years imprisonment. That is a sufficiently long possible sentence to cause loss of the right to possess a firearm under 18 USC 922(g) for any conviction under 4-102.
Think of it.
Someone walks into a school to pick up his sick child and forgets to take the Swiss Army knife out of his pocket …
I’m told that shooting oneself in the foot is a bad idea. I suppose so. I’ve never tried it, although I have been around more than my share of negligent firearm discharges.
There are four very simple rules which will make a negligent discharge unlikely.
1. All firearms are always handled as if they are loaded.
2. Never point the muzzle of a firearm at anything you are unwilling to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are aligned on the target.
4. Be sure of your target.
Those rules are simple, and following them will keep you from negligently shooting yourself or any one or thing else. The rules and laws governing who can have a gun and under what circumstances are more complicated, and failure to attend to those rules can also be quite painful.
Here in Maryland, for instance, for almost 20 years we have had strict controls on the transfers of certain kinds of rifles and magazines. Here’s how that affects me.
I have a collector’s item WWII vintage M1 Carbine made by National Postal Meter. It isn’t on any of the state no-no lists, at least not yet. However, the 30-round magazines commonly used with M1 Carbines are restricted in that they cannot be transferred to another individual in Maryland. So if I take my Carbine to the range, I can shoot it using one of my old 30-round magazines, but if I allow someone else to shoot it (lending it is a transfer), they must use a 15-round magazine because I can’t transfer the 30-round magazine to them.
I also have a Colt AR15 Sporter Carbine. It doesn’t use the usual .223 Remington/5.56 mm NATO ammunition; it’s chambered for 7.62 X 39 mm Russian round that is legal for deer hunting in Maryland. The only magazines I have for it are the 5-round units provided by Colt. Since an AR15 is regulated firearm, I can’t just hand it to whomever I wish. So-called “gratuitous” temporary loans are OK, but anyone other than a family member, close friend, or licensed dealer can be risky. All transfers are supposed to go through a licensed dealer. However, the 5-round magazines have no restrictions whatsoever.
This is what happens when laws are cobbled together by people who have little understanding of what they are trying to regulate. When I was a federally licensed dealer a couple of decades ago, there were over 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws in the book that the ATF sent me, some of them contradictory. There are more of ‘em now.
Sigh.
The Maryland Legislature has joined with New York, Colorado, and Connecticut in passing a gun control law of doubtful constitutionality. Our governor will certainly sign the bill, and the law will certainly be petitioned to referendum. We’ll see how thing go from there.
Companies such as Magpul in Colorado and Beretta in Maryland will be moving to states that respect the Second Amendment. Some Maryland residents are beginning to talk about voting with their feet. However, many supports of these laws view these exoduses as feature rather than a bug. Having those bitter clingers move away gets them out of the neighborhood.
Sigh.
There are days when I wonder why I ever left Tennessee.
The NRA is not the only civil rights organization opposed to the Senator Reid’s universal background check bill. Now, the ACLU is piling on, citing severe privacy issues. The problem is the retention of transaction records for private sales. Buying a gun at retail requires a background check, but the record of the check is normally destroyed with 24 hours. The Reid bill would require that the record of a private transfer be maintained, and there is nothing in the bill that would prohibit the Justice Department from using those records to create a gun registry.
The last time I remember the ACLU siding against the Democrats in the Senate was during the filibuster over the Civil Rights Act during the ’60s.
The Washington Times reports that a practicing Sikh, Gursant Singh Khalsa, in California is suing the state in federal court. He is asserting that his religious beliefs require that he be armed in order to “be at all time fully prepared to defend themselves and others against injustice.” The suit says that the Mr. Khalsa “fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if he were to possess loaded weapons with 11 or more round magazines within his home, within his vehicle on the streets, or within his temple. But his religious beliefs require no less.”
Read the whole thing.
The Washington Free Beacon reports that another member of Nanny Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been arrested. This time the charges are DUI and Property Destruction.
Illegal Mayors Against Guns might be more accurate.
When I’ve been blogging about The Dread Pirate Kimberlin and his attacks on the Bill of Rights, I’ve been dealing with First Amendment issues so far. He is now attacking the Second Amendment as well. His 501(c)4, Velvet Revolution US, has a new subgroup called NRA Watch (No, I won’t link to their website.) that is dedicated to more gun control. (H/T, Lee Stranahan)
Among the control measures the “group” advocates are:
Banning military style assault weapons–which I suppose would include the AR15s that TDPK unlawfully possessed during his drug dealing days.
100% background checks on all gun sales–which might have caught TDPK’s straw purchasers transferring firearms to him.
Correcting the myth that the “solution to our problem is to arm more people”–which brings up the question of whose problem “our problem” is. Certainly, having guns in the hands of good guys does not solve a problem for crooks and thugs.
Breitbart has a video up of the Vice President assuring us that we don’t have to be worried about our Constitutional rights.
Now that he’s explained that I don’t need my AR15 for protection (Joe, mine’s for deer hunting; it’s 7.62 X 39 mm, not the weaker 5.56 mm.) and now that he’s explained that all that the opposition to gun control here on the Internet has been planted by people trying to delay his good works, I understand why it’s OK to infringe a right that the Bill of Rights says “shall not be infringed.” We can’t let that pesky old scrap of paper stand in the way.
Sigh.
Nice Deb has the pictures of the various events.
It appears that as many as two or three dozen anti-2A folks protested at NRA Headquarters. OTOH, hundreds turned out for pro-2A rallies at state capitols.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling striking down the Illinois law preventing the carrying of handguns in public. Last fall, that court gave the state a 180-day stay in the ruling to allow the legislature to enact a new law that would pass constitutional muster. If the legislature fails to act soon, Illinois will join Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona as a constitutional carry state.
“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun. You don’t need an AR-15,” Mr. Biden said, referring to an assault-style rifle. “It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”
Permit me to disagree with the Vice President. While some folks have pointed out that a double-barrel shotgun has an inherent deficiency when one is faced with three targets, I’d like to point out some other things from my personal experience. It is possible to be facing an opponent who is so psyched up that multiple gunshot wounds are required to take him down. It’s also possible to miss and have to fire again. I’ve had the experience of running out of ammunition and having to reload while a gunfight was still in progress. As Field Marshall Rommel noted, the winner is the man with a round still left in a magazine.
I have a hunting shotgun that I could use in a home defense situation. Its magazine holds more than two rounds. However, it would not be my weapon of choice. Given the layout of my house, a handgun or carbine is a better choice.
Also, having used M16 rifles (the M16 is a military version of the AR15) while in the Army, I can tell you that they are much easier to shoot properly than double-barrel shotguns. The sights are easy to align, (Yes, you do have to aim a shotgun; the pattern has a diameter of only 4 in or so at 25 ft.) and the recoil or “kick” is much lighter–so the weapon is easier to keep under control.
While Joe Biden is famous for shooting off his mouth, I doubt he has any real experience as either a gunfighter or an AR15 user.
Jazz Shaw has a post up at Hot Air about the latest trial balloon from the gun grabbers, firearm insurance. As others have pointed out, this is simply an attempt to make legal gun ownership more expensive. And as has been noted by others, the fact that the Progressives are having to float this kind of idea is a sign that they understand that they have lost the main argument for gun control with the public at large.
OK, if we’re winning, it’s time to push back. We probably can’t get a repeal of some of the more obnoxious portions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, but we can propose some “common sense” solutions.
For example, it’s clear that Gun Free Zones are essentially attractive nuisances not unlike swimming pools. We require owners to fence off their pools or face, in some instances, strict liability for the danger to someone (such as a child) who falls in and drowns. Why not require that the owners of Gun Free Zones either provide adequate protection for invitees who enter their property or be held strictly liable for the invitees’ safety? That’s a common sense approach that lets a hoplophobic property owner choose how he wishes to exercise his right to have a Gun Free Zone. Of course, this might have an effect on his liability insurance rates.
Just an idea.
There’s a post up on the Justice Through Music Project front page blog (No, I won’t link to it.) taking Ted Nugent to task for standing up for the Second Amendment while on Piers Morgan’s show on CNN.
Apparently, we have to solve our gun safety problem with out inconveniencing gun owners in any way shape or form. I don’t know if we could do that Ted.
Now, I don’t know for sure, but I’ll bet that was written by Brett Kimberlin. Assuming that he is currently obeying the law, TDPK is not a gun owner. As a felon, he is barred by state and federal law from possessing a firearm, so he wouldn’t suffer any further inconvenienced from stricter gun laws.
Of course, he hasn’t always obeyed the law, especially the Gun Control Act of 1968. When he was arrested for drug smuggling in Texas, he was already a prohibited person because of his perjury conviction. Yet, he had several firearms in his possession when he was busted. His having guns while a felon is a worked example of a fundamental flaw with gun control—criminals don’t obey the law.
Arma Borealis uses the unfair rhetorical device of logic applied to facts to argue for subway control for New York City. He has a particularly compelling argument for limiting subway car capacity to no more than seven riders who have passed a background check.
Oh wait? You mean, there are downsides or costs to such a policy that outweigh the benefit of saving a life? You do understand that if you are opposed to halting or severly restricting all subway service, you are a cold, uncaring evil Nazi who hates the children, right?
Well, if it’s for the children, …
UPDATE–Mayor Bloomberg was unavailable for comment.
A reader from Western Maryland writes:
A thought occurred to me while catching up on my daily reading. With all the rhetoric over gun control being spewed out and the constant claim that “if it saves just one life”, then why not throw it back in their face with abortion. If it will save just one life, shouldn’t abortion be overturned. Fifty-five million lives have been murdered in 40 years vs how many from guns. We can even treat Planned Parenthood like high capacity clips, or better yet, like McDonald’s use to advertise on their signs, “Over 50 million served.”
I can hear the argument from the left stating that it’s just tissue matter and doesn’t really count, but why is it considered as such when in the animal kingdom it’s not? How many babies have been aborted during the third trimester and didn’t Obama support such procedures. Again, if just one life is saved? Just saying …
Jonah Goldberg has a column over at NRO that touches on the “if it saves just one life” fallacy often used to support gun control and other nanny state meddling in our lives. He cites the example of the FDA bureaucrat who had a 100 percent success rate in avoiding the approval of an unsafe drug by refusing to approve any drugs for four years.
If something saves one life, it may also cost many more. But that’s math. And using math is an unfair rhetorical device according to many on the left.
