Having been one level of activist on the Second Amendment or another for thirty years now, and having seen how far the issue has moved since the mid-eighties – when the Second Amendment seems to be on the ropes – it’s almost tempting to fall into a bit of complacent triumphalism. This past twenty years has been one of the most impressive grass roots political campaigns in American history. It’s also given us the class war that the left has always been predicting – in inverted form; the gun grabbers are overwhelmingly drawn from society’s lotus-eating NPR-listening Subaru-driving patricians; the bulk of the Human Rights camp is mainstreet, blue-collar and middle-class Real America.
But the temptation can’t be indulged too long; the bad guys are still out there, and they still have the media for their mouthpiece. There were two notable calls for more gun control in the big media last week, ranging from the historically ignorant to the hysterically demented.
Deva Vu: The Star Tribune editorial board, in the wake of the Louisiana theater shooting, noting how the crazy man who did the shooting had gotten his pistol:
Despite that background, Houser had not been placed in a state or federal database of people prohibited from buying guns because he had not been involuntarily committed… American law enforcement authorities, mental health providers and gun dealer databases should be better integrated. Officials must do a better job of reporting and keeping track of those who shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns.
As a broad statement, that’s true.
Now, to give credit where credit is due – in Minnesota’s case, why isn’t all of the analogous information being reported to the federal NICS database?
Because the DFL has been stonewalling on the legislation that would allow the BCA to report that information to the feds – most recently, through Governor Flint-Smith’s 2012 veto of the bipartisan “Stand Your Ground” bill.
The shooting isn’t likely to stop until there’s a nationwide commitment to enforcing existing laws and strengthening others to keep firearms away from dangerous people. A good place to start would be background checks on gun purchases.
Would it, then?
History Is Haaaaard: Now, the Strib Editorial Board is a group of people, mostly in their sixties, who were mostly working as reporters forty-odd years ago.
They were all “reporting” the “news” in 1974, when Minnesota required citizens to apply for a permit to carry a handgun; Minnesota had required none before. Crime accordingly vanished – right?
They were in the newsroom through the seventies, when gun control laws ramped up, and crime boomed. They were wretchedly ink-stained as cities like Chicago, Morton Grove, and others completely banned civilian gun ownership. They watched – by which I mean, “ignored the news”, apparently – as experiment after experiment in gun control – background checks, tight regualation, even outright bans – failed to lower crime rates. They were even in the “news” biz when the inescapable conclusion – harrying the law-abiding citizen doesn’t affect the criminal, the insane, or the terrorist – made itself clear.
And yet here they are; demanding background checks from people who don’t take them, and demanding reporting changes that the DFL – the party their paper shamelessly shills – has been blocking for a decade.
This is your Strib editorial board.
But I hate to say it; they’re better than the subject of Part II of this series.
It’s a characteristically human trait that the less you know about something the better you think you are at it. That’s why the average driver is inept but imagines him/herself to be above average. That’s why Americans think “good guy” bullets will magically hit their target regardless of how little practical combat experience the shooter has.
In the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world of visual media, it takes endless practice with live rounds in a wide variety of realistic close-quarters battle situations (often with rounds or other encumbrances coming at you) to stand any reasonable chance of hitting a moving armed target that has the advantage of surprise. After all, few active shooters hold up a sign in advance or call out to warn their victims.
This is why it takes hundreds of hours of live ammo to train special forces operatives to be competent in CQB. Joe and Jane Overweight are far more likely to hit innocent bystanders than to hit the bad guy. The same, sadly, is true of the police – most qualification programs require that only 60% of shots be on target, as if the other 40% don’t count.
But reason, data, and all other real-world elements won’t make a bit of difference. Joe and Jane have watched so many movies and so many TV shows that they know they’d be able to defen themselves (presumably by the power of magic, as wishful thinking usually doesn’t get people very far) in the event that rounds started coming their way. After all, it’s everyone’s dream to be Rambo brassing up the bad guys…
If political leadership really wanted to reduce accidental gun death, and improve the chances legally deployed firearms are used skillfully (thereby reducing the chance of innocent bystanders getting shot), they would build training facilities.
Instead of another bicycle path, how about a shooting range for the public? It would almost certainly pay for itself through fees, and who doesn’t want safer firearm handling?
Our county Sheriff’s range is open to the public. They offer tactical training as well as CWP classes. We are a civilized people who care for the safety of our neighbors.
EI,
What a perfectly darling expression of your contempt for your fellow citizens. Of course what you say is pure twaddle but never mind, your thesis that only highly trained government operatives should be allowed weapons is quite clear.
“Joe and Jane Overweight are far more likely to hit innocent bystanders than to hit the bad guy.”
“More likely” would be 50% + 1 but this is Far more likely, so we’re talking at least 70% probability that Joe Overweight will not only miss the Bad Guy, but actually hit an innocent bystander instead. 70% of his shots will hit somebody, just not the intended target.
You’d think all those innocent victims of Joe Overweight shooting would be newsworthy but oddly, I can’t recall many news accounts of them. Lots of stories about gangbangers spraying lead and cops shooting up crowds of bystanders, but all those “concealed carry permit holder blood in the streets” news accounts keep slipping past me.
Unless . . . perhaps Joe Overweight doesn’t actually shoot very many bystanders? Perhaps Joe has something gangbangers and cops do not – a healthy reluctance to actually pull the trigger until things are really desperate, which cuts down on stray rounds and saves bystanders’ lives?
If the logic of an argument depends on a single fact that turns out to be incorrect, the logic collapses. I’m going to need some outside verification on where Joe’s shots have been going.
Kel: The permitting process of C/C is one thing. The type of training needed to take a permit holders skill to a higher level is quite another thing.
JD: There’s simply no substitute for experience and training in terms of firearms safety.
EI
“Joe Overweight” shoots the wrong person, on average, 2% of the time.
The average for cops is 11%.
That’s according to a Donald Kates survey a little over 20 years back. There’s no evidence the gap has narrowed.
That’s not a ding on cops. Cops frequently arrive on the scene to very ambiguous situations; by legal definition, “Joe” can only shoot when the threat is very direct and real.
Curb your narrative. It’s just not true.
There’s simply no substitute for experience and training in terms of firearms safety.
Training? Sure.
Experience? The average citizen is vanishingly unlikely to ever need to use a gun in self-defense, ever. Pretty much everyone who does, does it for the first and only time.
EI…please explain, then, how (one would assume highly trained) LE officers have a much higher rate of improper use of deadly force than law abiding permit holders.
Perhaps more training happens than you actually think.
MBerg says: “The average citizen is vanishingly unlikely to ever need to use a gun in self-defense, ever.”
I’ve made that point here many times with much derision from many in your audience. The arguments about protecting one’s home from criminals are fairly silly; most of those who own guns have a very low chance of encountering violent crime at home.
The arguments about protecting one’s home from criminals are fairly silly; most of those who own guns have a very low chance of encountering violent crime at home.
Low likelihood <> silly.
The average driver will never file a claim; the average home will never burn down; the average boat will never sink; the average car will never get stuck in a blizzard. And yet we have car and home insurance, wear life jackets, and carry candles, matches and snickers in our cars all winter.
Having a gun and needing it is much better than needing one and not having it. As I discovered about this time 27 years ago.
And as John Lott has shown, the fact that more law-abiding people have guns, all other things being equal, means that fewer will ever have to use them.
Are most anti-gun arguments flights of fancy? They sure sound like it.
The Emery Incognito Motto: be unprepared.
“An armed society is a civil society.” Robert Heinlein.
Just as title of this post suggests, EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list is in a permanent bend over position with his head firmly stuck up his ass. And with such contempt for the safety of Joe Overweight – his elitist mask is on prominent display.
Emery, you puzzle me. Time and again, SITD readers show your ‘facts’ are false and your ‘logic’ is flawed.
What I can’t figure out is why it doesn’t bother you to be repeatedly revealed as a complete bullshitter. Have you no self-respect?
.
Pingback: Bent Over Citizen: Part II – The NYTimes Demands A Police State | Shot in the Dark
You can’t find a gun store in Mpls., much less a shooting range. However on the net you can find weekly maps of locations of shots fired in Mpls. I wonder if the noise is just the law abiding taking a little practice?
Joe, I wondered the same thing about Emery and DG. Time and again, they get smacked down, but like the proverbial wack a mole, up they pop again and again.
People that enjoy humiliation are often suffering with low self-esteem issues. Or just plain stupidity.
I cannot seem to choose which applies here.
Doakes – It’s a characteristically human trait that the less you know about something the better you think you are at it. .
Doakes: You’ll get my respect when you quit using The Daily Mail as a ‘news’ source. When you use the disclaimer: “In other words, it’s fake but accurate.” it pretty much sums up your schtick.
MBerg: I have no problem with C/C. Rather it’s the expectation that it is a panacea for individuals to stop violent crime.
Doakes: You’ll get my respect when you quit using The Daily Mail as a ‘news’ source.
Says a person who does not have an original thought and cribs everything from libturd talking points? Bwhahahahahahahaha…
You’ll get my respect when you quit using The Daily Mail as a ‘news’ source.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Show us where the facts presented are wrong.
JPA, I must disagree. Leftist talking points may well be a favored stand-by, but Emery casts a broad net when searching the net for something to plagiarize.
He’s just as likely to steal the thoughts of a conservative author, as long as he can jimmie the context to suit his needs.
Emery, I didn’t ask why you don’t respect me; I asked why you don’t respect yourself.
The class clown says ridiculous things but everyone applauds because they know he’s only playing the fool. That protects his self-respect.
The class dunce says ridiculous things but everyone nobody applauds because they know he’s genuinely a fool. That usually costs him his own self-respect, but not yours. Why not?
.
EI said:
“You’ll get my respect when you quit using The Daily Mail as a ‘news’ source.”
gosh EI you write with the same convincing lack of authority as DG. You also write with the her lack of originality.
EI
boy your lovingly crafted fantasy sure took a hit with this one:
http://www.startribune.com/alleged-robber-shot-dead-in-st-paul-by-victim-was-w-st-paul-teen-mom-says/320481982/
PLEASE take the time to address this fault in your reasoning in extensive detail – in particular explain how you got things so wrong.
I await your definitive answer.
“But reason, data, and all other real-world elements won’t make a bit of difference.”
On the contrary it is the anti-gun crowd that has shown a consistent, almost delusional disregard for reason, data, and all other real world elements. You have to be delusional to tell yourself (as you apparently do) “If I am in a public place where some mad man has decided to shoot as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, it would be better if no one other than the shooter had a gun.”
This is the malarkey you apparently believe, Emery. It is laugh-out-loud stupid.
Many people believe that it is the sworn duty of the police to enter dangerous situations and use lethal force to save innocent lives.
It is not. Job number one for cops is not to get killed themselves. The belief that average Joe with a gun can stop a mass shooting is no more absurd than the belief that “magic policemen.” will show up and save lives.
Kel, that story is much too awesome to waste simply smacking Emery down again. That sucker is chocked full of #Win!
Lavauntai Broadbent? #Win!
“Why did you have to shoot him?” Montez asked Monday as he visited the place where Broadbent died. “You couldn’t give him a second chance to live?”
#Win!
“members of the Ham Crazy and Everybody Killer gangs fought with members of the Shoota Boy Gang.”
#Win!
“Paulos said the shooter went to the park Friday to view the blue moon.”
#Win!
“Broadbent’s mother, Leeann Broadbent, said Monday that her son didn’t “have that kind of heart” to pull a gun on someone.
Broadbent…had started getting “in a little trouble here and there, but nothing like this,” his mother said. “If someone pulled a gun on him, he would have dropped [his]” rather than shoot.”
#Win!
Best.Story.Ever
OMG! And the video tribute to young Lavauntai from his cousin…flashing signs with his gang, the Shoota Boys.
A young life wasted..
#WIN!
*sniff* *sniff* If only it weren’t for the NRA, little Lavauntai would still be alive today *sniff*. I heard that he was thinking about signing up for community college. *sniff*
Kel, the Star-Tribune hasn’t got the memo.
“Only months before Lavauntai Broadbent, 16, was shot and killed on a St. Paul river bluff in a botched robbery . . .”
Was he found guilty of robbery? No. Then let’s call it a “property dispute.” Isn’t that a factual description? People will then be less likely to read the story and consider it a legitimate use of self defense. In the long run it will be better for the entire Twin City community, such as it is.
There should be an award called an Emery for assertions contrary to fact.
the first one could go to Leeann Broadbent for:
“ didn’t have that kind of heart” to pull a gun on someone.
The story didn’t say it, Blue, but don’t you just know young Lavauntai was an aspiring rapper…just starting to turn his life around so he could care for his sons, Lavauntai Jr. & Lavauntai Jr. Jr.?
Shoota Boys. Must be a photography club.
WankingMitten(?),
I’m sure Leeann has spawned a couple more to follow in dearly beloved Lavauntai’s footsteps it would be difficult to believe otherwise since good judgement seems to run in the family.
Did they check his pockets for Skittles?
I don’t think we’ll get the whole story until we hear from Leeann Broadbent’s social services worker, her probation officer, her Obamacare navigator, her section 8 coordinator, her rehab director, her baby daddy’s, her Winter Heating Assistance case worker, her Take Action liasion, Nekima Levy-Pounds, Sandy PApPAaas, Lavauntai’s social worker, his ESL teacher, his probation officer, Betty! McCollum and Spike Moss.
“Rather it’s the expectation that it is a panacea for individuals to stop violent crime.”
panacea
noun
1. a remedy for all disease or ills; cure-all.
2. an answer or solution for all problems or difficulties:
If, for example, I and my family had to experience the trauma of a home invasion…terrified children…distraught wife…explaining to a police officer the injured or killed perpetrator lying bleeding om my living room floor…with the nagging fear that I may actually be charged with a crime myself…
I would hardly consider it “panacea”…but certainly better outcome than a possible alternative…
I can’t quit this story!
Check out Paul Paulos, SPPD’s spokesman “The two party’s began to conversate”. “Another parties approached, which would be our suspect.” “…our now suspect produced a hangun and demanded items from the two party’s that have just met.”
I’m banging my head on the table!
MBerg, here is your follow-up book, right here.
WankingMitten,
MBerg could use this Lavauntai text to write a rock musical or maybe a libretto for a tragic rock opera. It would of course be named Lavauntai!
AlexG’sWankingMitten wrote:
“I don’t think we’ll get the whole story until we hear from Leeann Broadbent’s . . .”
You forgot husband.
I’ve heard a rumor that when Obama found out about this, he said “If I had a son, he would look like Lavauntai.”
“Mama, I was just killed by a man.
I put my gun up to his head,
He pulled his trigger, now I’m dead…”
I’ve spent a considerable amount of time first trying to find the stats on how many conceal carry people have shot the wrong person. Then I tried to find any record of a conceal carry person shooting the wrong person by accident.
I couldn’t find a thing. The closest was the carry who almost shot the wrong guy in the Loughner struggle.
C’mon, Emery. You seem to think that the courts would be choked with cases like this. I can’t find any.
I did run across this hilarious NYT opinion piece by our BFF Timothy Egan: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/
My God is it awful.
First, one bit of throat-clearing: I’m a third-generation Westerner, and grew up around guns, hunters of all possible fauna, and Second Amendment enthusiasts who wore camouflage nine months out of the year. Generally, I don’t have a problem with any of that.
You see what he’s doing here? He’s trying to convince you that he doesn’t have a problem with guns. But then you notice he isn’t talking about his attitude about guns, he’s talking about his not having a problem with . . . what exactly? The fact that he grew up around guns?
The rest of the article is a half-baked rant, with dubious statistics, corelation equals causation, and ad hominem attacks.
Egan, BTW, has won the Pulitzer prize.
perhaps before people rant about the anti-intellectualism of the American people (yes, I’m talking about you, Emery) they they should consider the idiocy of the American intellectual class.
but, but, but, like DG, Emery knows he’s smarter than the rest of us and like DG he isn’t shy about reminding us of that “fact”.
It’s a characteristically human trait that the less you know about something the better you think you are at it.
It’s also characteristically human to believe that you are smart enough to make decisions not just about your own life, but about what decisions other people should make as well. No one thinks “Gosh! I’m not really good at figuring out what what do with my own life. I need someone to make my decisions for me!” but many people think “Gosh! Other people are not good at figuring out what do with their own life. I need to make their decisions for them!”
I guess it’s pick on Emery Day.
Pulitzer prize, Nobel prize, SPJ Excellence in Journalism Award…string them together on a gold chain, and the Shoota Boyz can add them to the gold Mercedes & “$” logos they wear.
Bring some type of prestige to them.
Prussian Blue said: “You forgot husband.”
So did she.