Tag Archives: gun control

Childish Things

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
― C.S. Lewis

When I was a child, I believed some — in retrospect — silly things. Things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

One Easter morning I happened to wake up unusually early, and caught my parents loading the Easter baskets. I’m no genius, but neither am I an idiot. I told them I knew.

And then I generalized… and asked if they were also Santa Claus. Nailed it. To be honest, I’d had suspicions about him for a while; how did he manage to work so many stores simultaneously? How did he have time to make toys when spending so much doing photoshoots at said stores? Why did he sometimes have a real beard, and sometimes a fake? Sheesh, the excuses my parents came up with to explain discrepancies…

I don’t recall just how old I was; maybe five years old; I don’t think I’d started school yet. I know I’d broken the conspiracy well before a lot of kids my age (some of whom, at school, professed to still believe in Santa until the third or fourth grade).

Another childish thing I believed back then was “gun control”. “Saturday Night Special” was a big part of that. When I heard that propaganda news about how they were just cheap pieces of junk not good for anything but killing, I just knew they were terrible and should be banned. And, just of course, “criminals” shouldn’t have guns.

I believed that into my teens. But, as with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, it was observation and reasoning that led to disbelief, beginning with “Saturday Night Specials”.

Reasoning: If a SNS works well enough to fire offensively, why won’t it work defensively? “Cheap POS not good for anything” doesn’t make sense.

OK, maybe there are some guns that are just plain Pieces of Sh garbage. The Clerke 1st revolver I once encountered was so poorly made that I wouldn’t fire it with Hillary Clinton’s hand.* Well… All right; maybe hers, but not yours. But how many Clerkes would be out there after the first use/failure? I kept hearing about recovered guns linked to multiple shootings. Those couldn’t be Clerkes.

Observation: I kept seeing news reports of guns labeled “Saturday Night Specials” which even I recognized as Smith & Wessons. It appeared the defining characteristic of an SNS was price: if you got a new Smith at full retail price, it was all good. If you bought a used model at a price that someone on a budget could afford, it’s evil.

How’s that again?.

Remember how I extrapolated from “Easter Bunny isn’t real” to Santa Claus? I kept thinking: If affordable guns are bad, doesn’t that mean only financially well off folks can have “good” guns by definition? Rich = Good, Poor = Evil? Not being wealthy, but knowing my parents — just example — were decent people, I could see right through that once I bothered to consider it.

And that whole “prohibited person” thing to keep crooks from buying guns… C’mon, even as a kid I saw the “crook buys stolen gun in back alley” trope in cop and detective shows, movies, and books. Sometimes a stereotype reflects reality. I saw that same “trope” in a lot of news stories, so I knew it was real.

So if crooks didn’t get their “Saturday Night Specials” through lawful channels anyway, didn’t that suggest the law targeted honest people, and not criminals?

That was my “slippery slope”. Before long I was wondering why kids used to safely carry .22 rifles across their bike handlebars, but suddenly couldn’t be trusted to have a gun. So far as I knew, none of my .22-toting friends had ever robbed anyone.

Being an aspiring writer even then, I figured words had to have meaning. Like “infringe”, as in

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:

  1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
  2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon)

“Breach,” “infraction,” “encroach.” It seemed pretty clear: You can’t encroach on that right. Not even a little bit. Not just major infractions, minor infractions are out, too. Words have meaning because if they don’t, no two people can communicate. The Second Amendment doesn’t say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be revoke in its entirety, but encroachments are dandy.” It doesn’t say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it’s convenient for the government.”

I was a kid of maybe thirteen or fourteen and I figured it out. I guess gun controllers never grew up.

Case in point: Dana C. Jones’ column Gun obsession is an issue of a nation, not just a male one

The pandemic of guns in the United States is the problem of a nation, not a particular sex.

Says there that Jones is a journalism junior, which suggests a minimum age of twenty years. Jones still has trouble with the “words have meaning” thing at a point years past where I’d figured it out (and at an age where I was already
an E-4 Senior Airman in the USAF).

“Pandemic of guns.” Prevalent, general, universal. Maybe Jones knows something we don’t know. America has the most armed civilian population in the world by a large margin, yet most estimates of American gun owners range from sixty million to a a hundred-twenty million, which makes us a minority. A heavily armed minority, but still not “prevalent” or universal.

If you keep reading (and try not to giggle too much) you’ll see that Jones really alleges to be concerned about gun violence. ‘Cause that’s… not so prevalent either.

Let’s say that there are a mere — chortle — sixty million gun owners out there.

According to this, there are approximately twenty million felons in America, including those incarcerated, paroled, on probation, or whose time is done. Bureau of Justice statistics suggest that around 3% of those are weapons offenses; let’s pretend all the weapons were firearms, just for discussion. 3% of 20,000,000 is 600,000. This isn’t six hundred thousand per year; it’s six hundred thousand cumulative total. That can include someone convicted of underage possession — not a crime of violence — and never committed another crime in his life for decades.

But pretend. 600,000 is just 1% of of sixty million gun owners. Not “prevalent” or “universal”.

Did you see what I did there? I pretended the groups actually overlap. But felons can’t lawfully own guns, so they shouldn’t be included in the group of admitted gun owners. So they’d be less than even the 1%.

You know… 600,000 total felons. That’s less than two-tenths of one percent of the total American population. Hardly “pandemic”. (Heh; given an average life expectancy of 79.3 years, that could potentially mean an average of 7,566 firearms felons — including nonviolent offenses — per year for the past eight decades. Still not “prevalent” or “universal”.

Apparently Jones childishly failed to observe that.

Back to the junior journalist’s panty-twisting.

The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms…

A little study of American history, not to mention Supreme Court rulings, could have shown Jones that the Second Amendment does not “grant[s] citizens the right to bear arms.” It is a pre-existing right, and the Second Amendment was intended to protect it from government meddling. (Since Jones failed to notice it, I’ll provide a recent SCOTUS hint: Heller.)

Words. Meaning. Grants vs. Protects.

Norway, for instance, has a low gun homicide rate and has stricter, more reasonable gun laws. Norwegians need a hunting or sporting license, which can only be acquired by completing a “nine-session, 30-hour course on guns, wildlife and environmental protection.” A sports shooting license is issued only upon completion of a firearms safety course of at least nine hours.

True, Norway has a low murder rate and restrictive gun laws. But Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela have far more restrictive laws — of the sort that would make California socialists swoon with delight — and murder rates that dwarf that of the USA. Jones fails the  “observation” test, not to mention confusing a Norwegian hunting license with a firearms license. That ““nine-session, 30-hour course on guns, wildlife and environmental protection” isn’t the requirement for a Våpenkort. That’s the requirement for a hunting license; a hunting license is merely ONE of the possible qualifiers for a Våpenkort. Words. Meaning. Great Ghu, this person expects to be a reporter and is less capable of observation and reasoning than a thirteen year old.

Gun control is not synonymous with annexing the Second Amendment, but it does mean protecting the people who live in this country.

As a humorous Internet meme notes, if Jones likes gun control so much, why not move to the south side of Chicago? It’s worked so well there. Gun-controlled Baltimore might be another good choice for Jones. But… “annexing” the Second Amendment? Words. Meaning.

I’ve piled on Dana Jones here, but only for a convenient example. Consider Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts, or pretty much any gun controller and ask yourself if that person appears to display adult-level observation and reasoning abilities. Or do their whines for control — ignoring the fact of generally fall violent crime rates (outside of gun control Paradises like Chicago and Baltimore) — sound more like a child crying because she can’t bring her freshly dug hole into the house?

In the past, I’ve accused gun controllers of rejecting reality. Perhaps that was unfair. Maybe they just aren’t grown up enough to recognize it. They still operating at a pre-teen mental level.

Hey! That explains why they always want to “do this for the children”. They meant themselves.


* Several years ago, a friend showed me a Clerke 1st he’d somehow acquired. I looked it over. Then I wiped it down to be sure I didn’t leave any fingerprints behind. I suggested that he clean it very carefully, with forensics in mind, and load it with a single round (likewise forensically sterilized), mount it in a clamp, and fire it with a long string. He should then — still wearing gloves — load one more cleaned cartridge, leaving the fired case in place. He should then put the thing in a sealed envelope labeled “For Emergency Use Only,” and save it in case he ever shot someone in dubious circumstances and needed to plant exculpating evidence. I was joking, but I wanted to reinforce the idea that he should never ever try to use that thing.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Compassion

“If you save just one life, it is as though you have saved the whole world.” I’ve been informed of this, more than once. I understand the concept, really, I do. And it’s not that I am always totally uncaring or always lack compassion. I have some from time to time, if the occasion calls for it.

The problem stems from the difference in the issues and people I think are deserving of compassion. The country seems to be so divided, and the folks on the other side of the fence have several public outlets showing sad children, grandma being thrown off a cliff in a wheelchair and any other issue you care to throw into the mix. But I have my own ideas of who I feel compassion towards, and perhaps I’m not alone in this. So I thought I might share a few thoughts on some people I think are forgotten and deserve the consideration of compassion.

“He Who is Compassionate to the Cruel Will Ultimately Become Cruel to the Compassionate”

This notion, that displaying an attitude of mercy towards the wicked who deserve severe punishment involves acting cruelly towards the general public, can be found in the words of Maimonides in his book The Guide of the Perplexed. In reference to the verse (Exodus 21:14), “If a person willfully schemes to kill his neighbor – he shall be (even) taken from my altar and put to death”, Maimonides writes that the wicked and calculating person (who killed intentionally and was sentenced to death) – if he seeks sanctuary among us, we must not provide him with asylum and not have mercy upon him…because compassion towards the wicked – is cruelty to all beings.

Actually that whole article is well worth reading.

It seems that the whole world right now has it upside down. The world has confused “fair” with “reality” and “compassion” with “justice” or “mercy”.

I’m pretty sure our readers of TZP are familiar with the case of Elor Azariya. The Israeli soldier who shot a Arab terrorist who had not yet been checked by sappers to see if he had bomb. The terrorist had just stabbed a solider. His  goals were not questioned, he wanted to kill Israelis. Elor entered prison this week. The judges refused to stay his prison entry until it was determined whether or not he would receive a pardon. It seems interested parties torpedoed the attempt to forestall his entry into the prison system. For him, the IDF brass and judges had no compassion. For the arab terrorist, tears all around.

Compare the judges response to a 14 year old terrorist who went on a stabbing spree with his cousin in October of 2015 in Jerusalem. I can tell you סכין means “knife”, you may want to know that.

So guess what? The judges have decided to have compassion on the terrorist.

However, the judges decided that in view of his young age and in light of his rehabilitation efforts, his sentence should be shortened from 12 years to 9-and-a-half years in prison.

The soldier protecting his fellow soldiers and the citizens, no. We must prove to the world (who is going to hate our guts anyway) that we will eat our own with relish, and possibly BBQ sauce to prove how moral we are. The terrorist who stabbed people, well, compassion we must have for the “poor disadvantaged youth” taking a page straight from CNN and MSLSD.

Not surprisingly to me anyway, Yosef Haim Twito, who was one of the victims of the “misguided youth” <<<that there is leftist speak for terrorist, is angry. For some reason he feels this is the wrong direction.

“The judges of the court gave a tailwind to terror,” Twito said of the judges, who decided to shorten the punishment imposed on the terrorist by two-and a-half years.
“From the beginning of the affair, the State Prosecutor’s Office showed incredible incompetence when it did not ask the maximum sentence, but at the same time I was surprised to discover that the Supreme Court justices decided to ease the already-lenient punishment.”
“It is regrettable that Judge David Mintz, who wrote the verdict, chose to ease the punishment because a prison stay may have undesirable consequences for [the terrorist] – I ask what about the undesirable consequences for me? What about the trauma I went through? The damage caused me for my entire life?”
“Israel has become a haven for terrorists,” Twito said. “The judges of the court unfortunately do not understand that easing the punishment of terrorists is a judgment that gives a tailwind to terror.”

Former National Union MK blasts court’s decision to cut terrorist’s sentence: ‘We’re telling the Arabs it’s ok to slaughter and murder us.’

Yes, yes, I believe they are.

But Israel is far from the only country to suffer from this form of compassionate suicide. In France a new phenomena is taking place. Muslim that scream “Allah’s snackbar” and charge at people with guns, knives, trucks or hardened stale french bread are terrorists. Unless the victims is Jewish. Then suddenly the Muslim is “mentally ill”, not in fact, a terrorist. If a Jew is killed because they are Jewish, no worries, the poor dear was mentally ill, didn’t know what he was doing don’t you understand? We must be compassionate. That one is well worth reading as well.

And America and Canada? George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson? One a neighborhood watch person, and unpaid volunteer and the other a professional law enforcement officer. No matter what you think of either man, or their job, I think one thing that has not been successfully challenged is they were both attacked by a criminal. Criminals of which the media rushed to show cherubic pictures of when they were twelve, before the gang tats and gold teeth. Had the criminals not chosen to attack, nothing would have happened. But they did, and the media fanned the flames of “victimhood” for the aggressors. For the two men just living their lives and doing what they were suppose to be doing there was no compassion. For the people who had their business and homes burned down in the peaceful protests there was no compassion, for the firefighters shot at, the cops attacked the people attacked for their skin color, there was no compassion.

Shannon T.Watts and Bloomers, Rosie O’Crazy and all the other anti-gun people that tell us “people will be safer without guns”.

Campus rape survivor: Carrying gun would have prevented attack

Susan Gratia Hupp, because one can never watch this video too much

She lost both her parents because she had been disarmed by politicians. So which class of people is it that will be safer if no one has guns? Oh, the criminals?  Yes, yes, it will be much safer for them. Misguided youth, hate crime, profiling, it’s their culture, whatever, they attacked an easy target. For law abiding citizens just eating lunch or going to school? Not so much, no compassion for them.

The poor undocumented (unvetted) refugees. They just came here for a better life, they were escaping________. Of course we must provide, food, shelter, obamacare, schooling, clothing, transportation, obamaphones and allow them to live with dignity! And I have a feeling Canada had been looking down her nose at US a bit smugly as we elected that horrible bigot because we hate people different from us. See, I have paid attention to how the left views and talks about U.S.  unwashed masses. Except now the poor refugees and heading for Canada. They are self-deporting.

A surge of migrants tests Canada’s welcome

CAQ calls for tighter borders, hardline approach to asylum seekers

And that’s the thing, no matter what country. The United States, Canada, or Bugscuffle, TX, the immigrants have to be fed, housed, given medical care and toilet paper. Who pays for this? They don’t work, they don’t have transportation, many of the recent ones don’t speak English and have no desire to assimilate and have stated clearly they will not. Which ones? Who knows. But the more of them you have the more it costs to take care of them. Who pays for it? The average John or Jane Doe, just trying to live their lives, raise their kids and potty train their dog. They probably drive an older car, can’t afford private school for their kids and eating out at McDonald’s every third week is a treat. You know why? Because they try to live within their means. And now it’s even harder because some politician with half baked social justice compassionate dreams of a legacy has mandated “we” will show compassion to ____________. Never mind the immigrant has no plans of working, assimilating or even respecting the host countries culture. Have you checked out the rape and crime stats in Sweden and Germany lately?

So, arab terrorist, criminal, illegal un-vetted immigrate, these are to be shown compassion by judges, the media, and society. Who gets none of this compassion? The people just trying their best to live their lives, do their jobs, run a business, go to school or walk down the street in Jerusalem. The people left defenseless by politicians with taxpayer funded bodyguards. For these people there seems to be no compassion.

Am I being judgmental? Yes, yes I am. I feel these are the people deserving of compassion, and more than compassion, they deserve justice. And because of this stance I am regarded as hard-hearted and unsympathetic?  Ok.

I agree and understand what Maimonides was saying. When we are kind and show mercy to those that have harmed or intended to, we harm the very people deserving of the compassion and kindness. Those who were just going about their lives doing the next right thing.

Shabbat Shalom.

שבת שלום

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Mandating Technology

It’s not RKBA-related, but it’s exciting:

New bill bans electrical generation unless they are fusion-based
Introduced as the Make Power Green Act, the proposal would strip the ability of utility companies to build power plants with any greenhouse gas emissions. Backers argue that as much as 40% of global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions, which fusion power is incapable of producing.

Oh. Wait. My bad; this one — H.R.3458; text not yet posted — bans “pistol sales unless they can microstamp their bullets.”

“Introduced as the Make Identifiable Criminal Rounds Obvious (MICRO) Act last month, the proposal would strip the ability of federal firearms licensees to sell pistols that do not carry the controversial microstamping technology. Backers argue that as much as 40 percent of murders go unsolved due to lack of evidence, which the bill is meant to address.”

You can see my mistake: microstamping is about as workable as as breakeven fusion power. Technically, both work a little in the lab, but not in the real world.

Microstamping would also be expensive (rather like fusion is expensive. But while governments — courtesy of taxpayers’ pockets — can dump billions into fusion research, individuals looking for affordable defensive solutions would be harder pressed to afford microstamping pistols. (But we all know that’s the real point.)

My imaginary fusion bill might halt the construction of new power plants, but it wouldn’t do anything about the 7,658+ existing plants. Nor would halting the sale of future pistols do a darned thing about the 265 million to 750 million guns already in civilian hands in America. Well, the Obama administration made a start on shutting down coal plants, no doubt these idiot Dim-ocrats have a similar plan for our guns.

You’d think that rational people would have learned their lesson about legislating that which cannot be. Oh. Wait.

My bad again; rational people.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Last week James Yeager made an argument against national concealed carry reciprocity based on “states’ rights.” That is, that federal legislation requiring states to give full faith and credit to licenses of other states violates states’ rights to self-determination.

Do you agree with Yeager that national concealed carry reciprocity (H.R. 38) should be stopped?


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

We Had That Conversation

Milwaukee NPR wonders…

Why Can’t We Talk About Guns?
An NRA video making the rounds online has been called everything from an open call to violence to protect white supremacy to a condemnation of violence.

“The only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth,” says NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch in the ad.

Subsequent NRA videos are more political but equally divisive.

The debate over guns in America has never been easy – but is it getting harder to keep it civil and useful?

We asked the NRA and Loesch to appear on this show, but did not hear back.

I expect they didn’t hear back from the NRA or Loesch because it’s extremely clear that WUWM’s anti-rights bias would make this, at best, an argument rather than a discussion. Stacking the deck with three anti-rights shills vs. one pro-rights activist, as well as WUWM’s false characterization of the Loesch video proves it.

And as a tool to reach any real understanding or agreement, it’s pointless. Those would disarm the honest demonstrably will not listen or learn. And they will lie. How do we know that (he asks rhetorically)?

Several years ago, I wrote a column for The Libertarian Enterprise. In light of this supposed call for “talk,” it seems appropriate to publish it again.


We Had That Conversation
In the wake of the Newtown murders, I see a meme popping up amongst the gun banners/victim disarmers. They say we need a “conversation” on guns in America. A common sub-argument is that pro-gun people need to stop saying “No” every time those who prefer a disarmed populace suggest more restrictions on the honest folks who didn’t kill any innocents in Newton.

We already had that conversation.

We had it in 1791, and settled the issue with the second amendment to the Constitution protecting a preexisting right to keep and bear arms. Gun banners being the whack-a-moles of civil rights violation, we had that conversation several times: Cruikshank and Presser come to mind.

More recently, we again had that conversation in 2008, when the Supreme Court pointed out that yes, the second amendment really does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller.

Chi-town pols didn’t like that, so we had the conversation yet again in 2010. The Supreme Court again pointed out that arms really are a right, and that it really is an individual right, in McDonald.

Victim disarmers are slow learners, forever doomed to riding the short bus through life, so we had the conversation yet-a-frickin’-gain in 2012: Moore v. Madigan, in which a federal judge had to lecture the poor, cognitively-challenged pols of Illinois (who have trouble even finding the short bus) in small words that, WHACK-upside the head “Pay attention, dipsticks; we told you it’s a right of the individual people, so stop screwing with it.”

And here we are: Once more, idiots who shouldn’t be on the streets without a guardian to wipe the drool off their faces, change their diapers, and keep them out of the road, are calling for the “conversation”. Like whiny children pestering exasperated parents over and over and over and over for a coveted-but-terribly-bad-for-you present, they keep ignoring the settled issue. “But China does it. Why can’t we make all the citizens helpless, too?” they pontificate petulantly. (Yeah, China does it. That’s why their lunatic had to cut up those 22 Chinese schoolchildren with a knife a few days before Newton. Guns bans sure solved China’s violence problems.)

We had that conversation, and explained in words that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size should have been able to comprehend: “the security of a free state”, the right to life and liberty, self defense. At this point, anyone who doesn’t—or won’t—get it probably falls into one or more of three categories:

  • whining mental incompetents
  • those with a “professional” need to ensure a steady supply of helpless victims for violent predators
  • and those with a more extensive agenda

You might abbreviate those as morons, criminals, and traitors. None of which are really interested in reasoned conversation.


Going on five years and we’re still hearing the same judicially-invalidated claims and demands from the victim-disarming whack-a-moles, reinforced with equally-disproved claims that 90+% of Americans want universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks (because — try not to laugh — they would have prevented the Newtown school killings), and debunked claims that gun owners are a shrinking minority.

If gun ownership is on the decline, why are firearms trainers still seeing new people coming in for voluntary classes? Why are more and more people getting CCW licenses even as more and more states are dropping license requirements?

We have facts. They have lies. Of course we don’t want to bother debating them, in a biased setting no less.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Motivations

I’m a bit late to the NRA “truth” video game, but having seen this today:

Gun rights group targeting its foes?
Are my rights to assemble and speak freely with whomever I please superseded by an assault rifle?

Do I deserve to be arrested or shot because I seek to peacefully dissent from and petition my government?

The National Rifle Association, in a video released last week (https://youtu.be/PrnIVVWtAag), seems to suggest that I should be targeted because my views run contrary to the NRA, its members, our elected president and most of Congress.

-sigh- Complete with the usual — false — “assault rifle” claim.

Interesting. I’m not an NRA member (I object to much of what it does), so I think I watched that video with sufficient objectivity. What I saw was Ms. Loesch saying that some people are manipulated into committing violent crimes and that we must fight this with truth.

Mr. Prescott speaks of nonviolent, peaceful dissent; yet the NRA video specifically addresses — verbally and visually — violent, and destructive criminal acts. Apparently that’s what what passes for “peaceful” in Prescott’s strange world.

If someone objects to ending violence with truth, I have to wonder what that person is doing, or might be planning to do.

Especially when he parrots the “assault rifle” lie. I guess it’s easier to inflict a little arson/assault “conversation” on the unarmed; which I why I don’t plan to ditch my tools of self defense.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

GOP Baseball Shooting: “More Laws!”

If one were to take early reporting seriously (which I haven’t done for decades), some angry white guy — probably a right-wing white supremacist — shot a bunch of congressmen with a full-auto M4 assault rifle. The asshole took advantage of Virginia’s “lax” gun laws to get and carry his assault rifle.

Umm… Not so much. One, maybe two congressmen. One, maybe two cops. One, maybe two staffers. Maybe a lobbyist. Reports on that still vary.

CNN would have us believe the — oops, rabid left-wing Bernie supporter — used a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47.

Oops redux. Again, not so much. Now it was an SKS.


Note the subtle differences between this and the AK-47 and M4.

So he had an IL FOID (background check), possibly a CCW (background check), and bought his 3 guns from an Illinois FFL (background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period). He used a knock-off of a WW2-era semi-auto rifle (apparently with a 10-round fixed magazine, since it was Illinois legal. Heck, it might even still be California legal. Not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle.

I can hardly bear waiting for the calls for laws that wouldn’t have stopped this. Oh. Wait.

I didn’t have to wait.

But I apparently will have to wait on national reciprocal carry while Congress addresses DC reciprocal carry only for our betters masters congresscreeps

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The ER Lost A Patient

I just spent the day at a hospital Emergency Room (for reasons worthy of another column, but this is the wrong venue for that one). What’s relevant to TZP is that while I was there, they lost a patient.

Don’t start with the sympathy yet. He didn’t die.

They lost him:

“Hey, have you seen [xyz]?”
“He went to the restroom.”
“I checked; he isn’t there.”
“Maybe he’s in the other one.”
{insert pitterpatter of sneakered feet}
“He’s not there either.”
“Where did he go?”
“I don’t know. Look.”

There’s garbled talk of hospital security (who eventually showed up to search) and the Sheriff’s department, who also showed up. People in scrubs running up and down the hall, looking in every room. Multiple times. Muttering which I took to be poorly suppressed profanities.

Mildly amusing, you may be thinking, along with, “What the heck does this have to do with self defense, the right to keep and bear arms, or any of the other things that interest The Zelman Partisans?”

Some of you might see where this is going, but I’ll explain anyway.

Thanks to HIPAA — not to mention hospital Public Relations — no one was going to tell me exactly what the fuss was. But I overheard some gossip between staffers and law enforcement.

It appears that Patient Werrdefuqdego was a transferee from the jail. Possibly a mentally disturbed transferee. An unrestrained transferee. -ding!-

And no one from the Sheriff’s department was watching him. -ding!-

Nor was the hospital staff keeping an eye him. -ding!-

In fact, they were letting him run around without a keeper — in a yellow gown, blanket worn like a skirt, and no shoes. -ding! ding!- (Yes, he was a peculiar sight, before dropping out of sight.)

Figured out the relevance yet? For visitors unfamiliar with the Constitution, but hooked on magical thinking: The hospital with an escaped loon — possibly dangerous — from the jail, who was left to roam at will, is a “gun-free” zone.

So with a potentially dangerous nut on the loose due to lack of give-a-sh!t on the part of the staff and LE, I was deprived of my usual defensive tool. True, I could have refused to leave my sidearm behind and told the hospital to blow it their appropriate orifice, or even refuse to go there in the first place. But for personal reasons (possibly appropriate for the aforementioned other column), not going, or getting busted for trespassing, wasn’t an option. I had to go, and under trespass law, I had to disarm myself.

“No problem,” might say the Constitutionally challenged magicians, “the cops and hospital security will protect you.”

Except they didn’t. They turned the loon loose. They didn’t warn me, nor did they hang around to guard me.

Tell me again how gun-free — helpless-target-rich — zones make me safer.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dueling Twits

I recently read an article about two candidates competing for Governor of Virginia. The two candidates are touting as their best selling points their great records of working for people control and how many citizens that have committed no crime, they can leave defenseless to those that care to do so. Yes indeed, the thug block has two solid candidates running. Of course they are both Demoncrats.

Let’s take a look at a few figures, shall we?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vacrime.htm

Forcible Aggravated Larceny Vehicle
Year  Population  Index  Violent  Property  Murder  Rape  Robbery  Assault  Burglary  Theft  Theft 
2015 8,382,993 172,869 16,399 156,470 383 1,493 4,441 9,235 21,340 127,019 8,111

From the Virginia State police, I have this:

There were 441,355 Group A Offenses reported by the contributing agencies. (Page 8)

The total number of incidents of crime was 389,019 and the month of July had the greatest number reported. (Page 7)

Of the 17,459 violent crimes reported, 50% occurred in the residence/home. (Page 46)

There were 5,097 victims of the 4,787 forcible sex offenses reported by the contributing agencies; 84.4% of the victims were female. (Pages 14 & 15)

The theft of money accounted for a property loss of $64,061,900. (Page 60)

Firearms represented 24.7% of all known weapons used in aggravated assaults. Of all victims of aggravated assault, 64.3% had some type of injury. (Page 47)

There was a total value loss of $75,278,993 related to 7,955 completed motor vehicle offenses. (Page 61)

There were 126,032 Group A arrests reported by the contributing agencies and 156,390 Group B arrests reported. (Pages 74 & 75)

There were 1,238 assaults on officers reported in Virginia. Just under one-quarter (24.2%) involved some type of injury to the officer. (Page 56)

Of the 155 hate crime offenses reported, 45.8% of these were assault offenses and 31.6% were vandalism/damage of property offenses. (Page 52)

What strikes me, is the number of people willing to assault a law enforcement officer. If they are willing to assault someone they can be pretty darn sure is trained and carrying a gun you think they won’t try Grandma, or anyone else? The number of rapes, 84.4% were female. Since women are typically smaller and a bit weaker than the male of the specie, let’s make it harder to obtain a tool that could level the ground a bit. That sounds like a good plan (for the criminal). Following in the footsteps of their Gov. Terry McAuliff and his high regard for women with his binders full of them. Full of the victims of his political agenda that is.

I keep wondering what is it these two Demoncrats want to do to law-abiding citizens they can not do unless they are disarmed and defenseless.

What could cause a state to want to elect people prone to dictatorial impulses? I remember hearing a lecture a couple of years ago and the speaker was talking about a plan to turn previously conservative states into liberal voting states. Sort of the evil reverse of Molon Labe. It’s something along the lines of this plan. https://www.sisterdistrict.com/ As I recall it’s been implemented in Colorado and Texas was in their sights as well. I can’t remember all the others, but the speaker was Mark Meckler from Citizens for Self-Governance.

I suspect we all know what the end result is of citizens being disarmed by their government, and there is plenty of pain and suffering along the path on the way to the end result. Yet, politicians such as these two knot-heads persist.

At times like these, I try to think to myself “What would Fabio say about this?” You remember Fabio of course. The handsome cover model of probably millions of paperback romance novels? Long flowing golden locks? He’s also a writer and actor, in case you didn’t know.

Nope, I’m not kidding. Fabio. Fabio Lanzoni, who immigrated here from Italy. And he has a few outspoken things to say. Not from talking from the land of Unicorns and fluff, but from experience of what he has seen in Europe and what he is seeing in California now.

Fabio recently bought a gun after his home was robbed. But he is not a recent convert like so many during the Rodney King riots asking fellow actor Charlton Heston to borrow a gun.

As an immigrant from Europe, Fabio is in a unique position to share some advice with American citizens. His first bit of advice is blunt: “Just look at Europe and go the opposite way. It’s as simple as that.” He added, “Europe already jumped off the cliff. They are doomed.”

His second bit of advice is not something one often expects to hear from a celebrity. “Don’t you ever give up your guns,” he said. “If people lose that right, forget about it. Politicians — they will take everything away from you. And then what are you going to do, protest with a rock? Because that’s what they do in Europe.”

He said one major difference between America and Europe is the right of good people to be armed against tyranny and criminals who “are always going to have every single weapon available to them.”

He added, “The day you give up your weapon in the United States, the United States is going to be history.”

The whole interview is VERY interesting!

Apparently the Demoncratic party has not yet realized not everyone that voted for President Trump was not in love with him, but they looked at the alternative who would further obama’s attempts at disarmament and siding with thugs and criminals and said. “Nope”, just nope. This thought hasn’t occurred to them, so they think people control and victimization is a winning plan. YESH!

Yep, “What would Fabio say?”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

How much training? And why?

In ransacking the news for the weekly newsletter, I ran across this letter to the editor which reminded me of a typically ban bunny tactic to make firearms less accessible to honest folk.

Support smart gun laws
On the other hand, I am appalled and always have been by the fact that only one hour of practice is required to get the permit.
[…]
When one picks up a gun and consciously gets a license, it is with the intent to defend yourself, up to and including killing another human being. It is a weapon more intense than an automobile, which requires many more hours of training before someone gets behind the wheel.

When I got my driver license 40 years ago, I had to pass a ten question — as best I recall — written test and a five minute road test. There was no mandatory classroom or road training back then.

My truck has several controls. Steering wheel, shifter, clutch pedal, accelerator pedal, brake pedal, parking brake, headlight switch, hi/lo switch, wiper switch, turn signal switch, dash light dimmer switch, emergency flasher switch. I won’t bother mentioning the rest which don’t relate directly to driving the vehicle safely. But for all that, ten questions and five minutes on the road. Training wasn’t mandated by law, but I undertook that on my own so I’d know how to work all those controls properly. It seemed the sensible thing to do. After all, I’d be operating a device with the kinetic energy of a small bomb while carrying a fuel tank with the chemical energy of a large bomb. Thousands more people die by automobile than by firearm in America.

My usual carry gun has a trigger, magazine release, and a slide lock/release. Note the lack of a steering wheel, because if you can point your finger you can point a pistol.

For that, gun controllers — when they deign to allow us to be armed at all — want us to — just as examples from bills I’ve seen over the years — 1) get a license to purchase a firearm, 2) undergo forty hours of classroom training, 3) sixteen hours of range training, 4) pass a hundred question written test, 5) pass a fifty round range test, 6) get fingerprinted, 7) get photographed, 8) pass a background check, and 9) get a judge’s permission to carry. In some places, not others.

Given the requirements for operating a potential weapon of mass destruction, the requirements for carrying a defensive tool with three controls seems.. a little excessive.

Someone planning to get a gun certainly should get some education and training. I did; some through military and law enforcement sources, and quite a bit more on my own, by my choice.

While I’ve never been a certified instructor, I have informally trained quite a few people. In a couple of hours or less I can get the basic laws regarding carry defensive shooting across to most people of normal intelligence. Then spend another half hour on the “four rules”, familiarization with the new shooter’s specific weapon, sight picture, trigger control (a little dry fire included). I’ve found that when the trainee starts live fire, 50% of them put the first round in center mass. quite a few do the same with the first full magazine. I don’t recall any who missed the silhouette. (As opposed to a law enforcement officer who routinely failed her annual weapons qualification because she couldn’t paper with a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot at twenty yards. The only time I routinely wore my ballistic vest was when I had to be on the range with her. Another officer tried to buy it from me when he heard she was coming.)

The simple fact is that that defensive handguns are designed to be operated without a huge amount of training.* Clueless “useful idiots” in the gun control camp may not realize that, but their leadership does. The mandates are only intended to restrict honest people’s right to self defense.

Train, yes. Mandated unreasonable, restrictive requirements, no.


* Design is what matters, not mechanical simplicity. A broadsword has no moving parts, the only “control” is the hilt. Yet a new would-be swordfighter might require days or weeks of training before I’d let him armor up fully and engage in a regular full speed bout. Swords are mechanically simple, yet difficult to master. This is why medieval Japan banned firearms; too many highly trained-samurai-backed tax collectors were getting killed by peasants with those newfangled guns.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail