Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

Bookstore
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

More
 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM


Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Massad Ayoob

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR SELF-DEFENSE

Thursday, July 27th, 2017

I love good news.

The District of Columbia was recently found to be out of line in requiring special reasons to fear crime as suitable grounds for issuing a concealed carry permit.  Read the decision here.

Civil rights advocates will recall when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Heller v. District of Columbia, that DC was out of line in prohibiting its residents from owning handguns for self-defense. Thus began a long and fascinating chain of litigation; I expect you’re all familiar with that, and I won’t bore you by recounting it here.

As I and others predicted, DC put up enough red tape to constitute a concertina wire to keep its citizens from carrying guns to protect themselves. One element of that was the District’s requirement for the applicant for a carry permit to show that they had already been violently attacked, or at least, were more likely than the average person to suffer such a thing.

The states break down into “may issue” (translation: we can give you a permit if we feel like it) and “shall issue” (we have to give you the permit or show just cause why not, just cause being that we have sound reason to believe you’re a criminal, you’re nuts, or you otherwise would be even more of a danger to society if you were armed.)

Logic cringes at the thought.  You have to have already been attacked by someone trying to unlawfully kill you, before you can have a permit to protect yourself from that? Um, duh, how do you survive that first attempt long enough to apply for the permit in hopes of warding it off the second time?

Those who know me, know that for decades I’ve pointed out the fact that the defensive firearm is a direct analog to a fire extinguisher.  Each of those items is an emergency safety/rescue tool, whose purpose is to allow the ordinary citizen who becomes the first responder to ward off death or great bodily harm until the designated public safety professionals can get there to help. The gun doesn’t make you a cop and doesn’t mean you don’t need cops.  The fire extinguisher doesn’t make you a trained firefighter and doesn’t mean you no longer need firefighters.  “Emergency safety/rescue tool…first responder…the one there on the ground when the conflagration breaks out, and the one right now positioned to be the best candidate to stop something horrible from happening.”

Duh.

How would the American public react if they were told they could only have a fire extinguisher in their home or car if they had already gone through the horror of a full-blown house fire?  That’s what the Bloombergs of the world are asking for when they demand “special reason” to carry a firearm in self-defense.  Just a different type of life-threatening danger, is all.  But with one stark and important difference:  No fire ever stopped by itself because the victim picked up an extinguisher, but a HUGE number of violent attacks are broken off by the criminal as soon as he realizes he has met armed resistance, without a shot being fired.

Thanks to Alan Gura, the rock star of pro-armed-citizen litigation these days…and to the Second Amendment Foundation, which hired him to bring this case to its currently successful conclusion.

And, by the way, thanks again to all here who voted for a President who put one more pro-gun, pro-self defense Justice on the Supreme Court.

I’ve been on the Board of Trustees of the Second Amendment Foundation for many years. I’ve been proud of that.  I’ve never been prouder than now.

35 Responses to “ANOTHER VICTORY FOR SELF-DEFENSE”

  1. Kevin Says:

    Once upon a time I used to donate to the foundation via United Way (company wants people to donate to something, they don’t care what). But 2AF no longer post the required information and never answered my email on this. Would you be able to find that out?

  2. Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) Says:

    Y’know the fire extinguisher analogy doesn’t quite work. Fire extinguishers are generally useless for _starting_ fires and are rarely subject to much abuse. Thus, on the whole, they’re a benefit for society.

    That’s very unlike guns which, though they may be a useful appliance in those cases that they’re needed for self-defense, are very much subject to far more abuse than are fire extinguishers for fire.

  3. Roger Willco Says:

    Mas,

    Your article is perfectly written and makes perfect sense. It makes sense according to Natural Law and according to the Constitution and the Second Amendment. However, in this world of delusion and distortion, some people will read what you wrote, and the light will shine on their understanding, and they will agree with you. Others, for whatever reasons, are deluded and will stay deluded. So sad. We live in a technological Golden Age, but every other field is in a Dark Age, compared to what has come before in history.

    The founders said the states could reasonably restrict the carrying of firearms. New Jersey (a “may issue” state) takes that to mean you can own guns, and “keep” them in your house, but you cannot “bear” guns outside your house. This is clearly an “infringement” on our Second Amendment right. Bearing arms is a right, not a privilege, like driving a car is a privilege.

    My guess is that, after the Civil War, gun laws were written to infringe on the bearing of arms. Those laws were written as though they applied to all citizens, but they were only applied to black men. When those laws were written, the police knew to leave white men alone. Later generations just read the law, and applied it to all citizens in NJ, white and black.

    Think about how rotten our government is. Then, think about the other governments in the world, and throughout history. So, our government is still preferable compared to most of the governments in the world. I happen to like Switzerland, which minds its own business. Singapore seems to be a rare example of a benevolent dictatorship, but I’m sure they don’t allow their citizens to own guns. Israel is a great country, but it is in a bad neighborhood.

    We Americans are still well-off when compared to most of the people in the world. How sad.

  4. TN_MAN Says:

    Mas,

    I have just finished reading Circuit Judge Griffith’s brilliant opinion in this case. His reasoning was flawless and I loved the way that it both dovetailed into the original Heller decision and then extended it to the issue of bearing arms.

    I also loved the way that it points out the errors made by other courts (Peruta, etc.) in reaching the wrong decision regarding “May Carry” laws. The logic in this decision is like a perfect diamond shining in the dark. Thank you for bringing this decision to my attention, Mas.

    I was interested in seeing that Circuit Justice Karen L. Henderson dissented from this opinion. She is a 2nd Amendment denier. In one of the cases leading up to the original Heller decision, she argued that the 2A applied only to militias. So, any and all gun control restrictions were, on those grounds, OK in her book.

    This view was overturned by Heller. So, just like the gun banners in DC, she fights against Heller and still tries to limit the scope of the 2A as narrow as possible. In her dissent in this case, she argued that there was no “core” right to carry outside the home for self-defense. So, once again, the DC near-ban on concealed carry outside the home was just “fine and dandy” in her book. I wrote a recent comment (just a few topics ago) about Judges sitting on the bench and handing down decisions based upon left-wing ideology instead of the law and constitution. Here is a new example. Fortunately, the Leftist Loons were in the minority in this notable decision.

    It would be interesting to see if this case gets appealed to the SCOTUS. Would they still be froze and refuse to take it? If they let this decision stand, it would be pro-2A and in direct contradiction to the Peruta decision which they have also let stand. (Play theme from the Twilight Zone here 🙂 )

  5. Steve from MA Says:

    This is WOT but Ruger made good on the MK IV .22 repair in one week after I sent it in, with free mag, as they promised. Will try it out soon.

  6. Dennis Says:

    Kevin,

    Make sure your donation actually gets to 2A Foundation. United Way seldom supports any conservative organizations. Ask for a list of organizations they support. I would be shocked if any pro-gun organizations are on their list.

  7. Paul S Says:

    Last I knew, UW became quite PC in their relationships wit regard to donation choices. That was quite a while back. 15 or 20 years ago. I seem to recall BSA had problems when they came under pressure regarding gays & also atheists.

  8. Mas Says:

    Liberal Dave, I’m afraid you missed a word. I compared the fire extinguisher to the DEFENSIVE firearm.

  9. TN_MAN Says:

    @ Liberal Dave:

    “That’s very unlike guns which, though they may be a useful appliance in those cases that they’re needed for self-defense, are very much subject to far more abuse than are fire extinguishers for fire.”

    I am afraid that you are drifting into “Left-wing Think” and looking only at environmental factors again. You seem to believe that there is an “abuse scale” whereby inanimate objects can be quantified in some sort of cost/benefit analysis to society.

    Actually, no such “scale” exists. Any inanimate object from an automobile to a zipper can be used for either positive or negative purposes. It is the will of the user that determines the purpose not the nature of the object since, by definition, the object is “inanimate”.

    Leftists, due to their underlying assumptions about the nature of humanity, are self-programmed to look for external causes for problems. It is natural therefore, for a leftist, to view the problem of violence as being linked to some external social condition or object. The idea that guns are “subject to high levels of abuse” and, therefore, that the prevalence of firearms in a society is directly linked (even as strong as cause and effect) to violence seems so natural to the leftist mind that it is usually taken as a “Given”. Leftists accept that guns cause violence as an article of faith. It is unquestioned as if it was a basic religious doctrine. Hence, their constant references to “gun violence”.

    This is why it is so hard for leftists to accept the views of gun-owners and the existence of organizations like the NRA. The belief in the leftist worldview is such a basic part of their mental make-up that they literally cannot conceive that anyone could believe differently from themselves. Their minds are imprisoned and cannot expand outside the confines of the liberal doctrine. To question the effectiveness of gun control, to a leftist, is like questioning whether 2 + 2 = 4.

    So, the leftists cannot truly accept that the NRA believes in gun ownership and the 2A. In their minds, this is SO ABSURD as to be beyond belief. So, the Left makes up stories about the NRA selling out and being in the pocket of the firearms industry. They cannot understand the NRA’s actions unless they assume that there is a base motivation at work.

    And, because they do believe that a base motivation is at work, they despise the NRA and everything it stands for. The Left does not even see the arrogance and self-righteousness in their own views because their minds are so entrenched in a left-wing mental prison-box.

  10. Tionico Says:

    Roger Wilco, you said: “The founders said the states could reasonably restrict the carrying of firearms.”

    Can you please help me out here.. I’ve read the Constitution quite a few times, and can’t recall anyplace where they said that. Would you mind pointing me in the proper directioin so I can see that? Maybe smack my head to loosen the marbles again……..

  11. Tionico Says:

    The bit about First Responders being the ONE WHO IS THERE WHEN THE SHIP HITS THE SPAN is great….. as with both fires and armed assaults, moments waiting can let a small fire one can stomp out with tennis shoes grow into a conflagration that consumes the entire house and everything/one inside it.

    Not sure why, but during my lifetime (somewhere as long as Mas has been knocking about this dirtball) it happens I’ve been the one RIGHT THERE for a number of fires. Half a dozen, at least. Most were house fires, most of those were chimney fires. Several were car fires. In all those cases, I had someone else do the dialing, I grabbed whatever was handy… garden hose, glass of water, two quart saucepan full of water, climbed on the roof and splashed it down the chimney, grabbed my firebottle in MY car to put out the engine fire in my Boss’ old International Troubleall….. then used some miscelanneous car junk I”d happened to toss in the boot to replace all the plug wires that had burned….. the ol beater survived to run again, certainly would not have done had I not come along. Did not even know it was HIM until after I’d seen the thick smoke, pulled over, smacked it into reverse, jumpeed out with the bottle and raced toward the open hood and large fire….. they were all standing about, moaning, staring in disbelief, watching it grow… engine still running and feeding it fuel. WOuld have totalled the car.

    Moments count. Use them well. I do not want to ever have to do this sort of thing again. I’d rather never see another fire But, if one does break out, I WILL do whatever I can to smack it down as quickly as possible.
    I’ve never had opportunity to be RIGHT THERE when an assault or some such begins, and have to draw my own weapon to attempt to neutralise the threat. And I would be VERY happy to live out the rest of my days keeping that record intact. But, just like the situations where I’ve dealt with fires, I will do what I can. Sometimes the adrenaline helps a lot. But I do NOT like that rush.

  12. Tionico Says:

    Yeah third comment. Last one, I promise and it’s short.

    THe easiest and most proper way to deal with DC’s adamant refusal to allow their subjects to bear arms as they wish is for the CONGRESS to get off their thick ends and MAKE A LAW providing for any law abiding individual (i.e. not a prohibited person) present within the District to, at his option, carry a loaded firearm upon his person, concealed or visible, with no application to the City government needed. The Constituion assigns the making of the laws that govern DC to THE CONGRESS. Instead of them sitting back on their thick ends watching their head coppers make fools of themselves, pass a law allowing such carry. By anyone lawfully able to possess a firearm.

  13. LittleBill Says:

    A great victory indeed. But the battle in this Court may not be over yet.

    At this point, the gun-hating DC Gov’t *could* appeal and request an ‘en banc’ hearing of the question before the entire DC Circuit Court; whose ruling would supercede the ruling of the 3-judge panel that Mas is reporting on.

    It’s possible— perhaps even likely— that the en banc Court will overturn the pro-2A ruling that the 3-judge panel has just released. At which point, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take the case.

    This possibility— that the en banc Court overturns the ruling— may actually lead to the result that would be best of all— if the Supreme Court takes the case, and rules definitively on behalf of all Americans’ 2A right to keep and bear arms outside the home.

  14. LittleBill Says:

    I know Justice Griffith personally— he’s been married to my sister for going on 40 years.

    What’s interesting is that he’s not at all a ‘gun guy’— just a believer in Judges remaining faithful to the Constitution.

  15. MichaelJT Says:

    “This possibility— that the en banc Court overturns the ruling— may actually lead to the result that would be best of all— if the Supreme Court takes the case, and rules definitively on behalf of all Americans’ 2A right to keep and bear arms outside the home.”- LittleBill

    Each day that passes brings us one day nearer to Trump appointing another conservative, pro 2A Justice to the SC.

    Then we can all breathe a little easier.

  16. Dennis Says:

    Liberal Dave,

    Electricity courses through the walls of my home, capable of producing functions that 150 years ago would have been considered nothing short of god-like. Capable of bringing comforts, entertainment, and pleasure we have come to barely notice because it is just part of our lives. This miracle of science, coupled with capitalism and the ability to mass produce appliances to harness it’s power, has transformed the developed world.

    Electricity has also been, arguably, responsible for more deaths than guns since it’s power was harnessed. Careless use and intentional abuse by humans are the reason. Should you lose this product because some people can’t seem to handle it safely?

    Some would argue that electricity and the appliances using it are highly regulated, which is true. Yet, hundreds, if not thousands each year manage to kill themselves either through abuse of these appliances or their homes burning down due to human errors.

    As long as humans are part of the equation there is no such thing as a risk free life. One person’s stupidity/evil intent/laziness should never be the excuse for depriving another’s pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

  17. John Mohan Says:

    To Dave the Liberal Uncle,

    You raised a thought-provoking point. As Mas pointed out, he was referring specifically to the “Defensive firearm”. But I’d like to take you up on your submission and discuss firearms in general compared to fire extinguishers in general. Even if we consider all firearms, including those used by criminals to start the metaphorical “fires”, given several facts, I think the conclusion is clear that it’s better for the good guys to also have firearms, those facts being:

    1) Taking away the law abiding citizens’ firearms will not only not take away the criminals’ guns, but will have the unintended effect of emboldening the criminals to commit more, and also more violent crimes.

    2) Every reputable research study has shown that guns in the hands of citizens are used to stop significantly more crimes than guns in the hand of criminals are used to perpetuate crimes. The numbers vary from study to study but they all make the same general conclusion in this regard.

    3) Similar to 2), the number of guns owned and used for protection by honest, law-abiding citizens far outweighs the number of guns owned and used by criminals to perpetuate crime.

    Respectfully,

    John Mohan

  18. Roger Willco Says:

    Tionico,

    Thanks for challenging me to find out where restrictions on the Second Amendment come from. I thought the phrase “subject to reasonable restrictions” came from a Founders letter. It turns out I may have heard that from the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller. I printed out a quote from an article that I read. Sounds like what I was referring to. The URL is after the following quote;

    “That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is – so far – the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.” But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing “reasonable regulation” on that right.”

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-are-there-no-limits-on-second-amendment-rights

    The article says all rights are subject to restrictions. The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre, if there is no fire. Also, freedom of religion does not allow human sacrifices. Four thousand years ago, nearly all religions had human sacrifices. Originally, some First Americans, or Native Americans, or Indians were not allowed to use peyote in their worship services, so that was seen as a reasonable restriction. I often wonder how the Law will respond to polygamy. Islam allows a husband to have four wives if he can support them.

    The only restrictions on the Second Amendment I want to see are for minors, criminals, and the mentally challenged. The only place I would tell citizens they cannot carry firearms is in a court room. This is because I would be afraid people might get too emotional in court and shoot the judge or someone else. I also would not allow someone to drink alcohol while carrying. New Jersey says we can’t carry outside our homes without a license, to be granted to only those people NJ approves of. That is too much restriction, that is an infringement on the Second Amendment right. That is not a “reasonable restriction.” I guess I can see that because I did not go to law school. The NJ justice system believes not allowing us to carry guns outside the home is not an infringement, but a reasonable restriction. I guess you have to go to law school to see that. Ha Ha LOL.

    I grudgingly allow private property to trump my right to self-defense. In other words, if my employer didn’t want me carrying, I guess I would grudgingly submit to their private property rights. I may try to argue that my right to life is more important than someone’s right to property. But, I have the option of getting a different job, or leaving that private property, so I guess I will submit to private property rights.

  19. Roger Willco Says:

    Notice how EVERYTHING about safety depends on the people, not on the tools. Eighteen-year-olds in the Army ride around in Abrams tanks, with a 120mm cannon on it, a .50 cal. machine gun and a .30 cal. machine gun, and they are safe. Most Swiss citizens have machine guns in their homes because they are in the militia, or Swiss Army. (I don’t think concealed carry is allowed in Switzerland). Two cantons allow the private purchase of machine guns, and Switzerland is a very safe place to be. Contrast this with gang members in Chicago, or the Hutus and the Tutsies, or the members of the Islamic State. They have small arms, but are very dangerous people.

    Imagine a safety-conscious man who owns a nuclear bomb. He keeps it in a sub-basement, and it is disarmed. Here is a man with a nuclear bomb, and he is safe. Then, imagine his neighbor, who carries a hammer to a crowded city. On a crowded street he takes the hammer and begins to bash in the brains of people on that street, until he is stopped. Here is a dangerous man with a hammer.

    Imagine a goblin grabs a fire extinguisher. He uses it to bash someone in the head, and they fall down unconscious. The goblin takes the hose of the fire extinguisher, puts it on the mouth of the victim, and fills his lungs with the contents of the fire extinguisher. Would love to see what the anti-gunners would have to say about that. Hey, we already have terrorists using trucks and cars as weapons. Like TN_MAN said, “Any inanimate object from an automobile to a zipper can be used for either positive or negative purposes.”

    So safety has everything to do with the thinking, or culture, of people. Guns and other devices are just props to be used by humans. Before guns were invented, humans were pretty good at killing humans with swords, knives, arrows, crossbows and spears.

  20. Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) Says:

    I’m rather fascinated by the number of people who read my comment on the analogy to mean something more than just a comment on the analogy. While I acknowledge Mas’ point about the “defensive firearm” that reply misses my point that firearms aren’t merely defensive; that such is true is the very reason the analogy doesn’t really work. By leaving out a substantial characteristic of one item and comparing it to another item, you’re making a false comparison.

  21. Tom606 Says:

    I like the fire extinguisher analogy. However to get more sympathy from women, I would add another analogy which applies more to them.

    Imagine not being allowed to have birth control pills/devices unless one has already been impregnated accidentally? Even radically liberal women would have difficulty resisting that one, especially since most of them are sluts.

  22. TN_MAN Says:

    @ Tom606:

    I love your analogy. Let me extend it.

    Suppose a Pro-Life State wanted to ban access to birth control pills/devices (BCPD). However, they know that a complete ban would not pass constitutional muster. So, they take a page from the D.C. approach to concealed carry outside of the home.

    They pass a law that effectively says that the average woman does not need access to BCPD. However, to avoid making it a complete ban, they set up a procedure whereby a woman can apply for a BCPD permit. If granted the permit, she may purchase and use BCPD.

    However, to obtain the permit, she must show “just cause”. She must prove that she is at risk above and beyond that of the ordinary, average woman. She must provide documentation showing either that:

    1) She has already suffered from an unwanted pregnancy or,

    2) She is at particularly high risk. She is a sex worker, porn star, etc.

    If she can prove this overwhelming need for BCPD, then she gets the permit. Otherwise, no way.

    Just image the reaction, by the public and the mainstream media, to the passage of such a law! I would wager that it would never go into effect. Some Judge would slap an injunction on it before the ink from the Governor’s signature was even dry!

    Once it did make it into a courtroom, it would be found unconstitutional immediately.

    Yet, this same logic is allowed to stand, in many jurisdictions, if it is applied to guns. It is absurd as this example shows and as Mas’ “fire extinguisher” analogy also shows.

    No doubt, Liberal Dave would speak up here and try to point out that BCPD (as he argued with the fire extinguishers) are not subject to “abuse” like firearms. In effect, he is arguing that firearms DESERVE to be treated in an absurd manner simply because THEY ARE FIREARMS. In “left-wing think” terms, they are “Bad Environmental Objects” and, as such, DESERVE whatever abuse that the American Left desires to dish out.

    As I pointed out previously, any object can be used for both positive and negative purposes. For example, are birth control pills low on the “abuse scale” as Liberal Dave argued with fire extinguishers? After all, used as a “morning after” treatment, birth control pills can terminate a pregnancy soon after it starts. From the Pro-Life view that “Life begins at conception”, this is the taking of a human life. From this perspective, birth control pills may kill more people in the US, annually, then firearms.

    Even setting aside that debate, birth control pills have their own risks. See this link:

    http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/advice/a41060/why-people-are-dying-from-the-pill/

    Suppose the State, wanting to limit access to the pill, justified it based upon the health risks of the pill just like anti-gunners justify their restrictions based upon the health risk of guns. Would that make it OK then?

    I think not. The DC Law as both absurd and unconstitutional. It DESERVES to be struck down!

  23. Cal Says:

    “Liberal Dave, I’m afraid you missed a word. I compared the fire extinguisher to the DEFENSIVE firearm.”

    Mas, I’m afraid you missed his point. A firearm can also be used offensively. Not many crimes are facilitated by the use of a fire extinguisher.

    Nevertheless, the fire extinguisher analogy can be a useful rhetorical device against those who don’t think fast on their feet.

  24. Mas Says:

    Cal, I think YOU missed the point. It doesn’t take a three-digit IQ to figure out that weapons can be used offensively or defensively. Did you miss where I was speaking of defensive firearms in the original line in question?

  25. Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) Says:

    The term “gun violence” is derided because guns can’t be violent, only people can be violent. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is repeated endlessly. Yet we can have “defensive firearms”? Guns can no more be defensive than the can be violent or be killers.

  26. Mas Says:

    It goes to purpose and state of mind, Dave. Surprised a lawyer would miss that.

  27. TN_MAN Says:

    @ Liberal Dave:

    “The term “gun violence” is derided because guns can’t be violent, only people can be violent. ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ is repeated endlessly.”

    Not quite correct. When Leftists continually use the term “Gun Violence”, they are not meaning that guns fly through the air, locating and firing at targets on their own and killing people all by themselves. What they truly mean, in Left-wing think terms is:

    “Guns are external sources of evil that cause humans to betray their true nature (which is to be good) and do evil violence instead. The availability of guns exacerbates and generates violence. Gun violence is violence generated by guns.”

    The above concept fits hand-in-glove with left-wing ideology which always seeks to blame problems upon sources external to man himself. A leftist cannot tolerate the idea that it is the humans that are generating the violence. They MUST have an external object or social condition to act as a scapegoat instead. Guns have been selected (currently) to be this scapegoat in the United States.

    This has not always been the case. A century ago, the scapegoat for the American Left was the availability of alcohol rather than guns. Alcohol was blamed for crime and violence. However, when the Prohibition of Alcohol did not work out too well, the American Left turned to the Prohibition of Firearms as their next big idea to create their utopia and eliminate violence.

    As Mas notes above, the term “defensive firearm” denotes firearms used for defense instead of some other purpose (hunting, target shooting, etc.).

    The phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is used by the American Right. It’s purpose is to combat the Left’s efforts to scapegoat guns as a source of violence by pointing out (in a simplistic way) that guns are inanimate and that it is the human operator that must bear ultimate responsibility for whatever harm their use causes.

  28. Dennis Says:

    Liberal Dave,

    Place my “defensive” Ruger LCP in a the same room with a full auto AR M4 “assault weapon”, both fully loaded and rounds chambered. Leave them locked up together for a year. What would you expect to find when you checked on them after a year? These are both dangerous dudes (or, are they just inanimate objects?), one much more capable than the other.

    Even if that room was in a home in Chicago (or in D.C.), the results would be the same. You could perform the same experiment putting these inanimate creations in the hands of two LAW ABIDING citizens for a year and get exactly the same results. I read a study last week that found something like 0.007% of concealed carry permit holders have committed crimes using their weapons since legal concealed carry began (this figure from memory, but definitely a small fraction of a percent).

    Cain murdered Abel using a rock. God banished Cain, not the rock. Destroying confiscated firearms by police departments is a fairly recent phenomena. Up until, if my memory is correct, the 1980’s, my department, Dallas, auctioned off these weapons through a licensed dealer to the public (officers and their families were not allowed to participate in the bidding or take ownership of an auctioned weapon for at least ten years after the process). I don’t recall our department ever reprocessing one being used in a subsequent crime, yet, in response to outside pressure from anti-gun activists, began destroying them. Many were fine, expensive, and in many cases, highly collectible weapons. A huge shame.

    Ran across this study which may enlighten some who have fallen prey to some of the false narratives we hear every day-

    http://americangunfacts.com/

  29. David S. Keough Says:

    Yes, Dave, a glock 26, given it’s size is a defensive firearm. The two boys who killed many students, at their high school. In Columbine, Colorado. Built home made bombs using propane tanks with attached hardware. We use propane, not to build bombs.

    Now, I may never need to use my glock 17, for protection. But, if a person has the mindset, to destroy my life. I’d like to be able to protect my life, even away from my own home.

  30. David S. Keough Says:

    TN-Man, thank you. Gun violence, the firearm does nothing. The leftist want nothing more than to brainwash the population. Thanks to our media.

  31. TN_MAN Says:

    As a follow-up to my suggestion (above) that various types of prohibition policies (alcohol, drugs, firearms, vice, etc.) are favored by the American Left as a means to shift the blame for violence away from individual human responsibility and place it upon an external object or social condition, let me recommend reading this paper:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w6950.pdf

    It is a study dating back to 1999 which looks at the correlation between drug and alcohol prohibition and homicide rates.

    The general finding (surprise, surprise) is that prohibition movements tend to be counter-productive in curbing violence. This flies in the face of left-wing ideological theory, of course, which insists that external agents like drugs, alcohol and firearms act to GENERATE violent behavior and that, by prohibiting access to these “evil environmental objects” by the general public, great strides will be achieved in lowering the rates of crime and violence.

    Instead, this paper concludes just the opposite. Prohibiting access to something for which there is a market demand will only act to create “Black Markets”. Criminal activity associated with these black markets then directly act to increase violence and the homicide rate.

    One would think that with the disastrous historical failures associated with the “Prohibition of Alcohol” and the “War on Drugs”, people would have learned this lesson and would drop the concept of Gun Control (AKA the Prohibition of Firearms) like a hot rock. Unfortunately, the siren song of leftist ideology and its promises of a Utopian, non-violent Paradise are too strong for a significant segment of the population to resist.

  32. Roger Willco Says:

    Liberal Dave,

    I accept your argument, that the gun to fire extinguisher analogy is not precise. I am trying to think of a more exact analogy. Maybe cars? Cars are used a lot in this country, and they can be used as a weapon.

    Now I’m going to go off on a bit of a tangent. Think of today’s litigious society. If the automobile was invented today, it would not be allowed to be sold. 30,000 deaths by auto per year? Forget about it. Well, if the manufacturers put governors on the engines, so vehicles could only go up to 15 mph, then maybe lawmakers would allow cars to be made and sold.

    The same thing is true for other things from the past. Football, boxing and ice hockey would not be allowed if they were invented today. Too dangerous. Baseball would probably be OK, but it is pretty crazy. We sit in those bleachers and those hard foul balls come right at us. Sometimes the ball is hit straight back at the pitcher’s head. Pretty dangerous. Maybe baseball players should wear motorcycle helmets. 🙂

  33. WR Moore Says:

    About “studies” and especially correlations……waaaay back in the last century, I took a statistics class. One of the things the prof covered was that correlation does not equal cause & effect. The crowing rooster doesn’t make the sun come up.

    One of the leading statisticians in the UK once did a study (tongue firmly in cheek) on violence in the UK back in the mods & rockers days. He got a 0.98 correlation at a 95% confidence level between violence and the sale of oranges. His academic peers were not amused.

  34. TN_MAN Says:

    @ WR Moore,

    Quite true. Correlation does not equal causation.

    Nevertheless, the whole argument for the Left-Wing Model of prohibition is:

    1) There are certain natural and man-made items that have a strong, negative influence on human beings. The use of these items is self-destructive and encourages anti-social (evil) behavior in humans. Behavior that humans would not resort to if they were free of the negative influence of these items.

    2) Therefore, restricting access to these items by banning or heavily restricting their manufacture and sale will effectively stop the anti-social behavior. The result will be a better, more peaceful (Utopian?) society.

    The above argument flows naturally from left-wing theory which is based upon the concept that all human beings are naturally good and that they resort to evil behavior only under the influence of negative external pressures.

    Therefore, a good deal of the support for prohibition movements (e.g. the Prohibition of Alcohol, the War on Drugs, Gun Control, etc.) comes from the leftists segment of society who are guided by the above theory of human behavior.

    To be fair, the support is not purely leftists for some of these prohibition movements. A good section of the “religious right” also supported, a century ago, the prohibition of alcohol for religious reasons. They viewed drinking alcohol as a “sin”.

    In addition, the “War on Drugs” was also well supported by the American Right. Largely for the same reason. Because using drugs is viewed as decadent, weak and sinful by right-wingers.

    However, the Prohibition of Firearms movement (Gun Control) is almost purely leftist in nature.

    In any event, if the Leftist theory on Prohibition is true, then there should absolutely be a causal link between alcohol / drugs and violence / crime and this link should produce a positive correlation. The fact that this study finds a negative correlation is therefore significant. It is solid evidence that the leftist idea of Prohibiting the manufacture and sale of these “negative influence items” (so as to improve society) is wrong. We can therefore extrapolate that the current prohibition movement to ban certain classes of firearms and to restrict firearms sales (generally) is an ill-advised and faulty approach that will likely be counter-productive.

    BTW, I would not discount the “Orange” theory. Notice how often oranges appear just before some violent act in the Game of Thrones episodes :-).

  35. Richard Says:

    @Kevin via Dennis

    Do not be fooled if UW does list any organization you want to donate to. They allow you to designate.but the actual donation budgets are determined by UW and any designations deducted from that amount. And to get on the UW list you have to agree to this applying to direct donations. The only safe way is to not only avoid UW but any cause on their list. The only way this works for the donor is if the designations exceed the UW determined budget. This is apparently happening more these days much to the consternation of UW.

Leave a Reply

 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.