The New York Times really hates ccw

Say what you will about Lott, but he really points out the obvious in this article:

Guns and the New York Times: Why shouldn’t Americans be able to defend themselves?

So how law-abiding are police?  With about 570,000 full-time police officers in the US at that time, that translates into about 124 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers.  For the US population as a whole over those years, the crime rate was 31 times higher — 3,813 per hundred thousand people.

Perhaps police crimes are underreported due to leniency from fellow officers, but the gap between police and the general citizenry is so vast that this couldn’t account for more than a small fraction of the difference.

Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding.  Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police.

Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 6.9 per 100,000 officers. For permit holders in Florida, it is only 0.31 per 100,000. Most of these violations were for trivial offenses, such as forgetting to carry one’s permit.  The data are similar in other states.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/24/guns-and-new-york-times-why-shouldnt-americans-be-able-to-defend-themselves/

Shannon Watts is not an anti gun activist, she’s a propagandist.

Pro click article right here: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/moms-demand-actions-shannon-watts-is-a-propagandist-not-an-activist/

Tony Katz lays it out succinctly: Shannon Watts isn’t about activism, she’s a propagandist who doesn’t want discussion. She wants to dictate terms.

The pushback against Campus Carry is much ado about nothing.

Campus Carry is making the news, especially after the remarks of one Nevada Lawmaker who suggested that women shooting rapists would have a deterrence effect:

The sponsor of a bill in Nevada, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (source)

Naturally the first reaction to this is a bunch of handwringing nonsense, strawman arguments and panic.

Opponents contend that university campuses should remain havens from the gun-related risks that exist elsewhere, and that college students, with high rates of binge drinking and other recklessness, would be particularly prone to gun accidents.

First and foremost, campuses certainly aren’t havens from gun-related risks that exist elsewhere – Virginia Tech & other school shootings are ample proof of that.

Second, the ‘drinking’ argument is completely incorrect for one simple reason: most states require that a CCW applicant has to be over the age of 21.  This is going to eliminate 90%+ of the student population immediately.  Instead, this bill is going to allow people to effectively defend themselves against attackers when they commute in from their homes or off campus apartments.   There’s no shortage of crimes that occur on campuses, such as:

These are just the first few results from Google.  But even more than that, we already know that “no guns” policies have created victims, because we know about Amanda Collins.  You may remember her name if you followed the Colorado firearms testimony during the last election season – Democrat Senator Evie Hudak made this callous remark to her after her testimony:

I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you na possibly use it against you …

It seems that when it comes to the issue of self defense, progressives are not pro-choice at all.

Naturally the media response to this issue has been almost uniformly negative.  The Houston Chronicle opines that

Allowing concealed handgun license holders to tote pistols on college campuses could cost tens of millions of dollars, a burden that could be ultimately passed on to students or siphoned away from education and research programs at Texas universities. (source)

Riiiiiiiiiiight.  Or it could cost nothing at all and just allow the same level of day to day activities that normal CCW use does.

The LA Times wrote:

What’s the dumbest idea of the season? Backed by the National Rifle Assn., state legislators across the country have been pushing laws to let students carry concealed weapons on college campuses.

What’s the lame excuse? Gun-toting young women would be armed to defend themselves in the event of sexual assaults.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this. These are the same crackpots who argued in favor of more guns on campuses after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. And who held out the 2012 massacre of 26 students and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School as an argument in favor of arming teachers. Of course they’re cynically twisting the latest painful, high-profile issue into an argument for more guns. (source)

Wow.  I must have imagined the media outcry for more gun control after each and every possible opportunity.

As usual, this issue highlights the hypocrisy of the antigun movement.

Politi”fact” got it wrong when rating NRA claims as false.

Back in 2013, Politifact published this article “debunking” a NRA fundraising flyer, and honed in on the “ban ammunition” talking point in particular:

Here we’ll examine what the NRA listed as reason No. 2 — “Obama supported Ted Kennedy’s ammo ban to outlaw all deer-hunting ammunition.”

It’s an oldie, but a goodie. The NRA used the same general attack against John Kerry in 2004 and against Obama in 2008.

The attack against Obama is rooted in a vote he took while serving in the U.S. Senate. It has to do with what the federal government considers armor-piercing ammunition (not, as the statement says, ammo for deer hunting).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/13/national-rifle-association/barack-obama-supports-plan-ban-deer-hunting-ammuni/

Hm.  Considering the recent ATF proposal to ban M855 ammunition following on 2014’s ban on 7n6 ammunition and previous bans on steel core 7.62×39 back in 1994 (granted that’s prior to President Obama’s election), it sure looks like the NRA was right.

NRA’s comments on the upcoming ATF action:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo

Banning M855 is nothing more than this administration trying to restrict the #1 sporting rifle in America by cutting off the most available ammunition for it.

Kleck responds to “Armed with Reason” hitpiece: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

II’d previously written about Slate’s hitpiece “The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun” and how it was riddled with problems, but Gary Kleck himself has penned a great smackdown in response to their drivel over on Politico:

It’s deja vu all over again. In a recent Politico Magazine article, Evan DeFillipis and Devin Hughes resuscitate criticisms of a survey on defensive gun use that I conducted with my colleague Marc Gertz way back in 1993—the National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS). The authors repeat, item for item, speculative criticisms floated by a man named David Hemenway in 1997 and repeated endlessly since. The conclusion these critics drew is that our survey grossly overestimated the frequency of defensive gun use (DGU), a situation in which a crime victim uses a gun to threaten or attack the offender in self-defense. But what DeFillipis and Hughes carefully withheld from readers is the fact that I and my colleague have refuted every one of Hemenway’s dubious claims, and those by other critics of the NSDS, first in 1997, and again, even more extensively, in 1998 and 2001. Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

Right out of the gate Kleck lets us know that this sort of thing is not only not new but is a decades old tactic of the antigun congregation.  Ad nauseam repetition from the priest (Hemenway), repeated by the acolytes (Hughes & DeFillipis) & sung by the choir, hoping that if the lies are chanted often enough, people will believe them.
Except…
If DeFillipis and Hughes could refute any of our rebuttals, that would be news worth attending to. They do not, however, identify any problems with our refutations, such as errors in our logic, or superior evidence that contradicts any of our rebuttals. Instead, they just pretend they are not aware of the rebuttals, even though our first systematic dismantling of Hemenway’s speculations was published in the exact same issue of the journal that published Hemenway’s 1997 critique, on the pages immediately following the Hemenway article.
Ouch!  Kleck then goes on to outline how DGUs are, if anything, underreported:
So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior. Yet DeFillipis and Hughes somehow manage to conclude that defensive gun uses—incidents that always involve the first two of those elements, and usually the third as well—are overestimated in surveys.
Naturally this will be ignored and brushed aside by the antigun congregation.

Bill to remove firearms exemptions from Consumer Products Standards

You can bet that when someone mentions “Safety” in the same breath as “Firearms” that this is a backdoor method to make widespread changes to law.

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to remove the exclusion of

pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from the definition of consumer
product in order to permit the issuance of safety standards for such
articles by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Firearm Safety Act of 2015”.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF EXCLUSION OF FIREARMS FROM THE DEFINITION OF
CONSUMER PRODUCT.

Section 3(a)(5) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2052(a)(5)) is amended by striking subparagraph (E) and redesignating
subparagraphs (F) through (I) as subparagraphs (E) through (H),
respectively.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/225/text

Well heck, let’s not be paranoid about this, how bad could it be? It sounds innocent enough, right?

Wrong.

To start with, this bill was introduced by Robin Kelly, Democratic rep from Illinois.  Kelly is responsible for this gun control wishlist: http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/robinkelly.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/KellyReport_1.pdf

Page 63 has the detailed breakdown of what they’d like to see passed, including:

TOP PRIORITIES FOR THE 113TH CONGRESS
The following federal gun bills have garnered tremendous support from gun reform and community safety advocates and represents opportunities for Congress to pass common sense gun reforms this year.

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY REGULATIONS

  •  Establish Universal Background Checks (H.R. 1565—Rep. Peter King).
  •  Reauthorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (H.R. 437— Rep. Carolyn McCarthy).
  • Require Ammunition Sellers to Obtain a License (H.R. 142— Rep. Carolyn McCarthy).
  •  Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer Products (H.R. 2464—Rep. Robin Kelly). The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer product”— thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles,
    car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.”
  • Help the ATF Track Straw Purchase Data (H.R. 661—Rep.Barbara Lee).

PUBLIC HEALTH REGULATIONS

  •  Expand the Federal Definition of “Intimate Partner” (H.R. 1177—Rep. Lois Capps).
  •  Keep Guns From High Risk Individuals (H.R. 2648—Rep. Robin Kelly).
  •  Examine Gun Violence as a Matter of Public Heath (H.R. 2465—Rep. Robin Kelly).
  •  Promote the Tracing of Firearms Used in Criminal Activity (S. 1337—Sen. Richard Durbin).
  •  Waive Gun Manufacturer Liability Exemption (H.R. 332— Rep. Adam Schiff).

TOP PRIORITIES FOR STATES

  •  Repeal Stand Your Ground Laws.
  • Develop a Firearm Restraining Order Petition Process.
  • Expand Domestic Violence Statutes to Include Stalking and other Dangerous Activity.
  •  Require Court or Medical Professional Pre-Clearance for Gun Reinstatement for Individuals Hospitalized for Mental
    Health Purposes.
  • Require Physicians to Ask Child-Wellness Questions to Promote
  • Home Safety. Just as pediatricians advise parents on safety measures such as bicycle helmets, food products and home supplies, so too should doctors be able to give patients candid advice on gun ownership safety and proper storage to prevent accidents, suicides and homicides of children in the home.

NON-LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

  •  Promote the Understanding of and Attention to the Mental Health Needs of Students.
  •  Increase Academic Research on the Costs of Gun Violence.
  •  Invest in Smart Gun Technologies.
  •  Change the Social Dynamic in Urban Communities and Increase Proactive Prevention Programs in Schools.
Nothing to worry about at all, I’m sure.  Truly she’s just using common sense right? Sigh.
Kelly is also responsible for:
  • HR 378 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act
  • HR 377 – Homemade Firearms Accountability Act
  • HR 752 – To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices
  • HR 225 – Firearms Safety Act of 2015
  • HR 226 – Keeping guns from high risk individuals Act

2nd Amendment Restoration for Felons?

This article is making the rounds:

Conservatives Would Let Felons Vote and Pack Heat

Conservatives say they’ll support a liberal plan to enfranchise felons only if ex-cons can have their guns back, too.
It’s an idea so incredibly crazy it just might work: Restoring voting rights to non-violent felons—if they get back their right to own guns, too.

For some tough-on-crime conservatives, the right to bear firearms is a right that is as fundamental as the right to vote. Capitalizing on this sentiment, the strategy goes, could lead to a larger compromise on felons’ rights.

“If someone asked me if I would rather vote for mayor or have a gun, I’d rather have a gun,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and asignatory to the conservative Right on Crime criminal justice reform coalition.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/08/let-felons-vote-conservatives-shocking-gun-compromise.html

I’m of a split opinion on this subject: Quite frankly, if someone has paid their debt to society, there’s no reason they shouldn’t have all of their civil rights restored.  If someone is so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to possess a deadly weapon, why are the on the streets at all?

At the same time though, there’s quite a difference between someone going to jail for tax evasion, and someone who served 30 years for knocking over a bank.   Non-violent gaining restoration of their civil rights is such a no brainer that we shouldn’t even have a discussion on the topic – there’s far too many crimes classified as felonies to begin with, and if someone isn’t a danger to the public, there’s no reason to prevent them from being able to legally defend themselves.

This is a topic that requires quite a bit of nuance and doesn’t allow for a “one size fits all” approach.  The Gun Control Act of 1968 codified the prohibitions against felons being allowed to purchase or possess arms.  This chips away at one of the central provisions of the act.