Legalizing Harassment

I’ve got a few pro-gun-control friends who say “I support common sense restrictions on people who shouldn’t have guns…”

So does every gun rights supporter.

“…including Red Flag Laws”

OK, we need to talk.

“Red Flag” laws have a bunch of problems:

1) They allow anyone – literally, anyone you’ve had a personal, business, romantic or habitation relationship with – to go to a judge and tell any story they want, literally, without you being there to defend yourself. And if a judge – whatever their motivations – agrees, then you’ll have armed cops swarming over your house, no different than if they’re serving a warrant on a drug dealer. By the way – Swat teams going after “armed subjects” have “assault rifles”, and get nervous.

What could go wrong?

2) You say you want to prevent suicide? OK – let’s say you actually *are* a danger to yourself. The laws allow the cops to take…your guns. Not the booze and sleeping pills, the rope, the gas ovens, the cars, the razor blades. They cart your guns away and apparently say “At least they won’t *shoot* themselves.”

Brilliant, huh?

And the thing is, there’s an actual law already on the books in Minnesota (253.05) that already allows people with legitimate concerns to get a 72 hour hold *for cause*, that *actually* is intended to keep people from hurting themselves!

3) And if someone is a danger to others? They, like Nik Cruz, have been legitimately threatening to hurt *others*? Yep, there’s a law for that – MN statute 518.01, if memory serves, which allows the cops to preventatively arrest people *for legitimate cause* if there’s an actual threat to *other people*.

“Red Flag” laws are less effective at preventing suicide than existing statute. They *do* less than current law at preventing actual crimes.

What *are* they good for?

Harassing law-abiding gun owners. Seriously – some local gun control activists have already promised to “Swat” local second amendment leaders if the laws pass. And you can already see the wheels turning in the minds of some sleazy divorce lawyers and political opposition researchers out there.

In states where these sorts of laws have been passed, that’s exactly what’s happened.

They are useless in dealing with suicide and crime, and good only for harassment.

What’s the defense?

And if your idea of a “defense” is “We’ve got to dooooooooo something” – just no. What you propose to doooooooo is worse than useless.

But give it a shot.

May You Get Your Wish, Dumb*ss

Big Left – and its wholly owned subsidiary, Big Gun Control – is actively working to “other” the law-abiding gun owner – to make the law-abiding practice of a legal act something not done in “polite company”, or at least that company as practiced by the part of our society that considers infanticide acceptable and self-defense gauche.

One Michael Schrader of suburban Detroit throws his two ignorant cents into the mix with this op-ed. about an open-carrying Michigander at a Detroit-area McDonalds.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I were shopping in Fort Gratiot, and we decided to stop at the Fort Gratiot McDonald’s to have some lunch, as we have done many times before. We pulled in a parking space, turned off the car, and then spotted something that caused us to decide to go somewhere else.
In the few seconds it took for me to restart the car, we saw several customers hurriedly rush out of the restaurant with panicked looks on their faces.
What was it that we spotted? A man carrying a gun into the restaurant.
Because Michigan is an open carry state, it is quite legal for someone to walk into a busy McDonald’s with a firearm. Why do it? Because it is your right?

There are some legitimate questions of tactics and manners to be asked – but then, one asks why Michael Schrader would ask the questions. Because it is his right…er, wait.

Anyway – yes, he started trite. That merely cleanses the palate for the invincible ignorance:

Given that there were Canadians in that restaurant, and they don’t have the same gun culture that we have, how do you think that made them feel?

By this “logic”, people with happy marriages should shut up about it, unless someone in an unhappy marriage is listening.

I can’t speak for the Canadians, but I can speak for myself — seeing someone other than a police officer walking around with a firearm does not make me feel safe; quite the opposite.

And Mr. Schrader is entitled to his feelings – but they’re wrong. Carry permittees in the US are 1/6 as likely to harm the wrong person, per capita, than the police. That’s about 1/36 as often as the general public – and I”m gonna guess it’s even steeper in Detroit.

We next go from ignorant to stupid:

Suppose that I am armed, too. Should I fire preemptively at the other person with the gun just in case that person is a “bad guy,” and take the chance of killing a “good guy,” or should I hold my fire and take the chance that the other person will not be a “bad guy” or be a “good guy” and think I am a “bad guy” and fire at me first?

Tell you what, Mr. Schrader: ask the next shooter you see who’s carrying, but who is not any sort of threat to you in any actual way. Phrase the question at the top of your lungs, if you prefer.

See who the police haul in.

I speak for myself, and I am confident I speak for many others — I don’t need armed vigilantes protecting me from criminals.

To borrow an idea from my friend Rob Doar – whether I carry concealed or openly (if I even owned guns, which I don’t, because they terrify me), I’m not protecting you. I’m protecting me and mine. If heaven forfend I ever am forced to defend me and mine from an immediate lethal threat, and so cause your smug life to be spared, trust me – it’ll be the least of my concerns.

Amateur Hour At Parkland

School shootings have been front-page bait for nearly 30 years. It’s been nearly two decades since Columbine. Nearly ten since Virginia Tech.

And yet official America has learned nearly nothing, and contents itself with waving childrens’ bloody shirts to try to disarm people who didn’t, and never do, do the shooting in the first place.

The Orlando Sun Sentinel has an excellent interactive story showing the extent of the incompetence, breakdowns and bad planning that allowed Nick Cruz to slaughter 17 kids.

And of course, human frailty:

Cruz fires his first shots, killing freshmen Martin DuqueLuke Hoyer and Gina Montalto in the hallway of the first floor.

Taylor, the campus monitor, hears gunshots and races up to the second floor. He ducks into a janitor’s closet. Taylor has a radio but does not call a Code Red.

I’ll rarely second guess someone who exhibits what some might call “cowardice” to avoid getting shot. But the fact remains – Parkland’s security depended on a group of unarmed school monitors who failed to even order an alert that might have locked the school down, much less dealt with Cruz.

The story notes that there were heroes present that day…

Athletic director and campus monitor Chris Hixon is already at Building 12. He enters the double doors at the west end of the hall and runs toward Cruz.
Cruz shoots Hixon, who crawls to take cover in a nearby doorway. Cruz finds him about 30 seconds later and shoots him again.

[Social Studies teacher Ernie ]Rospierski flees with 10 students toward a stairwell as Cruz fires down the hall.
Two of the students, Jaime Guttenberg and Peter Wang, are hit. Wang dies in the hallway and Guttenberg in the stairwell, but others get away as Rospierski holds the door closed from inside the stairwell to keep Cruz from advancing.

…but a good plan, competently executed, is a whole lot better for everyone involved that heroes – especially dead ones.

The story is positively heartbreaking – a cascading tragicomedy of avoidable errors, frailty/cowardice, and official negligence.

Note that at any point, any armed response – any – would very likely have caused Cruz’ psychopathic reverie to break, sending him running away or off to a corner to shoot himself, even if it didn’t incapacitate him outright.

The performance of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office – both Scot Peterson and the other officers who responded – comes in for particular contempt. The department, led Sheriff Israel, who turned into an gun control leader to try to cover his own incompetence, covered itself in shame that day.

And yes, Sheriff Israel bears a disproportionate share of the blame. Although six deputies were on scene while the shooting was still going on, they were as useless as door-to-door salespeople – in large part due to policies pushed by Israel:

Since Columbine, officers are taught to rush toward gunshots and neutralize the killer. But the first Broward deputies don’t rush in.
Broward Sheriff Scott Israel later reveals that he personally changed department policy to say that deputies “may” instead of “shall” rush in.

And they lived down to their leadership – at least two BCSO officers went on the radio to urge their fellow officers to stay well clear of the school buildings.

Of course, not all the cops on the scene were useless simps:

Four Coral Springs officers enter through the west doors, where they see Chris Hixon shot. Two officers pull Hixon out of the building and onto a golf cart. He will not survive.

The Coral Springs officers later tell investigators their training was clear – run toward the gunfire.

Coral Springs Officer Raymond Kerner, the school resource officer at nearby J.P. Taravella High School, would tell investigators:
“Basically, what we’re trained to do is just get right to the threat as quick as possible and take out the threat because every time you hear a shot go off it could potentially be a kid getting killed or anybody getting killed for that matter.”

So there’s that.

Which, in its own way, evades the point; depending on law enforcement, even competent and courageous law enforcement, is not only a chimera, it’s an abdication of an adult’s responsibility.

Promises As Empty As A Fiberglass Tube

The city of Baltimore held a gun buy-back earlier this week.

They spent a bunch of money.

And the mayor thought she had something to crow about:

She did not.

It’s a spent tube from a military “AT-4” anti-tank weapon. I emphasize – spent. It’s been fired – so all it really is now is a fiberglass tube with some miscellaneous parts and hardware. The only thing it’ll ever launch is flowers – but only if you tip it up on end and fill it with dirt and seeds.

And they can be had for about half what the city of Baltimore paid for it – $500.

Faith No More

Vermont teen busted planning to carry out a school lmassacre.

That’s the good news.

The bad news? Then, they went and confiscated the firearms belonging to a relative that had nothing to do with the case:

According to the news report and the law as written, the actions taken by law enforcement were illegal and should have been prevented by the presiding judge.
This case raises serious questions about judicial review in gun violence restraining order cases. Many who push for “red flag” laws claim that the courts will weigh the evidence at hand and the law equally without violating individual rights. The Vermont law clearly states that it is only applicable when “prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or having a dangerous weapon within the person’s custody or control.”
But in this case, the firearms in question were owned by a relative and kept in another home. Having potential access to them by criminal means like theft doesn’t qualify under the law.

Further proof that there is no such thing as a “good faith compromise” with gun control advcoates. Every single one is either:

  • Actively seeking gun oonfiscation by means covert or wanton, or
  • A useful idiot doing the work of those who are.

I’ve been involved in the issue a long time, and I have yet to meet an exception.

Challenge Accepted

State “bump stock” bans are going over like Lynyrd Skynyrd tapes at an NPR fundraiser.  Vermont’s gun grab netted almost nothing:

State police told local media this week that a total of two reciprocating stocks were turned in prior to the Oct. 1 deadline. Two! That’s it! For the entire state!

The ATF estimates that there are up to a half million bump stocks in circulation in the U.S. While it’s not clear how many are in The Green Mountain State, it’s almost certainly more than two! [Going purely proportional share of the population, the number could be right around 1,000 – Ed.]

It’s not like they couldn’t have predicted this:

Authorities in Vermont should not be shocked by the poor turnout. Compliance in the other eight states that have prohibited them has also been virtually nonexistent.

Only three stocks had been surrendered by the February deadline in Massachusetts, and as of earlier this year, none (0) have been turned in since Denver and New Jersey banned the devices, as GunsAmerica previously reported.

Henceforth, any citizen caught possessing a bump stock faces up to a year in jail, a fine of $1,000 or both, Vermont State Police Capt. Tim Clouatre told NBC5.

Kinda makes you wonder how it’ll work when they start going for the guns themselves…

A Fool’s Errand

Well, the Trump administration is making moves to ban “bump stocks” – mechanical devices that speed up semi-automatic firing.

That’ll have an effect on firearm homicides – right?

What do you think?

And it’s not limited to ARs. Other firearms, down through handguns, can be jury rigged to “bump fire”. Not that you’d want to – it’s a great way to burn up money and hit nothing you’re shooting at.

Well, the good news is that they have no intention of stopping with this utterly meaningless result.

Wait…

Leyes De Seguridad De Armas De “Common Sense”

Some Venezuelans are realizing something that we Real Americans have been tryihg to explain to Califorians, New Yorkers, New Jersey-ites and Connecti…cutters (?); that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has nothing to do with hunting, and is only coincidentally about self-defense against criminals.

They’re figuring it out

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all – except government entities.

Chavez initially ran a months-long amnesty program encouraging Venezuelans to trade their arms for electrical goods. That year, there were only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders, while the majority of seizures – more than 12,500 – were by force.

…just a tad too late.

Liberals scoff when Real Americans talk about guns being a bulwark against tyranny.

Perhaps because they’re OK with tyranny.

Lie First, Lie Always: An Open Letter To The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence

To:   The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence
From:  Mitch Berg, Irascible Peasant
Re:  Think.  Think Really Really Hard

Rev.  Nord Bence,

Over the weekend, you posted this on “Protect” MN’s Facebook page:

Over the years, I’ve pointed out – with absolute accuracy – that you have never made a single statement about guns, gun owners, gun history, gun laws, the 2nd Amendment or gun crime that was simultaneously substantial, original and true.  

Here’s the good news:   your claims above are substantial, and, er, “original”.  But they are howlers. 

Run Awaaaaaaay:   First – you say “police in Minnesota can already use the Stand Your Ground defense”. 

Well, yeah.  That’s right.  The police don’t have a “duty to retreat” when doing their jobs.   Unlike civilians, they are supposed to run toward trouble.   

They don’t have “Stand your Ground”.   They have “Qualified Immunity” – not only no obligation to try to retreat, but a mulligan for mistakes made in generally good faith in the line of duty. 

Question for you, “Reverend” Nord Bence:  Would you prefer that police also be required to run away from criminals?  

Just curious. 

Shoot Off Your Unqualified Mouth First, As Questions Later:  Next comes the notion that self-defense reform would give citizens “the same right to shoot first and ask questions later” that cops “have”. 

Nope.  It merely means that citizens don’t have to convince a county attorney that they tried hard enough to run away from a threat (that was otherwise a reasonable threat of death or grave injury), provided you were anyplace you had a legal reason to be. 

That’s it.  

It’s not a license to kill. 

And I suspect you know that – and are lying anyway, to logroll the gullible dolts who take you seriously.   

Either that or you are a deeply, deeply stupid person.  

My money says “both”. 

That is all.  

 

Failure

California’s ballyhooed background check law put in place nearly 40 years ago had no effect on violent crime or suicide, according to those noted conservative tools at…

…Johns Hopkins.

Researchers compared yearly gun suicide and homicide rates over the 10 years following implementation of California’s law with 32 control states that did not have such laws.

They found “no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.”

Of course, curbing crime and saving lives aren’t and never were the goals.

Lie First, Lie Always: Miss Placed

Last February, while riding her motorcycle home from work in suburban Tacoma, Washington, Aubrey Bowlin – a 24-year-old woman who weighs in at about 100 pounds, soaking wet – wound up in a fight fight for her life in a road rage incident with a driver considerably larger than her.

First, he tried to ram her with his car; when that didn’t work, and they were stopped in traffic, he jumped out and started beating and choking the young woman.

She had already started to lose consciousness when she remembered her permitted firearm, And shot her attacker. The man, Bruce Jones, died of his injuries.

Prosecutors didn’t press charges – it was clearly self-defense, right out of the gate.

Happy ending, right?

Well, no. Partly, it’s because that thing you’re taught in carry permit training about “using a gun in self-defense is the second worst possible outcome” is exactly correct:

Still, the past six months have not been easy for her. Post-traumatic stress disorder is constantly with Bowlin.

“The physical injuries have healed, but it’s now the emotional ones that are with me, every second of every day,” she said.

Therapy is helpful, but it is the “most expensive thing I’ve seen, to date,” she said. Because of this, her family and friends have set up a GoFundMe page for Bowlin to help with the costs of counseling.

And partly, it’s because gun-control advocates are such incredible, mindless, depraved ghouls.

an anti-gun website, which puts up photos of people whose lives have been “lost to gun violence,” has put up a photo of this guy that Aubrey shot, Bruce Jones.

The comments on the anti-gun website page about Mr. Jones are pretty scathing; The owners apparently never got the memo from gun-grabber central about never engaging with or recognizing the existence of their opposition.

But this sort of behavior is nothing new; many of the “children” counted as “victims of gun violence” gang members under the age of 21. It’s still a tragedy, to be sure – as is every life lost to gang violence – and some of the “mass shootings” shown on websites purporting to track mass shootings are self defense shootings with three or more attackers killed or wounded.

A Good Guy With A Gun

And armed citizen with a legally owned a firearm has shot and killed a wannabe spree killer a restaurant in Oklahoma:

An armed citizen shot and killed a mass shooter at a restaurant in Oklahoma on Thursday after the gunman walked in and opened fire, hitting several people.

“A man walked into the Louie’s restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot,” police said, CNN reported. “A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him.”

Oklahoma City Police tweeted: “ALERT: The only confirmed fatality is the suspect. He was apparently shot-to-death by an armed citizen. Three citizens were injured, two of whom were shot. A large number of witnesses are detained. There is no indication of terrorism at this point.”

If episodes like this got anywhere near the saturation coverage that “successful” spree killings did, we wouldn’t have spree killings.

And people like the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence would get booed and heckled off more stages.

A Good Ol’ Gal With A Gun

A  South Carolina woman kills an escaped inmate who had just kicked down her back door:

The inmate was still in his orange jail jumpsuit and had grabbed a knife sharpening tool from the woman’s kitchen in Pickens as he headed toward her bedroom around 3 a.m. Tuesday, Pickens County Sheriff Rick Clark said.

“This was a big guy. If she hadn’t had a weapon there’s no telling what would have happened,” Clark said. “I gave her a big hug. I told her how proud I was of her.”

I’m trying to imagine any Metro area chiefs of police who’d do that.

Bruce McLaughlin Jr., 30, died from a gunshot to the head, Pickens County Coroner Kandy Kelley said.

McLaughlin and a second inmate, Timothy Dill, beat up two guards in an escape they had planned for days, Clark said at a news conference.

I’m not gonna call it a “Happy Ending” – killing someone is the second-worst possible outcome.

But the worst – a dead victim – is far, far worse.

Too bad gun control activists would prefer women like that to shut up and get raped to death.

Lie First, Lie Always: Nancy Nord Bence’s Unbroken Streak!

It’s not quite a “Berg’s Law”, since it only pertains to a few groups, most particularly “Protect” Minnesota – the voice of the gun control movement in Minnesota – but it’s getting close.

Let be say this as clearly and unequivocally as I can:

“Protect” Minnesota has never made a single statement about guns, gun violence, gun laws, the 2nd Amendment, or law-abiding gun owners that is simultaneously substantial, original and true [1].  

Not one. 

Doesn’t matter if it was Heather Martens, or Nancy Nord Bence, or any of their constantly-rotating stream of lobbyists, lieutenants and creepy hangers-on; it’s still true.

Not one single statement that is simultaneously substantial, original and true. 

Case in point:  their “coverage” of the episode a few weeks ago where a (WHITE!  MIDDLE AGED!) Eden Prairie man got into a scuffle with a bunch of reportedly Somali teens at a gas station.

This was their first response to the story, going back a bit.

Now, I’ve been watching the story as well.  We don’t know much about the story, but we know a few things:

First – the man had no Minnesota carry permit.   Thank goodness.

Second – while the laws about displaying and threatening the use of lethal force are even more vague in Minnesota than the ones about the use of lethal force, it is under some circumstances legal to “brandish” a firearm to make a potential threat go away.    The law – a mixture of vague statute and very specific case law – is muddled and specific; while the juridprudence on the subject might not be designed to be a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to prosecutors, and from people to defense attorneys – but if they had set out to design such a system, it wouldn’t look a lot different.

Third – for purposes of my point, the actual behavior of the “Somali teens” doesn’t matter; they may have been utterly blameless (although groups of teenagers, especially with adolescent boys showing out for the girls, are pretty much always small, demented mobs no matter their ethnicity; given that the news reports mention nothing about their behavior, I’m doing to assume there’s something to hide).  So with that said – the video from Channel 4 seems to show that the man tried to retreat as the group of “teenagers” harried him.

Which means it’s not a “Stand Your Ground” case.

The guy may or may not have reasonably feared for his life and safety, thus possibly justifying brandishing a firearm – that, it seems, will be decided at trial.

Someone needs to tell the howler monkey – likely the gaffe-prone, not-especially-fact-obsessed Nord Bence:

As usual when “P” M makes a statement?   No.  This case wouldn’t be any different at all.

Why?

As we’ve pointed out countless times on this blog, there are four criteria you need to meet under current Minnesota law to use lethal force in self-defense; you have to reasonably  fear immediate death or great bodily harm, you can’t be the aggressor, you can only use the force needed to end the threat, and you have a duty to make a reasonable effort to retreat.

“Stand your ground” merely removes that last clause when you are anyplace you have a legal right to be.  Including McDonalds.

It doesn’t remove the other three criteria!

Was he in immediate life-threatening danger?    Was he the aggressor?  That’ll be decided at trial.

But – let me find the “Bold” button for emphasis:

He retreated!     He backed away from the “teens”!   Was it a “reasonable” effort to do so?  We’ll see what the jury decides.

But “Stand Your Ground” was not, and would never be, an issue in this case.

And if you get your information from “Protect” Minnesota, about this or any other case, you are not only less informed, but you’re participating in making our society dumber on this issue.

Continue reading

The Invisible Trigger Finger

Dick’s Sporting Goods signals virtue, drops all “AR”-pattern rifles from its inventory, accompanied with a tsunami of smug.

Shooters groups promise a boycott.

The boycott works:

Dick’s Sporting Goods took a firm, anti-gun stance. Oh, it’ll still sell guns, but it’ll only sell “approved” guns, the kind that anti-gunners generally pretend are fine. At least until they get around to demanding those be banned too.

When Dick’s made its announcement that it would not sell AR-15s at any of its stores going forward and that it would discriminate against legal adults looking to buy long guns, gun rights advocates called for a boycott. It was answered. So much so that the company has been reeling from the lost revenues.

It’s now to the point that the company is considering cutting out all of its hunting merchandise.

The CEO for the sporting goods retailer said Thursday that the company was doing a trial run in 10 locations, pulling all hunting merchandise and replacing it with other items.

“Though it’s too early to discuss performance, we’re optimistic these changes will better serve the athletes in these communities,” Dick’s CEO Edward Stack said in a conference call, as reported by JSOnline.

The reason for the new approach may be because sales in that department have plummeted across all of Dick’s 732 stores.

“Specific to hunt, in addition to the strategic decisions made regarding firearms earlier this year, sales continued to be negatively impacted by double-digit declines in hunt and electronics,” said Lee Belitsky, chief financial officer.

By “strategic decisions” Belitsky is referring to the company’s announcement in the wake of the February massacre in Parkland, Florida that it would no longer sell guns to adults under the age of 21 and that it would not only stop selling but destroy its existing inventory of modern sporting rifles at its 35 Field & Stream locations.

The grabbers can buy o=all the media they want – but they don’t control the market.

Which is, of course, why they’re trying to destroy the market.

For The Children

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is out behind his house, turning his city trash barrel right side up, when Avery LIBRELLE turns down the alley, riding a Lime Bike. BERG can’t escape.  

LIBRELLE:  Merg!   It’s time for comprehensive gun control!

BERG:   Of course it is.  Even though none of it can have any effect on gun violence – none at all – and it violates wholesale the rights of the law-abiding.

LIBRELLE:   Hah!   When I heard about Newtown, I stopped caring about your so-called “rights” (makes scare quotes as h…er, sh…er, as LIBRELLE says “Rights”)

BERG:  You did, huh?

LIBRELLE:  Yep!

BERG: For the children?

LIBRELLE:  Yes!

BERG: I hear and understand you completely, Avery.  I did the same thing.

LIBRELLE:  Er – wait.  What?

BERG:  When I saw pictures of the Holocaust…:

…and what happens to the children when people lose their freedom…

…even – no, especially their children, then I stopped caring about the emotions of people who put the word “rights” in scare quotes.

LIBRELLE:   (Absentmindedly looks down at the control panel on the bike) – Hey, Merg – I ran out of stored money on this bike.  Give me your credit card.

(And SCENE)

Spree Shootings: Burying The Lede

Last month, we covered the story of an attempted mass shooting at a Kroger in Louisville, KY.

The article I wrote was based on media reporting that said that the killer told one of his victims “whites don’t kill whites”.   The killing was later ended by a good guy with a carry permit.

As John Lott points out (in an article I’ll be revisiting later this week), the media left out a key fact of the story:

National media outlets such as ABC and NBC covered the attack, noting that the alleged gunman told another white man that: “Whites don’t kill whites.” It sounded as if the gunman was merely reassuring a bystander that he had nothing to worry about. But reporters left out the crucial first part of the quote. The killer said: “Don’t shoot me. I won’t shoot you. Whites don’t shoot whites.” The other white person was pointing a permitted concealed handgun at the killer.

The killer ran, murdered another (black) woman, before being engaged by Dominic Rozier, a good guy with a gun and a family to defend.

There’s a lot of other good stuff in the article; more later this week.

 

History Never Repeats, Usually

2018:  “Nobody wants to take your guns.  We just want commonsense gun safety laws”
— the ruling party

1994:  “Nobody wants to murder Tutsis.  We just need commonsense Tutsi control”.
— the ruling party

1931:  “Nobody wants to kill all the Jews.  We just want commensense Jew control”
— the ruling party

1915:  “Nobody really wants to kill Armenians.  We just need commonsense Armenian control”
— the ruling party

1867:   “Nobody wants to decimate the Indians and expropriate their land.   We just need commonsense Indian control and land management”
— the ruling party

Tyranny never comes to your door in a T-shirt saying “Hi! Ask Me About The Benefits Of Having Your Freedom And Humanity Crushed!”.

Paranoid

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is waiting in line at Sorrento Cucina in the Minneapolis skyway.  He sees Avery LIBRELLE coming around a corner.  The thought of trying to slip away into the crowd visibly crosses his mind.    But the lure of Sorrento’s delicious sausige  conflicts him long enough that LIBRELLE notices him.  

LIBRELLE:  Merg!

BERG:  Hey, Avery.  What’s up?

LIBRELLE:  With the incoming Democrat House of Representatives in Saint Paul, we’re going to stick it to all you gun-lickers!

BERG:  Huh.  Yeah, I see that the incoming Speaker, Melissa Hortman, says that even though Minnesota has one of the lowest murder rates in the United States, and perhaps the lowest murder rate among states with a top-20 metro area, she’s going to make “gun violene” her #1 priority.

Not the educational achievement gap.  Not economic development in the Iron Range.  Not even anything that’ll have a meaningful impact on urban crime.

LIBRELLE:   Merg!  Don’t you read the papers?  Mass shootings are going on all over the place!  Our schools are charnel houses!  Our malls and gay bars are abattoirs!    Everywhere you go, you are in danger from mass shootings!

BERG:  The rate of spree killings isn’t correlated with the presence of civilian firearms – although it is correlated with “gun free zones” – but schools are the safest they’ve been in decades as re overall gun crime…

LIBRELLE:  I don’t care about overall crime!  Mass shootings are a constant factor of life!  They can hit you any time!  They can’t be predicted…

BERG: …other than being in “gun free zones”…

LIBRELLE:  …and any time you leave your house you’re in constant danger of being gunned down by a white guy with an AR47!

BERG:  Huh.  Now, it’s academic to me, since all my guns fell into Mille Lacs over the summer – but it things really are that dire and serious out there…

LIBRELLE:  They are!  They are!

BERG:  …then it’d be prudent and common sense to decide to carry a firearm to defend myself and those around me from this apparently constant and imminent threat.

LIBRELLE:  Good Lord, Merg – you’re so paranoid!

BERG:  Clearly.

And SCENE

The Exposed Inner Id Of The Metrocrats

So Minnesota will have a new Speaker of the House – Melissa Hortman, longtime DFL extreme Metrocrat.

How extreme?

What do you suppose her first priority is going to be?  Minnesota’s fragile rural economy?  Crumbling infrastructure?  Our rural-urban educational divide?

How naive of you:

The new speaker, Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, said gun-violence prevention is priority No. 1

Minnesota already has among the lowest homicide rates, with or without firearms, of any state – and perhaps the lowest of any state with a major metro area in it.

We must be doing something right, right?

No – they’re answering to the master that put them in office: Bloomberg and the rest of the Democrat plutocrats with deep pockets.

If you’re a Minnesota gun owner or someone who cares about the Second Amendment, it’s that time again:

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus needs you to get involved.  Go sign up.  Become a sustaining member.   The MNGOC is the group doing all the work for 2nd Amendment rights in Minnesota.

This is one of those “Their Finest Hour” moments.  But they don’t happen on their own.

Open Letter To Paul Gazelka

To:  Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka
From:  Mitch Berg, Ornery Peasant
Re:    Line In The Snow

Senator Gazelka,

This morning on the lesser talk station, the host – Drew Lee – asked you about the approach your caucus, with its one-vote majority, was going to take regarding gun control in the coming session, given incoming Speaker Hortman’s statement that gun control is going to be her first priority.

(In a state with a muirder rate among the lowest in the nation – truly the extremist tail wagging the dog).

Your repliy seemed to indicate the proper response was to work with the opposition to find “a solution”.

I’ll make it simple;  the solution is fight crime.   Take everything that burdens the law-abiding gun owner off the table.

End of sentence.

The DFL – beholden as they are to millions of dollars in Bloomberg money for their wins in the election – will fight you on it.

We – the good guys, the law-abiding gun owners – will fight you a lot harder if you screw us.

Don’t screw us.

That is all.

Naughty And Nice Lists: Now Via NICS

Wisconsin company gives its employees their choice of handgun (reporter apparently thinks all handguns are “revolvers”) as a Christmas gift:

The business has 16 full-time employees, including several veterans. But the business also has employees who had never fired a gun, he said.

This is the first time his company has done anything like this, Wolfgram said. The father-son business was started in 2015 in a small garage workshop in this village of about 3,000 residents 100 miles northwest of Milwaukee.

Most workers were excited at the prospect of receiving their handguns, he said.

Employee Chelsea Priest of Green Bay said she feels as if the gift will empower her and will help keep her safe.

“I’ve never been a part of anything like this,” she said.

At least two employees initially declined the gift but are considering accepting it after taking a gun-safety course that company executives required before giving the guns, Wolfgram said.

Every time a person, and especially a company, sticks a finger in the eye of the likes of “Protect” MN, an angel gets its wings.