Problems and Solutions

Once again, some asshole went on a shooting rampage in a school.

Once again, some asshole legislator is blaming the lack of new gun control laws, specifically universal background checks Preemptively Prove Your Innocence (PPYI) prior restraint on human/civil rights.

It’s true that the Santa Fe scumbag would not have been able to pass a background check, being seventeen years old, but… he bypassed any such checks by obtaining his weapons unlawfully in the first place. He stole them, from a locked cabinet. Does Douche Deutch honestly believe that if universal PPYI were in effect that an underage person intent upon mass murder to the point that he violated laws would suddenly exclaim, “Oh, darn! That would be illegal. Never mind.”?

The simple facts are that 1) 64% of murderers have prior felony convictions* prohibiting them from lawfully obtaining guns, but they manage it anyway; 2) 88% (or as high as 90.5%) of firearms murders are committed using stolen guns, which means they were obtained unlawfully; 3) criminals generally don’t obtain their firearms through lawful channels, doing so only 7% of the time. Pray tell, how does one enforce a lawful background check in an unlawful transaction?

And the touted background checks? No doubt, you’ve heard all about how checks have stopped sales to bad guys 2.5 million (or whatever number is being bandied about of late) times. The reality is that with a false positive rate of 94%, that’s actually 2.3 million innocent people whose Second Amendment rights were mistaken abridged. That’s why there have been so few prosecutions (I think 140-something was the last number I saw; not 140,000, not 1,400… 140. Nationwide.) coming from those millions of NICS denials. At last report, the DOJ still had a backlog of tens of thousands of denial challenges to process.

Prohibited folks intent upon committing crimes just bypass pesky PPYI inflicted on the innocent.

New gun control laws would target only the honest folks who aren’t committing the crimes. So such laws violate rights without even the lousy excuse of enhancing public safety.

So naturally the gun control crowd whines, “But we have a growing gun violence problem, and you aren’t offering any solutions.”

No, we don’t; and yes, I am.

First: No. We don’t. Even when you include the recent uptick, “gun violence” is a mostly solved problem already.

  • Firearms homicides are down 24% from 1993
  • The rate of firearms homicides is down 37%
  • Accidental firearms deaths dropped from 824 (in 1999) to 489 (in 2015)

School shootings?

Again, even with the recent jump — largely attributable to the media plastering killers’ names and faces everywhere, showing psychotic copycats the road to fame — school shootings have been trending downward for decades.

Violence isn’t really up. Violence reporting — thanks, 24/7 news networks, in desperate need of material to fill time slots and draw advertisers — is up. So kids (chronological and mental) who haven’t looked at the real data get the impression that schools are less safe than ever before in history.

We are safer because of honest folks lawfully arming and defending themselves. 338,700 times per year even according to the anti-gun Violence Policy Center. Other researchers estimate defensive gun uses at 2.5 million, which recently located CDC data (suppressed for 20 years) suggest is a better estimate than the VPC’s.

But those upticks?

There are 3007 county units in the US. 54% — more than half — had no murders in 2014. 5% ( counties) provided 68% of all murders. 2% of the counties (60 counties) accounted for more than half of all murders. Care to guess where?

Would you like to narrow it down further? According to the Wall Street Journal, one-third (33.3%) of the national homicide spike in 2016 came from just five neighborhoods. In one city: Chicago.

Huffington Post narrows it down even more. Although you have to look at the FBI UCR data on victim and offender to see what they try to avoid stating outright.

A mostly solved problem; violence declining almost everywhere.

Second: But there is more that can be done to address the still-present (if declining) problem:

1. Teaching people the things they need to function in an honest society.
2. Providing second chances and skills to those who slip and survive.
3. Providing skills and equipment to those who want to stop the real violence.

But for the gun people controlling victim disarmers, those answers are unacceptable because they reduce their control over the population.

Solved problems are a problem for them because those don’t provide an excuse to exert more control, spend more money, generate more victims from which to profit.

The people controllers suppress self-respect and self-reliance in favor of violating everyone’s human/civil rights.

And it could backfire on them.


* Recently, I’ve been checking on regional firearms murder reports. Where the offender is identified, the prior felony rate is more like 70%. When other disqualifiers are factored in — domestic violence conviction, restraining orders, felony indictment, mental incompetency adjudication — at least 90% of the murderers were already prohibited persons. That doesn’t even count the people like the Santa Fe killer, who apparently had no disqualifying record, but was under-age to obtain his destructive implements of choice.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

7 thoughts on “Problems and Solutions”

  1. Punishing the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible doesn’t work, it only makes things worst, prohibition is a good example, all you do is make it so that you can’t see the trees for the forest.

  2. “how does one enforce a lawful background check in an unlawful transaction?” — You mean a “lawful background check” whose sole purpose is to deprive Martha Stewart, Dinesh D’Souza, and millions of other Americans (most of whom were convicted of nonviolent, even victimless, offenses; many with no criminal record) from being “allowed” to exercise a fundamental human right expressly guaranteed in the Second Amendment. So much for that “no compromise,” “shall not be infringed,” and “unalienable rights” stuff.

    1. If you think that pointing out the inherent stupidity of violating the rights of millions of innocents — on the assumption that actual criminals will obey laws — is “compromise,” you’re quite mistaken. You should read that again.

      What part of “So such laws violate rights without even the lousy excuse of enhancing public safety” did you not understand?

  3. Please try and follow along:

    1. You referred to FBI NICS background checks—whose sole purpose is to forbid millions of Americans from possessing a firearm, a fundamental human right—as “lawful.” A person who seriously believed in that “no compromise,” “shall not be infringed,” and “unalienable rights” stuff would describe GCA-68, Brady Act, and similar victim disarmament statutes as blatantly unconstitutional, not “lawful.”

    2. You objected to “2.3 million innocent people whose Second Amendment rights were mistaken abridged.” You failed to object to Martha Stewart, Dinesh D’Souza, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Fuhrman, and millions of other “prohibited persons” under GCA-68 having their RKBA completely abrogated, even when they never committed any violent offense; often mala prohibita “crimes” which lack any victim.

    3. You wrote, “Prohibited folks intent upon committing crimes just bypass pesky PPYI inflicted on the innocent.” The USA wasn’t founded by law-abiding citizens; it was founded by felons who committed treason, sedition, and armed rebellion against their government. Even before our War of Independence, several prominent Founding Fathers were anything but law-abiding. John Hancock was the most notorious smuggler and tax evader in the colonies. Ethan Allen would have been executed for land fraud by New York officials if they’d been able to apprehend him. The Second Amendment wasn’t written by, or for, law-abiding citizens; it was written by, and for, criminals. The primary reason why the Framers ratified the Second Amendment was to ensure an armed citizenry capable of resisting an oppressive government (as they had just done themselves). Law-abiding citizens would never up arms against their government since doing so is invariably illegal. The notion of “prohibited folks” forbidden to possess a firearm or ammunition is completely contrary to the language in the Second Amendment and the Framers’ original intent.

    4. “We are safer because of honest folks lawfully arming and defending themselves.” — Not one word objecting to the anti-gun laws which forbid Martha Stewart and many other decent Americans classified as “prohibited persons” from “lawfully arming and defending themselves” against violent predators. Most contemporary Americans are unconvicted felons; they’re just too ignorant and/or stupid to be aware of the (usually victimless) “crimes” they’ve unwittingly committed or unwilling to acknowledge them. There are tens of thousands of state and federal felonies (the number is constantly increasing); so many that no judge, prosecutor or LEO knows more than a fraction yet every private citizen is expected to know and obey each one. What’s legal consensual sex in many states constitutes a felony in other states. A pocketknife that’s legal in some states is a felony to possess or carry in other states. A fisherman who buys a “fish billy” at a sporting goods store in Alaska for use on halibut or king salmon commits a felony if he brings it into California—where private citizens have been convicted of felony possession of a “billy club” by merely owning a baseball bat and telling a cop they kept it for protection. The only reason why it’s “lawful” (to use your word) for Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and a multitude of similar hypocrites to possess a firearm is because they were never arrested, prosecuted then convicted back when whey were committing, and enjoying, felony drug use. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that simply possessing a state-issued medical marijuana card renders anyone a “prohibited person” under GCA-68. What was Martha Stewart’s crime that now forbids her, in perpetuity, from being “allowed” to possess the means of self-defense? She lied to an FBI agent who’d just lied to her. Private citizen lies to FBI agent = federal felony. FBI agent (or other LEO) lies to private citizen = “pretext interview,” “investigative ruse,” etc.

    5. “That doesn’t even count the people like the Santa Fe killer, who apparently had no disqualifying record, but was under-age to obtain his destructive implements of choice.” — Just out of idle curiosity, at what age does a person have to reach before you believe the Second Amendment (and rest of the Constitution) becomes applicable? I bought my first firearm at a sporting goods store in 1966 when I was 13. Thanks to GCA-68, when I returned home from Vietnam, I was still “under-age” to “lawfully” purchase a handgun despite being required to carry one (and machine guns, assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc.) in the Army.

    6. “criminals generally don’t obtain their firearms through lawful channels” — Thanks to the background checks you described as “lawful,” how can they “obtain firearms through lawful channels” without committing a felony and facing up to a decade in prison? Good luck explaining the notion of a “lawful background check” before “allowing” an American to purchase a firearm to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the other felons who founded the USA.

    7. Keep working on getting a handle on that “no compromise,” “shall not be infringed,” and “unalienable rights” stuff.

    1. You ain’t right in the head — anybody’s head — are you?

      1. “1. You referred to FBI NICS background checks—whose sole purpose is to forbid millions of Americans from possessing a firearm, a fundamental human right—as “lawful.””

      “Law” exist even when we think it’s terrible. Sometimes we even note that laws are freaking stupid and useless (as I did) to make that point. That doesn’t exactly mean we approve of the laws we’re condemning. Unless you’re off seriously needed meds.

      Is your real name “Melvin”? ‘Cause I know a company in need of an IT guy. But you have to leave your tactical wheelbarrow at home.

      2. “You failed to object to Martha Stewart, Dinesh D’Souza, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Fuhrman…”

      What is it with you and Martha Stewart?

      That’s because I was addressing unconstitutional background checks. You might note that, since this was about new gun control laws, I also failed to object to — in this column — unconstitutional toilet tanks limits, fleet mileage, swiss cheese hole ratios, and a shitload of other transgressions. If you look around, you might discover my views on abridging the rights of folks deemed safe to walk around without a keeper.

      3. “You wrote, “Prohibited folks intent upon committing crimes just bypass pesky PPYI inflicted on the innocent.”

      Now I’m confused. Or you are. I’m talking about CRIMINALS committing crimes against real victims. You’re talking about… beats the fuck out of me. Take a look at #2 above.

      4. ‘4. “We are safer because of honest folks lawfully arming and defending themselves.” — Not one word objecting to the anti-gun laws which forbid Martha Stewart …”

      You really have a jones for Martha, dontcha?

      I said we’re safer because people are armed for defense. I didn’t address Martha Stewart et al (and the laws that make felons prohibited persons… see #2 above) because that’s not what I was talking about. Note that I also didn’t denounce federal restrictions on incandescent lightbulbs… because that isn’t what I was talking about.

      Feel free to write your own column on Martha Stewart and lightbulbs.

      5. “Just out of idle curiosity, at what age does a person have to reach before you believe the Second Amendment (and rest of the Constitution) becomes applicable? ”

      Age? Applicable from day 1. Free exercise of depends upon when the person comprehends rights/responsibilities. I’m guessing you might qualify in 10-20 years. If you work at it. Till then, your mommy and daddy should make the important decisions for you.

      Apparently you have difficulty distinguishing between someone discussing the sad reality of existing unconstitutional (not to mention immoral) laws, and endorsing such laws. Work on that.

      6. “Thanks to the background checks you described as “lawful,” how can they “obtain firearms through lawful channels” without committing a felony and facing up to a decade in prison?”

      Look, dumbfuck, see above re: the difference between recognizing existence of bad law and endorsing it. That was my fucking POINT, moro…

      Wait. Moron? You a fed CI, aren’t you?

      7. “Keep working on getting a handle on that “no compromise,” “shall not be infringed,” and “unalienable rights” stuff.”

      I think I’ve got it. You keep working on your reading and comprehension skills. And stop fantasizing about Martha Stewart. At least here.

  4. “Asshole … You ain’t right in the head—anybody’s head—are you? … you have to leave your tactical wheelbarrow at home … Look, dumbfuck … That was my fucking POINT … Moron” — Now that you’ve demonstrated your mastery of ad hominem insults, malicious juvenile remarks, and gratuitous vulgarities, you may work on trying to use facts and reason to refute statements you disagree with.

    “Law” exist [sic] even when we think it’s terrible.” — My point—which appears to have eluded you—is that the “lawful background checks” you mentioned are not “lawful.” Under American jurisprudence, the U.S. Constitution is our supreme law of the land. Any statute which conflicts with the Constitution is null and void; hence not “lawful.” I invite your attention to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The fact SCOTUS has frequently failed to enforce the Constitution (starting with the Sedition Act of 1798 which eviscerated the First Amendment) is beyond my control.

    “What is it with you and Martha Stewart?” — Typical Americans upon seeing or hearing the words “felon,” “criminal” or “bad guy” routinely envision someone such as Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson or some other heinous malefactor. I specifically mentioned some prominent felons convicted of nonviolent offenses (the type applicable to most “prohibited persons”). I would have included the name of Scooter Libby, but he was recently pardoned. Then you could have falsely accused me of “having a jones for” Scooter Libby.

    “I was addressing unconstitutional background checks.” — I’m the lovable, good-natured libertarian who mentioned “unconstitutional background checks.” You’re foul-mouthed, irascible, immature chap who labeled them “lawful background checks.”

    “Now I’m confused.” — That fact was never in dispute.

    “Applicable from day 1. Free exercise of depends upon when the person comprehends rights/responsibilities.” — Did I miss your cogent explanation how an individual right expressly enumerated in the Constitution is “applicable from day 1” yet cannot be freely exercised by people until they “comprehend rights/responsibilities”? Is there some sort of written or oral test which folks must pass to demonstrate this comprehension before these “applicable from day 1” individual liberties may finally be exercised? The last time I checked, people subject to American jurisprudence (including illegal immigrants and minors) had recognized rights of free speech, religion, due process, defense counsel, protection against self-incrimination, etc. without having to meet any minimum age or comprehension test. As far back as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), SCOTUS ruled that young children attending public school still retain their First Amendment rights.

    Is the natural right of self-defense somehow less important? I didn’t think so when, at age nine, I was walking through a wooded area and encountered a pack of feral teenagers who thought they’d beat me up simply because they assumed they could. I brandished a WWII USN survival knife to discourage them; I would have much preferred a pistol, “lawful” in your opinion or not. During the War of 1812, while serving aboard the USS Essex, David Farragut was ordered to take command of a captured British vessel then sail it to an American port. He had to put a pistol to the British captain’s head to secure his cooperation. Farragut was twelve years old. He entered the U.S. Navy as a midshipman at age nine. In your opinion, was David Farragut finally able to exercise his “applicable at day 1” individual rights at age nine or age twelve?

    “Apparently you have difficulty distinguishing between someone discussing the sad reality of existing unconstitutional (not to mention immoral) laws, and endorsing such laws.” — You conveniently forgot the fact that in your original essay you described the Brady Act’s background checks as “lawful”; I’m the guy who called them unconstitutional. If a statute is unconstitutional, it cannot be “lawful.” You might want to write that down.

    “prohibiting them from lawfully obtaining guns” — Only because of GCA-68 and similar anti-gun laws which you failed, in your essay, to mention are unconstitutional. Hence, your use of the word “lawfully” is incorrect … again. A statute can’t simultaneously be unconstitutional and “lawful.”

    “the difference between recognizing existence of bad law and endorsing it” — Nowhere in your essay did you criticize “lawful background checks” directed against “prohibited persons,” just “false positives” which caused the Second Amendment right of “innocent people” to be “mistaken [sic] abridged.” You objected to “pesky PPYI inflicted on the innocent”—more accurately, people without a disqualifying conviction (many of whom are far from innocent), aren’t under indictment or don’t have a state-issued medical marijuana card—not such “lawful background checks” against all folks attempting to purchase a firearm from a FFL holder.

    “Moron” — Let me know when you want to compare GRE and GMAT scores.

    “You keep working on your reading and comprehension skills.” — Pot, meet kettle. You might also consider working on your atrocious spelling which would embarrass many reasonably bright ten year-olds … and practice something known as proofreading.

    “You [sic] a fed CI” — No, no signs of paranoia there.

    “your mommy and daddy should make the important decisions for you.” — I’m 65 years old. My parents have been dead for many years. But don’t let facts keep you from behaving like a vulgar, snarky 12 year-old.

    1. I’m speaking of the real world, in which the courts (all the way up to SCOTUS) have found things to be lawful which I consider to be infringements. You appear to be describing a nonexistent constitutional utopia in which the courts never upheld the NFA, GCA, FOPA, et cetera; or invented different levels of constitutional scrutiny; or “balanced” rights against “government need.”

      While other folks cheered HELLER because it recognized an individual right, I noted that it made the 2A an individual right only to whatever they haven’t gotten around to stripping away yet. In this system of government, that is now the “law,” like it or not (and I don’t). HELLER has now been cited in upholding licensing, registration, weapons bans, universal PPYI, and other things of which I disapprove.

      I argue against those laws in hopes of finally ending them.

      I point out that violent criminals, committing acts against real victims, are already breaking their rights-violating laws in a manner that makes applying additional laws (such as universal PPYI checks for sales already deemed “unlawful”) to them impossible. That means that the “necessity to protect the public” excuse that the courts (all the way up to SCOTUS) “balanced” against our rights (i.e.- it’s the “law,” like it or not, and it needs to be fixed) doesn’t even apply.

      You argue that those laws don’t exist. The courts, and their armed minions disagree.

      Lots of unconstitutional things exist. 99.999% of the federal government is unconstitutional if that document means what it says.

      “You conveniently forgot the fact that in your original essay you described the Brady Act’s background checks as “lawful””

      I’m the guy who, in the second sentence of that column, referred to background checks as “universal background checks Preemptively Prove Your Innocence (PPYI) prior restraint on human/civil rights.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *