Seth Godin – How to Get Your Ideas to Spread

Relevant to our recent conversations?

 

.

.

 #1 — Focus on the innovators and early adopters, not the early and late Majority.

Who are we marketing to ?

That is one of the questions I posed in my post on “How to Conduct an Open Carry Event”  — what is the message?

What Sally Soccermom sees from a stranger isn’t going to change her mind as much as what she learns from her friends or family about the issue, right?

I’m not saying we deliberately offend or alienate the Early and Late Majority but recognize we have a long ways to go before we get their acceptance.  Heck, we haven’t even gotten to the point of acceptance in much of our own group.

 

#2 The riskiest thing you can do is be safe.

 

Doesn’t this argue against the ‘play it safe and don’t get in anyone’s face’ crowd of pro-rights advocates?

Please join the discussion.

 

 

 

Tales From The Great Ammo Shortage of ’13

Academy Sports has changed its ammo restriction policy again. And it is more good news.

Currently only .22 Long Rifle and 9mm are restricted; still 2 boxes per visit.

All other caliber choices are unlimited and back on the shelves in the store instead of at customer service.

Another Fisk

Have to love the antis, they make blog fodder so readily available; especially on the days when I’m not up to the task coming up with original material.

It is hard to find a more zealous group than conceal carriers. Like George Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin in Florida last year, they see “bad guys” everywhere, have a high fear level and flatter themselves that they are keeping themselves and others safe.

Well, let’s break this down into parts A, B & C.
Part A is the apparent behavior and actions of Trayvon Martin; suspected of burglaries, admitted drug use, illegal fights — while nothing has been proven (because the school in an attempt to lower its crime rate didn’t report it), his actions match those of a ‘bad guy’.   And given that so far, no evidence has contradicted Zimmerman’s story, it really does look like Martin was the one who initiated violence; I think that also qualifies as a ‘bad guy’.

Part B is the fear; sorry I don’t care if it is psychological projection or just trying to portray me in a bad light but it isn’t ‘fear’. It is a healthy, normal and logical evaluation of the facts (there is crime, police aren’t everywhere, response time measured in minutes) that lead me to carrying a firearm.

Part C is simpler, I am keeping myself safe and the only others I focus on is my family. Statistically Concealed Handgun license holders in the State of Texas are law abiding more so then the non-carriers. And anecdotal evidence (I haven’t been attacked, mugged, robbed car-jacked, etc) suggests that something is working.

Both are fantasies. Two years ago, the TV show 20/20 tested whether carriers could defend themselves against an armed assailant who they knew would storm the room they were in.

Stop, First out right lie. 20/20 admitted in their presentation that the volunteers expected the attack to take place later in the day, not in the room they were in.

Even with advance warning none of the carriers stopped the assailant even though some were well trained in firearms. Some carriers came close to injuring themselves and others had the ammo been live. Oops.

Wow….more lies and distortions; wish I could say that I was surprised.  I believe only one of the ‘volunteers’ was ‘well trained in firearms’ — Air Soft doesn’t count. So people who were given training that set them up to fail — the training was given without gloves and with the firearm readily accessible and the test with gloves, helmet and holster concealed under incredibly long shirts — and still several managed to score hits on the attacker. Yep most would have died but given the attacker shot the ‘teacher’ then turned directly toward the ‘volunteer’ every single time who was sitting in the same spot every single time might have something to do with that.
And I don’t remember a single other person who was hit despite some of the actors crossing directly in between the ‘attacker’ and the volunteer’.
Why not use data available to the public or actual cases where people have defended themselves against criminals,eh? Perhaps because you couldn’t make your point that way?

On cue, gun zealots cried the 20/20 test conditions were “unfair,” as if conditions in real life would be fair and offer perfect conditions for them to demonstrate their conceal carry advantage. Right.

See pointing out the obvious rigging of the scenario isn’t crying unfair; it is showing the lengths that anti-rights cultists like you will go to. Why not use data available to the public or actual cases where people have defended themselves against criminals,eh? Perhaps because you couldn’t make your point that way?
Time and time again we have actual, verifiable, publicly vetted incidents where Concealed Carry have saved lives and stopped crimes. Talk about those, scrutinize those if you truly want to be ‘fair’.

It is obvious conceal and carry does not protect the carriers or stop bad guys, unless you consider Trayvon Martin a bad guy.

Of course there are people who disagree with that statement. Would it surprise you to know one of them is a Gary Kleck?

One of the naysayers was Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who calls himself “as liberal as they get.”

He studied the issue and guess what he found?

Kleck has authored numerous books and articles over the last 20 years, but none garnered as much national attention as his 1994 National Self-Defense Survey which, based on a survey of 5,000 households, concluded that there were far more incidents where gun owners defended themselves against potentially violent crime than there were actual crimes involving the use of guns.

Yep people with guns stopping crimes. Now admitted this isn’t a study of concealed carry but can you point to a study (not a google search conducted by the VPC) that shows otherwise?If there was any validity to your claims;  there would be an increase in crime while the number of concealed carry permits increases. Yet in most states the opposite is happening. Coincidence? Could be but definitely not a case of

 

But there is a more deadly side to conceal carry. Since 2007, conceal carriers have been responsible for 494 U.S. civilian deaths, 23 mass shootings and the death of 14 law enforcement officers, according to data compiled by the Violence Policy Institute. States began loosening conceal carry laws, says the Institute, in 1996 when Tanya Metaksa, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, told lawmakers, “these citizens don’t commit violent crimes.”

Let’s put those numbers into perspective shall we; from 2007 to 2010 (source WISQARS), there were 47,382 homicides. So not counting the homicides in 2011, 2012 and year to date; that percentage is 1.04% of all homicides were committed by ‘Conceal Carriers’. I would bet if the last 2.5 years were added in that rate would drop under 1%. Can you name another group that has a crime rate that low?

I’m not Ms. Metaksa and I’ve never have said “don’t commit violent crimes”. I have said the rates in which Conceal Carriers commit crime is lower than the non-carriers and definitely lower then the criminal rates for the group Mayors Against Illegal Gun

There was just one problem with her assurance. She was wrong.

A staggering 1,400 people licensed for conceal carry in Florida have pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, the Gainsville Sun reported upon reviewing records. Two hundred and sixteen had outstanding warrants, 128 had active domestic violence injunctions and six were registered sex offenders. Are these the “good guys”?

I’ll let this post from the Democratic Underground answer for me:

 

 

If you examine the Florida statistics… you may find the further proof.

Every month Florida publishes a web page that shows a lot of data about permit holders. It’s located at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

As you look at the page you will find that between October 1, 1987 – January 31, 2009

Florida issued 1,445,522 concealed carry permits.

Currently there are 547,276 valid licenses.

And a total of 166 licenses have been revoked because of a crime that involved a firearm.

The statistics show Florida permit holders are not perfect, but commit far less crime than most other groups of people.

Permit holders are not angels, but they are an unusually law-abiding collection of citizens. In Florida, for example, permit holders are about 300 times less likely to perpetrate a gun crime than Floridians without permits.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_199607/…

One of the first clues that the anti-rights cultists are lying or attempting to distort the truth is not putting the numbers into context, as in “1,400 people licensed for conceal carry in Florida have pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies”. Out of how many, over how many years, etc.

In nearly 80 percent of 300 deadly incidents, “the concealed carry killer has already been convicted (126), committed suicide (167), or was killed in the incident (seven),” says the Violence Policy Institute. “Of the 67 cases still pending, the vast majority (55) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and eight incidents are still under investigation.”

Enough people have so thoroughly debunked the Violence Policy Institute study it has to be willful ignorance or deliberate attempt to mislead to include it in a new post. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide which (or both) the fits the author.

It is hard to believe state legislators would allow a policy that kills their finest. Among the 508 citizens killed by conceal carriers since 2007, compiled by the Institute, are Alabama, police officer Philip Davis, Tampa police veteran Corporal Mike Roberts, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Donald Pettit and Springfield, Mass., police officer Kevin Ambrose. Four of the slain officers were killed by white supremacists, an increasingly vocal component of the armed citizens movement.

Notice how she doesn’t discuss how many of those 508 were criminals. The fact that out of the 508  — in a country with a population of 300,000,000; remember context matters – she can only highlight a few regretful incidents were law enforcement officers were murdered is very telling.
But more importantly Ma’am; I didn’t commit those murders. No more than you killed your children, murdered your spouse or any other crime. You shouldn’t be restricted in the exercise of your rights for the misdeeds of others, neither should I.

Incredibly, Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Arizona U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people in 2011, was a legal conceal carrier because Arizona does not require a permit of any type to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home.

And his mental health issues which might have disqualified him from even owning a firearm were never reported. His family never seemed to get him the help he needed. Nor did they, the state, the school system, the police ever declare him a danger to himself or others. Want to help reduce the death toll; improve the mental health system in the country.

Conceal carriers also include the mass shooters Omar Thornton, who killed eight at a beer distributorship in Connecticut in 2010, and Gerardo Regalado, who killed four women and wounded three in Florida in 2010. Mass shooter Paul Michael Merhige, who killed his twin sisters, a 76-year-old aunt and a 6-year-old cousin at a Thanksgiving dinner in Florida, was also a legal conceal carrier. Thank you, NRA. Thank you, gun lobby. Let’s enforce existing laws!

Please tell me how any change short of and include total disarmament of the population would have stopped any of those murders. The truth is nothing would have. People willing to murder aren’t going change their plans because they can’t carry concealed. Most of the murders you highlight didn’t even involve the weapon being concealed in public. the Thanksgiving dinner murders for example happened in a residence; not exactly covered by concealed carry laws.
Anti-rights cultists have to blur the lines like this in order to trick the public into thinking there is a legislative solution.
There isn’t.

Commensurate with the bully personality, conceal carriers have a high fear level and are afraid to go the same places normal, unarmed people go every day. They want to carry in national parks, on trains, near schools and in gun free zones to protect against the omnipresent “bad guys.” Yet, in at least 500 recent shootings, the conceal carriers are the bad guys.

Right, psychological project perhaps? We, concealed carriers, go to all those places and many more. We, concealed carriers, aren’t so fearful of our fellow citizens we try to disarm them. Instead we recognize there are people willing to kill, rape, rob and assault us in all those places and more.
What we really are after is not having to disarm or break the law when we go to those places. Can you name a single type of ‘gun free zone’ where there has never been a crime committed?

I don’t think you can but if you do prove it, I’ll donate $50 to the Brady Campaign.

Again, let’s look at that statement “in at least 500 recent shootings, the conceal carriers are the bad guys”; in Texas alone there are over 500,000 people with a concealed handgun license. 500 represents just 0.1% of that number !
So your statistics (which you unscrupulously avoid) indicates the problem isn’t as dire as you proclaim.

Take action for sane gun laws. Make the TELL AND COMPEL pledge.

You are so fearful of people who carry firearms that you want to disarm them and you have the nerve to talk about ‘sane’?

I have my doubts.

Please join the discussion

 

(H/T to The Duck)

Let’s talk about background checks

Just between us for a moment. This is one of the areas I feel we are incredibly vulnerable to new legislation.

Many people are calling for ‘universal background checks’. And I actually don’t have a problem with the idea. Seriously. I don’t. Here is why.

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing a background check as a private individual. There are dozens or more websites that make it easy to do. Here is a service that I am familiar with.

Now I know this is not as complete as what may be available from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS  it is something that already available to everyone.

But that isn’t what the anti rights cultists are wanting is it? They want a law, a punishable offense, stating that everyone has to go through the government system and to outlaw transactions and transfers between individuals without that check.
Think about that for a second; something as common as a family member buying a firearm for someone in the family will suddenly be illegal unless they complete a background check. Spouse won’t be surprised with a new hunting rifle or concealed carry pistol on Christmas, Children won’t find that unexpected first rifle hidden among their birthday gifts. I couldn’t buy my brother’s SKS without there being a record of it someplace.

Don’t fall for the characterization of “universal background checks” — the reality is simply ‘outlawing private transactions’. We already have states that require this; can anyone show evidence those states have a lower crime rate?

In the days since Obama spoke to the nation about gun violence and put forward proposals to address it, lawmakers in both parties have signaled support for stricter background checks — mostly Democrats, but some key Republicans, too — and the White House has made the proposal a top priority. Public support for universal background checks is extremely high, possibly even at 92 percent, per a recent CBS News/New York Times poll.

If you agree that we shouldn’t have a law; I suggest calling your Senator, emailing them, contacting their local and Washington D.C. offices and letting them know how you feel.

We’ve compromised enough, let’s make sure this proposal goes down in defeat eh.

Please join the discussion.

 

 

 

Extending the Invitation, AGAIN.

Bob Costas, Jason Whitlock and thousands of other gun control advocates want to ‘start’ the conversation about gun control due to the most recent tragedy.

And what I was trying to say was, that if you want some perspective on this, there are a number of issues related to this that we could begin to talk about and think about.”

 

Newsflash guys, We’ve been having that conversation. Like thousands of other blogs,  I’ve been talking about it for a while. And so, to a very limited extent have anti-rights cultists blogs. And in newspapers, and in homes, in offices around the country, and in churches. We’ve also have been having that conversation in state and federal legislative offices.

You’ve just ignored it because it doesn’t fit your idea of discussing it ( you tell us what restrictions you want and we’re just supposed to nod while pass yet another ineffective law ).

So, once again to all those who want to talk about it — Let’s have that discussion. Here, now, out in the open where comments won’t be moderated out of existence for just disagreeing with the author, where people won’t be banned.

But there are some conditions, I promise they aren’t too onerous.
If you make a claim about fact then you have to provide evidence or a link to evidence that supports your claim. If you make a comment then you have to discuss that comment. No drive by trolling.

Let’s talk about

Domestic Violence- the issue raised recently.

 

If you want to talk, are you willing to discuss the issue of due process?

.

.

Because the issue of false accusation is real and people should have a chance to be heard before their rights are deprived. And I said people, because men are also victims of domestic violence and make false accusation (rarer but still happens).

Let’s talk about the fact that domestic violence isn’t an every day occurrence in every marriage; only 1 in 10 couples experience it. Are you willing to admit that not every marriage, not every divorces involves domestic violence but you want to put in place restrictive laws just in case?
Are you willing to talk about the factors behind domestic violence and how to solve them; not just how you want to pass another gun control law?

If so, let’s talk.

Do you want to talk about background checks?

Let’s talk about background checks and how you want to ‘end the gun show loophole’?  But the discussion needs to deal with specifics; exactly how you are going to enforce it, what will the criteria be for allowing or not a sale.  Let’s talk about how much it is going to cost and how is going to pay, eh. How about a proposal that Mayor Bloomberg reaches into his pocket and funds a system for background checks — he wants to reduce ‘gun violence’ surely he can make it free to everyone if he is serious, right?

Let’s also talk about how the system is flawed and frequently generates false negatives. How are you going to insure that people are actually not deprived of their rights by mistake?
Then we can move onto the fact that most firearms in America are not registered so it would be impossible to know if they’ve been sold or not. So logic (I’ll stop for a moment so you anti-rights cultists can look up the word — ready, let’s continue) dictates there will need to be another law mandating universal registration of firearms and owners. But I’ll insist on evidence that gun registration will reduce crime, can you provide it? Canada just scrapped their registration scheme because it was an utter failure. Please provide an example where it has worked.

And then there is the inconvenient fact that the courts have already determined that criminals aren’t required to register their firearms. And since so many gun controllers think that “All a “law abiding citizen” really is, is a previously unconvicted felon waiting to commit his first crime’ just exactly how will a registration scheme work? Wouldn’t we have massive non-compliance with the law?

Let’s talk about “May Issue Permits” and Concealed Carry in general.

Many anti-rights cultists has predicted (time and time again) blood in the streets every time another state improves Concealed Carry laws. And every time they have been wrong but let’s talk. I’m willing. But come armed (pun intended) with actual facts, eh. Because we have the history and statistics to show that Concealed Handgun License holders are more law abiding then their non-carrying counter parts.
So there has to be a little give and take; if we go for may issue, are you willing to reduce the number of prohibited places we can carry?
If we agree to even greater burdens to get a license (e.g. training) are you willing to agree that Carry Licenses should be recognized by every state? What are you willing to give up?

Let’s talk about permits to own or enhanced background checks.

Many antis want to include medical and psychology requirements to background checks; so let’s talk about how that will work. Given the number of doctors willing to certify disability for a minimum amount of money, how are you going to prevent the same industry popping up for firearms?
If you say you’ll have a list of approved doctors/shrinks; how many hours a day are they going to have to work? Have you thought about that.

Let’s talk about “Assault Weapon Bans” or Bans in General.

Oh yes, I know that you “say” you don’t want to ‘ban’ guns — but it would be a lot more believable if we didn’t have people (Diane Fienstien, Piers Morgan and thousands of others) calling for confiscation and complete bans daily.
It would help if you hadn’t fully supported the gun ban in Washington D.C.; fought so hard to keep the ban in Chicago, or laud the countries that ban firearms like Japan.

But enough of your lies, I’ll try to keep a straight face as we talk about how you want to just ban a few guns.
Let’s talk about what makes an ‘assault weapon’ — is it the bayonet lug, the pistol grip, or the magazine size?

By the way, just exactly how many people are you willing to let be killed before the killer has to change magazines?  3, 5, 10? What moral or ethical considerations went into that number as opposed to 30?

And what is the motivation behind the assault weapon ban? To save lives, eh. Guess not since last year less than 350 murders were committed with rifles.

Not just assault rifles, not just semi-automatic rifles – all rifles according to the FBI. Even if you throw in shotguns, other firearms and unknown type of firearms; that brings the total to 2,363 – approximately 60% of the number of people who drown each year. So if you were really interested in saving lives you would be teaching swimming not trying to pass another law.

So if you want to try to ban assault weapons despite all that then you’ll have to discuss how those firearms aren’t protected by the 2nd Amendment

It would be the height of insanity to insist that firearms that bare remarkable resemblance in control, operation and caliber to that used by the military today would not ” contribute to the common defense” or not “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

And then we will talk about how I was trained on the use of the M-16 in the Air Force but now as a civilian you say I can’t have anything resembling it. Yeah, that is a lot of common sense isn’t it.

And that brings up my last point in this little invitation — it is a right.

Sorry, you can’t blame the inanimate object, you can’t say it isn’t the same as other rights. It is.

Yes, every right has restrictions on it — normal people call this responsible behavior — and carry punishment for breaking those restrictions.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is no difference. It is true we can’t misuse them to murder, to rob any more then we can falsely use our right of free speech to libel or commit fraud. But like fraud and libel, punishments for a person illegally carrying a firearm have already been established. So if you aren’t blaming the inanimate object, why would you push for laws against using an object in a crime?

So keeping that in mind, please tell me how requiring a person (in Texas) to spend up to $200 or more to exercise their right doesn’t create a disparate impact like requiring people to spend $26 to exercise their right to vote.  It takes a vivid imagination to say it is common sense to require people to spend money on one right then claim they shouldn’t have to spend money on another.

 

You want to talk, fine. Let’s go again….but frankly folks we’ve been talking and you anti-rights cultists have been sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet yelling “I don’t have to listen to you” for years now.

So….which of you gun control advocates actually want to talk  about it?

I’ll be here.

But I won’t be holding my breathe waiting on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insurrectionism, it’s spreading

Pretty soon the antis won’t be able to say it is only “those right wing extremists” calling for insurrection. (emphasis mine)

USA TODAY’s editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals. If our country doesn’t change, it could very well come to that one day.

 

Maybe it is just me but it seems the anti rights cultists are running out of things to smear gun owners with.

Tough luck for them, eh.

Sad News – Joel Rosenberg

From SayUncle comes the news that Joel Rosenberg has passed away.

In addition to liking Joel because of his 2nd Amendment advocacy; I thoroughly enjoyed his writing.

My sympathies and prayers to the friends and family of Mr. Rosenberg.

 


Switch to our mobile site