Category Archives: Guns

Guns don’t kill people – but people with guns do.

Stupid? Yes. Terrorists? Not so much …

They’ve been dubbed ‘Y’all Qaeda’

Posted by The Independent on Monday, January 4, 2016

So a bunch of armed ranchers have “occupied” a building at a wildlife refuge in Oregon, ostensibly to protest Federal Government land-use regulations. Some, including the Washington Post, are wondering if we shouldn’t be calling these people “terrorists.”

No.

The mere fact of being armed while being involved in criminal activities doesn’t make one a terrorist. It makes one an armed criminal. We don’t need to expand the scope of “terrorist” to include everyone who uses guns in a threatening manner.

Besides, these guys fail to meet one of the primary considerations in being a terrorist—instilling fear in the community.

Becoming the butt of late-night talks show monologues doesn’t cut it.

Being referred to as “Y’all Queda” and part of a “Yee-had” suggests that you’re lacking in effectiveness in getting your message out. People are too busy laughing to listen.

Terrorists have hostages and victims. These guys have an empty refrigerator.

Seriously. They’re actually asking people to MAIL them supplies. That’s right, they’re looking to the U.S. Federal Government to deliver the supplies they neglected to consider packing in pursuit of their protest of the Federal Government.

No, these guys aren’t terrorists.

But neither are they activists, engaging in civil disobedience. Yes, it’s true they have a disagreement with the Government on issues that directly affect them. (I happen to think they’re wrong—unfettered, unregulated use of public lands results in a situation famously referred to as “The Tragedy of the Commons.”) And yes, they’re using their actions to call attention to their issue. But it ceases to be civil disobedience when the explicit threat of gun violence is made toward anybody who attempts to end their “occupation.”

What they are is criminals. Stupid criminals, who seem to think this is 1886 rather than 2016, when you can ride to town with your guns in your belt to take on the sheriff if you don’t like how they’re running things. What they’re doing is “taking up arms against the government,” and I do believe there’s a word for that.

Besides stupid, that is.

 

 

Stupid of the Day 27 Dec 2015—The NRA vs. States’ Rights

So the NRA wants us to be up in arms (pun intended) about this:

With the start of the 2016 Virginia legislative session quickly approaching, your NRA is working to address the…

Posted by National Rifle Association on Monday, December 28, 2015

Their premise—they are working to address “the political “activism” and complete disregard for law abiding concealed carry permit holders.” They complain about the Virginia Attorney General’s “Arbitrary” decision to rescind concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states.

The problem is, the decision shows neither disregard for out-of-state permit holders, nor is it arbitrary. Instead, it is simply a move by Virginia to assert its right as a sovereign state to set and enforce its own rules as to who may or may not carry concealed weapons in the state.

Reciprocity is a courtesy extended by one jurisdiction to citizens of another, allowing a license granted in one to be honored across a wide area. But reciprocity is not universal. Some licensing conveys—drivers licenses and marriage licenses are common examples—but others don’t, such as insurance brokers, electricians, plumbers, etc. Reciprocity depends on the rules being essentially the same from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And this is where concealed carry permits fall short.

Virginia has enacted a set of regulations governing the issuance of concealed carry permits. If you wish to carry a concealed weapon, you need to abide by those regulations. (Note to the NRA: that’s what “law abiding” means …) To be clear, that doesn’t mean you meet Kentucky’s rules, or Idaho’s—you need to show that you meet Virginia’s rules. That’s the whole point of “states’ rights”—which, by the way, is something the NRA likes to use as an argument against Federal gun control initiatives …

The decision to stop honoring some states’ concealed carry permits was far from arbitrary, as the NRA claims. Instead, the Virginia Attorney General’s office reviewed the concealed carry polices of other states and made a determination on a case-by-case basis whether those polices were substantially the same as Virginia’s. Where they were, reciprocity was retained. Those permit carriers were deemed in compliance with Virginia law. Where they were not, reciprocity was denied. That is not abridging the rights of out-of-state concealed carry permit holders; they are, instead, being treated the same way as Virginia residents are. If you want to concealed-carry in Virginia, you need to demonstrate that you meet the conditions set by Virginia. And there is paperwork, for both residents and non-residents, that allows you to do that.

So, the NRA is essentially resorting to scare tactics. (Shocking!) They’re taking a position that is in opposition to a state’s rights to determine its own rules and regulations. It’s another example of their completely stupid position that any gun regulation, no matter how reasonable, is de facto evil and something to be stopped at all costs.

We have to be able to establish reasonable regulations regarding guns in this country, we need to #stampoutstupid.

 

The insanity of America’s gun fixation

 Saw this article in this morning’s Washington Post:

Cars have become a lot safer. Guns haven’t.

Posted by Christopher Ingraham on Thursday, December 17, 2015

 

So let’s talk about guns for a moment. America, as a country, has gotten itself into a stupid place where we can’t talk about guns at all—because apparently, even the mention of the very concept of the consideration of talking about limits on guns infringes on the inalienable right of individuals to arm themselves to the teeth and enter any place the desire so armed.

I’m sorry, that is a complete and utter crock.

Now, I’m not a gun hater. I took my daughter to the pistol range at age 13 to let her shoot. We enjoyed ourselves, we’ve gone back, and I look forward to continuing going to the range with her in the future. Guns have an appeal to them.

By the same token, guns are dangerous. Period. They are objects whose function is to kill. There are many things that are dangerous and CAN kill—but killing is an unintended (and unwanted) result of improper use, malfunction, etc. With a gun, killing is the intended result of proper use. That makes guns dangerous.

With anything else that’s dangerous, we do certain things to reduce the risk of using them. We do safety research. We license use. We require training. We may restrict access to certain types of things until competency is demonstrated. And we work to improve the technology to make things safer.

We do it with cars. People don’t feel as if their rights are threatened by having to take a test and get a license to drive—or to need special training for driving semis or motorcycles …

We do it with professions. We don’t let just anyone wire up a house, or connect up a gas line; we insist they get trained and certified before setting up shop.

But guns? For all the talk about “responsible gun owners,” we seem loathe to consider ensuring that gun ownership is indeed responsible. And that is stupid.

When you look at the Post article linked above, the points I want you to take from it are these:

  • Gun deaths have surpassed automobile deaths not because gun deaths have risen (they have, slightly), but instead because automobile deaths have declined consistently;
  • Gun deaths COULD be on the decline if similar efforts to characterize the risks, ensure user competence, and improve the technology were undertaken;
  • The gun lobby has systematically worked to prevent research, data collection, and technology implementations that would increase safety and reduce deaths.

We don’t need to have a conversation about guns because a radicalized Christian American shoots up a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado. We don’t need to have a conversation about guns because a radicalized Muslim American shoots up an office party in California. We need to have a conversation about guns because people are being killed, in ones and twos, daily, all across the country—and we take that as routine.

Not talking about it—not finding a way to reduce the needless loss of life—is the epitome of stupid. Let’s talk. Let’s #StampOutStupid.