Because The Law Stops it.

I generally have avoided talking about Jason Kilgore aka “Balrd Odinson” as simply not being worth the time or effort. His blog probably attracted less attention then mine did; even while I wasn’t posting ūüôā

But every now and then, Jason writes something that is so incredibly dumb that I just have to mention it.

Back on May 11, Oregon’s new background check bill (SB941) was signed by the Governor.¬† At last, every gun purchase and transfer in Oregon must require a background check, including private sales.¬†¬†

No longer will felons, the dangerously mentally-ill, wife-beaters, minors, or any other prohibited person be able to purchase a gun simply by answering an ad, meeting someone in a parking lot, and paying cash, with no background check.  The seller, too, will be held accountable, and will no longer be able to simply claim ignorance.

Yep, because a LAW was passed people will not be able to do something. Note this isn’t the people won’t be able to legally accomplish something, Jason is stating that it will not be possible ! I wish we had known that was all it took years ago, we could have made it against the law to rape, rob, murder…….oh wait……

 

This is not ignorance, this is deliberate and willful lying about what will happen. People won’t suddenly stop breaking the law. How I know that? The Obama Administration’s National Institute of Justice tells me (PDF alert)

To understand the value of background checks it is essential to understand the source of crime guns. Several sporadic attempts have been made to learn how criminals acquire guns. For example, a 2000 study by the ATF found the following distribution of sources

Source                                    Percentage
Straw purchase                    47%
Stolen                                     26%
       Store  14%
       Residence  10%
       Common carrier   2% 
Unregulated private seller  20%
Gun shows/flea markets    13%
Retail diversion 8%
             Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% since some sources fall into multiple categories (e.g. unregulated seller at a flea market)

These figures indicate informal transfers dominate the crime gun market. A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns. Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market.

Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. Let that sink for a minute. NO effect of the new background check laws; can we simply agree that Einstein’s Definition of Insanity applies here?

Please join the discussion.

 

Didn’t the NRA Stop…

….all the firearm related research?

I mean that is what the anti-rights cultists claim all the time. So exactly how does this happen?

Editor’s Note: Mary Vriniotis is a researcher at the American Institutes for Research in Washington, D.C. She has more than a decade of experience researching and writing about the prevention of firearms-related violence. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

 

How does someone have a decade of experience researching about the prevention of firearm related violence? Of course she isn’t the only one researching the issue either. Some others have been making up stuff researching the issue for decades.

Slate contacted Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. For over 30 years, he has studied firearm violence and published more than 100 studies in the field.

I was surprised to learn what the language in the restriction against the CDC actually said.

PT: Have other agencies besides the CDC also been intimidated by funding this type of research?

GW: I‚Äôll let the agencies discuss whether they‚Äôve been intimidated or simply prevented or prohibited. The statutory language, which remains in appropriations legislation for the Department of Health and Human Services to this day, is that ‚Äúnone of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.‚ÄĚ I think it‚Äôs fair to say that this language has been interpreted at times to mean that none of the funds could be used to support research that, depending on its findings, might be used in support of efforts to alter current firearm policy.

Not a prohibition against the research but against pushing for gun control. A significant distinction in the mind of liberty minded folks but I’m sure the anti-rights cultists don’t see it that way.

So Mr. or Ms. Anti-rights Cultists; how do you explain decades of firearm related research some of it funded by our government?

 

Firearm Related Homicide Rate

As usual Bill Whittle really punctures the anti-rights cultists myths about how the USA has the most firearm related homicides.

.

.

I would ask the antis if they could explain these two questions; why do other countries have such higher rates than America? And why do some cities in America have higher rates than others.

 

H/T to Greylocke

 

 

According to the Antis…

…..we should be seeing widespread bloodshed, rampant violence and multiple deaths in every city over the controversial call in Green Bay*; right?

 

.

.

What with the¬†dangers of a gun in the home or people just snapping or people being law abiding until suddenly they aren’t. Shouldn’t the playoff losses have triggered wide spread gun fire?
Surely all those homes, estimated by survey to be 38%, out of¬†132,802,859 ‘housing units‘ means (doing math .38*units….carry the one) =50,465,086.42 — let’s call it 50.5 million housing units.

Surely 1% of the people with firearms in their homes snapped, couldn’t take it any more, got into an argument and went for their guns; right?

As for “carrying,” it’s now legal in every state in America and allowed in ever more situations as well. In the last year, for instance, Idaho, where that mother died, became the seventh state to green-light the carrying of concealed guns on college campuses. To put all this in perspective, less than two decades ago, fewer than a million concealed weapons were being legally carried in the U.S.; now, more than one million people are permitted to carry such weapons in Florida alone

If, to a visitor from Mars or even (as Ann Jones points out in “Is This Country Crazy?“) Europe, all this might seem like the definition of madness, it’s also increasingly the definition of a way of life in this country. What was once the “tool” of law enforcement types, the military, and hunters is now the equivalent of an iPhone, a talisman of connection and social order. It’s something that just about anyone can put in a pocket, a purse, or simply strap on in the full light of day in a land where all of us, even toddlers, seem to be heading for the O.K. Corral.

And let’s not forget the New Year often brings a large number of divorce filings. Domestic violence is a huge problem without a doubt; so why didn’t every newspaper and media station in the country include yet another case of domestic violence escalating into a shooting.

Instead this is one of the few stories being reported on in the gun friendly Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex

One man died and two men were injured in a shootout between a Hurst homeowner and two men police suspect of armed robbery Thursday night, according to authorities.

Hurst police said a driver parked a blue Mitsubishi Mirage in a residential area in the 100 block of Charlene Drive at about 8 p.m. A homeowner grabbed his gun when he saw a man exit the vehicle and run through a field behind the neighborhood toward a nearby convenience store.

The man went into the convenience store in the 200 block of Norwood Drive, robbed the clerk and a customer at gunpoint and then left, police said.

As the man ran back through the field toward the vehicle, police said the homeowner “challenged” him. A gunfight erupted between the homeowner, man and driver and all three were shot, police said. The gunfight continued as the driver and man drove away toward Euless.

As Hurst police responded to calls about the shooting and robbery, Euless police said they responded to a gunshot victim call in the 3000 block of Sycamore Circle and found a Mitsubishi Mirage and two men with gunshot wounds later identified as the man suspected in the armed robbery and the driver.

One of the men was pronounced deceased and the other was transported to a hospital with nonlife-threatening injuries.

The homeowner was also taken to a nearby hospital with nonlife-threatening injuries.

Yep, a homeowner who paid attention to what was going on (other reports have stated his home had been robbed a couple of times) ended 1 criminal career and  suspended (given the revolving door justice system) of another.
Did other violence happen in the last couple of days; sure. But not at the levels the antis tell us we should be seeing if the antis are right. And wouldn’t the firearm related violence be higher in gun friendly Fort Worth Texas than say Chicago Illinois ?

Maybe just maybe the anti-rights cultists are over-stating the dangers of normal people owning firearms, eh. I’m trying to be charitable and not accuse them of out-right lying.

Please join the discussion. 

* – for the record in case some of my 4 readers didn’t know; I’m a Green Bay fan. Yet strangely enough despite the Cowboys’ loss, my life hasn’t been threatened, my home or car hasn’t been shot up.

Want To Go Hunting?

Saw this on FB–

.

.

What would I do? Say it “Oh Sh!*”, do it and then freeze like those guys did. Incredible encounter isn’t?
Wonder how many anti-rights cultists will look at that video and then realize how many of their myths it busts.

Total Disbelief

If you could only see my face right now; I’m sure the stunned expression has to be seen to be believed.

AUSTIN ‚Äď Sen. Wendy Davis said in a Monday interview with the Express-News that she opposes allowing the open carry of handguns and that she wishes she had a do-over on the support she expressed for the idea in her ill-fated run for governor.

“I don’t live in the world of regret,” Davis said in the exclusive interview ‚Äď her first sit-down interview since the election ‚Äď when asked whether she had any regrets about her campaign.

But she added, “There is one thing that I would do differently in that campaign, and it relates to the position that I took on open carry. I made a quick decision on that with a very short conversation with my team and it wasn’t really in keeping with what I think is the correct position on that issue.”

Gee, a far left/liberal changing her stance on Firearm Related rights after the election; I’m absolutely shocked¬†!!!

“What I do know is that as an elected public servant, I’ve always been true to my core beliefs. Always. And I’m so proud of that,” she said. “And this was the only time I felt like I’d strayed a bit from that.”

 

And if you believe that; I have a bridge for sale also.
I am so glad I can refer to this person as “Former State Senator and Failed Gubernatorial” Candidate Wendy Davis.

Message Behind The Message

In our home, we often talk about this ¬†— “the message behind the message”. Don’t just look/listen to the surface of what is being said but consider the deeper meaning, the reason why someone would be making that statement.

 

.

.

Everyone’s seen this video by not. Many people have talked about how the video encourages children to snoop, to break the law but I haven’t seen anyone mentioning a deeper, more disturbing meaning to the video.

To me, and maybe everyone instinctively gets this and doesn’t feel the need to comment, but what does it say about the family, especially the parent(s)?

Kids, don’t trust your parents but agents of the state are okay to trust to do the right thing!
I see this as a continuing effort to demonize all gun owners. Aside from them not securing the firearm (deliberate on the filmmaker’s part), what in the video would make the young man say “Can you take this away. I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.”?

Was there any signs of physical or emotional abuse? Was there signs of neglect? Drug Use? Failure to provide?

No, to any and all of them and more. The house was clean, neat, the Mom even signaled intellectual reading a book and not obviously a trashy romance novel instead of watching television.  The only thing the filmmaker could have done more to show a classic nuclear family was to have the dad arrive home from work to find dinner on the table.

Nor can the filmmaker point to the firearm itself malfunctioning as an excuse to get it out of the house. The statistics just aren’t there and he didn’t present it that way – obviously the young man felt the firearm was safe enough to transport through the school building without unloading it, without putting it in a holster. Nope the only reasonable conclusion is he fears what someone in the family will do with the firearm.

Maybe it is just my impression; what do you think?