ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Arm the world

Considering the idea of a global Second Amendment:
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."
Call it the Freedom From Terror Treaty. National governments will agree to guarantee the provision of a concealable revolver, with a choice ranging from 9mm to .357 magnum to every adult male citizen and permanent resident.

Arms dealers will love it: more sales. Keynesian economists will love it: more government spending. Police will love it: less crime. And excluding the women will make the feminists furious about being left out, so they'll endorse it once the treaty authors agree to modify it and include them. 

Everybody wins... except the terrorists.

Labels:

187 Comments:

Anonymous Raggededge October 22, 2013 1:03 PM  

Police will love it? That's a stretch.

Blogger Giraffe October 22, 2013 1:03 PM  

Police will love it: less crime.

Well that doesn't sound right.

Labels: NWA was right.

Blogger tweell October 22, 2013 1:08 PM  

No semi-automatic pistols?

Anonymous The CronoLink October 22, 2013 1:09 PM  

Finally

Anonymous Leatherwing October 22, 2013 1:13 PM  

Can we now say that the top Law Enforcement Officer in the world is in favor. He trumps that guy from Baltimore.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 22, 2013 1:14 PM  

Deliberate gun owners tend to be ethical and knowledgeable about their guns. Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode. Better to encourage concealed carry among people with certain admirable traits, and let them circulate. All adults have a right to own a firearm, but not everybody should.

Anonymous CarpeOro October 22, 2013 1:14 PM  

Was he immediately whisked off to an undisclosed location for "reasons of health"? That appears entirely too sane a person to be allowed anywhere near an international police organization.

Blogger Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 1:14 PM  

And excluding the women will make the feminists furious about being left out, so they'll endorse it once the treaty authors agree to modify it and include them.

Haha. Brilliant

Anonymous Josh October 22, 2013 1:17 PM  

First Sweden comes out against the standard low fat diet, and now the euro cops are for handgun proliferation?

Verily, these are strange times indeed.

Also, right wing heads are asploding everywhere.

Anonymous Josh October 22, 2013 1:18 PM  

Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode.

Commie

Anonymous Heh October 22, 2013 1:20 PM  

Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode.

Until all the stupid / crazy / careless people were shot (either by themselves or armed onlookers) and thus eliminated from the gene pool and society. Sounds like a win to me!

Blogger Crowhill October 22, 2013 1:24 PM  

Universal concealed carry -- with limits on the weapon -- seems like the right idea. I would limit it to a .38 revolver with six rounds. A .38 seems like enough power for most self-defense situations, and a revolver is a pretty safe weapon.

Anonymous kh123 October 22, 2013 1:25 PM  

Read that as "Kenyan economists".

Though technically, all of the damage done to the mall - especially all of those broken windows - stimulates economic activity, does it not.

Blogger Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 1:25 PM  

And thanks to Roberts we can call it a tax such that the liberals will love it.

Anonymous RedJack October 22, 2013 1:26 PM  

There has been a shift on gun rights that mirrors the shift on the war on some drugs.

The idea of banning objects is starting to lose its appeal

Anonymous Salt October 22, 2013 1:27 PM  

Screw that. 9mm over-penetrates. I like my little .380. And beside, if it's to be mandatory... make it a Glock. It'll piss off Nate.

Anonymous allyn71 October 22, 2013 1:28 PM  

"Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode." - scoobius dubious October 22, 2013 1:14 PM

I thought you said you were giving up on being an irritating asshat on purpose?

Anonymous Anonymous October 22, 2013 1:29 PM  

If my government was honorable and trustworthy (which it’s not) I would have no problem at all having concealed carry/gun ownership with strict testing and training required and relatively frequently.

I see WAY to many people out at the shooting range that don’t have a clue. This old couple next to me on Saturday was having issues getting their gun to chamber, the old man said, “It’s a new gun, must be defective”. He was very macho old boy, had Sig 220 tucked inside his belt (no holster of course), anyway, I go over there and the old fool has 40SW loaded into a 9mm Magazine. We get that straightened out and his wife steps up to the line to shoot and puts her left thumb right in the path of the slide, with him watching her. I stopped her, explained her grip was wrong and she was going to get hurt.

And that is COMMON, most people don’t have a clue and worse yet they aren’t even aware of how badly they lack a clue. It boggles my mind how many people show up the range and don’t even have targets, they just shoot (as fast as they can) into the berm and act like they just really did something.

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 1:36 PM  

Sarah Brady just fainted and she doesn't know why.

Anonymous Stilicho October 22, 2013 1:37 PM  

Police will love it: less crime.

Well that doesn't sound right.

It's an incomplete thought. Police will love less crime because there will be even less for them to do than now, freeing up even more of them for speed traps, meter maiding, and otherwise harassing and preying upon productive citizens. At the same time, they can whinge about gun proliferation and steal even more from the public treasury for expensive weaponry while the "proliferation" is just more antiquated wheel guns. Pretty soon, they might even try to change the mandatory wheel gun into a limit of "nothing but a wheel gun." You just can't trust a bunch of up-armored Barney Fifes who want to pretend they aren't civilians.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater October 22, 2013 1:41 PM  

Universal concealed carry -- with limits on the weapon -- seems like the right idea. I would limit it to a .38 revolver with six rounds. A .38 seems like enough power for most self-defense situations, and a revolver is a pretty safe weapon.

Perhaps for a "government cheese" pistol, but since the right to self-defense is inherent and inalienable, law-abiding citizens should be able to carry anything they can afford and shoot accurately. Open or concealed.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 1:47 PM  

Universal concealed carry -- with limits on the weapon -- seems like the right idea. I would limit it to a .38 revolver with six rounds. A .38 seems like enough power for most self-defense situations, and a revolver is a pretty safe weapon.

A small revolver is a pretty safe weapon to start learning with. I was proponent for carry and self-defense, but all of the mass shooting convinced me that it was impractical to carry so few rounds, and to take so long to reload. Perhaps my fingers don't work as well as they should, but reloading took me quick a long time.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 1:48 PM  

Noble's point is fairly well taken, either you have to upgrade soft-targets so they aren't safe, which just pushes the label down to the next target. Airports are virtual fortresses now. Government buildings are virtual fortresses now. The new soft targets are whatever is unprotected. Uparmoring shopping malls is just going to push the soft label down to the next venue.

Anonymous Feh October 22, 2013 1:56 PM  

Sarah Brady just fainted and she doesn't know why.

Because she was at a Presidential press conference and the script called for her to do that so he could heroically catch her?

Anonymous frenchy October 22, 2013 1:57 PM  

@ rufusdog,

the problem with your argument is that you're allowing the govt to control who gets to carry concealed--the exact same system we have now. they'll just made the standards hard as hell, then make you pay for the right to carry.

wha i find funny is this, no training is allowed for open carry (at least in Va), but drape some fabric over the firearm and now one needs training and govt permission to exercise a right?

lastly, at least those people went to the range, and are smarter thanks to your help. sounds to me like you live in an area where gun ownership, and knowledge, is not so prevalent. just sayin' cuz i've never had that experience anywhere i've shot. . .but i live in the south.

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 1:57 PM  

National governments will agree to guarantee the provision of a concealable revolver, with a choice ranging from 9mm to .357 magnum to every adult male citizen and permanent resident.

Is this the rule in your enclave?

Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode.

For some that is the goal.

Police will love it? That's a stretch.

Police would hate it. Sheriffs might or might not welcome it.

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 1:57 PM  

Uparmoring shopping malls is just going to push the soft label down to the next venue.

If every adult male EVERYWHERE is potentially armed, where is the next venue?

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 1:59 PM  

I was proponent for carry and self-defense, but all of the mass shooting convinced me that it was impractical to carry so few rounds

According to the FBI the average total number of shots by all parties in a gun event is 2.7.

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 2:00 PM  

civilServant October 22, 2013 1:57 PM
Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode.

For some* that is the goal.


*citation needed

Anonymous Feh October 22, 2013 2:02 PM  

If my government was honorable and trustworthy (which it’s not) I would have no problem at all having concealed carry/gun ownership with strict testing and training required and relatively frequently.

If the gummint was honorable and trustworthy then there would be no problem with a total gun ban.

But if the gummint is too evil to have all the guns and the people are too stupid to have guns, then I don't know how you resolve the policy conundrum.

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 2:02 PM  

"Everybody wins... except the terrorists."

And the politicians hellbent on presenting themselves as the only possible solution to life's problems. Or perhaps you were using "terrorists" in a broader sense than most.

Anonymous Josh October 22, 2013 2:05 PM  

If my government was honorable and trustworthy (which it’s not) I would have no problem at all having concealed carry/gun ownership with strict testing and training required and relatively frequently.

Commie.

Our government is not trustworthy, which is all the more reason for an armed citizenry.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 2:07 PM  

If every adult male EVERYWHERE is potentially armed, where is the next venue?

Supermarkets, bookstores, public parks - anywhere women and children congregate while men are working.

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 2:08 PM  

"A small revolver is a pretty safe weapon to start learning with. I was proponent for carry and self-defense, but all of the mass shooting convinced me that it was impractical to carry so few rounds, and to take so long to reload. Perhaps my fingers don't work as well as they should, but reloading took me quick a long time."

A small revolver is far better than nothing. WRT reloading -- use speed loaders. They make a huge difference.

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 2:14 PM  

Supermarkets, bookstores, public parks - anywhere women and children congregate while men are working.

Why are they not targets now?

Anonymous Jack Amok October 22, 2013 2:14 PM  

Police will love it: less crime.

Well that doesn't sound right.


Old-style, protect-and-serve police would love it. New-style respect-muh-ah-thor-uh-tay types would hate it. Oh, wait, Vox already said terrorists would be the losers, sorry, my bad.

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 2:15 PM  

*citation needed

Heh October 22, 2013 1:20 PM

Anonymous allyn71 October 22, 2013 2:15 PM  

I would love to see any evidence that anyone has showing that an universal increase in gun ownership among the civilian population has led to an increase in violent acts. There is a significant amount of evidence (domestic and international ) showing the contrary, increased firearm ownership (or the inversed decreased ownership) has lead in a decrease (or for the inverse increase) in violent crime.

The basic tenet espoused by the Interpol Secretary General was that for secruity in an open society either everyone has to have the ability to arm and defend themselves or you will have to build an intense police state. If those are the options I will take individual responsibilty over the 1984 option.

Hell I would love to have someone explain to me how it is possible to have an "open society" within a police state security apparatus.

Anonymous Buckeyecopperhead October 22, 2013 2:17 PM  

Better yet, have the US gubmint REQUIRE all adult males between the ages of 18 and 65 to carry a functioning, loaded sidearm in a caliber exceeding .380, or be TAXED by the IRS on an annual basis, with increasing tax penalties every year.

Call it DEFENSECARE or CONCEALCARE.

Anonymous Anonymous October 22, 2013 2:18 PM  

I’m all for a Universal 2nd amendment or right to carry, BUT ideally proof of sanity, proficiency, and training would be a requirement.

It would be that much better to know that those who are armed are competent.

But, that would just turn into a political nightmare with the “training” requirements being used for every purpose other than to train.

The liberals would have the training cost ten thousand dollars a year with a shooting test at 50 yards…I know exactly how it would go with our present government.

But don’t try to sell me on just any ole dumb fuck carrying a gun being a good idea. Remember MPAI and let’s not pretend that handing every idiot a gun with a carry permit is a good idea, cuz I can testify from experience, it isn’t.

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 2:19 PM  

Call it DEFENSECARE or CONCEALCARE.

ObamaCarry?

Blogger Chiva October 22, 2013 2:19 PM  

If all adults were issued a weapon......after the initial carnage we would end up in either complete anarchy or a very polite society.

Anonymous Tex October 22, 2013 2:20 PM  

Vox or Ilk: What are your thoughts on 3D printing and gun control?

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 2:21 PM  

What are your thoughts on 3D printing and gun control?

I love the way the former is going to make the latter a fool's errand.

Anonymous Porky October 22, 2013 2:22 PM  

Tactical nukes or GTFO.

Blogger Unknown October 22, 2013 2:24 PM  

Arm everyone and the nuts will soon be culled.

Anonymous allyn71 October 22, 2013 2:25 PM  

@ Tex

Print baby Print


The whole point of the 3D printing project was to show the futility behind the idea of "gun control".

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 2:26 PM  

"Vox or Ilk: What are your thoughts on 3D printing and gun control?"

3D printing is grabbing all the press but CAD/CAM is a widespread, mature industrial technology that is getting better and cheaper by the day.

Anonymous Paul October 22, 2013 2:27 PM  

OT, but in the theme of video games dying due to 'advanced progressivitis':

"Can Gaming Solve History’s Biggest Problem?
...
And while some rewriting of history is subject to interpretation, there are certain elements of the practice that have had long-term and especially negative impacts. Not only has it turned mass-murders like Columbus into iconic heroes, it’s downplayed and eliminated the role of both women and minority groups in society.
...
Vivian Conger, a professor of Women’s Studies with an expertise on The American Revolution, was able to fill me in on the battle historians face every day. "
...
A big part of our modern myth-making regarding American and world history has to deal with the fact that what we’re taught is sort of presented as being set in stone, that it’s fixed and inevitable. That when we discuss women’s roles in historical events, or where current-day minority populations were and what presence they had in society, that’s all viewed as some “niche” version of history that doesn’t affect the broad spectrum of events. After talking to educators and game developers, what the educational world seems to need that games can offer are games that can start teaching players to question and examine the history they’re taught, both inside the classroom and out."

Enjoy the whole thing:

http://www.jacehallshow.com/news/gaming/industry/20131018/video-game-history-games/

Anonymous DonReynolds October 22, 2013 2:32 PM  

As attractive as the idea might be, the United Nations is moving in the opposite direction with the Small Arms Treaty, which the traitor John Kerry already signed, full knowing that even the Democrats in both houses of Congress have already voted against it.

Anonymous allyn71 October 22, 2013 2:33 PM  

"3D printing is grabbing all the press but CAD/CAM is a widespread, mature industrial technology that is getting better and cheaper by the day." - Noah B. October 22, 2013 2:26 PM

The 3D thing was just a political statemen. You are correct that the real deal is in the computerized milling realm. Folks have been talking about organizing milling parties for 80% lowers where you bring your hunk of aluminum and you can rent some time with a milling machine in the back of a van. For personal use only of course.

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 2:35 PM  

So the Small Arms Treaty will sit there like the Patriot Act did, just waiting for the right opportunity to force it through Congress. All they need are about a dozen Senators to go squishy and it's a done deal.

Blogger John Williams October 22, 2013 2:36 PM  

Airports are virtual fortresses now. Government buildings are virtual fortresses now
Having an unarmed guy checking ID's and boarding passes doesn't make for a fortress. The security at a gov't building or airport is about equal to a movie theater: Law abiding people can't get in without the proper ticket/ID/etc and equally vulnerable to bad guys.

I don't think the Colorado theater shooter would have any fewer kills had he gone to Denver International.

Anonymous allyn71 October 22, 2013 2:38 PM  

"All they need are about a dozen Senators to go squishy and it's a done deal." - Noah B. October 22, 2013 2:35 PM

If this country gets to the point where 66 Senators would ratify a treaty nullifying the 2nd amendment the shooting will have already started or will be commencing shortly.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey October 22, 2013 2:39 PM  

I don't think I want the government screwing up the 2nd Amendment any more than they already have. I'm sure that they'll promise that if we like the gun we have, we can keep it, it will stem the tide of skyrocketing ammo costs, etc. It will quickly devolve into a single-armorer system in which only Hi-Points will be issued to the citizenry and ammo rationing while the bureaucrats and politicians get to keep their fancy custom 1911s and their +p ammunition.

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 2:39 PM  

I get what they were doing with the 3D guns, and I think it was and continues to be a great project. I don't mean to pan 3D printing, but it's a long way from being able to make a good quality firearm at a competitive cost. On the other hand, 3D printing does seem to have some enormous potential to reduce the cost and turnaround time for mold making...

Anonymous DonReynolds October 22, 2013 2:42 PM  

allyn71......"For personal use only of course."

Absolutely not......it is for demonstration purposes....that makes it educational. Or maybe it is industrial training....in case they want to get a job.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 22, 2013 2:48 PM  

Airports are virtual fortresses now. Government buildings are virtual fortresses now

ajw308......"Having an unarmed guy checking ID's and boarding passes doesn't make for a fortress. The security at a gov't building or airport is about equal to a movie theater: Law abiding people can't get in without the proper ticket/ID/etc and equally vulnerable to bad guys.
I don't think the Colorado theater shooter would have any fewer kills had he gone to Denver International."

I very much disagree with that statement.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter October 22, 2013 2:49 PM  

I doubt that such a sensible policy (of arming citizens) would be welcome among the governing elite.

Anonymous Buckeyecopperhead October 22, 2013 2:55 PM  

"If this country gets to the point where 66 Senators would ratify a treaty nullifying the 2nd amendment the shooting will have already started or will be commencing shortly."

We can only hope.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey October 22, 2013 2:55 PM  

Concerned Rabbit Hunter October 22, 2013 2:49 PM
I doubt that such a sensible policy (of arming citizens) would be welcome among the governing elite.


I'm sure Dianne Feinstein thoroughly enjoys having a mostly unarmed constituency.

Anonymous Mike M. October 22, 2013 2:59 PM  

3D printing is intersting, though I concur that cheap CAD/CAM is more critical.

Probably the most important is the increased proliferation of the 80% receivers. Right now, those are for semi-auto ARs and AKs. I'm awaiting someone doing an 80% 1911 frame. But if things get tightened much more, some bright boy is going to realize that there might be a market for an 80% full-auto receiver. Think Sten.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 22, 2013 2:59 PM  

Can someone explain to me the point of concealed carry. Since a visible gun is a good deterrent, and ultimately the point of carrying a gun is to hopefully prevent situations where you'd have to use it before they escalate to that, it seems like open carry is the more logical strategy.

Anonymous allyn71 October 22, 2013 3:02 PM  

"Absolutely not......it is for demonstration purposes....that makes it educational. Or maybe it is industrial training....in case they want to get a job." - DonReynolds October 22, 2013 2:42 PM

My personal use reference was an allusion to the provision in the National Firearms Act that allows for firearms without serial number identification for "personal use" if they are not sold or traded. Milling your own 80% lower to make an AR platform rifle without a serial number is perfectly legal if it is not sold and is used for "personal use".


Anonymous Feh October 22, 2013 3:02 PM  

Scoob, open carry frightens the warren. They squeal for the owsla when they see such horrid things.

Anonymous Anonymous October 22, 2013 3:03 PM  

3D printing doesn't have to be able to make good quality firearms today. The concept has been proven. Now it's just a matter of refining the technology until it can be used to make good quality firearms. Decent guns can be made in any well-equipped machine shop by a good machinist right now, and throwaways can be made in any garage, but 3D printing is the only way I can see that quality guns could be built by anyone, anywhere with access to the raw materials. If anyone knows of competing technologies, I'd love to hear about it. Options are always good.

Anonymous allyn71 October 22, 2013 3:05 PM  

@ Scoob

Concealed carry doesn't scare the rabbits and their minions as much. They feel better if they don't see it even if they know there are folks around them carrying. Logic isn't their strong suit, emotions are much more important.

Anonymous Myrddin October 22, 2013 3:09 PM  

We are not free until any man is permitted to own fighter jets and cane swords.

Anonymous Josh October 22, 2013 3:15 PM  

Since a visible gun is a good deterrent, and ultimately the point of carrying a gun is to hopefully prevent situations where you'd have to use it before they escalate to that, it seems like open carry is the more logical strategy.

Depending on state law, if you threaten someone while brandishing a gun, you can be charged with aggravated assault.

Blogger Jeff October 22, 2013 3:20 PM  

If you carry open you're an obvious 'get him first' target. I'd much rather go about my day, not attracting attention.

Anonymous Josh October 22, 2013 3:22 PM  

Finishing out the lower receiver should be the final exam for a high school shop class, right?

Do they still have shop classes?

Anonymous VD October 22, 2013 3:24 PM  

"Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode."

You realize that is the exact argument that has been made, and proven false, in about 30 states that passed concealed carry laws, do you not?

Anonymous ThirdMonkey October 22, 2013 3:25 PM  

@ Scoob
I lived in two states that had open carry before they had concealed carry, and saw it occasionally. Most of the time, it was an older man with a revolver in the grocery store after dark. Sure, everyone knew he was armed, but they also knew who wasn't. With concealed carry, you don't know who is and who isn't. For someone who is about to wreak havoc in a public place, open carry says "Shoot me first." On the very few occasions in which I have open-carried, I've attracted unwanted attention. If that's your thing, go ahead. It's the equivalent of a black belt walking around in a Gi. Nothing wrong with it, it may not be beneficial to broadcast your ninja skills to the general public. For my lifestyle, open carry is only conducive to one or two specific situations at best. If you insist on open carry, get some good force-on-force weapon retention training, such as ECQC.

Anonymous VD October 22, 2013 3:25 PM  

What are your thoughts on 3D printing and gun control?

Yes. No.

Blogger Unknown October 22, 2013 3:25 PM  

Florida issues a "concealed weapons" license. Edged weapons like a switchblade or sword-cane are covered by the license I was told.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 3:39 PM  

Having an unarmed guy checking ID's and boarding passes doesn't make for a fortress. The security at a gov't building or airport is about equal to a movie theater: Law abiding people can't get in without the proper ticket/ID/etc and equally vulnerable to bad guys.

I don't think the Colorado theater shooter would have any fewer kills had he gone to Denver International.


You are probably right because there are a lot of people in a fairly small space. I was speaking of more the building design. But there are armed guards now at every airport. And not ALL that long ago you could walk and up to the terminal, and probably out to the tarmac, without any trouble.

For car bombings, you can't get a car close enough to do any real damage anymore.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 3:40 PM  

Police will love it? That's a stretch.

Police get a lot of flak around here, and deservedly so, but generally speaking they aren't as bad as some people think. We have an acquaintance who is a former LEO and is now an FBI agent in a large-ish urban area. When we asked him what the general sentiment was on gun control amongst LEOs, he said they are overwhelmingly against it. It's mostly in the very big urban areas like Chicago that you get police in favor of gun control. He claimed -- and let's hope he's right -- that the vast majority of LEOs in America would refuse to enforce any sweeping gun control legislation. They are honest enough to acknowledge that most of what they do is deal with crime after it's already taken place, and that citizens are at a disadvantage without firearms.

You get doorkickers in every force, but your average LEO really doesn't like dealing with criminals, and that's presumably true for every country. If armed citizens deter criminals, it makes the job of being a police officer easier and safer -- and it's also good PR for them, free of charge, if an armed citizenry leads to declining crime rates.

Blogger Harold Carper October 22, 2013 3:42 PM  

@Winston Supermarkets, bookstores, public parks - anywhere women and children congregate while men are working.

Why are they not targets now?


Probably because there are much softer and denser targets readily available, such as schools and theaters.

Blogger Harold Carper October 22, 2013 3:43 PM  

LEOs are like Republicans. Almost all the ones that matter are power tripping statists.

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 3:47 PM  

How are you holding up, Stickwick?

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 3:55 PM  

I'm holding up pretty well, Noah, thanks. Just 2.5 months to go, and big enough now to block entire aisles at the store and knock over displays with my belly. But loving every minute of it. :^)

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 4:00 PM  

Very glad to hear that.

Anonymous Feh October 22, 2013 4:01 PM  

Depending on state law, if you threaten someone while brandishing a gun, you can be charged with aggravated assault.

He's talking about wearing it openly on your belt as a deterrent, not drawing it and brandishing it.

I'm not a big fan of those anti-brandishing laws. I know what they're supposed to do, but they also cover legitimate displays of the weapon. Some psycho threatens you, you draw your weapon, and for purposes of this example, don't even point it at him but that's enough to make him back off. In my world, that's ideal -- I didn't get attacked and I didn't have to shoot him. But that's "brandishing", and apparently I'd get in less trouble if I let him attack me before I drew the weapon and shot him.

Anonymous Raggededge October 22, 2013 4:01 PM  

@Stickwick,

Seeing how most cops react to people who open carry, I will continue to judge them by their actions rather than their shallow words.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother October 22, 2013 4:04 PM  

Stick,

When I was in my mommy's tummy, she could sit down and balance a bowl of cereal on her stomach.

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 4:07 PM  

civilServant October 22, 2013 2:15 PM

*citation needed

Heh October 22, 2013 1:20 PM


You took that post as something other than tongue-in-cheek? His name is "Heh", for the sake of pete.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 22, 2013 4:19 PM  

I think guns are good.

Anonymous Josh October 22, 2013 4:21 PM  

He's talking about wearing it openly on your belt as a deterrent, not drawing it and brandishing it.

like I said, this varies by state, but even carrying on your belt can be considered threatening enough for an assault charge. It's a stupid ass law.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 22, 2013 4:26 PM  

Big guns are better than little guns.

Anonymous Anonymous October 22, 2013 4:36 PM  

sounds to me like you live in an area where gun ownership, and knowledge, is not so prevalent. just sayin' cuz i've never had that experience anywhere i've shot. . .but i live in the south.

It’s possible, but I’d say here in fly-over country gun ownership is very high. Guns just seem to bring out the worst in some men. It is almost as if just having testicles convinces them that’s all they need, gun + testicles=gun/self-defense expert, they can skip all the training, practice, competitive shooting, developing good safety habits. Most women at least know that they don’t know. Now this range is a public range, as long as the sun is shining anyone can use it, so I get to witness Joe Public’s firearm handling abilities just about every Saturday. If you are shooting at a private club you might be getting a different kind of shooter.

I think the data can be very misleading, most the permit holders I know (and I know a bunch of them) almost never carry. That guy you see strutting around like a peacock, full of bluster and BS, has his 1911 45 death ray, ya, truth is that dude almost never actually carries it. That quiet old timer, never says much, he’s got a J frame on him 24/7.

The more some guy prattles on with a bunch of tough talk, the more I assume he is a full of shit, and I am usually right.

Anonymous Feh October 22, 2013 4:36 PM  

I only know about Virginia, where to "brandish" you have to point it or hold it in a way that makes them think they're going to get shot. You are not guilty of "brandishing" if you are "engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense" -- but if some psycho confronts you and then backs away after seeing your weapon, it will be your word against his that you were acting in self-defense.

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 22, 2013 4:41 PM  

Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia October 22, 2013 4:19 PM

I think guns are good.


Mike Reiner FTW.

Anonymous BillB October 22, 2013 4:42 PM  

Just for the record, neither the second amendment nor any of the others grant any Rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates Rights that preexist the Constitution (US v Cruikshank, 1875). The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are human Rights endowed by the Creator on ALL humans everywhere and those Rights are inalienable. The only reason other countries don't have a grasp on this concept is that most of the governments of the world are not predicated on natural law. So the Right to keep and bear Arms belongs to every living breathing person on Earth.

If you want people properly trained then the Militia concept should have been followed with all persons capable of keeping and bearing Arms trained as the Framers intended. And keep the government out of it. The only thing governments do is to screw things up beyond recognition. Governments employ folks who can't make it in the real world so that they can keep the unemployment rate down. Just my opinions.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 22, 2013 4:48 PM  

I only know about Virginia, where to "brandish" you have to point it or hold it in a way that makes them think they're going to get shot. You are not guilty of "brandishing" if you are "engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense" -- but if some psycho confronts you and then backs away after seeing your weapon, it will be your word against his that you were acting in self-defense

In California, it's enough for another party in an altercation to see the gun in any way; even if its safely strapped in a holster, locked in a car but visible through a window, or tucked beneath a shirt but printing through it. Any of this is considered brandishing by many prosecuting attorneys in the state, even with possession of a valid CCW within the issuing county's jurisdiction.
The law isn't strictly written that way, but that's how its often prosecuted.

Blogger Whiskey October 22, 2013 4:51 PM  

Near universal gun ownership was common in the Old West. Nearly ever adult male, and most of the teen boys, had a revolver. Most women generally had either a shotgun or a rifle close to hand. Bear in mind the 1860 Henry had a total of 15 rounds, available, as easy as moving the lever to fire again.

The data from that time had the shooting rate fairly low, even in fairly hellish boomtowns like Dodge City, the Gold camps in the Sierras, Virginia City (you can read Twain's Roughing It for a description of life there), and places like El Paso and Abilene. You did have a few famous gunfighters, who were challenged to make a name, but only really Hardin and Hickock did any practicing and were deadly shots. Most of the rest just carried the things as insurance against robbers, Indians, and arguments. Given that law was non-existent to the mob variety (Hardin's brother, a lawyer and someone who was never accused of any violence, was lynched along with his cousin and some friends when the mob could not get Hardin).

Arming the vast majority of the population would have the same effect. Gunfights DID happen, Indians DID attack, as did Desperadoes. But the death toll was far lower than say, Detroit in the last ten years let alone mass mall killings.

The other solution of course is simply to ban all Muslims from every developed and developing nation. That is what the police official is really afraid of. That another mass killing, this time in a European nation, will lead to successful calls to ban Muslims and deport them.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 4:52 PM  

Seeing how most cops react to people who open carry, I will continue to judge them by their actions rather than their shallow words.

Of course you should judge based on actions vs. words, but on what basis do you believe that most cops react poorly to open carry? I'm not saying your claim is necessarily untrue, but I've seen no evidence that most cops in the U.S. react poorly to open carry where it's legal and/or that this reaction indicates most cops intend to go door-to-door to seize privately-held firearms should the time come. Some cops are obviously way out of line with citizens who legally open carry, but here are a two thoughts on this: 1) as with most bad events that draw attention, this could very well be a case of a few egregious examples making it seem like there's an epidemic; and 2) in cases where cops do react poorly to legal open carry, it's likely because it's a relatively new practice and, as with anything that is a stark change, especially in an era of highly-publicized mass shootings, people simply need to become accustomed to it.

When I was in my mommy's tummy, she could sit down and balance a bowl of cereal on her stomach.

Who needs a TV tray when you're a pregnant woman? If I slouch a bit when I sit, my husband is able to rest a cold beverage on top of my belly when we're watching hockey. The magic of parenthood.

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 4:52 PM  

I've seen the same kind of sloppy range behavior too rufusdog. In the last CHL refresher course I took, out of around 40 guys, I would say that about half didn't follow at least one of the basic range rules that were laid out. These include things like keeping the muzzle pointing down range, keeping the muzzle pointed below the top of the berm (there was a freeway just the other side of it), keeping finger off the trigger until ready to fire, and not loading or unloading a weapon behind the firing line. Maybe three of us both followed the range rules and were decent shots.

Most of these people drive, too, and that's a far bigger concern than their range habits.

Anonymous Raggededge October 22, 2013 4:57 PM  

@Stickwick,

You should try open carry for yourself sometime and you will see that most cops react poorly to it.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 5:05 PM  

Stick... Open carry is a really... really... bad idea.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby October 22, 2013 5:06 PM  

A government figure wants to suggest that I have a right to carry for defensive purposes. How cute.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 5:07 PM  

"The data from that time had the shooting rate fairly low,"

Quite right. Most people don't realize it but the crime rate of the old west was very low. And almost all of the shootings were bar shootings.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby October 22, 2013 5:13 PM  

We are not free until any man is permitted to own fighter jets and cane swords.

True.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 5:16 PM  

Arming the vast majority of the population would have the same effect. Gunfights DID happen, Indians DID attack, as did Desperadoes. But the death toll was far lower than say, Detroit in the last ten years let alone mass mall killings.

It would be interesting to see how this scales up. The west was the west, but what happens when you arm, say, 200k Detroit residents.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 5:17 PM  

Quite right. Most people don't realize it but the crime rate of the old west was very low. And almost all of the shootings were bar shootings.

People especially today dont like to acknowledge this. IT puts some burden on them - namely, stay away from bars and your risk of getting into a shooting accident or incident is very much lower.

The same is true now of many different things.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 5:19 PM  

Raggededge: You should try open carry for yourself sometime and you will see that most cops react poorly to it.

While an interesting experiment, that's not a firm basis upon which to make your claim. I was with someone who openly carried a pistol in Arizona a couple of years ago when we were traveling through the state (I carried concealed). While I personally felt awkward about this person wearing a pistol openly, this person got no reaction whatsoever from anyone else, including the police. Something to consider here is also how the police react to someone with a pistol on his/her hip vs. someone with an AR-15 type rifle slung over his/her shoulder. Unfortunately, the media campaign to demonize the latter has been effective, even with the police.

In any case, you've got to come up with something more solid to make a convincing case that most police react badly to legal open carry and that that is a reasonable indicator of the willingness of police to enforce sweeping gun control. As I said, I'm not saying it's necessarily untrue, just that I see no firm basis upon which to make such a statement.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 22, 2013 5:20 PM  

The west was the west, but what happens when you arm, say, 200k Detroit residents.

I believe you call it "urban renewal".

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 5:21 PM  

Stick... as always... how you carry and what you carry open really matter. If you look like a cop for example... no one will say anything to you. If you look like a thug... people will freak.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 5:30 PM  

Nate: Stick... Open carry is a really... really... bad idea.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. It's sufficiently troubling that even a few cops get their undies in a bunch over it, which is why my preference is for concealed carry. The problem is, as I stated above, that open carry is a relatively stark change, and people are not accustomed to it. Heck, even I get the willies around people who openly carry long guns outside of hunting and range-shooting, and I'm 100% pro-2A.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 5:35 PM  

"The west was the west, but what happens when you arm, say, 200k Detroit residents."

Probably the exact opposite of what you think.

Anonymous Jake October 22, 2013 5:38 PM  

I use the kind of 3D printing technology talked about for guns virtually every day. My office has a printer very similar to the one used by the gentleman in TX to build his gun.

I'm very skeptical. I think some important caveat is being withheld or disguised.

Even the best RP (rapid prototyping) materials are significantly inferior in strength to a part molded or machined from the same resin. If you can 3D print a plastic gun then it should be completely trivial to mill one from a brick of good plastic. It's not. I suspect whatever he was shooting in there (.38 I believe) was minimally loaded, like barely more than primer-only and definately well below the performance you expect from a firearm given that the thing doesn't explode every time.

It's far safer, cheaper (for now at least), and more effective to machine a firearm of similar complexity from steel than to RP one in plastic. I've seen the video of him shooting his FDM gun. I just can't figure how that works in any practical way. Some things plastics just aren't good at, heat, high stresses, and rapid changes in stress level are all factors that say "not plastic". Just consider how much high strength, heat-treated steel is used in the chamber and barrel of your firearm of choice, and realize that even a very strong plastic might have 1/12th the strength of that steel under ideal conditions, and that RP material might be 1/2 to 1/3rd the strength of a solid piece of plastic.

You won't see me shooting one, even though I like the concept of an easily built and concealed "Liberator" style firearm, RP ain't the way to do it (for the near future) and I'm suspicious of the entire story.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey October 22, 2013 5:40 PM  

how you carry and what you carry open really matter.
Better to have it concealed and have that smile of amused mastery. Give off the "I'm not one to be messed with" vibe, and you don't need to open carry. Walk into a room like you own the place, and have a plan if the SHTF. Others can tell when you have your act together, and is an effective deterrent to unruly behavior. Attitude can sometimes be more effective than a gun on the hip. Best to have both, though.

Blogger Robert What? October 22, 2013 5:41 PM  

Do the police want less crime? The individual, decent cop I'm sure does. But at the bureaucracy level - I doubt it.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 5:45 PM  

"The west was the west, but what happens when you arm, say, 200k Detroit residents."

Probably the exact opposite of what you think.


Thunderdome! 200k men enter, one man leaves!

Anonymous Raggededge October 22, 2013 5:45 PM  

@Stickwick,

My whole point on open carry is that cops may say they are comfortable with an armed populace, but in deed they are anything but. You go ahead and open carry for any length of time and you will get harassed by a LEO. When doing something that is completely legal gets you stopped by cops, you can safely draw some inferences from that.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 5:53 PM  

Heck, even I get the willies around people who openly carry long guns outside of hunting and range-shooting, and I'm 100% pro-2A.

I think this is some sort of natural reasonableness response. Imagine the future of 2A comes true, and shoulder launched missiles become legal to own. Or even a SAW or other mini-gun. It would be weird to see a person walking down the street with it, because unless Predator style weapons come of age shortly, missiles and mini-guns are not especially practical self-defense weapons. So seeing someone with such a weapon would provoke the curiosity response.

Seeing a person carry a pistol - in belt, holster, or otherwise, is more natural looking. It's the scale that media and people have come to expect for personal self-defense.

A long-gun in urban self-defense seems somewhat weird. An AR-15 slung over your should does not seem especially practical - although it probably is very practical - it seems very non-practical. In areas of VT it is not out place to see a person walk into the store with a long gun over their shoulder, but if you entered a store with it in the ready position you may cause a second look or more.

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 6:09 PM  

Giving a gun to everybody would arm a lot of stupid/crazy/careless people, and the number of deaths and injuries would explode.

You realize that is the exact argument that has been made, and proven false, in about 30 states that passed concealed carry laws, do you not?


"Shall Issue" is not quite the same as "Everyone Have At It".

What is the practice in your enclave? Is simply anyone who randomly passes through allowed to be armed as they themselves see fit?

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 6:15 PM  

Open carry is a really... really... bad idea.

Why?

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 6:20 PM  

"Why?"

Because its going to create a huge hassle for you. You're depending on your fellow citizens, and on the cops, to not only know the law... but to give a damn about the law.

As we so often see... that is a great way to get yourself into trouble.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 6:27 PM  

'Thunderdome! 200k men enter, one man leaves!"

More like 200k men enter... and realize if anyone starts shooting... they are all going to die...

so they end up standing around and talking instead of fighting.

Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 6:28 PM  

The situation in Texas is really backwards. The state constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms but reserves power to the legislature to regulate concealed carry, reflecting a common mindset of the time that open carry was honest and concealed carry was sneaky. The penal code exceeds the authority granted to the legislature and bans the carrying of pistols, with several exceptions (peace officers, judges, concealed carry permit holders, etc). The blanket prohibition against carrying pistols is clearly unconstitutional, but good luck getting a judge to see it that way.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 6:32 PM  

As we so often see... that is a great way to get yourself into trouble.

It's not that bad if you conform the law to be.. you know.. reasonable and simple. Some states have this down. Some do not.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 6:35 PM  

"It's not that bad if you conform the law to be.. you know.. reasonable and simple."

No bill should be more than 1 legal page. Ever.

Anonymous Porky October 22, 2013 6:37 PM  

Because its going to create a huge hassle for you. You're depending on your fellow citizens, and on the cops, to not only know the law... but to give a damn about the law.

What the hell is freedom for if you can't use it?


Anonymous Noah B. October 22, 2013 6:37 PM  

"It's not that bad if you conform the law to be.. you know.. reasonable and simple. Some states have this down. Some do not."

Every state has its legal quirks, to put it mildly. If you make a habit of assuming the law to be reasonable, you're asking for trouble.

Anonymous dh October 22, 2013 6:37 PM  

No bill should be more than 1 legal page. Ever.

Well thats just asking for trouble. The problem is that in most things the legislature defers to the executive too much. It wouldn't be a problem to make the law verbose if there were no adminstrative regulations and law that went with it.

Obamacare as a 600 or 900 page bill is not the problem, the problem is the 25,000 pages of regs that go with it.

Blogger RobertT October 22, 2013 6:41 PM  

"The west was the west, but what happens when you arm, say, 200k Detroit residents."

These people are probably already armed.

Blogger RobertT October 22, 2013 6:41 PM  

"The west was the west, but what happens when you arm, say, 200k Detroit residents."

These people are probably already armed.

Anonymous Carlotta October 22, 2013 6:43 PM  

But if you can still see your shoes you are doing better then I ever did :)

Take good care Stickwick.

Blogger RobertT October 22, 2013 6:46 PM  

"Because she was at a Presidential press conference and the script called for her to do that so he could heroically catch her?"

and dismissively say ... "You'll be ok" ... like she was a worm in a bucket? ... I think they would have planned a better comeback for Obama than that. I think they're more into throwing a few vague hints out there and letting people use their imagination...

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 6:48 PM  

"Well thats just asking for trouble."

I'm **this close** to deciding there shouldn't be an executive branch at all.

Anonymous ConantheCimmerian October 22, 2013 6:49 PM  

WinstonW,

Are you located here in the N. Texas area?

Anonymous ConantheCimmerian October 22, 2013 6:51 PM  

For that matter, any Ilk in the D/FW area want to go to the range?
Looking for range buddies.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 6:54 PM  

Raggededge: My whole point on open carry is that cops may say they are comfortable with an armed populace, but in deed they are anything but.

Look, I place very little trust in the police, but like everyone else I have an obligation to be rational about claims, even when they sound entirely plausible. The problem is, as a scientist, I'm all too aware of the way emotions prejudice human perception; it's far too easy to deceive oneself into believing something is true on the basis of strong emotions. Dan Gardner explains this phenomenon in his excellent book, The Science of Fear, and provides an example to which most people can relate. Every time there's a commercial airline disaster with hundreds of people horribly killed, airline safety is suddenly a big concern and what happens is a significant number of people decide to cancel their flights and drive to their destinations instead. Gardner shows how this actually leads to more people dying, because a person is far more likely to be killed in an auto accident than in an airplane crash. Car crashes kill 30k-40k people in the U.S. every year, but that doesn't factor in to most people's risk assessment because there's no great emotion attached to it. Commercial airline accidents are exceptionally rare, but they're so sensational when they do happen that flying seems like a far bigger risk than it actually is. One must continually be on guard against this sort of biased perception.

A significant minority of police are bad, no question, and it's damned scary to hear about innocent people being harassed. Does this mean it happens a lot, and with a majority of LEOs? As plausible as it sounds, there is always a strong possibility of biased perception here, and as such I am hesitant to take your claim seriously until there are reliable data supporting it.

You go ahead and open carry for any length of time and you will get harassed by a LEO.

That doesn't necessarily tell you anything meaningful. Statistically speaking, if you fly in a commercial jet often enough, you'll die in a crash. Does that mean most jets crash? Knowing that you would have to fly continuously for 10,000 years in order to statistically "guarantee" dying in a crash tells you something meaningful. In that spirit, what would be useful is something like the average length of time for a reasonably large sample of people in various places to be harassed by different LEOs for open carry. Maybe such data exist; if not, this would be the basis of a useful study.

When doing something that is completely legal gets you stopped by cops, you can safely draw some inferences from that.

No, you can't reliably infer anything about the majority from that, unless it's a majority actually doing it. And you have to distinguish between getting stopped by cops -- which even the most staunch libertarians commenting on these open carry events acknowledge is reasonable -- and getting harassed.

Again, you're also not factoring in the role of emotions here. How many people who legally conceal-carry are harassed by the police? How many people who use firearms to defend themselves in their homes against intruders are harassed by the police? It's one thing to be aware in an abstract sense that someone's possibly carrying and quite another to see it. Seeing someone carrying an AR-15 in a public area is unsettling to most people, even those who are pro-2A. My husband is former military, totally comfortable with weaponry of all kinds, and I strongly suspect even he would be on alert if he saw a private citizen carrying a rifle in public unless the guy was obviously going on a hunting trip. The police are even touchier than most people in this regard for obvious reasons. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the willingness of the majority to deny people the right to conceal carry or possess firearms at all.

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 7:02 PM  

Because its going to create a huge hassle for you. You're depending on your fellow citizens, and on the cops, to not only know the law... but to give a damn about the law.

This seems to be nothing more than a familiarization issue. Surely such reactions could be overcome with time?

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 7:13 PM  

dh: I think this is some sort of natural reasonableness response. Imagine the future of 2A comes true, and shoulder launched missiles become legal to own. Or even a SAW or other mini-gun. It would be weird to see a person walking down the street with it, because unless Predator style weapons come of age shortly, missiles and mini-guns are not especially practical self-defense weapons. So seeing someone with such a weapon would provoke the curiosity response.

This is a bit awkwardly phrased, but presumably you mean if there's unrestricted application of the second amendment sometime in the future, and this sort of thing happens. To clarify, the reason I get the willies is because it's so uncommon (for me) to see someone carrying a long gun in public. One naturally suspects something strange is going on. However, unlike machine guns, long guns are practical for personal self defense. And if it ever becomes commonplace again to see people openly carrying in public, most folks won't have a negative reaction to it. The emotional response is all about what's commonplace vs. what's unusual.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 7:21 PM  

" Surely such reactions could be overcome with time?"

aren't you the practical sort?

You're going to subject yourself to potential arrest and financial ruin... because... some day it should change?

No.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 7:22 PM  

Carlotta: But if you can still see your shoes you are doing better then I ever did :)

Take good care Stickwick.


Thanks, Carlotta. Looking straight down, it appears I have no feet. I'm not even sure I have legs. Hopefully they'll reappear after I give birth. :^D

And keeping in with the topic of this post, I'll just throw in here that my husband already bought our daughter her first rifle. When she's old enough, she'll have a nifty little .22 that matches Daddy's Mini-14.

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 7:23 PM  

To clarify, the reason I get the willies is because it's so uncommon (for me) to see someone carrying a long gun in public. One naturally suspects something strange is going on.

On seeing someone open-carrying a sidearm: "Expecting trouble?"

Carrier: "No. If I were expecting trouble I would have a shotgun."

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 22, 2013 7:26 PM  

Nate:
You're going to subject yourself to potential arrest and financial ruin... because... some day it should change?

No.


Currently this is being fought in Texas.
Open long gun carry is fully legal and there is a group taking it to the street.
They just had a rally at the Alamo this past weekend.

Anonymous p-dawg October 22, 2013 7:38 PM  

@rufusdog: "I’m all for a Universal 2nd amendment or right to carry, BUT ideally proof of sanity, proficiency, and training would be a requirement."

If something requires a prerequisite, it is not a right. It is a privilege. If you have to ask, and can thus be denied, you are not exercising a right.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 8:04 PM  

"When she's old enough, she'll have a nifty little .22 that matches Daddy's Mini-14."

You married a man with a mini-14?

I'm disgusted.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 22, 2013 8:10 PM  

The new mini-14's are suppose to be accurate now.

You pimping the SU-16?

I would have guessed a glock dissenter would quite possibly be an AR 15 dissenter too?

Anonymous Anonymous October 22, 2013 8:11 PM  

P-dawg,

I stand corrected. That we don’t allow the insane to keep and bear arms is clearly a violation of their rights. That’s why I keep coming back to this place, to receive gentle correction and enlightenment, thank you, kind sir.

So, how to we go about correcting this injustice? I’ve already called my congressman. I’m thinking some sort of reparations to make this right, like a free Glock and AR with a lifetime supply of ammo for any insane person who was denied their right to bear arms by our tyrannical government.

You and me P-dawg, we are going to change the world. We will need a logo, maybe a song to represent the movement…something by Cypress Hill.

I’m super excited.

Anonymous Giraffe October 22, 2013 8:26 PM  

When she's old enough, she'll have a nifty little .22 that matches Daddy's Mini-14

Leave to a woman to think of firearms as fashion accessories.

Anonymous civilServant October 22, 2013 8:27 PM  

That we don’t allow the insane to keep and bear arms is clearly a violation of their rights.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Adam_lanza_sandy_hook_shooter.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg

Anonymous Porky October 22, 2013 8:35 PM  

I’ve already called my congressman. I’m thinking some sort of reparations to make this right, like a free Glock and AR with a lifetime supply of ammo for any insane person who was denied their right to bear arms by our tyrannical government.

This is the real tyranny of government. That people who are scared go running to the most corrupt organization in history for protection.

It's the feminine fear instinct writ large among the general population. It is the reason that we are doomed.

Anonymous Rex October 22, 2013 8:41 PM  

"" Surely such reactions could be overcome with time?"

aren't you the practical sort?

You're going to subject yourself to potential arrest and financial ruin... because... some day it should change?

No."

My best friend has been open carrying around town for about the last month and has only had one woman react badly to it. Granted...we live in a Southern military town, so it's not uncommon to see people open carrying into...well, everywhere except federal buildings. But that's just his personality.

As for me...I conceal carry.

Anonymous Stickwick October 22, 2013 8:45 PM  

Nate: You married a man with a mini-14?

I'm disgusted.


"For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, irrespective of taste in firearms ... "

Giraffe: Leave to a woman to think of firearms as fashion accessories.

When it's for a little girl, the cuteness factor counts for a lot. I'm going to crochet Daddy and Daughter matching hunting fatigues, too.

Anonymous paradox October 22, 2013 8:50 PM  

Stickwick

Heck, even I get the willies around people who openly carry long guns outside of hunting and range-shooting, and I'm 100% pro-2A.


And that's what ruined Starbucks open carry.... trendy goofs taking their AR15s into Starbucks, and posing for stupid... coffee & rifle... Facebook selfies. If they had not drawn attention to it (Starbucks Appreciation Days) and just carried sidearms... then nothing would have changed. For open carry to become the norm, baby steps have to be taken.


Anonymous Giraffe October 22, 2013 9:00 PM  

When it's for a little girl, the cuteness factor counts for a lot.

Yeah. My oldest is 5. She wants a pink gun. I am tempted to give her one. Only due to the cuteness factor. Proper guns should not be pink.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 22, 2013 9:13 PM  

Rufusdog:
I stand corrected. That we don’t allow the insane to keep and bear arms is clearly a violation of their rights. That’s why I keep coming back to this place, to receive gentle correction and enlightenment, thank you, kind sir.

So, how to we go about correcting this injustice?


Basically that is what the Marxist commie bastages did. Just declare all dissenters to their regime/agenda insane.
Then they can removed all of their rights and it was A-OK. After all, they are just insane sons of beaches that had it comin'.
Off to reeducation and time for a little marixst psychotherapy.

Insanity has often been used as a political ploy.

This is not to deny that there are the truly insane.

The 100 million plus muredered by the marxists last century does not bode well.

Anonymous Bart October 22, 2013 9:17 PM  

We are praying for the people who come to the church that there needs be met, and that they enter into the joy of the Lord.

Anonymous Anonymous October 22, 2013 10:09 PM  

Conan,

Hay man, if you be truly bat shit crazy insane or just “the current government doesn’t like you” type of insane, after P-dawg and I get our movement going it won’t matter, there will be no more treating rights like they are privileges on our watch…NOT IN MY COUNTRY.

I’m thinking a plus sign for our movement’s symbol; the gays already have the equal sign, so that’s out. But the plus sign has a ton of potential. Just think of the posters, crazy person plus Glock equals smile, crazy person plus 686 SW equals thumbs up, etc, etc.

P-dawg, going to need some money to get this thing off the ground, a hundred grand should do it; we’ll use your house as collateral.

Blogger James Dixon October 22, 2013 10:14 PM  

> What is the practice in your enclave? Is simply anyone who randomly passes through allowed to be armed as they themselves see fit?

Yes. As I've noted before, you have no idea what country life is like.

> Looking straight down, it appears I have no feet.

For your amusement, Stickwick.

> My oldest is 5. She wants a pink gun.

I've looked at the Cricket, but never tried one, so I can't speak to the quality.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 22, 2013 10:15 PM  

Hmmm...it seems to me that to have a global 2nd amendement we'd also need a global constitution for a global government. I think I'll pass on that one.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 22, 2013 10:56 PM  

Stickwick,

The problem is, it doesn't really matter what most police do. It matters... well, let's compare and contrast.

If someone complained a movie theater had uncomfortable seats, it would be reasonable to say most movie theaters have comfortable seats, next time don't go to one that doesn't. But you can't really say most cops have reasonable reactions to open carry, so next time don't have your citizen-officer interaction with one who doesn't.

You don't get the choice of whether you interact with Officer Reasonable or Officer Hothead. It was the cop who approached CJ Grisham, not the other way around. It doesn't matter what most cops are like, it matters what any cops are like. Let a single tinhorn stick around and it creates problems.

That's the difference between private and government (or voluntary and compulsory) spheres: in the private sphere, it's usually the best that sets the tone because people are free to choose, but in the government sphere, it's usually the worst, because they aren't.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 22, 2013 10:58 PM  

Quite right. Most people don't realize it but the crime rate of the old west was very low. And almost all of the shootings were bar shootings.

Sadly, I don't think Nate means that lawyers were the ones who got shot most often back then.

Blogger Nate October 22, 2013 11:04 PM  

"The new mini-14's are suppose to be accurate now.

You pimping the SU-16?

I would have guessed a glock dissenter would quite possibly be an AR 15 dissenter too?"

I love the AR.. and I love my SU.

The mini 14 is not accurate now... nor will it ever be. 3 moa is what the fancy dolled version supposedly shoots... which means its about as accurate as the average pistol. The standard mini-14 will barely stay on the paper at 150 yards.

Anonymous Anonymous October 22, 2013 11:10 PM  

"Proper guns should not be pink."

I disagree. Guns should be whatever you're happy with. And why not have fashion designers get in on this business?

- Guido

Anonymous DonReynolds October 22, 2013 11:18 PM  

Tom Kratman....."Hmmm...it seems to me that to have a global 2nd amendement we'd also need a global constitution for a global government. I think I'll pass on that one."

Absolutely, Tom. We have a difficult time getting agreement on things American when only Americans get to vote.

Most of them have no idea how wildly outnumbered we would be by Un-Americans if there were ever a global constitution.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 22, 2013 11:23 PM  

I've worked with the UN, Don. Some of them are actually very competent, and they're the scary ones.

Anonymous Beau October 22, 2013 11:45 PM  

I've looked at the Cricket, but never tried one, so I can't speak to the quality.

Scipio's younger brother took to the Crickett like a fish to water. The front sight is plastic, but it'll be replaced with a scope for his birthday. As another commentator noted a while back, the single shot bolt action helps slow the shooter down into becoming a better marksman.

Blogger Whiskey October 23, 2013 12:01 AM  

As far as concealed carry goes, you can read for free Hardins autobiogrsphy written in prison, Hickock did not allow open carry in Dodge City but looked the other way for concealed carry. All his policy did was make the cowboys have to fumble for Colts under jackets etc.

OT, Hardin describes in detail multiple failures of his firearms such as cylinder falling out or not locking up.

Anonymous Stickwick October 23, 2013 12:07 AM  

Jack: The problem is, it doesn't really matter what most police do. It matters... well, let's compare and contrast.

I won't dispute any of what you said as it pertains to the risks of open carry, but none of that is relevant to the point I was making. Someone took issue with Vox's claim that police would love a Freedom From Terror Treaty, so I brought up that our former-LEO acquaintance said most police would not enforce sweeping gun control legislation. Someone else tried to counter with a claim that most police react poorly to open carry, thus we can't trust LEOs to be true to their word in this regard. I was only responding that you can't reliably infer what most LEOs would do on the basis of what a few actually do. And in terms of sweeping gun control, it does matter what most cops would do, because there's no way a minority of LEOs could enforce gun control all on their own.

Anonymous Stickwick October 23, 2013 12:10 AM  

James: For your amusement, Stickwick.

Heh. And then there's the matter of this sudden craving for lasagna ...

Anonymous A Visitor October 23, 2013 12:13 AM  

"An armed society is a polite society." I did not realize until I read the article that Noble is an American. That is key as almost any other nationality would be against it. I say this as I have Spaniard friends who agree with me on nearly everything politically, save the 2nd Amendment.

It's hard to believe there used to be marksmanship classes in high school in the U.S. My friend, when he got back from Afghanistan, bought an AR-15. He was shooting the breeze with an old timer at the counter. This gentleman (I say that in the most respectful use of the word) bought his first pistol when he was 12, paid cash, and walked out with it (evidently this was before the GCA of 1968). My grandfather bought his first shotgun in his teens in the 1940's, paid cash for it, and walked out with it.

Our forefathers would be disgusted with the cowards (mental and physical) we men of the republic have become. I think Don Corleone's words may be in order. Logic will never prevail with emotional pleas of the Left but I think Westgate may have struck a chord with those on the fence.

We can only hope other countries follow our lead.

Anonymous Stickwick October 23, 2013 12:24 AM  

As far as purty guns go, here are two of my babies. Hubby let me choose the Elektra as a gift last year, but he flat-out refused to pay for the pink or purple models (only on principle, not that it was even remotely tempting).

Anonymous VryeDenker October 23, 2013 3:23 AM  

Has everyone missed the bit where he says "Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security." ?

Guess which one they're gonna go for.

Anonymous Nah October 23, 2013 6:50 AM  

Hmmm...it seems to me that to have a global 2nd amendement we'd also need a global constitution for a global government. I think I'll pass on that one.

How so?

It would be just like the UN Small Arms Treaty, except good rather than evil.

Blogger Rantor October 23, 2013 6:52 AM  

Noble will not be getting a Nobel.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 23, 2013 8:52 AM  

Because there is either a government, with power of law, to enforce it, or it's just precatory bullshit. Are _we_ going to go to war - under fully PC UN command, of course - to enforce the right of all Germans to have access to arms? One doubts. Will the eurotrash accede to a treaty that demands the same? One doubts. Hence meaningless bullshit.

When do you expect the UN Army to show up in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to enforce the small arms treaty, by the way? Same precatory bullshit.

Anonymous Nah October 23, 2013 9:37 AM  

By that logic, ALL treaties are precatory bullshit and we should never sign any treaty with anyone.

Anonymous Alexander October 23, 2013 10:34 AM  

Not the worst course of action imaginable.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 23, 2013 10:46 AM  

Thank goodness for the cops:

Cops kill 13 yr old with toy gun

Blogger Tom Kratman October 23, 2013 11:53 AM  

Nah, you show a lack of discernment, Nah. Most treaties regulate a country's relationship with another country; they do not purport to regulate domestic affairs of either of them. Now go hang your head in shame.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 23, 2013 12:15 PM  

but none of that is relevant to the point I was making. Someone took issue with Vox's claim that police would love a Freedom From Terror Treaty, so I brought up that our former-LEO acquaintance said most police would not enforce sweeping gun control legislation. ... And in terms of sweeping gun control, it does matter what most cops would do, because there's no way a minority of LEOs could enforce gun control all on their own.

I see your point now, thank you for setting me straight.

I disagree partly. In the situation you are talking about, a few outlier Officer Gungrabbers don't matter much, but Chief or Captain Gungrabber does*. Your acquaintance may have said "most police would not enforce sweeping gun control legislation" but I suspect what he really meant was "most police officers would not like enforcing sweeping gun control legislation." The question is, will they still do it if the boss tells them to?

I can't possibly know the answer for certain, but I propose a proxy test. Next time you have the opportunity, ask your acquaintance what the general LEO opinion on traffic ticket quotas (i.e. revenue enhancement operations) is. If he says most LEOs dislike it, that tells us something, because whatever most think about it, nearly all of them actually write the tickets.

The other thing I would caution is you said he was a former-LEO. Older gentleman? The younger cops strike me as different.

* And what makes the story about the Interpol guy so remarkable is that he is a guy in leadership - in the bureaucracy-addled EU - who has publically gone against the gungrabber agenda. A few local Sheriffs have done likewise here, but can you imagine Eric Holder, or the Chief of Police for any major metro city doing that?

Anonymous Nah October 23, 2013 1:32 PM  

The USA is party to a crapload of multi-lateral treaties that regulate the internal affairs of the participants. Like all this feelgood crap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_instruments#Conventions

If you sign the convention against racism, you commit to "to eradicate racial segregation and the crime of apartheid within their jurisdictions (Article 3). Parties are also required to criminalize the incitement of racial hatred (Article 4), to ensure judicial remedies for acts of racial discrimination (Article 6), and to engage in public education to promote understanding and tolerance (Article 7)" -- which is nothing less than committing to regulate your internal affairs.

If you sign the convention against torture, you commit to take "effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2)" -- which again regulates your domestic affairs.

The conventions on being nice to women, children and cripples work the same way, i.e., states that sign it are agreeing to regulate their domestic affairs to be nice to women, children and cripples.

How would a commitment to protect the right to bear arms within your jurisdiction be different from that?

Blogger Tom Kratman October 23, 2013 1:40 PM  

Right, and it's all precatory nonsense, so why bother? Anybody who adheres to these treaties would do so anyway; anybody who wouldn't adhere to them is not made to do so by a signature. Only in the event of an effective world constitution, with a world government (pardon me while I vomit) and something like a monopoly on the use of force, would make a global second amendment effective...and, _especially_ given all those things, it would not do so.

Just by way of illustration, check out which state was the driving force behind the Protocol's Additional to Geneva Convention IV, then match that state's performance when it was actually engaged against guerillas.

Anonymous Stickwick October 23, 2013 4:28 PM  

Your acquaintance may have said "most police would not enforce sweeping gun control legislation" but I suspect what he really meant was "most police officers would not like enforcing sweeping gun control legislation."

He said they would flat-out refuse. It was shocking to hear that, because I expected him to say they would be sympathetic to the gun-grabbers or that they would, as you said, do it albeit reluctantly.

Next time you have the opportunity, ask your acquaintance what the general LEO opinion on traffic ticket quotas (i.e. revenue enhancement operations) is. If he says most LEOs dislike it, that tells us something, because whatever most think about it, nearly all of them actually write the tickets.

I don't think that's a reliable proxy. If these cops are writing extra tickets for actual offenses based on laws that are reasonable, generally accepted, and have been on the books for a long time, that doesn't imply a willingness to violate a basic human right. A better proxy would be to see whether they would go along with a ticket quota based on a brand-new revenue-generating law that was unreasonable and opposed by most citizens, e.g. if a town changed its speed limits to something so low it was guaranteed to make violators out of most drivers.

The other thing I would caution is you said he was a former-LEO. Older gentleman? The younger cops strike me as different.

Former LEO, recently became an FBI agent. Young guy in his 30s, very fit (met him at the gym).

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 23, 2013 4:42 PM  

Stickwick,

Check these sites daily. It will disabuse you of the idea that the "Only Ones" are to be trusted. Some perhaps, but check these daily for a month and see how you view it then:

Pro Libertate

Police Misconduct

Western Rifle Shooters

Battlefield USA

Free North Carolina

Anonymous Stickwick October 23, 2013 5:20 PM  

Conan: Check these sites daily. It will disabuse you of the idea that the "Only Ones" are to be trusted. Some perhaps, but check these daily for a month and see how you view it then:

It's interesting that a cautious, circumspect approach towards a largely unsupported claim has somehow generated the impression that I trust the police. Yes, I know about bad cops. There are enough of them that anyone who unequivocally trusts any police officer to do the right thing is a fool. Furthermore, I have a close friend who was recently victimized by the police -- egregiously so -- and have encouraged this person to sue them over it. I am under no delusions. Please, folks, don't bother providing me with any more tales of police malfeasance. All I'm saying is that stories like these don't necessarily paint a complete picture, just as stories about people who use guns to commit crimes don't paint a complete picture of private gun ownership. Population statistics are far more helpful in this regard for reasons I've already explained above. So far, no one has offered a firm basis upon which to claim that most cops would enforce a sweeping gun ban, therefore I'm not going to put much stock into it. And while I maintain a healthy degree of skepticism, I do find it encouraging that a former LEO has passionately asserted that most of his fellow officers would not enforce a gun ban.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 23, 2013 5:57 PM  

I don't think that's a reliable proxy. If these cops are writing extra tickets for actual offenses based on laws that are reasonable, generally accepted, and have been on the books for a long time, that doesn't imply a willingness to violate a basic human right.

But it does imply a willingness to treat citizens as peons, especially since most Revenue Enhancement ops end up exploiting selective enforcement of locations where the posted law is routinely violated. E.g. the posted 35 mph zone where the average speed is over 40 mph.

But perhaps you're right, there may be a better proxy, one that does test their willingness to violate basic human rights.

DUI checkpoints.

Anonymous Giraffe October 23, 2013 8:12 PM  

I disagree. Guns should be whatever you're happy with. And why not have fashion designers get in on this business?

Fine. revised: Serious guns should not be pink. Plinkers can be whatever.

As far as purty guns go,.. Nice. And no pink to be found.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 23, 2013 8:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Stickwick October 23, 2013 10:51 PM  

Jack: DUI checkpoints.

I think this is another flawed metric, and I'll explain why. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has sympathy for drunk drivers. That turns out to matter a great deal, because, like it or not, we have government by sympathy in this country, and it's been that way for a long time now. With every issue in this country, there's always a battle between reason and emotion. Take, for example, illegal immigration. Those who are principled on the political right take the position that we're supposed to be a government based on law. The other side comes back and says, yeah, but what about these poor immigrants who just want to live out their dreams? Sympathy is a powerful force, and we'll never get rid of it. But sympathy also has to be reined in, otherwise we get a complete breakdown of law and order -- and there are natural limits to how far sympathy can go. For instance, I'm sure you've seen the videos showing people refusing to submit to the DUI checkpoints, and police eventually acknowledging their constitutional right not to submit -- that's an indication that the police are brushing up against the limits of sympathy. But since everyone hates drunk driving and there's no good argument in favor of it, most people don't put up too much of a fuss about the checkpoints, and the police don't feel too bad about blurring the line between what's constitutional and what's not.

So, the big question in terms of gun control is, where are people's sympathies, and especially where are the sympathies amongst police officers? In addition to the LEO/FBI guy who's pro-2A, we also have a state trooper acquaintance who I learned today feels the same way. If you trust what these men say, the sympathy amongst police officers is overwhelmingly with private citizens who possess guns. Both of these men said they would flat-out refuse to enforce a gun ban, and they said a majority of their fellow officers would do likewise.

Even still, there's a caveat, and maybe this will address the concerns you and others have about police and gun bans. I think most of the Ilk have a sense that there are two cultures in the U.S., with dueling standards of justice. The two cultures can be distinguished in different ways, but for our purposes the distinction is largely between big-city-urban v. small-town or blue-state v. red-state. There is nothing more dangerous than a big-city or blue-state police officer, and, yes, a lot of those guys would probably try to enforce a gun ban. We already know that city governments in those areas lean decidedly in that direction. But in small towns and red-state areas? I very much doubt the same is true for them -- and those are the places where most of the privately-held guns are.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 23, 2013 11:15 PM  

I think this is another flawed metric, and I'll explain why. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has sympathy for drunk drivers. That turns out to matter a great deal, because, like it or not, we have government by sympathy in this country, and it's been that way for a long time now.

I disagree, and think the proxy is good. People don't have sympathy for dangerously drunk drivers, but I don't think there's a reservoir of anger at people who've had a drink but are not drunk. Certainly there has been a relentless media campaign to claim that someone who's had two beers is the same as someone three sheets to the wind, and some people have bought the lie, but then again there's been a media campaign to demonize gun ownership too. The whole "daddy's gun is more likely to kill his kids than save them" propaganda comes to mind...

Both are instances where a media campaign has been conducted to use a particular fear of death (by gun or vehicular accident respectively) to justify trampling individual rights (to own firearms and to travel without being subject to random stop-and-search activities). That one has worked better than the other with the public is interesting, but the fact that police are willing to engage in one is still relevant to the question of whether they will engage in the other too if asked.

Even still, there's a caveat, and maybe this will address the concerns you and others have about police and gun bans...There is nothing more dangerous than a big-city or blue-state police officer...But in small towns and red-state areas? I very much doubt the same is true for them

Certainly there is much truth to this, and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons there has not been as much overreach on this as there has been on other topics. (cough healthcare cough). But the trend is for the big-city machines to gobble up the autonomy of the rural districts whenever possible, and it is usually a ratchet effect that never goes back the other way. Cities are vacuuming in as much money as they can, impoverishing us folks in "the sticks", and then using that to obtain control. I live in a rural part of King County, WA (Seattle is in King County). Our town retains it's own police force, but the town down the valley couldn't afford to keep theirs in the wake of the financial meltdown, so they are now reliant on King Co. Sheriffs. Well, it's still mostly okay as far as firearms goes, because Washington State is an odd duck that way - liberal as all get out on most issues, but quite pro-gun. It's much easier to get a CCW in ultraliberal King Co. than it is to get a permit to build a deck onto your house.

Anyway, bottom line is, you are possibly right at the moment that LEOs would resist gun grabbing, but I do think the balance is shifting, more rapidly than we may think. Police departments have been under a four-pronged assault:

1 - capture the leadership via politics
2 - neuter the voice of the membership via unionization
3 - draw the membership to Big Government through financial dependency
4 - Indoctrinate new recruits to think of themselves as distinct from the masses

Has there been any effort to combat any of that?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 24, 2013 9:34 AM  

Here is another one:

PUPPYCIDE: The Documentary

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts