A Geek With Guns

Views from a geek gun nut

Posts Tagged ‘Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

More Anti-Gunner Whining About Wisconsin’s Imminent Passing of Carry Legislation

The hysterics presented by anti-gunners would be funny if they weren’t so pathetic (by they I mean both the anti-gunners and their hysterics). Take for instance this article warning that Wisconsin’s (hopefully) soon to be enacted carry legislation will allow people to carry in parks and at the Milwaukee County Zoo:

“Milwaukee will be like the wild wild west,” Said State Rep. Elizabeth Coggs. “To think that you can take a gun to a park, a bar, a daycare center, the zoo … it’s ridiculous.”

Coggs is correct in that the bill could turn Wisconsin into the Wild West, but it would be like the real Wild West [PDF] not the Hollywood portrayal most anti-gunners seem to have. Of course the anti-gunners are panicking because law abiding citizens will be able to carry at several venues that they like to frequent:

Under the bill, any free outdoor festival without gates does not have the ability to prohibit concealed weapons. That means guns could be present at events like Bastille Days, South Shore Frolics and the Locust Street Festival.

The inability to prohibit concealed weapons would also affect lakefront fireworks displays.

I’m sure Wisconsin will have the same trouble with people being able to legally carry concealed weapons at their open air festivals as the other 48 states who allow some form of carry have. That is to say Wisconsin won’t have any trouble at all.

Here’s the thing Wisconsin, you’re the late comer to the party. Although it has sucked for your citizens it does offer one advantage; you get to see the affects of enacting carry legislation in other states. When you look at each state that has continued to liberalize (the classical definition of the word) their carry laws you’ll notice a pattern of zero increase in violent crime and in many cases a decrease. You will also notice that there have been no apparent cases of arguments between somebody legally carrying a firearm and a third party that escalated to a shooting fight (at least if there has been such a case the anti-gunners haven’t reported on it).

I’m just glad that fewer and fewer people listen to whining anti-gunners. They’ve been crying wolf so long that people no longer take their prophecies of gloom and doom with and amount of seriousness. The difference though is unlike the kid who cried wolf the anti-gunners’ prophecies won’t come true.

Advertisements

You Keep Saying These Things

Wisconsin is on the verge of passing right to carry legislation into law which means the anti-gunners are out screaming that blood will flow through the streets and other such nonsense. As I said before these people are harmless and will lose interest quickly as people stop listening to their prophesies that never come to fruition. Until they lose interest though we’re going to have to listen to the ramblings of crazy people such as this dumb ass:

After the bill was approved by most Republicans and some Democrats, the Assembly will send the bill to Walker to become the law of the land. The move is being hailed as a major victory by those who believe concealed carry provides a much-needed safety net for law-abiding citizens who can now feel free to summon up their inner Clint Eastwood on demand to defend their loved ones.

Of course, that’s a crock.

Many law enforcement officers will tell you how difficult it would be for a regular citizen – even with the required training – to use a handgun in a confrontation with a criminal. No matter how many action movies you may have watched, it’s just not that simple.

More often than not, people would face more danger of having the weapon taken and used against them during an unexpected encounter with a criminal.

The anti-gunners toss around so many lies that it’s almost impossible to keep track of them all. One of them is the myth that you’re more likely to have your gun taken from you and used against your person than to use it to successfully defend yourself. He’s the thing though, every time the anti-gunners make this claim that are unable to back it up with any examples. It’s basically a non-issue. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but the frequency is so rare that the anti-gunners can’t even pull out examples of it happening.

Also I like how he states that law enforcement officers like to tell people how difficult it is to defend yourself with a firearm. You know what’s even more difficult? Getting raped in a back alley while waiting 15 minutes for the police to not arrive because they have no legal obligation to protect you. Anybody who has participated in a shooting sport knows how difficult it become to property utilize a firearm when your adrenaline begins pumping but that’s why we advocate training so strongly. On top of that having a gun, regardless of your capability with the device during a self-defense situation, is still going to increase your odds of surviving much more than not being armed at all.

The bottom line though is the simple fact that none of the claims made by anti-gunners have been proven true. No blood has been flowing through the streets because every street corner turned into a Hollywood version of the Wild West (because the real Wild West wasn’t so wild [PDF]). Violent crime hasn’t gone up, in fact just the opposite has happened. This is why nobody really pays much attention to what the anti-gunners are saying, none of their boogeymen have come out from under their beds to reign terror down upon us.

Written by Christopher Burg

June 23, 2011 at 10:30 am

I Bet He Cures Blindness By Throwing Mud in Your Eyes Too

When I saw this article on the BBC asking why the crime rate in the United States have been dropping I expected no mention would be made of the increase in issuance of carry permits. I’ve come to expect that from the media, especially Britain where guns are almost completely illegal. What I didn’t expect was the theory that our lower crime rate is due to the election of the Obamessiah:

1. The Obama effect could explain the increased pace of the reduction of the last few years, says one of the country’s top criminologists, Alfred Blumstein. “The prior expectation was that the recession would have the opposite effect. The question then is what distinctive event occurred in ’09?” The election of a black president could have inspired some young black men, who are disproportionately involved in arrests for robbery and homicide, says the professor. It’s very speculative, he adds, and probably only one factor of many, as one of the cities with a huge drop in crime is Phoenix, in Arizona, which does not have a large black population. “In the field of criminology, you don’t get consistent indicators as you would in physics. There are so many factors that could have contributed.” A separate study on school test scores supports the view that some black teenagers were motivated to try harder by the new presidency.

Hallelujah brother, it’s a miracle! Our president can cure the blind by throwing mud in their eyes, he can walk on water, he can turn water into wine, and he can lower the crime rate! Seriously could the media suck his… I’ll let you fill in the blank here, any harder? Did Barack personally send the BBC a shipment of hookers and blow?

Before some Obamabot comes on here and claims my heated reaction is just due to the fact that I’m a Republican/Glenn Beck supporter/dirty Satanist/whatever I should state that I’d have the same reaction regardless of what president it was about (also I’m not a Republican or Glenn Beck supporter or dirty Satanist).

Beyond that stupidity the article was written as I expected it. Almost all of the theories stated are attributed to the state and not a single mention was made about liberalized (in the classical definition of the word) carry laws raising the stacks for committing crimes. Regardless of the reason the decline in crime does demonstrate that liberalized (again the classic definition) carry laws don’t lead to higher crime rates and thus enacting stricter gun control laws to curb crime is an exercise in stupidity. This is even more important to note when you consider the fact that liberalized (classical definition) carry laws may be part of the reason crime rates are declining.

Written by Christopher Burg

June 22, 2011 at 10:00 am

In Lieu of Real Arguments the Brady Campaign has Resorted to Falsely Claiming Gun Owners are Drunkards

You have to hand it to the Brady Bunch, they want to keep that sweet Joyce Foundation money flowing to avoid getting real jobs and they’re willing to use any tactic to retain that funding. The Brady Campaign released a “research” paper that concludes basically that gun owners are drunks and thus can’t be trusted with firearm. So what’s wrong with their research? Well for starters the data was cherry picked so heavily that they could make millions on a harvest. The “report” makes the following claim:

Altogether, 15 474 respondents provided information on firearm exposure. After adjustment for demographics and state of residence, firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to have ≥5 drinks on one occasion (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50), to drink and drive (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39) and to have ≥60 drinks per month (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away.

In many states that allow for a right to self-defense drinking while carrying is a big no-no. Here in Minnesota you can carry so long as your blood alcohol level remains no higher than .04 (half of the legal limit for driving). Combine those facts with the fact that carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people out there and you can put the puzzle together. As the rate of crimes committed by carry permit holders is generally lower than other people and carrying while intoxicated is heavily restricted or completely prohibited in most states you can logically conclude that there are few people able to legally carry a firearm who carry while drunk.

The article on No Lawyer – Only Guns and Money also point out the fact that Utah ranks dead last on the Brady Campaign’s list of freedom hating states yet is mostly Mormon and Mormons have a prohibition against alcohol consumption. Thus there seems to be a lack of correlation between the Brady Campaign’s rating of “safe” states and alcohol consumption (and thus less opportunity for carry permit holders to carry while intoxicated). Oh and Utah has an extremely low rate of alcohol-related deaths to boot.

Basically if you cherry pick your numbers well enough you can create a report that says anything. If I worked hard enough at it I could release a report that demonstrates a correlation between being anti-gun and being a Nazi sympathizer.

I find hit hilarious though that the Brady Campaign can find any factual numbers to back up their claims that more restrictive gun laws lead to safer communities so they’ve resort to simply trying to run a smear campaign against gun owners. The next report they release will probably demonstrate how gun owners like to kick babies and murder cute baby bunnies while torching retirement homes. After that they’ll probably resort to simply calling us poopy-heads. Honestly you guys at the Brady Campaign should just quit before you embarrass yourselves any further. There is nothing bad about admitting when you’re wrong, we’ve all made mistakes. The difference is admitting your failures allows you to keep your dignity while attempting to do everything possible to avoid admitting failure just makes you look petty and pathetic.

Three Senators Lying In The Hopes of Enacting Gun Control Legislation

As the anti-gunners lack facts to back their arguments it’s no surprise that they resort to outright lying in order to push their agenda of taking away our right to self-defense. One of the lies that have been propagated in the last year is that the majority of firearms obtained by Mexican drug cartels comes from the United States. Although this bullshit has been proven false the anti-gunners still parrot it because they have nothing else to work with.

Combine the fact that only a small portion of firearms recovered in Mexico actually trace back to the United States with the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have been caught smuggling guns into Mexico for the drug cartels and we have the truth story; many guns recovered in Mexico that trace back to the United States were likely allowed to cross the border by government officials. This hasn’t stopped the usual suspects from going ahead and claiming once again that we need to ban semi-automatic rifles that look scary to anti-gunners in order to help the Mexican government:

“This report confirms what many of us already know to be true. … It is still too easy for Mexican drug lords to get their hands on deadly military-grade weapons within our borders,” said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. “We need to redouble our efforts to keep violent firearms out of the hands of these traffickers.”

The senators, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, are calling for reinstatement of an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and better enforcement of a ban on the import of military style weapons.

I have a better idea that may help reduce the number of guns that cross the border from the United States into Mexico; stop letting the ATF smuggling guns into that country. Furthermore you guys could work on ending the drug war here in the United States which would effectively behead the Mexican drug cartels as the price of these drugs would plummet. This is what Portugal did and it worked out pretty well for them.

Written by Christopher Burg

June 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm

A Blueprint for Not Getting Elected

Do you want to run for Congress but ensure you don’t get elected? If that’s you then Mike Barkley is the man for you to emulate because he’s ensured that he’ll never get elected:

Now the Manteca resident is seeking the Democratic nomination for Congress with his primary campaign platform being the repeal of the Second Amendment and any pre-existing doctrine of natural law, common-law or laws under state constitutions that allow the right to keep and bear arm.

Barkley, though, has no qualms with individuals exercising the privilege to possess weapons to protect themsleves. To address that he’s proposing a constitutional amendment that would impose an annual tax on every firearm in a household. Taxes would start at $10 for the first firearm, $20 for the second firearm, $30 for the third firearm, $100 each for the fourth through ninth firearms and $1,000 each for any firearm in excess of nine.

Granted he’s running for California which is one of the only states where a person with such a position could possibly get elected but even there I doubt such a candidate would get elected (Californians please don’t take this as a challenge, I don’t need to have yet another reason to hate politics in your state). But repealing the second amendment and taxing the ever living shit out of gun owners isn’t the only stupid thing Mr. Barkley is recommending:

And under his proposed amendment should a firearm be lost or stolen it would result in a $1,000 penalty with the penalty rescinded or refunded if the firearm is recovered. But there’s a big caveat to that: If the firearm is used in the commission of a felony then an additional $1,000 penalty will be imposed.

Isn’t that a great position to have? First you turn the victim of a crime into a criminal by fining a victim of theft for the actions of the thief and then fine the victim again if the criminal performs another crime with the stolen gun. Hell with rock solid logic like that we’ll be looking to fine car owners if their vehicle gets stolen next.

Honestly with positions like this I don’t see Mr. Berkley has a legitimate candidate for Congress but I found these ideas stupid enough to be funny and thus worth posting about here. This is the kind of crazy shit anti-gunners come up with. They have such a hatred and/or fear of a mechanical device that they wish to punish everybody who owns one. Not only are they willing to take away our right to defend ourselves but they also want to turn victims of crimes into criminals.

It’s absolutely sickening to me that somebody would advocate punishing a victim of a crime. What’s next? Are we to fine people $1,000 because they were mugged? Should be fine the family members of murder victims? How far would such stupidity have to be carried before anti-gunners realized the idiocy of their concept?

Either way have fun not getting elected Mr. Berkley. Oh and your personal website (linked to in the article as I won’t link to that crap here) is shittier than mine which isn’t easy to pull off considering my lack of web design capabilities.

Joyce Foundation Bribing Journalist to Write Anti-Gun Studies

The Joyce Foundation, the same assholes who bankroll the Brady Campaign, are pretty well known in the pro-rights community for providing funding to almost anybody who will push their anti-rights agenda. The Buckeye Firearms Association has a nice writeup about the Joyce Foundation using money to get journalists to write anti-gun stories.

I’m not one who subscribes to the idea that journalists should be unbiased but I do feel perfectly fine with pointing out potential reasons for bias. There is a huge incentive for a journalist to write anti-gun stories if a large foundation is willing to float them Federal Reserve notes for doing it. This tactic is often used to get desired results from studies; somebody gives a bunch of researchers money, express to those researchers the preferred bias, and then has them set out to get a study that proves that preferred bias. You can prove anything if you twist the numbers enough which is evident when anti-gunners reveals their numbers of people killed by guns each year but only mention in the very tiny print that a huge chunk of those deaths were suicides (which are self-inflicted deaths and therefore really can’t be counted when talking about gun violence).

Needless to say the Joyce Foundation has been throwing money at anybody willing to do research that shows a bias against guns so the findings in the linked article aren’t at all surprising.

Written by Christopher Burg

June 10, 2011 at 11:00 am