08:58 – Predictably, the anti-gun folks are out in force over the Aurora shooting. They never seem to notice the irrationality of their exhortations for greater restrictions on guns. There is simply no way to make firearms unavailable. With minimal effort, anyone can find someone who’ll sell him a gun. With at least hundreds of millions of firearms in this country, many of them unregistered, there’s simply no way to cut off the supply, short of instituting a true police state that none of us, presumably including the anti-gun folks, would want to live in. Ultimately, like any law, gun laws are obeyed only by the law-abiding. Someone who decides to go out and slaughter a bunch of people in a theater won’t be concerned that he’s violating gun laws by doing so.
If this were a rational society, we’d focus on implementing solutions that would prevent or minimize the effects of such outrages. And there is one such solution that’s known to work: encourage private citizens to carry concealed weapons. Eliminate any permit requirements or other restrictions. Someone who wants to carry a pistol should be free to do so. Anywhere, any time. Predators like the Aurora shooter depend on having unarmed and defenseless victims. That bastard might have reconsidered his plans if he knew it was likely that even half a dozen of his prospective victims might be armed and willing and able to fight back. But instead we have 70-some people shot and a dozen dead, none of whom apparently were armed.
Sure, the idea of a shootout in a crowded theater is horrifying. It’s quite possible that some of the armed defenders might have been shot, and that innocent bystanders might have been caught in the cross fire. But the point is that the body count would almost certainly have been much lower. And the real point is that that bastard would probably have never done what he did if he was aware that he wouldn’t have a collection of sitting ducks to shoot at.
Do you think anyone, including non-citizens should be able to conceal carry, or have a gun at all? I don’t object to law abiding citizens having guns, including concealed handguns, but what about people convicted of felonies? Misdemeanors? Should their rights be restored after some period of time? Should visitors from Canukistan be afforded the same rights as US citizens? How about visiting Israelis? Poms? Aussies? Iranians? North Koreans?
I think it’s none of the government’s business if I or anyone else chooses to carry a weapon, openly or concealed. Yes, that includes convicted felons and even Australians.
“…the idea of a shootout in a crowded theater is horrifying…” surely much less horrifying than the idea of an unstoppable maniac deciding to start shooting in any direction, to stop and reload and continue uncontested for as long as he felt the desire?
But the point is that the body count would almost certainly have been much lower.
Oh I think the body count would have been much higher. Imagine 15 armed people pulling their weapon and shooting into the smoke and haze while themselves trying to duck for cover. It would have been even more horrific and would have resulted in a stronger movement to control guns. It ain’t the wild west, well at least as depicted on TV.
And the real point is that that bastard would probably have never done what he did if he was aware that he wouldn’t have a collection of sitting ducks to shoot at.
That I think is true. When the assailant have a real reason to think you may have return fire the person may think twice. But a strong argument could also be postered that the person may want to go out in a blaze of gunfire. Some people do this by committing what is called “copicide” where they intentionally get themselves shot at by police.
Regardless this is still no reason to advocate stronger gun laws. It is a knee jerk reaction to an isolated incident. The same weirdo could have acquired a gun illegally and done the same deed, even using a bomb if so inclined. It is impossible to stop the really determined, especially when the person has given no indication of such intentions in the past.
I now see a new government agency called Theatre Security Agents (TSA) who will make everyone show government issued identifications, go through pat downs, strip searches, metal detectors and profiling just so they can watch a rerun of Bambi. Surely there will be people on the “No Show” list.
Guns are not the problem. It is the people that are the problem.
“I now see a new government agency called Theatre Security Agents (TSA)…”
On the other hand, some dude who just walked across the border can go vote four times for Obummer, with no ID of any sort, with the Justice Department’s blessing.
There are 310,000,000 people running around the USA (probably way more). If only 0.1% (1 in 1000) of us are wacked out, that is 310,000 people. Of those, several get a gun and go running around the place wanting to shoot somebody each day. Just here in the Houston area we have non-police shootings almost every day. In fact, we have the police in this area getting shot with a very disturbing frequency.
My point is that it is impossible to stop when you have 310,000,000 people and 1,000,000,000 guns in the USA. There is no way I am going to turn my guns and ammo in, I’ll put them somewhere else first. I suspect that many others in the USA are of like mind here, even if hiding guns was a felony. In fact, that could tip us into the next civil war.
But I will probably never carry. Several of my relatives carry and that is fine. I’m just not interested in carrying. My brother the banker carries and I am glad of it. There are too many people getting followed home in the nicer neighborhoods and getting held up. Two of my neighbors got robbed in their driveways last year (4601 homes). But people knew that they had stuff of great value on them.
Although, if I was going to carry, the S&W bodyguard 38+ looks nice.
Notice that it is essentially the same left wingers that want to ban and control guns that also promotes legalization of mind altering steet drugs, such as pot and meth, on the basis if them being uncontrollable by authorites.
It is not left-wingers here in the Heartland who are wanting to legalize drugs; it is mostly Libertarians. Hard to determine whether they are left or right. Left wing here wants more government control, not less.
“… that includes convicted felons and even Australians.”
Nicely done, sir.
I’m going more and more Libertarian nowadays. I would have voted for Ron Paul if thought he had a chance.
Oh, same here, in a heartbeat, despite his views on a couple of issues with which I disagree. And not only did he not have a snowball’s chance, the establishment bonzes went out of their way to make sure he got blown off by their media stooges and lackeys and went further; they’ve been regularly sabotaging his campaign and electoral ballot procedures around the country. He must really scare them for some reason.
Well, they got what they want; the usual meaningless mud-wrassling between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, both big-government crooks and war criminals, or potential war criminal. And Mr. and Mrs. Boobus Americans sit back, tilt up another shitty American lager, belch, and then get in a pissing match over who’s the better judge on American Idol while Junior is upstairs cooking meth and Sis is whoring at the junior high boys’ locker room. Gramps is in the basement apartment shitting himself, cranking up the heat to 95 and ordering up thousands in pay-per-view movies on the cable network. (this last bit is a true tale, from my little brother’s house down in MA last year).
I think the worry is the government cutting off the supply of ammo and reloading supplies. Obviously, with so many millions of unregistered firearms floating around you’ll never get rid of them all, but the government can make it so they have nothing to shoot. If they can’t get rid of the durable good, then they’ll get rid of the expendable good that makes it work. Ammo is already ridiculously overpriced. Imagine what it would cost per round if it were illegal.
As with ammo, stock up on powder, primers, cases, a press or two, etc. Common sense anyway. And not a bad idea to learn black powder firearms and the makings thereof.
And for the ammo, stock up on commonly used rounds, too. Not weird and obscure ones.
Cowboy Slim wrote:
“Notice that it is essentially the same left wingers that want to ban and control guns that also promotes legalization of mind altering steet drugs, such as pot and meth, on the basis if them being uncontrollable by authorites.”
Um, Stu… That sounds just like our host, except for the left wing bit.
Lynn wrote:
“I’m going more and more Libertarian nowadays. I would have voted for Ron Paul if thought he had a chance.”
I would have voted for Ron Paul, period.
Stu Nicols said: “Notice that it is essentially the same left wingers that want to ban and control guns that also promotes legalization of mind altering steet drugs, such as pot and meth, on the basis if them being uncontrollable by authorites.”
Pot is NOT mind altering. For crying out loud. It’s safer than fucking beer.
I found out that one of the supervisors in our department has a dealer’s license and a big gun collection. His recent acquisition is a 1943 USSR bolt action rifle, a Mosin-Nagant, and a lot of ammo for it. He’s offered to set me up with anything I want to buy.
His latest profit center is suppressors. It will be legal to hunt with them in Texas later this year. Right now, they are only legal to use while hunting feral pigs.
FIFY
In a police state, the police are always well armed. If you’re having trouble obtaining firearms or ammunition because you live in a police state, ambush some police and take what they have. ref the intended use of the Liberator Pistol. Just sayin’
Boy, that’s an ugly looking pistol.
Bill wrote:
“Pot is NOT mind altering. For crying out loud. It’s safer than fucking beer.”
I’m sure we’ll all bow to your greater experience in this field. Perhaps even Dave will… 🙂
Like many, I hesitate to use the term “survivalist” these days, both because it got some bad press, and because there really were some absolute nutters who took the term unto themselves. However, there are a lot of sensible people who are systematically preparing for things that might go wrong, at any level from an ice storm or a hurricane all the way up through a personal financial or health crisis to collapse of the global economy.
A lot of the people who can, in the USA, legally carry concealed handguns are of this “prepper” type who will try to foresee and avoid things which might go wrong. This “Batman” opening night was a prime example of the sort of circumstances where things could go wrong exactly as they did. It was foreseeable, at least as a possibility, and I strongly suspect that many of those who will go, who routinely and legally carry concealed, who might have stopped the nutter stone cold dead, were avoiding the opening night and waiting for next week.
Further. It is now apparent that the cinema had “Firearms Prohibited” signs up. Well, we’ve seen how well that worked, and on who. I imagine there will be civil law suits all over the place now, since they established these victim disarmament zones, explicitly disarming the CCW holders, and implicitly taking over the duty of care for defence from them.
The shooter went in, propped opened a fire-door (apparently not fitted with a working alarm), went out and then re-entered with his weapons. More law-suit fodder.
Firearm restrictions can work under certain circumstances and in some societies. However, the USA just ain’t one of them. Firearms, notably including handguns, are endemic in your society. Your Second Amendment guarantees that. You pay a price for that (this occurrence is an example). Set against the price you pay is the fact that you have greater freedom in some areas. Anyone who tries to change that unduly is pissing against the wind. You can’t change your society to those others; and attempting to change would destroy your society as it is structured and as it has grown. Given that, it is not only futile but fatuous to try to forbid to the law-abiding the use of firearms that are widely available to all, including criminals.
I wouldn’t want to live in a disarmed society. In fact, I’d be a lot more comfortable if I knew that a high percentage of the civilians around me were carrying.
Back in a previous incarnation, I spent lots of time around a lot of guys who were all very heavily armed. It was amazing how polite everyone was. There were seldom even minor arguments among us. It wasn’t that we were afraid that if we offended someone he’d whip out his MAC-10 and start shooting. It’s hard to explain to someone who’s never carried or been around people known to be carrying, but just the fact of carrying changes the way you look at things.
Bullshit. To a first and probably a second approximation, the only time
we “pay a price” from firearms is when the government or corporations
have disarmed the victims. When American citizens are graciously allowed
by their benevolent tyrants to defend themselves and to “interfere” with
crimes in their vicinity, the results are generally good — fewer
violent crimes attempted, fewer accomplished, and more dead would-be
violent criminals.
Better than that, according to the one study I’ve seen, private
Americans have a better record than police when it comes to response
time and not killing innocents. To be fair, that’s probably because in
today’s generally hoplophobic environment the private citizens who carry
guns are better trained than the police.
And in another tangent from the first topic, please note that the reason
three of the four guided missiles on 9/11/2001 succeeded was because the
US Government made it a crime for passengers to interfere with a
hijacking. A violent response by a small fraction of the passengers
would have easily overwhelmed the five hijackers, but they were good
little sheep, followed the dictat of the priest-kings who rule them, and
died.
What SteveF just said.
The implication always seems to be that our society is just so dreadfully violent and sick and we have so many hundreds of millions of firearms, that it is really a shame that we ARE this way but now there is nothing we can do about it. Well, like SteveF says, we do much better than the cops on protecting ourselves and other citizens, a LOT better. If anything, Our Nanny the Almighty State goes out its way to make it more difficult for us to do this, and is insanely jealous of our liberty and our ability.
The buggers actually have come right out and told us that if we are attacked in our homes, we should just dial up 911 and stand by. Wait for the heroes to show up, long after we’re dead and dying, to do the paperwork and tape off the crime scene. Fuck that.
And then we’re asleep in our houses and the imbecile cops smash the door down or come pounding on it (without identifying themselves and dressed as robocop ninjas or Waffen SS panzergrenadiers) and as we answer it they blow us away. Because they got the wrong fucking address. And their attitude is “whoops, our bad.” And it’s apparently your tough shit.
Americans are sick of this bullshit and we’re not gonna take it anymore; cops are being sued; they’re being videotaped and the tapes are going viral on the net; we are getting their names, addresses, vehicle tag numbers and work schedules, etc. We are going to go to a movie theater and when confronted by signage that forbids us from carrying a firearm, we will demand to know where the theater’s security ninjas are hiding and if they are capable of protecting us and our children.
We are taping our encounters with the Tit-Squeezing-Authority at the airport terminals and by rights, we should be boycotting the airlines, too. Making us take our shoes off for years because of one failed shoe-bomb cretin. Forbidding us shampoo and shaving cream but allowing my son to bring on a butane lighter. Firing a veteran pilot because he taped the total lack of ANY security with the baggage and cargo procedures.
To make a long story short, more and more of us have had a bellyful of what bones the State deigns to throw our way from time to time and we are going to start doing for ourselves. Actually, a lot of folks already do for themselves in this country and avoid the evil sprawling tentacles of the leviathan State as much as possible. And furthermore I predict that this empire of corporate fascism will end up with some of its movers and shakers in the same position as Il Duce and poor Clara Petacci.
“The Police. When seconds count, we’re only minutes away!”
I’ve always loved that line.
Recently in K-town, an obvious drunk careened around a corner in a pickup truck and ran over a little girl. Relatives of the girl, who upon noticing that the suspect was running away, gave chase and applied sufficient force to subdue him until the police arrived. His injuries ended up being more severe than the girl’s, who was merely bruised by a very low speed impact. Said girl was playing in the street, a relatively main route for the community, and not the sort of place one sends their child to play. The vengeful relatives allegedly are competing with the drunk in obvious intoxication.
The police pretty much arrested everyone, except the little girl, and charges are “pending”. Since the truck turned out to be stolen, unless the drunk relatives had done what they did, the drunken thief would likely have gotten away with all his crimes. Somewhere in there is justice, but it’s getting kind of complicated…
I hope the little girl has learned not to play in the streets!
Well, we have a sort of justice there; the perp has been caught and depending on whatever goes on up there for Canadian law will presumably be punished accordingly. I get the impression, however, that the relatives deserve some kind criminal negligence and child endangerment charges, should such exist, and I also get the feeling that said relatives have learned nothing. I assume the authorities are figuring out what charges for whom about now.
We’ve had at least two cases make the nooz down here (meaning in this country, not here in Vermont) of toddlers falling, unattended, into swimming pools at their homes and drowning. And of course we had the baby and the 6-year-old girl at that midnight showing of the stupid Batman movie. My siblings and I have often said that maybe parents should be licensed, while the State has been about the business of licensing marriages, why not go whole hog? OTOH, give Nanny State an inch and she takes a mile and already has way too much say in how we raise and educate our children.
I said
“it is not only futile but fatuous to try to forbid to the law-abiding the use of firearms that are widely available to all, including criminals”
and SteveF says
“Bullshit”
That was predictable, of course. It was just about certain that someone would respond like that, blindly and unreasoningly, to my statement that blind unreasoning firearm control is a bad thing.
I believe SteveF and I both saw the final sentence; what he and I took a bit of umbrage at, and he can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, is the bit about the price we pay for having our Second Amendment, as is clear from his opening paragraph.
As for control of firearms in this country, a very good example of how that works in actual practice is that theater’s alleged sign out in Aurora: forbidding means of defense to us Mundanes and naturally a murderous son of a bitch criminal ignores it, probably doesn’t even register at all with him, other than as a source of amusement. Ditto when the cons inside talk about this; they fear busting into houses where they surmise the residents have guns and will happily move on to easier targets, of which there are a plethora.
The UK and its former and current colonies have evidently decided to cede the field to the criminal thugs and terrorists and fall to their knees, leaving their ‘subjects’ to their fates.
As a loyal subject of Her Majesty I have to agree that our governments want as all disarmed. I’ve mentioned the case of an elderly gentleman in a nearby town (actually, on a farm outside that town), who was a servant of former PM John Howard and is married to a Liberal (=conservative in US parlance) member of the NSW parliament. He made the mistake of keeping a loaded gun inside a locked gun safe. He was *supposed* to have the unloaded gun and ammo in two different safes. The cops did a routine inspection, discovered his heinous crime and charged him. At trial (he pleaded guilty) he wasn’t put in the slammer and was very thankful to the judge/magistrate for his “light” sentence.
I think this is completely nuts. I mean, what’s the use of an unloaded gun? The bad guys would probably killed him and his wife while he was still opening the safes and loading the gun.
Given that crims here don’t tend to have guns as much as their American brethren I’m not that interested in getting guns for myself. I’m more afraid of being attacked with a knife. But if I lived in the US the first thing I’d do is get a handgun and a rifle or shotgun or both and learn how to use them to protect me and mine from marauding atheists, former USAF security guards/cops and randy women who insisted on trying to have their wicked way with me.
(I haven’t fired a gun for over 40 years, don’t remember if it was an air rifle or .22 rifle.)
Nice bit of ignoring what I was replying to there, Don. Let’s see if I
can do some selective editing myself.
Don Armstrong said
That almost made coffee come out my nose!
Nah, he’s not a hamster, he’s just a cranky old geezer like so many others here.
he’s just a cranky old geezer like so many others here.
You forgot opinionated.
Greg wrote: “Nah, he’s not a hamster, he’s just a cranky old geezer like all of us here.”
Fixed that for ya!
The question is, were you drinking coffee? If not, I’m sure some
scientists would like to study you. And restaurants, for that matter.
Hey, wait a minute. I’m still a cranky middle-aged crackpot. I won’t be an old geezer at least until I’m 50. Although I suspect the cutoff age is more like 55 or 60.
Don’t forget that Don does not have broadband, so he has to wait long times for the Internet to load. That would make anyone cranky, regardless of age.
OFD, I’d like to believe that you are right, but I fear you are wrong. The one case where I read of a guy shooting a police officer – justified by any reasonable interpretation of the Castle Doctrine – the guy is now on death row.
The problem is: the people who get wrongly raided, tazed and shot by the cops are mostly “shady” people living in not-so-great neighborhoods. Hard to get the John and Martha Middleclass upset about some slum-dweller who got shot. He was probably a druggie anyway, I mean, just look at the guy, you know he was guilty of something. /sarcasm
Really, it would be great if there were a clear-cut case: the next time the police execute a no-know raid on the wrong address, some clearly innocent, nice-looking grandma mows down the whole SWAT team. Unfortunately, it just ain’t gonna happen.
And really, just like war, the people whose attitudes you need to change are not in danger. Generals and politicans are never present when the privates are dying on the battlefield. The cops might get shot, but it’s the police leadership, the prosecutor’s office, the politicians, and the judges who approve warrants and raids – these are the people who need to change their attitudes. None of these people are present when a raid is going down, and none of them ever will be.
I posted earlier during a t-storm here and my post got blown away, no great loss; just saying in response to brad that when I mention cops per se and getting their info and intel as to names, addresses, etc., I also mean to include the brass, the pols, the lawyers, judges, etc. who constitute our “law enforcement” and “criminal justice” organizations, official and quasi-official, when they do us wrong. Probably a small minority but they need to be stopped. The majority are just average working people who are trying to get through the day, like most of us, but they have a tremendous instant power of life and death.
I have lived long enough to witness stuff that can only make one draw conclusions and wince. When I was in Jr. Hi and High School, we drove to such destinations as Florida, Colorado, and Pennsylvania from Indianapolis. My young mind noticed that all the people pulled over by cops were black. Later, in college, I took several trips out West to southern California. Then I noticed that all the people pulled over by cops were obvious hippies, no matter whether I went the northern route or southern. Now, being almost 3 years returned from Germany, I notice that all the people pulled over by cops are women.
Neither logic, reasonable mathematical distributions, nor the small likelihood of skewed observations on my part would justify those observations. The people in the justice system are making conscious decisions on who to target.
Of course. It’s called “selective enforcement.” You can see it every day on the highway commutes, too. They go for the ‘low-hanging fruit’ while the hardcore offenders skate. Too much trouble and hassle.