Conspicuous Omission

On Wednesday September 4th in San Mateo, CA three men, Edwin Lee of Daly City, Brian Ma & Bunn Vo of San Jose forced their way into a home in a quiet residential area. They held the residents including a pregnant woman at gunpoint. At roughly 11:30pm a gunfight in the home erupted, the homeowner was shot but will survive his injuries. The "suspects" fled in an SUV and turned up at an East San Jose Hospital. Lee was injured in the shootout and is in custody along with Vo. Brian Ma was killed.

So what does this have to do with anything? Later this week CA Assembly Members Nancy Skinner of Berkeley and Rob Bonta of Alameda will hold a press conference in support of their asinine collection of Assembly Bills (AB-48, AB1131, AB180) which are 3 of 19 (down from ~50) such bills currently circulating Sacramento. They plan to speak and offer the podium as well to sympathetic members of Law Enforcement (read PD chiefs with political aspirations), "Community Leaders" and victims of "Gun Crime". Conspicuously absent from their agenda are individuals who have lawfully used a firearm in self defense.

Why? Well, we know why. Because their presence would confound the politicians agenda. Be it at the Federal, State or Local level, "Gun Control" advocates never, ever acknowledge those who lawfully defend their lives with a firearm nor allow their voice in the discussion.

Great Moments In Gun Control Analogies

Statement:

Well honestly, the odds of something bad happening are just so slim. You really don't need a firearm to protect yourself or your home.

Response:

Really? Then I guess you don't need a fire extinguisher in your kitchen.

Every year in the United States ~20,000 people are killed or injured as a result of fire in the home. Every fire department I'm aware of advocates that people keep an extinguisher in their home.

Every year in the United States ~790,000 people are killed or injured as a result of violent crime. When the odds of injury or death are so much greater why is there not a similar, if not greater effort to encourage people to protect themselves from violence as they do from fire?

Great Moments in Gun Control Analogies.......

Interesting how going 140mph in an M6 and shooting AR-15's are equally legal on a closed course yet M6's deal more death annually than do AR-15's each year in America, but M6's don't receive the same negative feedback that AR's do. "Support background checks on M6 drivers!" Wouldn't it be worth it if we could save just one child?

....credit to Colion Noir. Check out his blog http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/ and YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir?feature=watch both are great.

Blast! Foiled By Facts Again!

In the wake of the shootings in Newtown CT the Obama Administration did what many populist political machines do. They attempted to capitalize on the tragedy to forward an agenda and in so doing convince those less given to critical thought that "The Government is doing Something to make them safer." You'll recall President Obama and Joe "Double-Barreled-Shotgun" Biden's dog & pony show complete with appropriately multicultural juvenile stage props wherein the President signed a series of Executive Orders related to gun control and gun violence.

Among those Executive Orders was the commissioning of a study on Gun Violence and the efficacy of various strategies to curtail it. Now if you are over 40 as I am, this should sound like a song you've heard before but we'll get to that in a minute. The first point I wish to touch on is the fact that you are likely NOT aware that the study is complete and has been published. One might be inclined to ask, "Well why have I not heard of this?".

You'd think that the Administration , armed with a raft of new info would be trotting in astride their white horses waving about the results of the study that they commissioned to support their effort to reduce gun crime/violence.Well, they would but for one teeny-tiny little thing........

The study in large part debunks the key elements of the "Gun Control as a means to curtail gun crime/violence" agenda.....well, that's awkward isn't it?

Lies, Damned Lies and (Gun Control) Statistics

Anyone who has been a sports fan for any length of time knows how statistics can be used to make a false argument about a player or to find “hidden value” in a player that by appearances might seem less attractive to a team. A great example of the former would be a Pitchers Win/Loss totals or in football, the Quarterback Rating. Neither of which by itself is a reliable metric of a player’s value. There are some examples of the latter found in modern “Advanced” statistics such as WAR, BABip etc that can show a player to be of greater or lesser value than he seems to the naked eye.

In sports as in many other areas of “debate” statistics can be very useful. Provided the data set is of sufficient size to provide a representative sample, provided the statistic actually measures what is being evaluated and provided the statistic is being accurately represented. Equally, statistics can be used to distort the truth - particularly if the above provisions are ignored or not met and that is the topic of this post.

The post Sandy Hook Gun Control debate rages on in many states but has thankfully due to cooler heads prevailing, lost steam at the National level. There were two widely repeated statistics used by the Anti-Second Amendment crowd that I’d like to discuss.

40% of all gun sales are completed without a background check.

90% of Americans (including gun owners) support background checks.

The axe of facts vs the bulwark of misguided "conventional wisdom".

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm has previously taught at Princeton University, Bentley College, Boston University, Northeastern University and Cambridge University.  She was also a Senior Advisor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program, a Visiting Scholar at Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies, and is a Bye Fellow at Robinson College, Cambridge University.  

Her seventh book, Peter's War: A new England Slave Boy and the American Revolution,  published by Yale University Press is now available. Her essays have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, USA Today, The Boston Globe and other newspapers.  

She Recently appeared on PBS's "The Firing Line" with Kwame Holman and this diminutive, soft spoken woman delivered a more powerful, cutting argument in defense of the Second Amendment than the frothing Ted Nugent ever could.





[EDIT] I just watched this video for a second time. I am compelled to commend Mr. Holman for his work in this interview. It is an exceedingly rare thing in this day for a journalist to interview in such genial, non-confrontational, non-agenda driven manner particularly with respect to the polarizing nature of the topic under discussion. 

The vast majority of broadcast journalists could take a lesson from Mr. Holman. Congratulations sir. You are fair, and that is all we can ask of a journalist. A shame it has become such a rare trait. [/EDIT]

"For The Sake Of The Children" ...or other such prattle.

J.R Salzman is an Iraq War Veteran who wears a prosthetic right arm as a daily reminder of his commitment to his Nation. His arm was blown off in the line of duty, but his spirit and his commitment remain wholly intact. In addition to being a freelance writer he is, to this day as he was before his service and injury, a “Timber Sports” Athlete and holds multiple world titles in the sport of log rolling.

You might be asking why I bring up Mr. Salzman. Good question. I’ve been searching for a theme to use to tie together a number of thoughts into a single piece for about a week and Mr. Salzman provided the inspiration with a comment in his Twitter feed today:

It's easier to say "it's about the children" in the gun control debate than "stats and majority don’t support it, but let’s ban guns anyway." ~ J.R. Salzman

….and there you have it.

It has become commonplace for deceitful journalists, opportunistic politicians dancing on the graves of children and their uneducated, group-think prone supporters to parrot the specious claim that we must increase gun control ….”to protect the children”, or that we must restrict magazine capacity or ban certain types of firearms to increase public safety. In support of their crocodile-tear infused prattle they like to foist upon us “examples” such as the UK. A claim so easily debunked as to baffle anyone with two brain cells to rub together as to why it continues to be trotted out.

Gun Laws and Gun Violence...what you think is probably wrong.

Freakanomics. A project of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner manages to piss people off on both sides of the political aisle by virtue of their goring the sacred cows of each with simple but uncomfortable facts, logic and numbers. If you haven't read their book, you ought to. Caution, uncomfortable truths contained therein.

Recently, on their American Public Media broadcast they went after the issue of the efficacy of Gun Laws and the potential impact of more restrictive additional laws. The podcast is about 30min long and well worth the listen.

LEVITT: I would just say that anyone with any sense looks at the current political climate, thinks about the kinds of proposals that are being made and accepts the fact that none of these proposals are going to have any real impact at all.

Which begs the question....

What then, is the REAL purpose of increased restrictions on lawful gun ownership if there is no demonstrable decrease in crime and violence?

Joe Biden. Is he stupid or does he think you are?

No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance greed and love of power. ~ PJ O’Rourke

VPOTUS Joe Biden and the guy responsible for Fast & Furious

As the gun control debate rages on, those who take the immoral stance of infringing the rights of the law abiding continue to reach for increasingly farcical analogies, specious and spurious arguments in favor of their indefensible position. To wit, Vice President Joe Biden who on Tuesday said the following:

…nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.

I said, Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here…walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. …. You don’t need an AR-15 – it’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun.

The mind fairly boggles at this. Biden is either one of the most colossally ignorant people in public office today (a pretty high bar) or this is an intentional effort to mislead people who he views as ignorant and stupid. Those really ARE the only options.

That question aside for now let’s look at the individual statements made here at face value:

Barrett Gambit Follow Up

Via Libertarian Conspirator blog:

Grassroots North Carolina has commenced an initiative to urge firearms manufacturers involved in the LE/MIL market to follow the lead of LaRue Tactical requesting that they not sell to State/Local entities that which cannot be sold to citizens in the same state. They've produced a sample letter format below and provided the email address for LE Sales Directors at the various manufacturers.

Dear Law Enforcement Sales Manager,

Recently New York rushed an ill-advised and unconstitutional law infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Other states are poised to write similar laws. I urge you to follow the lead of LaRue Tactical which has adopted this policy: If it can’t be sold to law-abiding citizens, it won’t be sold to state and local police agencies either.

There are 800,000 sworn police officers in the entire United States. The FBI reports a total of 2,495,440 NICS checks, and thus firearms sales, in January 2013 alone. Police sales are not your major business. It’s time for firearm manufacturers to send a clear message that you will not participate in the slow erosion of our Second Amendment rights.
(NICS numbers Source http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...rly_totals.pdf)

Signed,

The email address' to send the letter to are shown below:
 publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com, dgrier@smith-wesson.com, LE.info@glock.us, mreissig@colt.com, sales@fnhusa.com, lawenforcement@ruger.com,

Stats Chat

I've posted a few of this guys video's in the past....the follow ups are too good not to share.



All of his video's are available here: AmidsTheNoise

Malicious Compliance & The Barrett Gambit

Malicious compliance: When an individual intentionally inflicts harm by strictly following the orders of leadership or following the absolute letter of the law, knowing that compliance will cause a loss of some form resulting in damage to the manager's business or reputation, or a loss to an employee or subordinate. In effect, it is a form of sabotage used to harm leadership or used by leadership to harm subordinates. In short, complying with the outward form of orders or rules, while either allowing the result to reveal the flaws in the rules, or exploiting the flaws to sabotage the situation. 

In 2004, California enacted the ".50 BMG Regulation Act" which went into effect 01 January, 2005. The act effectively banned, for civilian use, rifles chambered in the .50 BMG Caliber. This is an ultra-rare, ultra-expensive highly esoteric caliber to be sure and one that is really used by the most serious of competitive shooting sports enthusiasts and, by virtue of it's ballistics characteristics by Police & Military. The legislature banned the round, and rifles chambered for it ostensibly due to "terrorist threat" despite the fact that there has never been a .50 BMG used in a terrorist attack against the US, and exactly ZERO crimes have been committed in the US, let alone California using the .50 BMG.

In response to the ban, Barrett Rifles CEO, Ronnie Barrett announced that his company would no longer sell or service any Barrett rifle owned by a California State or Municipal Law Enforcement agency or by the CA National Guard. A decision of conscience that no doubt cost his company significant revenue and market share but one he stands by to this day.

Go Read This NOW!

I've written a fair bit regarding the current assault on the Second Amendment over the last few weeks and I will likely continue to do so as things develop. I think though that it's important to view any subject from multiple points of view. To that end I want to share a piece from another blogger that I stumbled on this morning.

The link below will lead you to a brilliant, if a bit long, piece on gun rights written from a decidedly left leaning individual. It is long, but stick with it. Totally worth your time.

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights

I have a few other pieces bookmarked that I'll link to below later tonight.

Gun Laws and Polish Jokes

David Mamet is among my favorite playwrights and screenwriters and he is responsible for many of the best films of the last 30 or so years. "Glengarry Glen Ross" is the title you are probably most familiar with, but he also had his hand on such classics as "The Postman Always Rings Twice", "The Untouchables" (bad acting, great writing) and "The Winslow Boy".

I've mentioned David Mamet before on this blog making reference to his brilliant book "The Secret Knowledge" which chronicles his coming to, rather late in life, conservatism and the conflicts found in that relative to his personal background and the professional circles that he resides within. If you haven't read that book, I highly recommend it. It's fascinating even if you don't agree with his conclusions.

Mamet recently penned an essay on the topic of "Gun Control". As one might expect, it's pitch perfect and I'd like you to read it.

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

 

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. 

By David Mamet. 

Maybe, just maybe the guns aren't the problem....

Despite the myriad of studies, Federal & State crime data and testimony from law enforcement indicating that additional restrictions on gun ownership does not significantly reduce crime and/or violence the easiest target when there is a tragic shooting is guns & gun ownership. It's more difficult to look at other causes for violence be they societal, medical/psychological or cultural because looking at those forces people to look at themselves and that's hard. Often, the right thing to do is the thing that is difficult to do and in this case it's the discussion of mental illness and prescription medications.

Unless you are a serious shooting sports enthusiast you probably don't know the name John Noveske. He was the owner of Noveske Rifleworks in Oregon. His company builds civilian spec Semi-Automatic rifles, Military & Police spec rifles and accessories for both. The company is highly respected in Law Enforcement and Military circles and among civilian shooting sports enthusiasts as extremely innovative and highly responsive to their customers. On January 4th of this year, Mr. Noveske died in a car accident. His last external communication to his friends and customers via his facebook page is posted below....

DISCLAIMER: This is second-hand information. There may be errors.

Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein....

My position on the Second Amendment should be well....abundantly clear. I respect and understand the feelings of those who elect not to exercise their natural right codified by said amendment. Further, I respect, but disagree with those who elect to cling to an interpretation of the Second Amendment contrary to that which is made abundantly clear by the writings of the framers. Regardless of your position, be it an originalist advocate of literal interpretation, one who stands unopposed but chooses not to avail themselves of the right, or one who takes a position in opposition to the Second Amendment you have a duty to make your position known to our elected officials.

Lest we forget, we are NOT subjects under rule. Our elected officials do not impose their will on us, they are to serve OUR will. So if you agree with my position and stand firmly with me on the side of a Madisonian interpretation of the 2nd, that's great! Now grab a pen or pull up your email program and write. If you don't agree with me.....I want you to do the exact same thing. Take part in the process and by doing so make a tiny step toward reclaiming OUR government from those on either side of the aisle who have subverted it (Hamilton) from us.

Posted with thanks to YouTube Channel owner "NutnFancy" for the framework.

 

Dear Senator Feinstein,

You and many of your fellow members of the legislature are shockingly considering gun legislation that will make criminals of millions of the citizens, breaching a trust long held. I urge you to reconsider this path, to stand for individual liberty and trust in the citizenry, just like our Constitution affirms, clearly outlines and which is supported chapter and verse by the writings of many of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist framers.

I urge you in the strongest terms possible to halt this path toward an AWB and vote against any other legislation that proposes registration and banning of so-called "Assault Weapons" or places further restrictions on the 2^nd Amendment. These firearms are in THOUSANDS of households, held by good citizens, keeping the peace, and preserving their liberty. The percentage of criminal use of these guns is infinitesimal and statistically insignificant.

More importantly these proposed laws registering and banning this broad category of guns will have no affect on crime. You and I both KNOW this to be true. As we saw in the CT massacre, criminals and the dangerously mentally ill don’t obey laws. They will illegally obtain guns, ignore ALL laws, and in the end probably use any destructive device available to kill.

The fingerprinting, registration, and guaranteed future control of an owner of this type of firearm VIOLATES the Second Amendment. Represents a violation of your oath of office and is a glaring manifestation of an overreaching, out of control government...the very thing which our founders feared and wished to prevent.

This or other "assault weapons bans" will be unenforceable. In the end, only the criminals and the government will be armed. Is that what you want? In determining the course of this country this might be your most important vote ever. Firmly PRESERVE GUN OWNERS RIGHTS and accept no compromise. I will watch your vote with great interest and gratefully support you in any endeavor to defend of our Constitution.

Feel free to copy this and edit it as you see fit to send to Senator Feinstein or any other elected official.

Thoughtfulness.....

There's precious little of it going around these days. This cat has got it in spades.




There's a lot to chew on there, regardless of your point of view on guns/crime/violence. Question is, are you willing to THINK about it or have you let your emotions make your decisions for you?

Why does the 2nd Amendment Exist At All?

I submit to you, by way of explanation the words of James Madison......most probably won't bother to read the whole thing.

Hint: It has nothing to do with hunting.