A Geek With Guns

Views from a geek gun nut

Posts Tagged ‘You Can’t Cure Stupid

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

Slate Doesn’t Know Shit About Libertarianism

Slate magazine demonstrated a few days ago that they don’t know jack shit about libertarianism. The article is a long diatribe build almost entirely on made up “facts.” Instead of going through the article piece by piece and pointing out each of Slate’s numerous errors I’m going to stand on the shoulder of giants and let others who have gone before me point out the flaws in Slate’s article.

First we have a nice piece that explains the fact that libertarianism didn’t start in the 1970s as claimed by Slate but was alive and well before that under the name liberalism. The same article points to the fact that Ayn Rand did more to bring people to libertarianism than the supposed father of libertarian (according to Slate) Robert Nozick (whom I never actually heard of until I read Slates article strangely enough).

The following links were obtained from the previous so a heartfelt thanks goes out to the author, V.A. Luttrell. First the Cato institute has a nice piece destroying Slate’s claim that Nozick disavowed libertarianism.

Slate then went ahead and made a claim that Keynes (you know an article is worthless when it’s citing Keynes as an authoritative source on anything) said a rather nasty thing about Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. What Slate got wrong was that Keynes made the comment about Hayek’s Prices and Productions but actually wrote that he found himself in agreement with The Road to Serfdom. Oops.

Slate’s article then claimed that two of the fathers of libertarianism (you know besides the apparent father Nozick), von Mises and Hayek, were nothing but corporate shills. Unfortunately for Slate that isn’t true. Whoops again.

Although I feel the fact is self-evident apparently others do not. Slate wrote the usual and completely false claim that Libertarianism is composed of nothing but greedy individuals who care nothing for others. Once again this claim is false. The fact of the matter is the libertarian movement is an attempt to make all interactions between people voluntary instead of done at the point of a gun. Libertarianism is the abhorrence of violence and coercion which is made clear by the fact the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.

Slate would do well to actually research libertarianism before making such blatant and false claims. Of course writing a factual critique wasn’t the point, I firmly believe the author knew damned well that he was printing false information and wanted nothing more than to slander the movement he hates so much. Too bad for the author that people who do follow libertarian philosophy don’t let such falsities go without challenge.

Written by Christopher Burg

June 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm

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

Companies Abandoning California at an Accelerated Rate

What happens when you increase the tax burden on companies in order to correct a state deficit? Those companies start leaving. Companies are run by people and people are generally willing to put up with only so much abuse until they analyze their situation and consider their options. California has been increasing taxes on businesses and it’s now to a point where many businesses there have decided it’s simply not worth being there and are taking their services and jobs to another state.

In 2011 the rate of businesses leaving California has increased to 5.4 a week. Each of those businesses are also taking their jobs with them meaning the unemployment rate in California is going to continue getting higher. This is also a great demonstration of the fact that states simply can’t tax their out of debt. As they increase their tax rates the victims of those increases are going to leave and then will effectively pay $0.00 in taxes to the state.

California, like most socialist nations, is finally collapsing under it’s own ruined economy. They’ve tried to offer too much for too long and now they’re going all Soviet Union. Governments need to learn that the only way to effectively eliminate their debt is to spend less money. People will survive without government services but they won’t take loosing 90% of their earnings. I’m pretty sure it’s too late for California but I hope my state notices this and learns that increasing taxes on businesses and the wealthy (those who generally own businesses) is not going to reduce our debt but increase it in the long run as tax payers flee for friendly states (South Dakota is right next door and they’re generally pretty nice in comparison).

Written by Christopher Burg

June 22, 2011 at 11:30 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

I Concur

I’ll just leave this thought for you guys to mull over:

If you have 3 visible holsters containing 3 handguns, attached to tactical gear at the range, I’ll automatically jump to the conclusion that you’re a douchebag.

I agree completely. Nothing says douchebag like the guy with the tactical gear which includes three handguns attached to various parts of his body. That shit may be funny if you’re purposely making fun of mall ninjas but if you’re wearing it because you honestly think it’s a good tactical decision then you’re likely a moron.

Written by Christopher Burg

June 20, 2011 at 11:00 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.