Freedom from Fear

I would like to talk about an absolutely ludicrous notion that I've heard several times at different places, mostly in discussion with pro-ignorance, anti-freedom people about firearms.

The concept is they have a RIGHT to be free of fear.

Let's get some definitions established

Right - Freedom, immunity, power, or privilege, due to one by agreement, birth, claim, guaranty, or by the application of legal, moral, or natural principles.
(as a side note, just trying to define a "right" is worthy of it's own post)

Fear -

a. A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.

b. A state or condition marked by this feeling:

Do people have a right to be free of fear, the answer may surprise you, but I say YES.

Now it is not a Constitutionally protected right, like the Right to Free Speech or to Keep and bear arms.
Nor is it an unlimited right, this right is definitely limited. First it is limited by the nature of the problem. It is not practical to remove all the things people fear from the world, it simply can not be done. Some people fear the dark, yet under no technology can we banish the dark. Nor would it be wise since the natural cycle of life requires dark.
Those who suffer from one fear probably suffer from others -- explains much about those who fear inanimate objects...wonder if they also have Ablutophobia : Fear of washing or bathing. How do we determine who fears what, where they live in relation to those things they fear. The logistical nightmare of trying to implement this concept of freedom of fear would require massive government intervention and bureaucracy -- which should tell you why the United Nations includes it as one of their human rights. According to research, at some time in their life 11% of the world's populatoin will suffer from phobias....not just fear -- most extensive list I could find has 417 listed, the world would be paralyzed if we tried to get rid of things people fear.

If the practical and logistical challenges are so daunting, why shouldn't I end the conversation here? Well, there are some other issues to consider. Let's look at the first part of the phrase - a right to be free of fear.

Do people really have a right to be free of fear, is this an actual right? That depends on how you define rights. I was intrigued to see so many definitions of the word. The most common definitions in dictionaries do not even include the meaning as I show it above.

I say that the only portion of that definition that applies in this case is due to birth. Just being alive gives a person the right to be free of fear....but it is an oh so limited right. If someone is afraid of beards (I happen to have one-full disclosure), they have no authority or power to require me to remove mine. The person who fears beards can not grow one or request their spouse not to grow one. But nothing in the legal, moral or ethical code in the world grants that person the authority to enforce their wishes on a single other person.

A person's right to be free of fear was not listed in the Constitution as a right as the right to keep and bear arms was thus the government has no power, no authority to take actions for the benefit of individuals. Now as a nation as a whole, there are things we fear - war, famine, pestilence, etc and the government is required to take action. I'm not sure how to fully explain the difference other except this way -- the government can and should act only on those issues that the vast overwhelming majority of the people properly are concerned about.

Actions needed to remove the fears and phobias individuals have do not trump my constitutionally protected liberties. PERIOD.

My wife is afraid of snakes but that fear gives her no authority do demand that anyone else does not keep a snake in their house or apartment. What it does give her the authority to do is take reasonable and legal precautions to avoid what she fears. We've put out snake away products, we remove from OUR property places where snakes may want to inhabit, we plant flowers & plants that are known to help repel snakes.

Let's go back to the definition of fear -A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.


The mere presence of a firearm does not endanger an imminence of danger either, the firearm is an inanimate object. It by itself can perform no action. This view that firearms by themselves do not create a public disturbance or danger has been confirmed by court cases.

This is why the people who fear firearms or the people who carry them do not have the authority to limit my carrying them....I do nothing to endanger an imminence of danger. NOTHING.

And that should be the end of the story....but it won't stop the attacks on our right to keep and bear arms.

(by the way, this will probably be the last new post at Blogger. I'm going to try to port everything over to the WordPress site and domain my son has provided for me today.)

Please join the discussion

Ethics of weapon use by Oleg Volk

Repost with permission -- if you aren't checking out Oleg's work, you are missing much.

Imagine a child playing in a backyard sandbox. The child's parent observes a viper about to bite the child. Acting quickly, he picks up the snake and tosses it gently into the distant bushes. No harm done to the snake or the child. Was that action ethical?

Now consider the speed with which the man would have had to act to safeguard the kid and to avoid getting bitten in turn. The snake probably landed roughly and was injured or killed by the impact. The man used his hands as a weapon to stop the snake from biting and, as a side effect of stopping it, caused it harm. Was that action ethical?

Would your answer change if the man throws a rock, or uses a stick? What about a hoe or a shovel, both gardening tools but used as weapons? The outcome to the child would be the same, as would be the outcome to the snake. Still ethical?

Now imagine that the father was too far from the snake to keep it from biting his child by throwing a rock. Maybe the father is old or infirm and not very good at throwing stones accurately. Could he ethically use a crossbow or a rifle to stop the snake from harming his kid?

Now, let's back up to the first hypothetical. The viper is only half-day to the sandbox, it gets picked up and tossed gently...into the sandbox with the child. Angry, it strikes and bites at once. The same human hands were used as a weapons, but was the use ethical? Would the use of a stick to goad the snake towards the sandbox have been any better?

Tools don't matter. Actions with them do.

Let's imagine another situation, the kind quite common in many restrictive jurisdictions. The same man sees the same snake in readiness to strike. He is too far to reach with his hands, or with a stick or a rock. A rifle would have saved the day, but it is forbidden to him...or locked up in a safe according to the legal requirements. The delay is fatal. Who bears the legal responsibility for the delay? No one. But what of the ethical responsibility?

Would the ethics of the situation change if the threat to the child is not a snake but a rabid, feral dog? How about a rogue human? Unlike animals, humans are presumed to be capable of ethical behavior -- those who are not are termed sociopaths. So a human who knows better than preying on other humans decided to do so anyway and attacks the kid: must the parent be limited to his bare hands in stopping the aggression? For a martial artist in his prime, that may be possible, though perilous. The attacker would still suffer physical harm. Would that be ethical?

Would a stick be allowed for the defender? A rock? A piece of pipe? A sword? A crossbow? A pistol? So long as the intent is ethical, in this case prevention of harm to an innocent, what does it matter if the attacker is hit with a two-pound rock or a quarter-ounce bullet?

Tools don't matter. Actions with them do.

"But we don't mean to disarm the law-abiding!" say those who disagree with my conclusions. Whatever they meant to do is less important than what they actually do. They can only disarm the law-abiding, as the rest wouldn't play along. Moreover, "law-abiding" is not a compliment when the laws are harmful to decent humans and thus not worthy of obedience. Laws that disarm force decent, peaceful humans to choose between putting themselves and their families at additional risk of victimization by freelance criminals for lack of defensive tools (including, in some times and places, even sticks) or retaining arms and risking imprisonment or death at the hands of the law enforcers. Forcing people into such a dilemma is hardly ethical.

Punishment of needlessly violent behavior is ethical. However, capability for violent behavior cannot be prosecuted. Even a man stripped naked, deprived of all tools or weapons, has the capability for violence. He can punch, kick or bite. He kick pick up another person and drop him. Except for infants, people in straight-jackets or quadripalegics, all others are capable of physical violence. The use or, more frequently, abstinence from violence are governed by the upbringing and the personality of each individual.

So how can we ethically justify employing threats of violence (in the form of law enforcement) to disarm peaceful individuals? We frown on armed robbery by individuals, why condone the same when done by groups operating under the color of the law?

Another consideration is the reduction of law enforcement effectiveness in disarmed countries. A person made less secure by legal disarmament would naturally view law enforcement agencies as enemies and withhold cooperation. Without widespread cooperation, police would be much less effective than in areas where it has popular support. Even those who view police favorably are still deprived of effective protection. Of course, legally "police protection" is a misnomer. There's no legal duty to protect individuals, only to uphold the laws for the society at large. Which brings us back to the ethics of depriving individuals of the means of self-protection while providing no bodyguards to compensate.

Providing bodyguards to everyone is a logical impossibility. Who guards the family of the bodyguard assigned to yours? Even assuming some magical source of bodyguards, what of the loss of privacy from having a stranger next to you at all times? In the old days, slaves were used for such purpose -- no one minded the loss of privacy to slaves, as they were hardly more than beasts or pets to the owners. Is that an ethical alternative to simply letting everyone take care of their own security?


"But I don't want to live like that!" Many people prefer to go unarmed. To them, the slight reduction of risk is not worth the effort or they find the armed lifestyle distasteful. That's a perfectly ethical position. Forcing others to do likewise would not be.

Please join the discussion

Bad Advice for homeowners?

I think we've all heard the bad advice -- from just giving them what they want to people advising women to run out of the house during a burglary/rape instead of defending themselves with firearms.

A story in the Dallas Morning News shows just how bad that advice is -- in many ways
(free registration required)

A woman and her 8-year-old nephew were robbed and briefly kidnapped after a home invasion in Far Northeast Dallas on Wednesday morning, according to a police report.

"My nephew woke me up and told me someone was robbing the house," said Robertson, 39. "It took me a minute to get acclimated." (emphasis mine)

Police were called to the scene after the woman's mother, Dorothy Robertson, 61, said she woke up in the house to discover the back door kicked in, the living room ransacked and her family missing.

Get that, the 8 year old nephew woke up the home owner. Should she run out and try to make sure he keeps up, leave him behind, tell him to hide? In the meantime, while she is trying to process what is happening, the crooks are moving around inside the house.

So, Mom's asleep in another room....should the home owner run and leave the mom to fend for herself? Try to manage getting herself, nephew and mom out of the house?

Also note that she didn't call 911. I think this happens frequently from the reports I've read. People don't want to bother the police until they know something is wrong...by then it is too late

If she tries to run....how will she know where the burglar(s) are?

Two men burst into accountant Stacie Robertson's house on Cherry Tree Drive between 8:30 and 9 a.m., according to Robertson and a Dallas police report

When Robertson entered her living room, she said, she encountered a man about 5 feet 5 inches tall, with his face wrapped in a white shirt and a stocking cap. He was armed with a hunting knife and a hammer, she said.

Doesn't that qualify as an armed robbery?
The crook has a weapon that must be used in close proximity (hammer) and a knife that can be thrown (most people don't know how to correctly throw a knife) or used in close proximity. A person with a firearm in the home definitely has the advantage in cases like this.

Legal restrictions that make it harder for criminals to get firearms invariably impact the law abiding owner more. The people who want to restrict firearms seem to find this scenario acceptable -- a female matched against a male will usually lose.

The man punched Robertson in the head, knocking her unconscious, she said.

I'm not saying that a firearm could have prevented this, the home owner would have still have to have the mindset and willingness to use the firearm. When I hear "bumps in the night" I do take a firearm to investigate...would the home owner have done that? I don't know.
I do know most crooks armed with a knife would be less likely to try to punch an armed homeowner.

After their belongings had been taken, Robertson said, the shorter of the two men came back inside and asked if she had any cash. She didn't. "He said, 'Wrong answer,' " she recalled.

At this point, the home owner is dependent on the whims of the burglar...luckily for her, they were after money.

The man untied Robertson and let her put on sweatpants under her nightgown, then forced her and her nephew into her mother's Honda Civic and told her to drive to a nearby ATM, she said.
Robertson said she drove to two nearby ATMs as the man held a knife to her throat and threatened to mutilate her nephew. She said she withdrew $400 from each machine with her and her mother's debit cards and handed it to her kidnapper.

Notice that this didn't take place at night, it wasn't an out of the way location. Looking at Google Map street view, I'm struck by how much this area looks like my neighborhood. Quiet tree lined residential street. Most people were either at work or in their houses to avoid the heat.


My take away from looking at this story? In no particular order
1. Believe your nephew/kids -- unless they have a history of lying, treat a report of an home invasion seriously.
2. Call the police or have someone ready to call the police. Rather have to call them back and report it was a cat on the porch than to go through what these people went through.
3. If possible, put alarms on the entry points. Doesn't have to be monitored alarms, but something to give more warning, possibly alert the neighbors, and definitely make the bad guys think twice about continuing.
4. Don't depend on your neighbors to hear something or come investigate even if they do. The neighbors may not be home, may not think it out of the ordinary.
5. Be armed. A shotgun or handgun trumps a knife or hammer -- if you have the willingness to use the firearm. You don't have to use the firearm, just be ready to IF you have to.



I think the last point is most important, don't you?


Please join the discussion.

Tell me again

Tell me again how unlikely it is that I'll be involved in a crime.

Tell me again how I am being paranoid for wanting to carry a work.

This map is from the Fort Worth Star Telegram for the general area in which I work.

The crimes reported to the police for June 1st to June 7th....7 days of crime ONLY


by my count 1 homicide, 3 robberies (1 of them a home invasion), 21 assaults (mostly aggravated), 20 bulgaries, 6 vehicle thefts, 8 drug crimes, 3 DWI/DUI (none in the Stockyards -- big bar/entertainment district), 17 criminal mischief, 34 thefts & 10 incidents of Multiple crime.

And the central district in Arlington...major entertainment area. 6 Flags over Texas, Texas Rangers stadium, Hurricane Harbor (water park), University of Texas - Arlington, New Cowboy's stadium.




Tell me again how I'm being paranoid by wanting to carry concealed when I go to the movies or to the amusement park or the football game.

Tell me again why you think you have any reason to deny me the right to defend myself or my family when we are in public?

One of a thousands

The reason I love my wife are too many to list but this evening provided an example of one of them.

We were discussing going to see a chick flick tonight (The Proposal) since we saw Star Trek last week.

Looking at the theater options and times, I noted the earliest possible time was at the local AMC theater that prohibits lawful concealed carry but other theaters were only 30 minutes later.

The missus said "We can go to one of the other theaters so you can carry." No fuss, no muss, and full understanding of what I believe.

I would have gone to the AMC if she wanted to, but I won't patronize them if I can avoid it.

Those who don't support our rights don't deserve our money.

The conversation goes to show how incredibly blessed I am to be married to her.

Update - Weer'd ask about "binding signage" in the comments. The most common form of legal prohibition is


Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) states that a sign must meet the following requirements:
1. includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
2. appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
3. is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06,
PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN)
A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS
PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06
DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."

The right to free speech and Press - everyone's right?

Reading the Wall Street journal today, I was struck by how accepting an article and the companies involved seemed to be over the state control of these 2 rights - the right of free speech and free press.

It begs questions....are those rights really inherent in the people?

Do governments (barring national security issues - a subject for another day) have the right to control what people say, what they see ? (click on article title for link)

Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology

European Gear Used in Vast Effort to Monitor Communications

The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.

In America, when the PATRIOT Act and other warrant-less wiretapping was initiated there was an outcry about the violation of our civil liberties. There were outcries that the Constitution protected even the rights of citizens of other countries against our government's intrusion.

The ability to control something gives a government great power, the ability to extensively control something gives it the ability to hide massive wrong doings.

Herbert's Dune uses "spice" a mind altering, life expanding drug as an analogy for oil, but it can easily be adapted for information --

"He who controls the Spice controls the universe"

"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."

Iran and China both strive to control information, both flowing into their country and out. Most repressive regimes try to control information.

Human-rights groups have criticized the selling of such equipment to Iran and other regimes considered repressive, because it can be used to crack down on dissent, as evidenced in the Iran crisis.

I usually don't see eye to eye with such groups because of their extremism but in this case, they are right


If our government shouldn't invade the privacy of people in other countries, doesn't that mean the individuals have an inherent right to privacy?


Does that right to privacy include restricting governments ability to read what is written online, what is said via cellphone?

The monitoring center that Nokia Siemens Networks sold to Iran was described in a company brochure as allowing "the monitoring and interception of all types of voice and data communication on all networks

Deep packet inspection involves inserting equipment into a flow of online data, from emails and Internet phone calls to images and messages on social-networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Every digitized packet of online data is deconstructed, examined for keywords and reconstructed within milliseconds. In Iran's case, this is done for the entire country at a single choke point, according to networking engineers familiar with the country's system. It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection

Not only is a national government implementing control of what its people can read, see online or even email but they are doing it easily because they control the telecommunications within the country. The dangers of a state monopoly on any industry becomes apparent when the scale of this is seen. Every email, every cell call, every phone call is routed through a government controlled and monitored center. The technology exists and probably, likely is use by just about every country. Iran is just blatant in its use and intrusiveness to a degree few other countries would be.

Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts

Think about that, not only can the Iranian government know what you are saying...but they can alter it. It would be difficult to criticize a government that intrusively monitors all communication. It would be difficult to report on governmental activities, especially crimes and repression if every word is read and controlled by the state. Not impossible as the recent events have shown, but difficult.

Iran is doing/has tried many things to limit free speech and freedom of the press; including licensing bloggers

has been grappling with controlling the Internet since its use moved beyond universities and government agencies in the late 1990s. At times, the government has tried to limit the country's vibrant blogosphere -- for instance, requiring bloggers to obtain licenses from the government, a directive that has proved difficult to enforce, according to the OpenNet Initiative, a partnership of universities that study Internet filtering and surveillance. (The partners are Harvard University, the University of Toronto, the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford.)

Do these two rights really stand as a control on tyranny and oppression?

Even the United Nations seems to think so:

Article 12.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
  

  Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(emphasis mine)

Today's world relies on information. Shaping our perception, our very thoughts and ideas, it boggles the mind that a government is so intrusively controlling speech and press.

So, back to the questions at hand.....are there inherent rights in the world? Should people tolerate government intrusion in those rights?


A question to those that support gun control, if you agree that these two rights -- these two individual, personal rights are vital to society....why not the right to keep and bear arms?

Why not the right to defend ones self against criminal action -- be it from an individual or be it from a government?

A new assault on our rights

Break out the phones, emails, faxes and personal visit, this one promises to be a doozy if it goes through.

H.R. 45 - Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

Just the title alone tells you that it is something that shouldn't even be introduced, much less go any further then that.

Purpose: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.urpo

A system of licensing for PURCHASERS, not people who want to carry, not for people who are otherwise prohibited but just simply purchasing a firearm would require a national license.


And isn't that "and for other purposes" chilling in its ambiguity?

(c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are--

Close Co

(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies

So, they are going to pass a law to keep criminals who are prohibited from buying firearms from buying firearms....something that the NCIS back ground check should and already does.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term ‘applicable date’ means--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.’

So, if I read that right -- "It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license"

There is much more...including of course a fee for this license.

And this little jewel toward the end

TITLE III--ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 301. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101 and 201 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(cc) Universal Background Check Requirement-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) REQUIREMENT- Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person other than such a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with subsection (t).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the infrequent transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, intestate succession or other means by an individual to a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual, or to any loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other.’

Guess who gets to decide what a lawful purpose is? It won't be us you can bet on that. Also notice that private sales are going to be outlawed....all transactions will have to be conducted through a licensed dealer with the accompanying background check.....another fee that adds to the cost of a firearm. So, that means many people who could have barely afforded a firearm before bill won't be able to after.

This section over rides Texas state law for child access

‘(gg) Child Access Prevention-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) DEFINITION OF CHILD- In this subsection, the term ‘child’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 year

‘(2) PROHIBITION AND PENALTIES- Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to keep a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, any 1 of which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is under the custody or control of that person, if--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) that person--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(i) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child is capable of gaining access to the firearm; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(ii) either--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(I) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child will use the firearm to cause the death of, or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title) to, the child or any other person; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(II) knows, or reasonably should know, that possession of the firearm by a child is unlawful under Federal or State law; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



‘(B) a child uses the firearm and the use of that firearm causes the death of, or serious bodily injury to, the child or any other person.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(3) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (2) shall not apply if--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the official duties of the person in that capacity;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(C) the child uses the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or more other persons; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept.

So, most gun owners with families would now incur yet another cost or risk a federal crime. I'm all for safe storage and protect kids...but do we really need a FEDERAL Law for what is common sense?

So, again folks this is a call to contact our representatives to let them know what we think of this idea. I'm sure others have pointed out this bill before but another voice doesn't hurt.

You can use this link to find out who your representatives are and get their contact information.
Look for the "My Elected Officials" box on the left side of the page.

Gary Indiana Residents, what the world is going on?

I've talked about differing cultures in the past....now we have video evidence of it.

Store Clerk Murdered; Customers Keep Shopping

(Click On the link to see the video)

GARY, Ind. (CBS) ―

A 26-year-old convenience store clerk was shot and killed in broad daylight in Gary, Ind., and police say witnesses stood by and did nothing. CBS 2's Pamela Jones reports there are critical clues that may help crack the case.
Police say one of the four men caught on surveillance video bursting into the clerk's booth at the convenience store was about to commit murder. The video shows a man in red run up an aisle and kick in the door to the booth. Within seconds, the clerk, Gurjeet Singh, was shot in the neck...

But Titus says what's even more senseless is the apparent inaction of bystanders standing near the front door almost the whole time.

Jumping Josaphat ! People watched it happened and most didn't call the police, didn't try to help the clerk.

One instance isn't evidence but it certainly shows there are people out there that don't want to help themselves, don't want to help their neighbors.

Police say there were several customers walking around the store after the crime. But only one called 911 for help

To these people, I have a question...what in the world is wrong with you?
A store was robbed, a man was killed in front of you and you walk around the store!! What is wrong with your priorities, your values???

To the gun banners, those wanting stricter regulations, I have a question...is this the type of world you want to live in? A world where the criminals are allowed free reign and no one tries to stop them?

I'm sorry if my desire to protect myself, my family, to keep America a society that believes in the rule of law may upset you, but TOUGH.

This is what is really happening out there. Your efforts and the efforts of those like you are allowing people to be murdered in cold blood and the people who see it are being taught to do NOTHING. Call the police, give them what you want....this man, Mr. Gurjeet Singh, didn't have a chance. They wanted to kill him and they did. They wanted to rob the place and they did.

Probably nothing the shoppers could have done would have stopped the murder, but at least they could have tried to stop them from getting away. This is sickening, it is a sad commentary on our society that the shoppers didn't immediately try to take the criminals down. It is disgusting that you gun banners want to allow more of this to happen.

Defensive Gun Uses - Reasonableness Test

One of the issues I often encounter online is people not believing how many times firearms are used defensively to stop crime.

So, thinking about it I decided to see if it was reasonable or not to believe the numbers.

Dr. Gary Kleck's survey determined that as many as 2,500,000 times a year someone uses a firearms to stop or prevent a crime....is that number outrageous as some people claim?

Let's examine it and see.

There are an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in America. Let's assume that each defensive gun use is done by a different person.

2,500,000 divided by 365 days equals 6,850 uses per day.

Sounds like a lot until you consider that 80 million people own firearms.

(6,850 divided by 80,000,000)*100 = 0.0085625%


Okay, so is it reasonable to say that less then 0.01% of gun owners each day use their firearms to stop or prevent a crime? I think it is.

Let's assume that most gun owners never have to use their firearms, or the presence of their firearms never stops a crime...if only 10% of the gun owners use their firearms
(6,850 divided by 8,000,000)*100 = 0.085625%

- that is still less than a tenth of a percent of gun owners per day -- at 2.5 million DGUs. Is it reasonable to say that 0.1% of gun owners might use their firearms to stop a crime each day? I think it is?



I think most people will readily recognize the reality behind the situation. It will be a typical bell curve, most people never use their firearms to stop a crime, some people will use them once or twice, others will use them multiple times a year.

So, is it reasonable to say there might be 2,500,000 defensive gun uses a year?
Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

And the race is on.

It is unfortunate when a previously (seemingly )open minded person descends into the muck that is typical of so many anti-freedom - pro-ignorance folks who are against the 2nd Amendment.

Today's Pro-Ignorance Troll of the Day-- strongly contending for Pro-Ignorance Troll of the Year -- is MikeB302000.

So what earns MikeB his often earned title?

One of the commenters on the Kalamazoo site really expressed his ideas. liam9903 had this to say.

These nut jobs that like to walk around wearing guns to compensate for their lack of abilities elsewhere are to pathetic to even mock. I'm sure you could find a nutty Ron Paul supporter or racist rapture waiting survivalist in the group if you looked a little deeper. Most "2nd amendment advocates" shouldn't be aloud scissors much less the right to carry their gun around in public.

I must admit, at the risk of bringing a firestorm of comments down on my head, I agree pretty much with what the Gun Guys said, and even a little bit with Liam. I don't think it's normal behaviour to carry a gun, and picnics like these which are designed to "raise public awareness," seem like an attempt to make the abnormal normal.

Gee Mike, It isn't normal for whom? It isn't normal for most folks because the government has so far infringed on that which shouldn't be infringed that people don't realize they have the legal right to carry firearms. And in some cases, they don't have the right. The fact that governments and people like you are trying to remove our right to self defense is what is abnormal.

Not satisfied to insult the group's effort at free speech and to raise public awareness, MikeB goes on.

What Liam says, this question of inadequacy, never fails to elicit the strongest negative reaction from the pro-gun crowd. Sometimes I wonder if the ones who complain the loudest about that are the truly "inadequate" ones. Anyway, here's my take on it.

Maybe we are truly winning the battle of public perception because the anti's are reduced to discussing our "adequacy" issues. Sorry MikeB, the only inadequacy that I have is that I can't throw a rock at 850 feet per second as the old saying goes. By the way, you might want to look into this pheneom:

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.

Just saying....you know, it is never too late to seek the help.

MikeB is trying to win the pro-ignorance crowd's award for how many trite, tired, overworked, completely false cliches to be worked into a blog post. He's in the running to win it.

Gun-toting guys who talk about self-defense, are usually living in a fantasy world. The vast majority of these guys, I would bet, never need their weapons for self-defense. It's just an idea, a fantasy, like the one about fighting off the government gun-confiscators. It's an adolescent male fighting fantasy.

For some strange unknown reason, MikeB refuses to accept reality. We've have shown him Clayton Cramer's excellent site - Civilian Self Defense Blog many times. We've pointed out study after study showing anywhere from 100K to 2.5 Million defensive gun uses per year. The closed mind is truly a terrible waste.

Another aspect of that statement is the sexism "gun-toting guys". I've asked him to vist various different sites around the internet and leave a comment like that, but again...he doesn't want to let reality interfere with his world view.

Continuing his presentation of verbal froth completely lacking in information supporting it MikeB goes on

Meanwhile, here's the real problem. The more guns there are, the more get stolen, sold to the wrong people, and worst of all misused for suicides and homicides. Research we've all heard about says it's much more likely that a gun in the home will be misused than used for self defense.

See, the cliches and misinformation just keep rolling off his finger tips. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this except for many, many months now, various bloggers have worked to present the truth to MikeB.
If you want a primer in 2nd amendment advocacy, go read his comments. Don't bother with the tripe in his post....just read the comments left by the pro-firearm crowd. He's hit just about every possible avenue and gun bloggers have completed shredded every argument; provding citations, sources, and statistics to back up the arguments.

Keep up this work MikeB....the year is just at the half way point. Don't let you complete lack of evidence or rational thought get in the way of you going for that title -- heck it is a requirement to earn the Pro-Ignorance Troll of the Year Award.

UPDATE-- Hilarious update even....head over and check out another response -- "I don't think it's normal behavior to be a homosexual" -- to the Troll of the Day's post at Aztec Red's great site Barack's Gun Lies. You will be glad you did.

It's not the guns, It is the culture.

Via Drudge Report and The Smoking Gun comes details of this "artist":

Meet Steven Gilmore. The wannabe rapper tried to rob a Florida convenience store Friday night and shot an employee in the head with a BB gun in a bid to establish "street cred" for his nascent hip-hop career. The 21-year-old Gilmore, seen in the below mug shot, admitted his harebrained scheme after he was arrested Saturday night, according to Gainesville police. Gilmore, who also copped to a stickup of the Hungry Howie's restaurant, told police that he thought the robberies would provide him the kind of reputation he apparently believes is required in the rap world

Now, is this is the root of this crime based in the "gun culture" or the "rap culture"?

Now normally, I won't name post the name of criminals because I don't want to glorify their violence or provide any legacy for them...but in this case I want plenty of publicity for this young man. I want it to be difficult for him to live down his decision.

I want to publicize how some people view crime, as a means to an end, as a way of life. They view crime this way, not out of ignorance, not out of unconscious response but out of a calculated, fully informed decision. This is the type of "culture" that firearm related violence comes from, not the law abiding gun owner.

This is one of the popular myths that people want to attach to firearms. That every "gun owner" has the same culture, the same values, the same principles. We don't. The results are clear & easy to see - Some people commit crimes with their firearms and some people use their firearms for sporting and self defense purposes without breaking the law. Same types of firearms, just completely different cultures.

Reason I carry

It is as simple as A, B, C, D, E.....

A - Ability - I am able to and want to continue to be able to. We are privileged to live in a country that protects the right to carry but without vigilance we may loose it. Exercising your rights is essential to maintaining them. The government, elements of society are always trying to limit the rights of the people-- usually for "our own good". Without the constant responsible exercise of our right to keep and bear arms, we will loose that ability. Atrophy applies to more then just the physical

B - Be Prepared - Motto is great for more than just the Scouts. Note it isn't fear that drives me to Be Prepared. I carry life insurance on myself, I don't fear dying, but want to be responsible in taking care of my family in case I can't be there. How is it any different that I want to be responsible in taking care of myself and my family before my death.

C- Competency - I enjoy the challenge of learning and mastering new skills. I'm an accomplished juggler because it was a skill that I wanted to learn. I am in the process of mastering new skills, new abilities since my decision to carry. I am more competent in my knowledge of the laws governing our country and my state. I have an increased awareness of my environment and situation (started before I ever carried a firearm). I am challenging myself to master the task of placing holes in a piece of paper, in the same spot time and time again. Then I'll challenge myself to do it fast, to do it on the move.

D - Dependent No More - Prior to owning firearms, I was mostly dependent on less effective means of defense or other people. Should I be dependent on the police to bring a firearm to protect me or should I be able to protect myself. As an adult, I believe you have to gain independence before we can move to Interdependence. As an example of Interdependence, I point to my elderly neighbors. These wonderful people are up in their 70s, they can't get around as easy as they once could. We have talked and I've been asked to help them protect their property. So, not only am I no longer dependent on the police for protection, but neither may neighbors - interdependence.

E - Each person sovereign - The Founding Fathers recognized that without firearms, the individual is at the "mercy" of the government. After successfully rebelling against an unjust government, they never wanted to put the average citizen at risk again. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment, to protect the individual from those that would try to unjustly rule over them, be that a single armed thug or an entire government

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery. Jonathan Swift

If people are armed, then the government must tread easily, tread wisely; lest they loose the consent of the governed. Each person then becomes responsible for determine if the laws are fair, if the actions of the government are in the best interest of the country. It is a heavy responsibility, but it is one that gun owners recognize and accept.
If the people are armed, then the criminals must tread easily, tread steathily; lest the people become tired of being victimized. See the James-Younger Gang and Northfield Minnesota for example


F- Force --Marko Kloos so eloquently put it in his Essay "Why the gun is civilization". Here are the opening paragraphs, go read the entire essay. It's worth it - Bookmark it.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

I hope I've provided a little insight into why I carry. The decision to carry or not is a very personal decision, the decision to simply own a firearm is a very personal decision. No one ever makes those decision for quite the same reasons. I would be interested in hearing from each of you.


What letter would you add to the list? I would like to include the whole alphabet to show people it isn't out of fear that we carry.

Update - James Zachary Jr. from The Next Chapter blog adds the letter I (LOL - so glad I live in Texas).

I - Illinois - I don't carry because I lIve as an honest cItIzen In Illinois where polItIcIans are IdIots and only tolerate carry by polIce and crImInals.

From a comment left by Weer'd Beard (sorry, F was already used - hope I kept your intention)

P - Prohibited- Because a person shouldn't be prohibited from exercising a natural right by the whim of a government official. "May Issue" permitting is --should be an unconstitutional restriction on the Right to Keep and BEAR Arms that shall not be infringed. If a adult can not be trusted with a firearm, why should we allow that adult to be loose on the streets?

From Lawyer with a Gun (Great site, awesome writing- hope everyone is reading his work)

G: God-given Right. He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36 (ESV)
Call it an "inherent right" if you do not Believe in God, but it is a right that predates the Constitution - the right to defend yourself with the most effective tool possible. As gun rights advocates know, the Constitution does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms, it only limits the governments power to infringe upon that right.

From a post over at Lawyer with a Gun - labeled Response Time (Again, go see why you should be reading his work.)

R - Response Time - A reason why I carry is the Response Time - as the old saying goes "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." This isn't a knock on the excellent job most law enforcement officers do, it is simply a fact they can not and should not be everywhere. As Lawyer so eloquently puts it:

And yet, I cannot responsibly place the entire burden of my personal and family protection on the shoulders of the police. Such expectation is not fair to them, and besides, I just may not have that much time

From Jay G. at MArooned

H- Heavy - I carry a firearm because a cop is to heavy to carry all the time.

Also from Jay G. at from this post - Why I Carry

K - my Kids - I'm the dad. It's my sworn duty to protect my kids to the best of my abilities. I believe in using the best tools for the job at hand, and there is currently no better tool for protecting myself and my family than a firearm.

Debunking availability Part 3

In the comments to debunking availability part 2, MikeB thinks comparing various countries is comparing apples to oranges. And to some small extent that is true. What is true is that countries with more guns don't necessarily have greater suicide rates...so that demolishes his theory.

He say this:

The real comparison would be if you could compare Japan with very few guns
to a Japan with lots of guns.

Since I couldn't easily find information on Japan (hey, I'm on vacation - I get to be lazy), I substituted America for Japan. No one will deny that America has been increasing the number of personally owned firearms through the years, right?

So, if the theory - more guns = more deaths- should have suicides going up if that is the pre-dominate factor.

But has it happened?
From the CDC WISQARS site, the second number is the age adjusted rate (edit -- OOPS, According to Weer'd, I shouldn't have used the age adjusted rate. So, here is the edited column, first number is the year, second is the age adjusted and the last number is the crude rate.
1981..........12.31..........12.03
1982..........12.44..........12.19
1983..........12.33..........12.10
1984..........12.58..........12.42
1985..........12.51..........12.38
1986..........12.99..........12.87
1987..........12.82..........12.71
1988..........12.48..........12.44
1989..........12.30..........12.25
1990..........12.46..........12.39
1991..........12.28..........12.18
1992..........11.98..........11.88
1993..........12.04..........11.97
1994..........11.89..........11.84
1995..........11.79..........11.75
1996..........11.53..........11.47
1997..........11.24..........11.20
1998..........11.12..........11.08
1999..........10.48..........10.46
2000..........10.44..........10.43
2001..........10.70..........10.74
2002..........10.93..........11.00
2003..........10.75..........10.84
2004..........10.94..........11.06
2005..........10.88..........11.03
2006..........10.95..........11.15

Edited - still a general down turn in the number of suicides. For the 2003-2006, I wonder how many of those suicides are related to the increased number of veterans committing suicide. Still, doesn't this disprove the theory. If availability was the factor, the predominate factor, then the number of suicides should have climbed each and every year. The rate didn't.
So, once again NO INCREASE that can be directly related or attributed to the amount of firearms owned. So, once again NO evidence to support the availability myth.

It appears that other factors are at work here, factors that have greater correlation & causation then availability.

Shouldn't we be addressing those issues before we try to take away people's rights?

Debunking Availablity Part 2

Looking at the myth that firearm availability is the predominate or major factor in "gun violence" brings us to suicide.

In Part 1, I presented evidence showing that there was greater correlation between poverty and homicide rates than there was correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rates by state.

That wasn't enough for some people. They claim we shouldn't exclude suicide from the comparison. I disagree because if someone truly wants to end their life, NOTHING is going to stop them. Most people who use suicide attempts as a cry for help don't want to be successful thus choice methods that are less likely to succeed.

Even still, let's demolish the myth a little more

Country Ownership Suicide Rate
Russia 9 32.2
Finland 20.1 32
Japan * 23.7
Ukraine 9 22.6
Serbia 37.5 19.5
France 32 17.6
Switzerland 46 17.6
Austria 31 15.6
Sweden 31.5 13.3
New Zealand 26.8 13.2
Germany 30 13
Canada 31.5 11.4
United States 90 11.1
Australia 15.5 10.9
India 4 10.6
South Africa 13.1 10
Argentina 12.6 8.7
Spain 11 7.8
Thailand 16 7.8
Italy 12.1 7.1
United Kingdom 5.6 6.8
Colombia 7.2 5.7
Brazil 8.8 4.3
Mexico 15 4.1
Greece 23 3.5
Philippines 4.7 2.1
Iran 5.3 0.2

Wikipedia is the source for both set of statistics.

As you can see from the chart, the country with the highest suicide rate doesn't have the highest firearm ownership rate. That alone should end the debate, right?

Finland, the country with the twelth highest firearm ownership rates is nearly tied with Russia. So, isn't that a strong indication there are other factors besides firearm ownership at work in suicide rates?

America with the highest level of firearm ownership is 13th in suicide rates.

Also, for the final evidence destroying this myth - JAPAN. Firearm ownership in Japan is practically non-existent!! Read that again, personal firearm ownership in Japan is practically non-existent, yet their suicide rate is the 3rd highest.

So, doesn't that definitely disprove that firearm ownership is the major factor in suicide?

Reasonable discussion?

Over at MikeB's place, I've enjoyed (for the most part) discussing the issues around gun control but there is a limit. In response to a never ending stream of insuinations, accusations, distortions and sometimes out right lies, pro-freedom, pro-firearm people have tried to provide information, facts, data, legal opinions, etc to Mike.

What we get in return is more of the same. At first, I disagreed with Weer'd Beard about the worth of continuing to debate at Mike's, now I'm completely convinced he was right.


In response to comments made on this post Mike made the following comments

 Bob says, "Sorry but your "belief" doesn't rise to the level of proof needed to deprive people of their rights."Perhaps your "belief" doesn't rise to the level of proof needed to maintain that right. Perhaps that's how "rights" are changed through history.

YGTBSM -- My proof doesn't rise to the level needed to maintain our right to keep and bear arms???
We've provided evidence from the CDC showing that firearm fatalities are declining. We've provided evidence that some countries with strict gun control laws have higher firearm homicide and crime rates while some countries with lax gun control laws have lower crime rates. In other words, no evidence that strict gun control laws work.

We've provided evidence showing that there are other factors -- social, cultural, economic, educational-- that affect crime rates more then firearm availability.

We've provided evidence showing that firearms save lives.

Over and over again, we've provided proof, sound proof that our right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. And what does MikeB provide to back up his opinion? Quotes & sound bites from the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign. Slanted stories from the left stream media.

And our proof may  not be enough to keep our rights in his mind?? Abolutely frakkin amazing.

Bob also said, "I know, I know you say you don't want to stop good people from having firearms, but how can you reduce availability and still let good people have firearms."One way is to redefine what we mean by "good people." Obviously the definition we've been working with is not working. As much as you deny it, the flow of these so-called "good" gun owners over to the dark side is significant.

We've provided evidence, time and time again, showing that the "flow" of guns is insignificant.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report 419,640 for 2005.  The CDC reported 12,352 fatalities related to firearm homicides in the same year.

Estimates place the number of firearms in America around 280,000,000.  Even allowing for every firearm to be a new and unique firearm used in crime, that means only 0.15428% of all firearms were used in crimes in 2005. Hardly significant! That type of irrationality can not be swayed by the facts, by the truth.


This was the final straw - One way is to redefine what we mean by "good people."

So, what does MikeB propose to do? Redefine every gun owner as "bad people"? Despite the evidence that gun owners are by and large law abiding, despite the fact that most firearm related crimes are committed by people who have criminal records (and most gun owners don't have a criminal record) MikeB wants to take away our rights.

It really isn't that far of a step to imagine that as not good people our rights will be completely trampled to reduce the availability of firearms. Never mind that no prohibition, no ban has ever stopped the flow of an item, we see MikeB's eventual goal in these words....the confiscation of firearms from the law abiding.

So enough is enough, I'm mostly done with this troll. I'll raid his site for occasional blog fodder but I won't be commenting on a regular basis there. I'll post my replies and thoughts on this blog where I know that my comments won't be moderated out of existence.

/rant off

Increasing Gun violence?

Since I need to post today, I thought I would respond to MikeB302000's post about increasing gun violence.

Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes, 1993-2005

Year.........Incidents..........Rate per 1K...............%.........Homicide Rate

1993......1,054,820....................5.91....................11..................10.1
1994......1,060,800...................6.0......................11.....................9.6
1995.........902,680...................4.9......................10.....................8.7
1996.........845,220...................4.6.......................10....................7.9
1997.........680,900...................3.6.........................9....................7.4
1998.........557,200...................3.0.........................8....................6.8
1999.........457,150....................2.5.........................7....................6.2
2000........428,670....................2.4.........................7....................6.1
2001.........467,880...................2.3.........................9.....................7.1*
2002.........353,880...................1.9.........................7.....................6.1
2003..........366,840..................1.9.........................7.....................6.1
2004..........280,890..................1.4.........................6....................5.9
2005..........419,640...................2.0........................9....................not listed

So, does it really look like there is Increasing Gun Violence?


Mike asked:

Is this guy and his newspaper a shill for the anti-gun movement? Do you think these stats are cooked, as they say?

The numbers aren't cooked, there are that many deaths per year, but the population is increasing each year. Firearm related crimes are falling or holding steady each year. So why do the gun control advocates continue to try to scare people with increasing gun violence?

Another point to consider in this is the fact that more and more states are relaxing their restrictions on concealed carry. Now, if firearms are the problem and more people are carrying legally and firearm related crimes are going down.....what does that say about the truthfulness of the gun control crowd?