Rape Survivor testifies at Maryland Legislator for Concealed Carry

Maryland is going through CCW law hearings right now and the following is testimony from a resident who lends a personal face to what is otherwise just statistics:

Kudos to the Daily Mail for actually being impartial in presenting this in their story: This incredibly difficult moment a rape survivor stood up in Maryland state Senate hearing to demand the right to carry a concealed weapon 

A brave rape survivor took the podium at a Maryland state Senate meeting this week and told the frightening tale about being stalked by a man she never met.

Jacqueline Kahn was speaking in support of a measure that would allow residents in Maryland to carry concealed weapons for self-defense.

The state is currently one of just a handful in the nation that doesn’t allow residents to carry firearms on the basis of protection alone.

‘I need you to know this is so incredibly difficult for me, but I feel like if I don’t humanize this, if I don’t make it clear how this legislation actually affects your daughters, your mothers, the women of this state, then it’s all just a bunch of numbers,’ Kahn told lawmakers.

In her presentation, Kahn told the Senators about how a man was once arrested in her back yard with duct tape and a knife.

‘I wish I could tell you that’s the only time I’ve been stalked, or that’s the only man who has stalked anyone in the state of Maryland. But there’s a huge number of women, who like me have been raped, who like me have been sexually assaulted — and we want the right to be able to do what we would be allowed to do throughout the majority of the rest of the United States,’ she said. Kahn didn’t speak about the details of her rape.

Advertisements

Former Commander of the Maryland State Police Gun Licensing Division on Gun Owners, Concealed Carry and misconceptions about them.

Maryland is one of the most hostile states to firearms owners.  In this video, Jack McCauley (the former commander of Maryland’s Gun Licensing Division) explains why he was wrong about gun owners & his preconceptions about them.

His credentials:

  • Commander of the Maryland State Police Licensing Division, 24 year veteran of the MSP
  • Member of the Maryland State Police Homicide Unit
  • Ran the Maryland State Police Gang Unit (statewide responsibility)
  • Ran the Firearms Enforcement Unit (tracking down violent criminals involved in gun crime working with ATF)

Maryland had a requirement that concealed carry permit applicants provide a “good and substantial reason” for wanting one.  They were sued, and lost, in the case Woollard vs Gallagher and was the first case against “may issue” CCW permitting laws.

He talks about the stats about the number of permits revoked and mentions how CCW permit holders get in trouble less than police officers, something that he refused to believe until he’d done the research himself.

The most interesting part of the video, however, is where he discusses the “good and substantial reason” decision making process for obtaining a permit in Maryland.  He mentioned police officers arguing in the breakroom over decisions and the lack of set standards for what was and was not considered a proper reason.  Amusingly enough, McCauley related an anecdote about asking one of the police officers whether he’d attend a baseball game in Baltimore without a concealed weapon, to which the trooper replied no due to the high crime rate. The same trooper wouldn’t issue permits to the average citizen.

In closing, McCauley states:

The arbitrary administration of this process, it’s horrible.  It’s an absolute nightmare. And it needs to have something done about it.  Self defense is very simple. […] What I believe in Maryland is, that, the way that we fight gun crime is out of focus.  Completely. There are so many different scenarios and ideas and concepts for fighting gun crime.  I’m willing to share them; I need someone to listen to them.  We need a committee on that.  But let me say this: These guys? [Pointing to audience] Who I once feared the same as you? Carrying handgun permits isn’t it.  Statistics show that. They do. They’re not a danger. They’re vetted, a background check was done, they are required to qualify.  This is not a danger or a threat to our society”

When doing background for this post, it turns out that McCauley played a part previously in Maryland gun control; specifically during questioning about proposed the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (SB 281), when the O’Malley administration ordered him not to answer questions about the proposed law and how it would have no effect on reducing crime.  You can read his affadavit here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/226033546/McCauley-Exhibit-50

A Redditor knocks it out of the park with regards to Australian Gun Politics

Ban advocates always use misleading statistics leaving out violent crime, battery, and murder and focusing only on gun crime even though when you remove guns statistically the violence simply transfers to stabbings and beatings.

Having lived in Oz and America I have to point out that the aussie government makes these statements omg no guns yay constantly but when I looked for their statistical analysis Australia’s own government admits in their studies that gun control did not make a difference to violent crime:

Gun control does not slow the homicide rate:
stats:http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf A particularly showing piece of data is the homicide rates. 1996 had 354 homicides, 1997 had 364 homicides, 1998 had 334 homicides, 1999 had 385 homicides, 2000 had 362 homicides. I should point out that the legislation and ‘buy back’ happened in 97, and there was a 7% drop in homicides with firearms, outside of the average 2-4% decreasing trend. That 7% out of trend drop was immediately replaced and exceeded by an >8% increase in homicide with various other weapons. If anything, our legislation has stated quite clearly that without treating the cause of the issues, banning weapons is completely irrelevant and people will just kill with something else. Why Howard and his supporters feel this legislation that statistically and objectively accomplished literally nothing is worth flaunting, i have no idea.”

There are scientific university sources for my argument. Here’s a Harvard study source for my argument: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

Even the latest data shows increase in violence: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html they often Twist statistics in order to say if it didn’t kill it doesn’t count which is disingenuous. Classifying violence in order to reach performance targets is really reaching for strings. Whereever you look for stats you will see violence is on the rise in australia: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/new-police-statistics-show-rising-violence-but-less-crime/story-e6frf7kx-1225759461492 “Armed robbery increased by 10 per cent and, although the most common weapon was a knife, Mr Lay said the 44 per cent increase in firearm use was alarming.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/frightening-rise-in-domestic-violence/story-e6frgczx-1226125910364

Australia has gone on to ban pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons, bb guns, knives of any type from being carried at any time, any type of self defense tool you could imagine is illegal or requires a permit that is practically impossible to obtain. Even if you decide to defend yourself with your bare hands you will be convicted if they can prove you used anything other than “equal force”.

Yes the first thing I think about when some lunatic violent criminal invades my home and threatens the life of my children is if I used equal force or not. As a veteran if you want to threaten me with bodily harm I’m going to do what I was trained to do and to think that anyone else that has their life threatened shouldn’t be able to defend themselves is frankly childishly immature. If you criminalize self defense then only criminals will have the upper hand.

For historical examples of how gun registration leads to confiscation which leads to genocide you need to have a look at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership “The Genocide Chart”: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

They should know something about that.

Over and over again American Colonists insisted that Native Americans turn over their guns as a show of good will or because they were given a written agreement to be protected and over and over again those that now had the upper hand and control turned around and slaughtered the natives.

My argument is simply not about if access to guns allows people to kill or not to kill. That is irrelevant. People will kill with a knife, with a glass, with their bare hands, by starting fires, even forest fires, some of the worst forest fires in australian history were started on purpose. People are inherently violent. Violence is a language and the zero tolerance for use of the language of violence is incredibly insipid. The complete ban of communication between people with violence means only those that are criminals will be able to be heard and everyone else is a victim. I’d rather speak the language and prevent myself from becoming a victim rather than wait for the police to figure out who to charge and who’s mother to call and give the bad news. Banning the language of violence means that only those that want to have control over or exploit others will know how to speak the language. If everyone else is afraid, unskilled, and knows they are to be punished if they use this language older then words then we have a weak populace that can be more easily exploited.

As for mass killings in australia, they always say, the gunban got rid of ANY mass killings. This is also NOT TRUE you might have heard of these australian mass killings: Childers Palace Fire – In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people. Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. Churchill Fire – 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6] Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire – 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.[7]

Sure, violence is on the rise, but crime is on the fall. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/new-police-statistics-show-rising-violence-but-less-crime/story-e6frf7kx-1225759461492

32-50% of violent crime follows alcohol use. Maybe we should ban alcohol before we ban guns? http://www.nllea.org/documents/Alcohol_and_Crime.pdf

To review crime is down yet stabbings, rape, and domestic violence is up but not classified a crime because only the robbery and killing is a crime, so don’t worry: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html

FBI statistics show that crime is dropping in the big bad USA evil deathmachine: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582004-crime-plunging-rich-world-keep-it-down-governments-should-focus-prevention-not

Over a thirty-year time frame, an average of about 20 mass murders have occurred annually in the United States: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/simple-facts-mass-shootings-arent-simple-72055/

This fall in crime only exists because they don’t consider white collar crime such as laundering Mexican drug cartel money and fast and furiously giving cartels guns to be crimes. Own a bank and go absolutely crazy giving out loans and selling titles willy nilly till balance sheets are in a red chaos then hold the american economy hostage for bailouts. Not a crime. Bypass laws and forge titles to forclose faster? not a crime. Libor scandle. Not a crime. Maybe crime is down, but science proves corruption is at its all time high: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#.UvzvW_mSwVl

I wonder if the corrupt benefit from disarming the populace?

Gun myths: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Reason gets it right again: How to Count the Defensive Uses of Guns

Reason’s always been pro-gun and a source for rational discourse when it comes to debunking the various flawed arguments gun control proponents come up with.  They have a new article out addressing the many issues with the antigun tactic of “driving the numbers down” for Defensive Gun Uses:

Stringent gun control advocates are fond of underestimating the possible importance of owning a gun. For example, a pair of anti-gun activists took to Politico in January to claim that the gun rights community is deluded about the likely number of defensive uses of guns by American citizens. Such defensive uses are known as DGUs (“defensive gun uses”) in the lingo.

Many in the gun rights community believe that a privately owned gun is used in legitimate self-defense over 2 million times a year in America. This figure arose initially from the survey work done in 1993 by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

The entire article is a must read and goes into detail about common errors and misconceptions.

Antigun propaganda of the day: Brave New Film’s “The NRA vs Pediatricians • The REAL NRA • Part 1 • BRAVE NEW FILMS”

Brave New Films, a left wing video production group that regularly posts “documentaries” on YouTube, posted the following video today about how the NRA is a bunch of mean meanies trying to harm medicine:

The problem is that it’s extremely misleading. The “Docs vs Glocks” law came about after numerous doctors were reported asking political questions in their practices, including one doctor refusing to continue treating the patient if they refused to answer questions about firearms in the home. Doctors don’t have the right to discriminate against their patients due to their political beliefs. Some patients were told it was a Medicaid requirement to inform the doctors about gun ownership, others had parents separated from their kids so the physician could ask without the parents consent or knowledge. It’s the height of hypocrisy for them to complain about being gagged from pushing politics when they refuse to provide basic checkups for a patient simply because they don’t want to be given a lecture about how guns are evil.

Could you imagine the outcry if a physician refused treatment because they refused to answer when asked if the parents were gay, or muslim, or handed out pamphlets about the dangers of kids being in single parent homes?

Accidental firearms deaths total under 600 per year across all age ranges. Accidental firearms fatalities for children under 14 number less than 150 yearly. This is per the CDC WISQARS statistics. Meanwhile, medical malpractice kills anywhere between 180,000 – 440,000 people EVERY YEAR.

The Brady campaign filed suit against this law and won an injunction; that injunction was vacated upon appeal.  The text of the Federal judges decision can be read here: http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214009.pdf

The majority judges’ opinion:

The Act seeks to protect patients’ privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiry and record-keeping by physicians regarding firearms. The Act recognizes that when a patient enters a physician’s examination room, the patient is in a position of relative powerlessness. The patient must place his or her trust in the physician’s guidance, and submit to the physician’s authority. In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear. In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct—which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy—the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.

As such, we find that the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional conduct. The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care. It is uncontroversial that a state may police the boundaries of good medical practice by routinely subjecting physicians to malpractice liability or administrative discipline for all manner of activity that the state deems bad medicine, much of which necessarily involves physicians speaking to patients. Although the Act singles out a particular subset of physician activity as a trigger for discipline, this does little to alter the analysis. Any burden the Act places on physician speech is thus entirely incidental. Plaintiffs remain free—as physicians always have been—to assert their First Amendment rights as an affirmative defense in any actions brought against them. But we will not, by striking down the Act, effectively hand Plaintiffs a declaration that such a defense will be successful. Furthermore, when the Act is properly understood as a regulation of physician conduct intended to protect patient privacy and curtail abuses of the physician-patient relationship, it becomes readily apparent from the language of the Act the type of conduct the Act prohibits. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and vacate the injunction against enforcement of the Act.

This video is propaganda designed to allow antigun organizations to let antigun doctors to try to proselytize at their practice. This isn’t about free speech, it’s about anti gun special interests pushing politics in the place of medical care, and this has been upheld repeatedly on appeal. There’s a reason why the Brady campaign has been the lead on lawsuits fighting this legislation.

The AAP in particular is not “neutral” in this argument – they believe that no one should own a gun, and that standard sporting rifles should be banned. – In fact they go so far as to say “NEVER” have a gun in your home (and they capitalized the never)

Due process? LOL no – “Schumer: Close Loophole Allowing Possible Terrorists To Buy Guns In US”

For me, gun rights is the equivalent of the old time “canary in the coal mine” – if a politician doesn’t trust you to own firearms, they really aren’t going to care much about any of your other civil rights either.  Chuck Schumer & Diane Feinstein both make no bones about wanting to remove your access to firearms, and being for civil liberties destroying bills such as the USA PATRIOT Act.

Schumer seized upon the recent arrests of 3 men in New York City who attempted to join ISIS in order to push his gun control agenda:

“There is a major loophole in the federal law that would make your jaw drop,” Schumer told WCBS 880. Astoundingly, under current law, known or suspected terrorists on terrorist watch lists or no-fly lists can legally purchase weapons and explosives anywhere in the United States.

“We’re announcing a bipartisan drive to close that giant and dangerous loophole.”

Here’s the problem with this statement: “terrorist watch lists” and “no fly lists” have nearly zero accountability, are virtually opaque from oversight, and are a due process nightmare subject to all manners of abuse.  Due process is an enshrined right in the United States for a reason, and removing civil liberties without even a court appearance or trial is abhorrent.

Quite frankly, if someone is such a grave threat that you don’t want them buying guns, why are they wandering the streets at all?