Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
I’m beginning to see a new talking point from the gun control crowd—suicide prevention. The possibility of preventing someone from rashly shooting himself has always been one of allegedly good reasons for waiting periods for firearms purchases, but there’s a new twist. It seems to underlie a piece I read this morning over at Scientific American.
You see, it’s white men who are stockpiling guns, and we’re using them to kill ourselves.
Unfortunately, the people most likely to be killed by the guns of white men aren’t the “bad guys,” presumably criminals or terrorists. It’s themselves—and their families.
Read the whole thing. When you do, you’ll see the new twist at the end.
“Ridicule of working-class white people is not helpful,” says Angela Stroud. “We need to push the ‘good guys’ to have a deeper connection to other people. We need to reimagine who we are in relation to each other.”
They’ve noticed who comments about bitter clingers and deplorables helped elect.
I love the freedoms we got in this country, I appreciate your freedom to burn your flag if you want to, but I really appreciate my right to bear arms so I can shoot you if you try to burn mine.
Yesterday evening, a discussion of “universal” background checks appeared in my Twitter timeline in response to a tweet that had include an @ mention of me. After several hundred tweets went by, I hopped in to ask the person advocating for federal mandated background checks for private gun sales if he had any data to support that background checks on private sales were actually beneficial in reducing crime. I noted that Maryland had not seen any benefit.
He cited the improvement in crime statistics in New York from 2013 to 2016. I asked what other states, and he said something about it not being possible to sort out the effect of background checks from all the “improved” gun control over that period. I spent a few minutes with the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2013 and 2016 and found that crime got worse in the most states with “universal” background checks during that period. Of course, crime got worse all across the country (this was the era of Ferguson and Baltimore), but, on average, the states with “universal” background checks began the period with crime rates worse than the national average and ended the period with crime rates worse than the national average. The repeatable results from running the experiments in those laboratories of democracy show that “universal” background checks are ineffective at best and probably a failed policy.
The Gentle Reader will probably not be surprised to learn that such a reasoned argument did not impress my interlocutor. At least, he didn’t go on about high-capacity magazines, perhaps because it has come out that the recent shooter used 10-round mags.
Which leads me to another point: The recent school shooter supposedly said that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter.” How did he learn that there was such a thing? Surely, he learned through press coverage of previous shootings.
<sarc>It may be that the time has come to rein in such coverage in order to protect our children. As part of that, we need to seriously consider a ban on high-capacity magazines. After all, no one has a legitimate need for a copy of Time, Mother Jones, or Marie Claire with more than 10 pages. I can already hear the complaints saying that such publications are protected by the First Amendment. Piffle. Even if we grant the writers’ the right to have such dangerous publications in their own homes, they don’t belong in public spaces. The Founding Fathers—including Benjamin Franklin, a printer and inventor—could never have imagined such publications. If it saves just one child, …</sarc>
Beto O’Rourke is a Texas Democrat running for Senate against Ted Cruz.
So this Democrat candidate wanted to make a statement favoring gun control, and she made this video—
After questions were asked as to whether she had committed a felony by manufacturing a short-barreled rifle (SBR) without the proper paperwork and without paying the required tax, she took the video down. Someone has reposted it.
While she did cut the barrel and the gas tube on the AR-15, she left the lower receiver intact. As far as the ATF is concerned, the lower receiver is the firearm. The weapon should still be functional as a bolt action SBR, and replacing or repairing the damaged upper receiver should return the rifle to “fully” semiautomatic operation.
Five years and $100,000.
UPDATE—A bit of “gunsplaining”: It would have been legal to have cut the barrel and gas tube on the upper receiver if the upper had been detached from the lower when the cuts were made and if the upper were not reattached.
Dick’s and Walmart recently announced that they would stop selling rifles and shotguns to buyers under the age of 21. That’s illegal under the age discrimination laws in many states, and The Hill reports that lawsuits seeking to enforce the Oregon anti-discrimination law have been filed against both companies.
I had figured that the first suit would come in California, but Oregon will do.
The Left really isn’t going to like having to live under the rules they have created.