A Geek With Guns

The New York Times recently ran a hit piece on carry permit holders. The article tried to make permit holders sound like scary individuals with the following statistic:

To assess that claim, The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.

More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun.

2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies? Holy mother of Thor, that’s a bit number. Well, except in the grand scheme of things, it’s not:

That’s a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, “more than 240,000.” So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes “represents a small percentage of those with permits.” More like “tiny.” By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year–more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders.

So the average rate of felony convictions for North Carolina permit holders is far less than the average felony conviction rate in the nation. That seems to prove once again that permit holders are less likely to commit felonies than the average population.

The Brady Campaign has been trying to build up hype for their next failed attempt to create a movement of victim disarmament. You may not have heard anything about it as nobody pays much attention to the Brady Campaign anymore but Miguel over at Gun Free Zone had his ear to the ground and found the Brady Campaign’s new site, Too Many Victims (of Gun Violence, people killed by other violent crimes need not apply). Here’s a link you can copy and paste to visit the site:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/

Yeah I know it’s kind of petty to not link directly to their site, but I don’t link directly to sites of white supremacists either. If you’re advocating the creation of victims you’re not getting any link love from me.

Basically it’s a site created so people can go post memorials of people killed by guns. As Miguel pointed out the Brady Campaign doesn’t give two shits about victims of other violent crimes. If your family member was stabbed to death that’s just too bad, find somewhere else to post his memory.

The other thing the Brady folks are doing is encouraging people to host vigils for the victims of violent crimes involving firearms (if you were a victim of rape you can just take your sob story right over there with the rest of the people who were victimized in other violent crimes). Conveniently they have a very sparse list of planned vigils (which can be visited at the following link):

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/local-vigils/

Notice how most of the planned vigils don’t even have a date or location set yet, I’m guessing they never will. Sadly the only one going on in Minnesota is why the fuck up in Duluth so I’ll not be able to verify if five or six people attended.

I’m going to find it difficult to surpress me desire to troll this site. Miguel brought up the idea of posting “memorials” for criminals who were shot by their would be victims. My question is whether or not these vigils are open carry events. There is also the question regarding whether or not the Brady Bunch are so cold and calloused as to remove memorials of victims of violent crimes not involving firearms. Do Brady shills employees verify the memorials are for real people? There is certainly the potential of creating some very funny memorials for non-existant or fictional individuals (some James Bond villains would be good candidates).

Now that I’ve given you all these bad ideas I want to urge you to take the high road and do your best to resist trolling this site. Ff we don’t give it any traffic nobody will (seriously, we’re the only people who visit anti-gun websites and we do is just to laugh).

Either way the lack of factual evidence to back up their claims has lead to the anti-gunners to rely entirely on emotional manipulation. This new initiative by the Brady Bunch is a sickening demonstration of their selectiveness in opposing violence. They don’t care about violent crime, only gun crime.

Days of our Trailers has the skinny on the Brady Campaign being handed their asses. Brady Campaign president Dennis Henigan was challenged to a debate by Joe Walsh, a representative in Illinois. Instead of gracefully accepting the challenge Dennis decided it would be better if he made stupid demands like holding the Debate in Washington DC. Mr. Walsh returned with this skillfully crafted retort [PDF]:

Your desire to hold the debate in Washington D.C. is a perfect example of the fundamental problem with Washington D.C.

Washington politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists, are too obsessed with each other, the Washington insiders. In your November 23^rd press release, you yourself emphasized how critical it is that “[my] colleagues in House and Senate, and their staffs, as well as the national press corps” attend our debate.

Who cares?

The last time I checked I represent the folks of Illinois 8^th Congressional District, not Congressional staff, Washington lobbyists, or the national press corps. I was sent here to Washington to fight for me constituents and their rights and interests. Why would I care what Washington insiders have to say?

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned speculates Henigan’s desire to hold the debate in Washington could be due to the lack of Brady Campaign money to send their president to Illinois. I like this theory if for not other reason than the Brady Campaign being broke demonstrates the sheer advancement of gun rights in this country since the early ’90′s.

On the other hand I think the response by Mr. Walsh is also likely the truth. Henigan wants his buddies in Congress there so they can be impressed by his ability to shit all over American rights. Remember most of of “representatives” don’t think of us as constituents but as peasants needing to be controlled. They love Henigan’s message because a disarmed populace is much easier to control than one armed to the teeth. It would be difficult for a congressman to convince an average person that they need to have their rights stripped for “the greater good.” On the other hand it’s trivially easy to convince fellow tyrant wannabes that the peasants need to be disarmed and Henigan gives these tyrants the talking points they need when debating these issues at the Capitol.

We must remember that members of Congress do not need to convince you and me that stricter controls must be placed on firearm ownership, they need to convince each other. Those men and women wearing suits and calling themselves representatives are the only voices that matter when it comes to voting on legislation. Our so-called “representatives” know a majority of the United States doesn’t care what happens in Washington so long as the “representatives” can give a handful of talking points explaining why they “had” to vote the way they did.

Henigan knows his place, to be the expresser of talking points for the tyrants in Washington. The last thing anybody from the Brady Campaign wants to deal with is a debate held somewhere accessible by the general public because that requires explaining to the public why they’re too stupid to manage their own lives.

Who’s a sad panda? As pointed out by No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money Michael Bloomberg is a sad panda after H.R. 822 managed to make it through the House successfully. He chose to have his shit fit in the form of a written statement:

“A majority of the House ignored the advice of police, prosecutors, domestic violence experts, faith leaders and more than 600 mayors who made clear that this measure will put police and communities at greater risk. Many members also cast aside their usual respect for the authority of states to decide how to protect public safety in their communities.

Emphasis mine. What authority? I never gave any state authority over my ability to defend myself. In fact the Constitution, which I’m often told forms the foundation of our government, explicitly states I have a righ to to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed. So tell me Mayor Bloomberg, what authority are you talking about? Please tell me soon so that I can choose to refuse to recognize it.

While I still maintain some reservations regarding this legislation due to its potential to expand federal authority over individuals’ right to defend themselves, seeing this legislation pass will fill me with joy for no other reason than it will cause Bloomberg to cry and Mayors Against All Illegal Guns to fade further into irrelevancy. Honestly though we shouldn’t need legislation to carry a firearm on our person wherever we choose so long as doing so doesn’t violate the property rights of another (and the state can’t own property so they can’t claim we’re violating their property rights when traveling on “their” land).

Everywhere there are rights being restored, every place people are regaining their ability to properly defend themselves, there will be anti-gunners there to vomit out a stream of prophecy that has never come to fruition. Days of our Trailers points out another Joyce Foundation funded hysterical article written about Wisconsin’s new right-to-carry law:

No one knows exactly how many people will apply for permits, but it seems likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Imagine that — hundreds of thousands of people carrying concealed weapons. Is that supposed to make us feel safer?

Considering every state that has passed right-to-carry laws has seen no notable increase in violent crime and some have even seen a decrease, yeah I think it is supposed to make you feel safer. I can also easily imagine what a state with hundreds of thousands of people walking around carrying guns will be like; it’ll probably be just like my state where tens of thousands of people walk around carry guns. That is to say it’ll be just fine.

While concealed is radical change in Wisconsin, passage of the law was disappointing to many gun zealots, including Wisconsin Gun Owners and the sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Pam Galloway.

Their extreme agenda calls for so-called “constitutional carry,” on the theory that the Constitution gives people the right to carry guns any time, any place, with no permits, background checks, or training required.

It’s not really a theory, the second amendment is pretty clear and if you ever spent time reading up on its history you’d know that. Of course you won’t spend time reading up on the history of the second amendment and thus will simply scream about it being related solely to well organized militias even if the Supreme Court itself disagrees with you (and they’re not exactly a bastion of freedom and rights).

Once the new law has been on the books for awhile, you can bet there will be attempts to amend it and eliminate the permit and training requirements.

Yes and if the permit and training requirements are eliminated Wisconsin will notice the same problems as other states that have no permit or training requirements… which is to say those states haven’t noticed any problems at all. Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming all have so-called constitutional carry laws and none of them have had any problems so far. Feel free to come back when any of these states start having problems due to their “loose” carry laws.

Will Wisconsin legislators be strong enough to resist the gun lobby, and the National Rifle Association over the long haul?

What he really meant to ask is if the Wisconsin legislators will be strong enough to resiste the people. Oh, wait he has a survey [PDF] that proves the people are against constitutional carry. Wait a minute this survey was done by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE), another Joyce Foundation shill. I could no more trust this survey to accurately portray Wisconsin’s overall opinion on constitutional carry than anti-gunners could trust a survey funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

See the survey was performed by Third Eye Strategies whose website states the following:

A national public opinion research organization, Third Eye Strategies provides strategic guidance to elect Democratic candidates and to help nonprofit organizations advance progressive policies through Congress, state legislatures, and ballot initiative campaigns.

Surveys are interesting tools as they can be crafted to get predetermined results. For example I could take a survey with completely neutral worded questions and get desired results by manipulating my sample. For example if I wanted a survey to reflect an overall displeasure with governor Scott Walker I would poll people walking around the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. On the other hand if I wanted my survey to reflect an overall approval of Scott Walker I would likely perform the survey at a tea party rally. Seriously how can you trust an organization to be neutral when they have the following statement on their values page:

And most importantly, working for the election of Democratic candidates to local, state, and federal offices.

Getting Democratic candidates elected is their most important value, not providing correct data free of manipulation. Just stop to think about that and realize that anti-gun beliefs are much stronger with the progressive movement. Basically I’m saying that the survey linked in the main article is meaningless. Speaking of the main article lets continue with it:

In the current session, a so-called Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced with 25 Assembly sponsors and 15 Senators on board (although one of those Senators, Randy Hopper, is no longer with us, having lost a recall election last month.) Some call it a Shoot-to-Kill or Shoot First (ask questions later) bill, since it virtually gives a license to homeowners to kill anyone who breaks into their premises and who appears to be threatening them — even if that person is unarmed.

I’m at a total loss as to what is wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to a homeowner in a case where they took defensive measure against somebody broke into their home. The bill doesn’t grant immunity for murder, it simply states that somebody breaking into your home can be considered a clear and present danger. After all if an unknown person has bypassed my locked door and is moving about inside my home what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? It’s pretty obvious that person isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.

We are getting closer and closer to the Six-Gun Law of the old West, where your friends did tote a gun.

Considering that the old West wasn’t all that violent [PDF] I’m not seeing a problem with this.

Once again an anti-gunner uses hysteria and hyperbole in a vain attempt to promote a failed ideology. Instead of advocating for the disarmament of law abiding people perhaps you guys would be more productive if you advocating for disarmament violent individuals. After all my gun isn’t a problem for anybody except those meaning to cause me or mine harm.

One of the major advantages the pro-gun movement has is the fact bloggers are willing to get the message out for free. I’m starting to think we’re just suckers because both all of the anti-gun bloggers get paid by the Joyce Foundation as pointed out by Days of our Trailers:

In June, I noted that the Joyce Foundation pumped $425 large to the ‘New Venture Fund‘ to support messaging research on gun violence and gun policy and support the development and launch of a new online organization.

Media Matters (a $400K recipient itself) has now launched a new website.

Guess what? Now the shills have a new disclaimer on their websites:

This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters’ mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism; the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

Aw look at that, now they can create a giant circle jerk amongst themselves. I’d call it the Fellowship of Fail but I’m not a nice person.

On a side note it appears as though I’ve found my direct opposition, behold and anti-gun Minnesota blogger. Yes I’m actually linking to the site because it amuses me to find such ignorance openly on display in my neck of the woods. It’s written by a Brady Bunch board member, Joan Peterson whose average post length surpasses my own. Unfortunately for her I post far more frequently and have far higher quality posts so in the end she loses the non-existent blog competition. I look forward to using a blog run by a fellow Minnesotan for post fodder.

Uncle sent out notice that the Brady Campaign is looking for a new CEO. My application was rejected because it seems the Brady Campaign has no interest in a libertarian gun nut who specialized in making fun of anti-gun individuals and their constant parroting of lies. Still I found some rather humorous points in the requirements page:

The Brady Campaign has embraced building this grassroots strength as one of its most important priorities for the years ahead.

If the Brady Campaign has made establishing a grassroots movement against gun rights a priority I’d had to see how badly they’re failing at things they’re not concentrating on. You know what else is funny? This:

The organization is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with a staff of 25. There are 5 regional staff members in other parts of the country and the two entities have a combined annual budget of $5.3 million.

So the entire Brady Campaign headquarters staff is only 1/3 the size of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) board of directors:

The NRA organization is governed by a large (typically 76 member) board of directors.

That made me giggle. What other hilarious gems lie within the job description? How about this:

The CEO will be a proven, results-oriented manager of people, teams, and organizations. S/He will provide the Brady Campaign with strategic leadership and bear ultimate responsibility for the organization’s programs, operations, and staff. The CEO will oversee effective program delivery and the executive team in its day-to-day management of the organization. S/he will be expected to create and execute a comprehensive strategy that utilizes a wide range of voices to deliver the organization’s messages.

So basically the new CEO will have to be accomplish the exact opposite of their last CEO. Good luck on that one guys. Though it’s good to see that the Brady Campaign understands the most important skill their next CEO will need:

While no one person will possess all of the qualities enumerated below, the ideal candidate will possess many of the following professional and personal characteristics:

[...]

A sense of humor.

Their new CEO will need that once S/He realizes the entire organization is one giant joke.

Part of the reason the battle for gun owner rights is so easy to fight these days is because our opposition’s lies are so easy to point out. Miguel over at Gun Free Zone caught the Violence Policy Center lying yet again.

Namely they claimed Louisiana has the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the United States when in fact Washington D.C. (you know that federal district with extremely tyrannical gun control laws) does.

Dennis Henigan, the President of the Brady Campaign, has another article up on the Huffington Post, and as usual it’s full of fear mongering and blatant lies. It’s almost comical to read through his pieces because they make a lot of claims but never have citations to back those claims. In the scientific community making claims that aren’t backed by evidence gets you laughed at and usually ostracized by your fellows until evidence is brought forth. I think it’s time that we started treating the gun debate like a scientific inquiry where all claims must be backed by evidence. Those of us on the side of gun ownership have been doing this for years so we can kick back for a while and relax, but those crazies in the anti-gun community need to pony up.

For some fun I’m going to go through some of the article’s claims because it entertains me:

Remember two summers ago when most Americans were appalled by the sight of guns openly carried by protesters at presidential speaking events and town hall forums on the health care issue?

Remember two summers ago when the anti-gun media tried to make the entire situation look like racial tension, even going so far as to fabricate evidence? If your side was willing to make shit up in order to push their agenda then you can bet your sweet ass that I’m going to demand evidence that demonstrates “most Americans” were appalled by the sight of guns being openly carried at those events.

When it comes to carrying concealed weapons, Perry certainly walks the walk. He has a concealed carry permit and proudly says that he carries a gun when he is out jogging.

I know you’re trying to make a case against Perry (which is really fucking easy by the way, I can’t believe you’ve fucked it up) but you have to realize that pro-gun people who are politically active far outnumber anti-gun people who are politically active. Thus this statement is going to cause more harm to your movement than good as it will improve the status of Perry in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun people. Usually if something works against your movement you simply ignore it and never bring it up.

He didn’t respond by saying the question is ridiculous. He didn’t say that in the close quarters of a rope line, with a multitude of people pulling and tugging at him, a gun could easily drop to the ground or be taken from him.

That’s why police standing in front of protest lines have their guns taken from them all the time… wait never mind, that doesn’t happen. Henigan this claim is idiotic, provide some proof of this happening or shut the Hell up.

He didn’t say that an armed candidate would be a nightmare for the Secret Service.

It must be quite the nightmare being the Secret Service actually taught Obama how to shoot.

Rick Perry apparently doesn’t think the question is ridiculous. In fact, his sarcasm suggests he has no objection to political candidates carrying guns to campaign events; he seems to imply that he may do so himself. One thing is clear. The governor has been so thoroughly marinated in pro-gun ideology that he is unashamed about taking it to its logical extreme.

There you ago again, making Perry sound favorable in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun population. I guess you’ve has been swimming in cognitive dissonance so long that you believe politically active anti-gunners outnumber politically active pro-gunners.

I wonder if this thought ever occurred to Rick Perry: If a would-be presidential assailant is undeterred by Secret Service agents with Uzis, why would he be deterred by a presidential candidate packing heat?

Objection, relevance? A potential assailant isn’t going to deterred by knowing that Perry isn’t carrying a gun so this entire statement is completely meaningless.

Yes, it is a good thing that senators can’t carry guns onto the Senate floor because the presence of guns, even carried by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, increases the risk that arguments and conflicts will escalate to lethal violence.

Let it be known that I’m declaring bullshit, either provide evidence of this happening or shut the Hell up. I’m not aware of a single case of an argument between one or more people legally carrying a firearm that escalated into a shoot out. You keep making this claim Henigan but so far have yet to provide any evidence.

It is the same reason that our national parks are less safe because (due to legislation sponsored by Senator Coburn himself) concealed carry of weapons is now permitted within their borders.

Once again evidence is needed, or as Wikipedia would say, “[citation needed].”

It is the reason that our streets, restaurants and coffee houses are less safe in states that have made concealed carry easier.

Again, you need to provide some evidence. This blog, as well as many other gun blogs, contain tons of evidence that demonstrates that violent crime has been dropping even though carry laws have continued to be liberalized (using the classical definition of the word).

It is the reason that college campuses remain far safer than the gun-saturated communities that surround them, because the gun lobby has been foiled in its efforts to force colleges and universities to allow concealed carry

You can’t compare apples to oranges. A proper statement would be, “It is the reason that college campuses that continue to ban students and faculty from legally carrying on site have a lower rate of gun-related crime than campuses that allow students and faculty to legally carry on site.” Of course that statement would also be false but at least it would be a comparison of like things.

They may well be the way things are in an American nightmare where, in political discourse, the guns speak louder than the rhetoric.

That’s why so many political debates between people carrying firearms turn into shoot outs… never mind, once again that’s not the case which makes Henigan’s statements irrelevant.

This is why anti-gunners aren’t taken seriously anymore, every statement they make has been proven wrong. A year ago Virginia passed a law that allowed those carrying firearms to do so in restaurants serving alcohol. As usual the anti-gunners decried the passage of this law as some kind of harbinger of death that would unleash gunfire into every restaurant in the state. So what was the net effect after a year of this law being on the books? Not surprisingly crime in restaurants has dropped:

Virginia’s bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request.

Any logical person would admit their error after being proven wrong as many times as anti-gunners have. Sadly anti-gunners aren’t logical people which leads them to continue claiming that the sky is falling even though all evidence has proven otherwise.

A tip of the old hat goes to Uncle for this story.