Category Archives: gun control

Liars, and the lied-to

On a recent post, a commenter noted that anti-RKBA groups must have trouble recruiting workers given the conflicting skill sets of credentials and experience and the reasoning skills of a toddler. I had to disagree; since the goal of groups like Moms Demand Deaths Action isn’t reducing violence, poor logical skills aren’t needed.

Just a willingness to lie. Like Shannon “I’m just a stay at home mom” Watts, the professional public relations manager paid by Bloomberg.

Sometimes I’m willing to allow that a person is ignorant, rather than maliciously lying, when advocating for victim disarmament. That’s because there are — at least — two types of gun control advocates.

The first are those for whom the goal is a disarmed citizenry — for the sake of people control — rather than a reduction in violence.

The second is their targeted demographic: those who didn’t care enough about the subject to have already educated themselves using readily available data. The first group lies to the second to instill panic so that they will begin to care. But the targeted demographic will be operating on the dramatic lies and blood-dancing they accepted passively.

How do you tell the ignorantly well-intentioned — who might be capable of grasping reality once it’s presented — from the outright liars? Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.

Some horrible murder occurs. A group forms saying they want to prevent that happening again. They create a Facebook page to present facts about guns and violence, including a graphic that purports to show that having a gun is more likely to be a danger to you and yours, than to useful for protection. Someone else notes that they’ve referenced the debunked Kellerman study.

At this point, the gun control group could do a few things. They could ask what the Kellerman study is, suggesting they work from simple ignorance. They could stand up for the Kellerman study, which might be ignorance or lying; could go either way.

Or, they might claim that graphic doesn’t represent the Kellerman study, indicating they know what the Kellerman paper is, and that isn’t isn’t worth using as a reference.

So let’s say they did the latter. And our observant commenter points out that the graphic specifically includes text saying it’s from the Kellerman paper. A few other people jump in to tell them the same thing. And the next time our fearless commenter visits the page, his comments have been deleted, as have the others supporting his position. The Kellerman graphic remains now unchallenged. That would be a group of liars, not well-intentioned ignoramuses.

Oh. Wait. That situation wasn’t hypothetical. That’s exactly what Watts’ Moms Demand Action did.

Maybe another hypothetical.

Let’s say that a state legislature is considering a bill to impose universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint background checks for firearms purchases. And let’s say that another group formed in response to the above mentioned mass shooting testify in a public hearing that universal background checks would have stopped the asshole who killed the children at Sandy Hook. Since the murderer obtained his weapons by first murdering his mother and stealing her guns, it’s hard to imagine him then stopping for a background check. But hey.

So someone contacts the group to point out the little problem with the claim. The possible responses could tell us how we should view them.

They could say that their reps were overwhelmed by emotion and misspoke, and offer a correction.

Or they could lie, and claim their reps actually said PPYI would not have stopped the Sandy Hook killer.

Oh. Darn it. This one wasn’t hypothetical either. It happened. I was there in the hearing in New Hampshire in 2014 when the Sandy Hook Promise representatives definitely said PPYI would have stopped him. So did several hundred other people, who muttered enough about the outlandish claim that the committee chairwoman had to call for silence. And when I contacted SHP, they did lie about what their reps testified to.

In fact, I got two lies for the price of one.

“Sandy Hook Promise is firmly rooted in constitutional values and as such does not support policy or legislation that poses a burden on anyone’s rights.”

Except when they send representatives to another state to demand just such burdensome legislation. (Frankly, I’m amazed they got there. They said that Connecticut borders on New Hampshire.)

Once you’ve determined which type you’re dealing with — lying SOBs, or their knowledged challenged targets — deal with them appropriately. Call out the liars like Moms Demand Action, Sandy Hook Promise, and Giffords; especially in a manner that theirs targets can see so they’ll know they’ve been lied to. Admittedly, that’s touigh when the media are the allies of the liars (and generally liars themselves).

The knowledge-challenged you can try to educate directly. But you have to work past the false “knowledge” they’ve been suckered with.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.


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!


When liars figure

Possibly you’ve seen reports about the new study that showed a sharp increase in firearms-related deaths after the Sandy Hook shooting, attributed to the sharp spike in gun sales. If not, here’s a fine example:

Gun sales spiked after Sandy Hook. So did people being shot and killed.
Gun sales in the United States spiked dramatically after a shooter walked into Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012 and killed 26 people, 20 of whom were children. Now researchers say that as a result of that rush in gun purchases, 60 additional Americans — 20 of whom were children — were killed by accidental gunshots in the five months following the tragedy.

That’s… interesting, if really kinda vague. So off to the study itself. You can read it, or I’ll give you the TL;DR.

They used Google Trends to define the period of gun sales that they attribute to post-SH panic buying (you’ll giggle at their search terms), which they determined to be 5 months. They looked at firearms-related accidental deaths — concentrating on children 0-14yo –for that period and compared them to a 2008-2013 period and magically came up with this:

That’s… even more interesting. I happen to recall another gun buying spree in 2008 and 2009. If these folks really found a sales/accidental deaths correlation, I’d expect a bigger spike in those years.

Well, charts are misleading. What’s graphed there isn’t the number of children dead, but the anomaly in deaths; that is, they essentially figured the statistical average for a five month period for the years 2008-2013, and decide the period in question had 20 more than average.

Not having access to their undisclosed “restricted” data, I decided to use the CDC WISQARS online tool, which only breaks data down by year. For the researchers’ 2008-2013 time frame, I got this:

Right off, you — not being a grant-funded academic — probably notice, despite the apparent increasing trend in deaths, that 2013 wasn’t much of a spike. In fact, it’s five deaths lower than the 2011 “spike.” And the average annual deaths for the 2008-2013 time frame is 62.17. So the annual total for 2013 is only 7 higher than average.* Where did they find 20, 13 more in just a five month period? And haven’t we heard that accidental firearms deaths are decreasing?

That’s an oddly limited time frame, given that more data is readily available. WISQARS currently has data for 1999-2015.

And the rate per 100,000 for that age group:

The entire year of 2013 is only the sixth highest, both in numbers and per capita. And again –not being a grant-funded academic –you may have seen the trend: constantly down.

The researchers’ “spike” in their study appears to be largely imaginary, and what there was is more easily attributed to random variance. The lack of sales/deaths correlations with other known periods of increased buying (2008-2009, 2012) invalidates their Sandy Hook-related claim. The overall consistent decrease in child accidental deaths tells me that, rather than untrained newbies going out and slaughtering kids, more people are getting trained and demonstrating safety awareness. Remember: the number of guns are cumulative; if more guns really correlated with accidents then there be a constantly increasing number of accidents instead of the real decrease.

Researchers Levine and McKnight say, “No external funding was used to support this research.” It might be interesting to see what monetary resources are consider internal.

And just for info regarding that additional people of all ages killed?

In 2012, there were 548 people of all ages killed in accidental firearms-related incidents.

In 2013, it dropped to 505.

* The 17 year average for 1999-2015 is 64, meaning 2013 was only 5 higher than average.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.



Vegas Questions; and why they matter

The Mandalay Bay shooting has left more questions unanswered than answered. And yes, it matters.

It matter because numerous — and gross — violations of Constitutionally “protected” rights are being proposed to “fix” the problems that let that happen.

1. “‘Silencers’ must not be deregulated; they must be banned because what if the Mandalay Bay asshole had used them and nobody knew they were being shot?

2. “More preemptivly-prove-your-innocence prior restraint “background checks” because they were good enough to catch this guy when he passed them.”

3. “Ban bump-fire stocks because they turn any gun into a machine gun.”

4. “Ban all semiautomatic firearms because ‘military grade weapons of war’!”

5. “Stop reciprocal carry because that guy might’ve gotten a carry license.”

6. “Register all gun owners and all their guns because… we don’t know, but do it for Vegas.”

7. “Ban all guns because no murderer will ever figure out how to kill without a gun.”

And the list goes on. Mandalay Bay has become the rationalization for human civil rights violations on a scale not seen in this country since slavery was outlawed. Hyperbole?

Consider that anti-gunners are screaming that gun owners have no right to speak on the subject. Bans and confiscations deprive people of property. Finding the owners and guns will involve mass warrantless searches. Privacy will be invaded as authorities scour email and social media for ownership indications. Bank records will be searched for firearms (and accessories) purchases and sales. Failure to comply fast enough will get you dead or jailed.

Or somebody dead.

It isn’t just the Second Amendment violations; it’s everything else they have to violate just to accomplish them. That’s some serious stuff to be doing based on near total ignorance of the facts of the incident.

And, since the authorities claim the shooter acted alone, and they aren’t searching for anyone else in the matter, there’s no reason for the ignorance; there’s supposedly no real ongoing investigation to compromise unless they’ve lied about looking for accomplices.

So before any more rights violations advance, let’s get answers.

1. Several media outlets reported early on that, in addition to bump-fire stock-equipped weapons, the shooter had AR-pattern rifles converted to full auto. Fox reported that the full auto conversions were chambered in both .223 and .308.

Those reports were never walked backed or corrected. They just stopped talking about the weapons, leaving the anti-gunners free to whine about bump stocks.

I’m not a mass murderer, so I could be missing something. But if he had fully automatic weapons, why bother using bump-fire while the automatic weapons were available? C’mon, you’ve had months to do ballistics testing; you know what weapons were actually fired.

2. If no automatic weapons were used, why does at least one recording of the incident have a burst with two simultaneous rapid fire gunshot audio signatures, one a steady boom, and the other a sharper crack, at different rates of fire?

A wannabe Rambo could grab two fully automatic weapons and fire them at the same time. Poorly and inaccurately, but it’s doable if you don’t mind a face full of brass. But not bump-fired rifles; you need both hands with a bump-fire stock: one for the trigger, and one to provide the tension to pull the rifle forward.

If the weapons were bump-fired, it raises the question of how one guy fired two guns at the same time.

3. Las Vegas is one of the most surveilled cities in the world; possibly the most when you include all the casino and hotel interior cameras. Where is the video of the asshole bringing in his guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition? Sitting in a restaurant? Playing video poker? Walking down halls? He doesn’t even show up in the background in some tourist’s iPhone footage?

Did he carry everything himself, or did someone help him with all that stuff? Maybe an innocent valet, who could at least add to the timeline. Where’s the video?

4. When people spotted a “note” in crime scene photos and speculated that it was a suicide note or explanation of motive, authorities said it was actually “ballistic calculations” to better target his victims. Why would he need such ballistics calculations?

Calculations of that nature would involve wind speed for bullet drift, and more importantly bullet drop for shooting from an elevation at a given range. Except he didn’t need that, and relatively few shooters know how to do it on a scrap of paper. He didn’t need it because such precision is to hit a specific — often relatively small — target accurately. Our asshole wouldn’t be concerned about hitting a torso or head on one person. He was hosing down a mass of tens of thousands of people, a crowd the size of football fields. Unless there’s something else they haven’t told us.

And this brings us back to bump-fire. Bump-fire is inaccurate. What’s the point of careful calculations of the most accurate way to aim a firehose? An automatic rifle in most people’s hands wouldn’t be much better.

Can we see a legible image of that note/calculations?

5. Authorities said the asshole had an escape plan. What was it, and why did he abandon it for suicide?

6. Where is the computer hard drive? Law enforcement said the drive from the computer in the hotel room was missing; where did it go and when?

Would video answer that question, too? Speaking of video, the shooter had his own cameras which are implied to have been wireless computer types; where’s that video? On the perambulating hard drive?

7. Why did the shooter stop after 9-10 minutes with thousands of rounds of ammunition left over?

Is that when he killed himself?

7. So when did the asshole die?

Just body temperature should give them a rough idea of how long he’d been dead when they finally entered the room. Perhaps that would shed light on why spent brass appeared to be sitting on top of coagulated blood in crime scene photos. Or how he shot himself in the head and fell down, extending one leg under a rifle on a bipod without knocking it over.

9. Within a day or two, authorities were rummaging through the shooter’s financials enough to figure out that he’d purchased software, and been shipping cash out of the country by the pallet. Why did it take another month and a half — when folks were getting antsy over motive — to discover he was despondent over massive gambling losses, when they totally ruled out “terrorism” in less than a day?

How much had he lost? When? Was it significantly higher than previous losses? Victims and families suing the estate would probably like to know how much is left.

10. Why did the most valuable material witness leave the country, and did the authorities know before he left?

Seriously; no one told him, “Don’t go leaving town. Keep yourself available for more questions while we sort out the latest version of the timeline.”?

11. Why did the police wait until roughly an hour and twenty minutes after the last shot was fired to enter the room? Was the shooter still alive, did he communicate with them? For that matter, we don’t know why it allegedly took them so long to figure out what room the shooter was in. Two witnesses claim they reported it.

Oh well. It isn’t as if I don’t know about plenty of “armed standoffs” with empty houses, or sleeping drunks who didn’t know the cops were there.

Until investigators will explain what guns the asshole used, and how, along with other pertinent facts, imposing more infringements of human/civil rights based on “we have to prevent another Mandalay Bay” makes as much sense as banning automobiles because the shooter owned one of those, too. Or houses. Or boats. Airplanes. Clothing. Suitcases.


Truth in advertising

Have you noticed the recent trend in arguments from the human/civil rights violators? If not, here are some hints.

“Why is gun control now equal to a restriction of liberties? Gun Control is not Gun erasure, it is not taking away the 2nd Amendment. Gun Control is not saying you do not have a right to own a gun for your protection, safety, and soundness of mind for you and your family.”
Anjeanette LeBoeuf, The Act of Gun Control

Ms. LeBoeuf, bless her heart, also demonstrates why she should have spent more time on history, and less on women’s studies.

“The challenge in bringing change is that the debate over gun rights isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about what they represent: cherished freedoms, a reverence for independence. ”
Philip Elliott, Haley Sweetland Edwards, Charlotte Alter; The Fight Over Gun Control Isn’t Really About Guns

Hold that thought.

“So how can we articulate the gun control message more effectively? What if instead of emphasizing gun control, there was a Movement for the Safety of All Americans? If the problem were framed as a domestic and public safety issue rather than a gun control matter, perhaps we could build greater demand for conquering this national epidemic.”
Bruce Berlin, Let’s Reframe Gun Control To Focus on Our Safety

Ah, safety.

“Take the phrase we often reach toward in the aftermath of a mass shooting: “gun control.” “It feels like there’s an American sense that responds quite well to the idea of ‘rights,’ and not so well to the idea of ‘control,’” Dust says. Dust believes that this small point could the origin of a new type of conversation–around how the right to carry arms is ultimately infringing on our right to peacefully gather.”
Eillie Anzilotti, Can We Redesign The Way We Talk About Gun Control In America?

The trend is to pretend there is no such thing as “gun control,” and the reason is because they finally realized it’s a non-finisher.

LeBoeuf wants people to believe that only total confiscation is “gun control.” Yet proposes… controls. She’s not alone in adopting that position, and it’s not new; there’s a reason Handgun Control, Inc. isn’t using that name anymore.

The rights violators are used to having money and near-exclusive media access, allowing them to push whatever message they wanted. In the Internet age, that access isn’t so exclusive (in the ’90s, merely getting an unedited pro-RKBA letter to the editor in an urban newspaper was a challenge; yet here you are reading this column now). The rights violators are forced to rephrase and hide their goal.

They think this is a winning gambit.

It might be. For us.

“Excuse me, Ms. LeBoeuf. If those laws preventing me from owning this type of firearm, or making me an ex post facto prohibited person without due process, requiring licenses to own, licenses to buy, licenses to carry, mandatory insurance, waiting periods, mental health evaluations, and so forth aren’t gun control, what are they?”

The answer being, as we’ve long known — but which the human rights criminals tried to deny — people control. Now, every time one of those smarmy SOBs plays the “not gun control” card, we can call them on it, and make them admit that the goal is to manipulate every aspect of every life, all the things they can’t do to an armed populace.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.


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!


Extreme Risk Facebook Use

I’ve warned about the dangers of due process-free “Extreme Risk Protection Orders. The lack of said due process, the way pretty much anyone can get one, the way the target isn’t allowed to know until it’s too late, the potential for abuse.

Let’s look at one of those points again: he way pretty much anyone can get one. It varies by state, but generally anyone who sort of knows the target can get one. Truly sucks if the requestor was simply trying to get his target disarmed, the better to kill or injure him with impunity.

Anyone who sort of knows the target…

Like Facebook.

Facebook rolls out AI to detect suicidal posts before they’re reported
“This is about shaving off minutes at every single step of the process, especially in Facebook Live,” says VP of product management Guy Rosen. Over the past month of testing, Facebook has initiated more than 100 “wellness checks” with first-responders visiting affected users. “There have been cases where the first-responder has arrived and the person is still broadcasting.”(emphasis added-cb)
Facebook’s tools then bring up local language resources from its partners, including telephone hotlines for suicide prevention and nearby authorities. The moderator can then contact the responders and try to send them to the at-risk user’s location, surface the mental health resources to the at-risk user themselves or send them to friends who can talk to the user.

Gee, I can’t see any possible way that could go wrong. Except when it does. A lot.

But assuming you survive the wellness/welfare check, what’s next? We have Facebook notifying the authorities that a person is suicidal; is that going to trigger an ERPO?

Perhaps not under most current laws just now — though several have been written to allow police to file for an order when they become aware of a situation — but given the fad for minority reports predictive policing, and for mental health tests for gun ownership, I figure it’s merely a matter of time before the Pelosis of the statist world take note of Facebook’s snooping and require a FB report to trigger an ERPO. Just to be sure.

Unfortunately, after TechCrunch asked if there was a way for users to opt out, of having their posts a Facebook spokesperson responded that users cannot opt out. They noted that the feature is designed to enhance user safety, and that support resources offered by Facebook can be quickly dismissed if a user doesn’t want to see them.

Quickly dismissing the “first-responders” kicking in your door may be a little more difficult. Dismissing a gun-siezure ERPO is effectively impossible.

But the spokesman is wrong. There is an opt-out: drop Facebook for your own protection. True, FB permanently archives your account contents in case you ever want to come back, but at least you can avoid the near real-time telescreen psych monitoring.


The Rules of the Gun [Control] Debate

David Frum, who has mastered the art of psychological projection, presents a an asinine parable and cynical “rules” for running the gun control debate. This man clearly has mental health issues.

Frum’s little parable, meant to represent the problem of “gun violence,” purports a town which has stupidly built itself in a locale guaranteed to suffer repeated natural disasters. The sensible folk of the town think everything should be raised up on stilts to avoid flooding, while the pro-gun reactionary do-nothings object to preparation because it won’t stop floods.

The reality of the “gun violence” problem is that 1) it’s man-made by a relatively few bad guys, and 2) the pro-gun folks don’t object to taking measures to protect themselves. In Frum’s water-logged village, we’d be the folks putting up our own houses on stilts, pilings, and mounds, while the anti-flood violence idiots like From pass laws designating the town a flood-free zone.

Frum’s “rules” illustrate the usual problems of irrationality on the part of victims disarmers.

Frum’s Rule 1. “The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate. If the killer acquired his weapons illegally, it’s out of bounds to point out how lethally easy it is to buy weapons legally. If the killer lacked a criminal record, it’s out of bounds to talk about the inadequacy of federal background checks. The topic for debate is not, iWhy do so many Americans die from gunfire?’ but ‘What one legal change would have prevented this most recent atrocity?'”

My Rule 1a. If you are proposing a solution to a specific incident, the proposal should address characteristics of that incident.

My Rule 1b. General discussion of the many sordid causes of “gun violence” is a separate conversation.

Frum’s Rule 2. “The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment. Even the NRA has proclaimed itself open to some regulation of these devices. After the 2012 mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, attention turned to large capacity magazines. What is out of bounds is discussion of weapons as in themselves a danger to human life and public safety.”

My Rule 2a. See My Rule 1a.

My Rule 2b. Any proposed solution must included a cost:benefit analysis, and not be based on the unicorn wishes of just one party.

My Rule 2c. Firearms are not a natural disaster; they are man-made tools, which must be manipulated by an external force — like a person — to do anything, good or bad.

Frum’s Rule 3. “The debate must always honor the “responsible gun owners” who buy weapons for reasonable self-defense. Under Rule 1, these responsible persons are presumed to constitute the great majority of gun owners. It’s out of bounds to ask for some proof of this claimed responsibility, some form of training for example. It’s far out of bounds to propose measures that might impinge on owners: the alcohol or drug tests for example that are so often recommended for food stamp recipients or teen drivers.”

My Rule 3. Since there are 55-120+ million gun owners, and the human race has not been rendered extinct in the US, one should start with the assumption that most gun owners are not murderous lunatics bound and determined to kill everything; if we were, you’d know… not know it because everyone would already be dead.

Frum’s Rule 4. “Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety. No matter how blatantly gun advocates appeal to fears and fantasies—Sean Hannity musing aloud on national TV about how he with a gun in his hands could have saved the day in Las Vegas if only he had been there—nobody other than a lefty blogger may notice that this debate is about race and sex, not personal security. It’s out of bounds to observe that ‘Chicago’ is shorthand for ‘we only have gun crime because of black people’ or how often ‘I want to protect my family” is code for ‘I need to prove to my girlfriend who’s really boss.'”

My Rule 4. Assume parties in the discussion mean what they say unless you have evidence to the contrary. An automatic assumption that ‘Chicago’ must be a racist codeword — in face of demographics of Chicago criminals — or that the only possible reason to have a defensive weapon is to abuse women says much more about the person who believes only that than it says about most lawful gun owners.

From there, Frum devolves into “discussion.”

“A requirement that gun owners carry insurance would not only protect potential accident victims—including gun owners, since many gun accidents are self-inflicted—against economic loss.”

We did that. You folks called it “murder insurance” and tried to stop it. Make up your minds.

As for preemptively-prove-your-innocence (“background”) checks: If they work, then lawful gun owners have already proved themselves “responsible gun owners” (FR3). If they don’t, then stop demanding something that doesn’t work and come up with something that would.

My Rule 5. There is no “gun violence” problem. There is a violence problem, most prevalent in certain economic/geographic demographics.

If a doctor conducted a study to determine if a chemical caused a certain cancer, and found that cancer in just 0.00124% of regular users of that chemical, he’d discard that hypothesis and go looking for another cause.

0.00124% happens to be the estimated number of lawful gun owners who are murderers in any given year.

Clearly, while guns are used, they aren’t the cause. People kill with guns, knives, clubs, cars, fists, feet… If guns are removed, the cause will remain until addressed and fixed; murderers will simply use one of the myriad other methods available, as they have through history.

My Rule 6. If you ignore the underlying cause and only treat symptoms, you will never cure the disease.

* Note the original URL.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.


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!


A Can of Peas or a Gun?? Tough Choices!

I heard on the news today there had recently been a shooting attack at a big box store called Costco.  I have it on good authority that this is not possible!! Costco is a gun free zone! Admittedly they only came clean in 2014 that they were gun free. Before that they didn’t want to tick off gun owners by being proudly gun free.

But despite this gold standard of safety it seems an as yet unnamed man entered Costco today yelling and brandishing a gun. No word yet on what type of gun went crazy today and grabbed a nearby human and forced him to transport him to the gun free Costco. Even though the gun knew it was not welcome there, it forced the human to provide transportation. As the apparently distraught human entered Costco it was yelling. The employees tried to lower the security gates but were unable to lower it in time.

People fled for the exits as they realized what was happening and one little 82 year old lady struggled to keep up with the crowd as they stampeded towards safety.

But earthly angels need to shop too. And apparently one was shopping in the store when the out of control gun and the hapless shouting human made their entry. An off duty police officer. As panicked shoppers and employees fled out the store the officer pulled his gun and his badge and held them up so people could see. And as the defenseless fled towards safety a good guy with a gun went to confront evil. And he killed it. There were no other casualties. None. Apparently the good guy gun was better than the bad guy gun. Because after all, it’s all about an inanimate piece of metal right?

But I have lingering questions. Will the good guy with a gun be prosecuted by Costco? I mean, after all, he wasn’t on duty.  And he obviously was carrying a gun in a “gun free zone”! Did the off-duty police officer check to see how many blacks vs how many whites were in the store? Aren’t they all suppose to be racist according to BLM?  Are there any other types of Costco members that they have no concern for besides the 82 year old woman that struggled to keep up and escape? Perhaps they also have no regard for young children. They can’t run very fast either. Mothers carrying infants? They are sure to be slower. Questions for Costco to ponder, what is their “target” demographic?  Either way, if shopping in a store that has made it clear that you must be defenseless and vulnerable to be welcome is your thing, I wouldn’t be surprised if Costco doesn’t have a sale on memberships err long.

I was told by someone I respect enormously I should be able to kill someone with a can of peas, should the occasion call for it, or the need arise. But do battle with a can of peas (not that I’m not willing, should the occasion call for it) instead of a gun?  Inconceivable



About those “fugitives”

Anti-gun types are all upset now that they noticed the FBI was eliminating some folks with active warrants from the NICS database, making them eligible to purchase firearms.

Tens of thousands with outstanding warrants purged from background check database for gun purchases
Tens of thousands of people wanted by law enforcement officials have been removed this year from the FBI criminal background check database that prohibits fugitives from justice from buying guns.

The names were taken out after the FBI in February changed its legal interpretation of “fugitive from justice” to say it pertains only to wanted people who have crossed state lines.

Well… No. It isn’t so much as they changed the interpretation as that they noticed they weren’t in compliance with federal law. Again. (Kind of the inverse of the military not bothering to report felons.)

Allow me to explain, setting aside for the moment the unconstitutional prior restrain of preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks.

It appears from a search on US Code that to be a “fugitive” under 18 U.S. Code § 922, once has to have actively fled when a warrant is issued. The fact that a warrant was issued doesn’t make one a fugitive; or even necessarily aware of the warrant.

No flight, no fugitive.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that gun controllers think people should be denied rights based on a mere warrant… when it’s Second Amendment rights. But not so much when it comes to other rights.

A federal court found it unconstitutional for for Michigan to deny welfare benefits to people with felony warrants unless they are actually fugitives.

So… same thing for 2nd Amendment rights. For once the DOJ did something half right (the other half being the whole prior restraint bit).


“Fix NICS” right

In a bipartisan act of insanity, Senator Cornyn and cronies from boith sides of the aisle have come up with a wonderful plan to “Fix NICS.” Basically, it bribes states to report more people.

But there’s a “penalty,” too. Sort of. If an agency fails to report properly the politically appointed agency chief bunghole boffer doesn’t get a bonus (presupposing that bureaucrats should by default get bonuses).

If we must be saddled with a background check system that forces people to preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI), a clear prior restraint, in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right, then let’s fix NICS properly.

Simply not giving a bonus to a political bureaucrat for a failure is not sufficient. Penalties must be imposed at the individual level:

1. Any individual who, through malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, fails to properly report a prohibited person under 18 U.S. Code § 922 to the NICS databases shall be guilty of a felony; the penalty for which shall be a prison term of no more than five years and a fine of no more than $10,000 for each offense.

   a. In addition, if the failure results in a prohibited obtaining a firearm and using it in a crime, the individual shall be charged and tried as an accessory before the fact in the prohibited person’s crime.

   b. Should malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in supervision at any level be a contributing factor in the failure, all supervisors, up to and including appointed agency heads, shall be guilty of a felony; the penalty for which shall be a prison term of no more than five years and a fine of no more than $10,000 for each offense.

   c. “Sovereign immunity” shall not be a defense.

2. And individual who, through malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, causes a person who is not prohibited under 18 U.S. Code § 922 to be denied or delayed the exercise of a constitutional right shall be charged under 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.

   a. In addition, if the denial or delay of the right to a fiream results in injury or death, the individual responsible for the denial or delay shall be guilty of a felony the penalty for which shall be a maximum of life in prison and a fine of up to $1,000,000.

   b. Should malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in supervision at any level be a contributing factor in the failure, all supervisors, up to and including appointed agency heads, shall be guilty of a felony the penalty for which shall be a maximum of life in prison and a fine of up to $1,000,000.

   c. “Sovereign immunity” shall not be a defense.

Private citizens — licensed dealers, private sellers, would be buyers — all face criminal penalties for their errors that could allow a prohibited person to obtain and misuse a firearm. It’s time for bureaucrats to join the party.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.


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!


If they have a case, why do victim disarmers have to lie?

As you may have noticed from previous number-crunching, I’m quite analytically inclined. When I see or hear something that doesn’t sound right, it gnaws at me until I check it out. Like this:

Emotions run high during Politech’s gun control forum
“So it’s really a touchy issue on a sense of security. Also if you want to go to domestic violence, most women who are around guns, 50 percent of the time will be shot using their own weapon,” Gavran said. “So there are a lot of challenges with that.”

Really? 50% of women around guns will be shot with their own weapon?

My guess is that emotions ran high because lies like that were allowed.

According to a and Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey 32% of women live in households with firearm. I think that counts as being “around” guns. 32% of 162,000,000 women would be 51,840,000. 50% of those would be 25,920,000 women shot.

The FBI’s 2016 Uniform Crime Report says there were only 1,217,400 violent crimes (male and female; murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) last year. Yet ditz Gavran claims that just women shot is more than 21 times that.

But maybe Gavran meant 50% of the MC/HIRC reported 12% of women who own guns. That gets us down to 9,720,000 to about 8 times the number of total violent crimes for males and females alike.

Let’s stroll over to the CDC’s WISQARS and see what they say about it. 6,368 total nonfatal firearms assaults, and 1,950 fatal firearms assaults, for a total of 8,318. A far cry from 25,920,000 or even 9,720,000.

OK, I’ll be generous. Rather than what she said, maybe she meant to limit the population strictly to domestic violence cases; so 50% of female domestic violence victims.

Uh oh. It says here that females are the victims in 85% of 960,000 estimated annual domestic violent incidents, giving us 816,000 victims, half of which would be firearms by Gavran’s claim: 408,000. Only 49 times the number of fatal and nonfatal female firearms injuries the CDC reports.

Wait. 12% of women own guns. So .12 times 816,000 is 97,920. Half of that is 48,960. Only six times as many as the total the CDC reports.

Pure. Effing. B. S.

But as the man said, there’s more.

Perry was able to speak on what he considered naivety in regards to fears of students carrying guns around the campus. Gavran responded to Perry, saying there were accidental discharges around some universities in Texas.

She went on to say there is no way of knowing all of the effects of Campus Carry because the Clery Act legislation does not require reporting of accidental discharges.

I searched. I found one. More than a year ago. If the ditz has better data, she should cite it.