More Medicine! More Medicine!


Another shooting and another storm of hysterical outrage from all the usual suspects, resorting to all the usual rhetorical tricks and traps. "Yet another ...!", "How long Oh Lord....?" and "Give us more gun control! Give us more gun control!"

What I find contemptible is that the facts of the case are barely known and yet the cry goes up for more gun control. Don't we at least need a diagnosis based on facts before we know what medicine to prescribe? Or will any medicine do so long as it is in a big enough dose.

What is known as of this writing is that the assailant, a 28 year old woman, was armed with two "assault style rifles" and a handgun, or so it is reported. It is important to the copy writers at the New York Times to work in assault style rifles in some manner; but were they actually used to do the shooting?

Has anyone paused their scribbling long enough to ask how in hell one walks about with two rifles and a pistol? It seems rather cumbersome to me and leads directly to the question of: how was what handled when?

Was the woman actually carrying all three weapons? Often in these reports the word "armed" is used to describe the fact that guns were located in the trunk of a car or some such. So, was she armed in this (misleading) sense or was she actually carrying?

My suspicion is that the shooting was done with the pistol which was probably a semi-automatic. But I don't know and I can't draw any conclusions about anything until I do know.

What I do know is that the facts are irrelevant to the usual suspects. The anti-gun hysterics are shedding crocodile tears and pumping "yet another shooting" of innocent children for all it is worth in their crusade to nullify the Second Amendment.

©

Mexico: A Case Study in Gun Control


About 20 years ago, I took a trip to Mexico. I arrived as scheduled and took a cab to the house where I would be staying. The house was located in a very upscale neighbourhood of Mexico City -- the sort of place where there is no commercial hustle and bustle and where stately houses sit behind gates and walls. No one answered the door.

WTF? After ringing and waiting, I began to think that perhaps we had gotten my time of arrival mixed up. For some reason, I had packed my watch, and so I sat on my suitcase wondering what to do and what time it was. (Yes... there was a time before cell phones.)

As I sat, a young man in his early thirties came out of an adjacent residence and headed toward a parked car. He had a watch. So I got up, walked over toward him and in correct and flawless Spanish said, “Excuse me, seƱor, but you wouldn't happen to...”

He immediately snapped to. A look of fear and dread came over him and he quite literally ran to his car, open and slammed the door and drove away in a panic.

WTF? Mexico had always been a friendly and, most of all, a courteous place and in many ways it still is. This sort of reaction was inconceivable to me.

My hosts eventually arrived and I told them about this encounter ending with, “...and as you can see, I was dressed neatly” in loafers, slacks and Brooks Brothers shirt.... “Ah well,” my host replied, “that was probably what set him off...”

WTF? As it turns out, Mexico was experiencing a “epidemic” of kidnappings. The standard modus operandi was for a neatly dressed gentleman to politely approach and take you off-guard, at which point accomplices would emerge from nowhere and hustle you into a waiting car. Then the call...

Kidnappings have gotten so ubiquitous that there are now professional “kidnap brokers,” sitting behind shiny desks in fancy offices, whose job (for a fee) is to negotiate the ransom with or without the interference of the police as the case may be. Sometimes the negotiations work; sometimes the don't.

Mexico has strict gun control. You can possess certain firearms in your home or designated places, but they must be registered and licensed. As many American tourists have discovered to their grief, failure to comply can lead to a five year prison sentence. “As with much of the rest of Mexican law enforcement, corruption is a major element of the gun licensing system.”

I have always laughed at how gringos misconceive of Mexico and how they confuse politeness and reserve with lack of ingenuity or initiative. The difficulty to legitimately acquire firearms has led to a gun-rental business through which criminals can rent the guns they need for the occasion.

Of course, the bigger criminals are themselves the gun cartels...

Gun control, clearly works, right?

But! But! But! the gun control fetishists will reply, look at Denmark, Norway and Sweden. They have gun controls and they are perfect societies! Precisely. They are perfect societies but not because they have gun control.

As usual American liberals got it inside out and upside down. If gun control works in European countries, it is only because those societies have already achieved a certain level of social justice and economic security which are the cornerstones of a sense of community which in turn is the actual precondition for law and order. American Republicans likewise got it backwards in thinking that “law and order” gives rise to a sense of community. Nope.

All one has to do is compare Mexico to Sweden. Mexico far outpaces Sweden in cultural and economic vitality and in gross-domestic product. It is currently the 15th strongest economy in the world, at least 15 places ahead of Sweden. But for all that, Mexico suffers a very high level of economic disparity. Per capita GDP in Sweden is 60K a year; in Mexico, 10K. In other words, Mexico suffers from acute income disparity; Sweden does not.

Income disparity is not the only indicator of everything. But one has to be an idiot not to know, at this point, that crime and poverty are handmaidens. It's really very simple. The word “community” derives from “com” + muneris, meaning mutual service or obligation. In other words, a society in which all look out for each, and each owes a responsibility to the whole. When community is lacking, “self-help” of necessity prevails.

Mexico has a crime problem because it has an economic disparity problem. The same is true in the United States, despite the fact that it is still the wealthiest country in the world. In fact its tremendous wealth actually distorts the significance of the figures. Per capita income of GDP in the United States in 70K a year, but for 50% of the country it is under 50K. The individualized median income is 30K. In other words, in terms of income distribution, the United States is more like Mexico than Sweden.

There was a time, back in the Fifties and Sixties, when the United States was more like Sweden; but our political and financial elites, Demorat and Republoscum alike, intentionally decided to Mexicanize the country back in the late 70's and 80's. To put it simply: the gig economy (scrambling for scraps) is the diametric opposite of community; and, as I have said, without community there is no cohesion and hence more crime.

I have little patience with Republicans and their inane and outdated Smithian yap about free markets, rising tides and trickle-down. Trust me; it is dead on arrival. All economics has always been the result of intervention. The issue is the kind of intervention we want. When I listen to Republicans blabbering about “too many dollars chasing too few goods” I have to wonder if they are really that stupid or if they are just whores to the corporations unilaterally raising prices because they can get away with it.

But I have even less patience with liberals, who have avoided underlying issues in their own inimitable and equally inane way. Has anyone ever noticed how liberals are always chasing after some issue -- the race issue, the women issue, the disability issue, the gay issue, the trans issue, the gun-safety issue... ANYTHING but the 401(k) issue...

Liberals are culled from the upper middle class; the “Ten Percent”. They instinctively know (that is, they know without knowing it) who and what butters their bread. Oh yes! Housing affordability is a crisis! Something must be done! And what might that be? Building more houses, so as to increase supply and hence lower prices? And then? What happens to your little “nest egg” of ever-appeciating real estate value? Some 30 something can't afford a house and your 60-something “nest egg” just doubled in value and you don't see the connection? Are you as stupid as Republicans?

This has been going on for decades. Back in the 60's Phil Ochs, composed a song, Love me! I'm a Liberal, which is as timely now as it was then. And so, ever in avoidance of the economic elephant in the room, the liberals are chasing after the next Issue-in-Avoidance. ... Gun control. If only we get rid of a symptom (“gun violence”) the cause will go away...

Well...politics is nothing if not rampant stupidities. One might as well demand that birds not chirp. But when the chirping starts to chip away and subvert the Bill of Rights, at that point I draw the line.

The right to keep and bear arms, is the second foundational principle of our society. It is at the essence of “what we are about” as a people. If liberals don't get it, they should go to an ashram, cross their legs and meditate on the Bill of Rights until they achieve Foundational Enlightenment.

The Mexican Constitution (1917) also guarantees the right to possess arms:

"The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms in their homes for their security and legitimate defense with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and of those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard. Federal law shall determine the cases, conditions and place in which the inhabitants may be authorized to bear arms."

Therein lies a fundamental difference. One that leaves you defenceless when a stranger approaches you to ask for the time....

©

True Stats: Gun Sales Up - Gun Crimes Down


Anti-Gun Jihadists would have you believe that GUN VIOLENCE is surging; that background checks are insufficient to stem the slaughter and, according to one Anti Gun hysteric, that America Continues to Sacrifice its Babies on the Altar of Guns!!!!

Actually what the data show is:


and 




Nuff said.



Oinks from Harvard Yard


David Hogg, a senior at Harvard University, recently tweeted that, after talking with "a lot" of history and law professors, he had concluded that the Second Amendment "was created to protect state militias like the national guard."

Hoggs tweet was immediately pounced upon the the likes of the NRA here and here, pointing out how erroneously informed he was.

I have nothing to add except to say that the Bill of Rights has always and uniformly been understood as a declaration of personal rights. If Gun Prohibitionists want to misundersand it that is their business, but their mental operations have no basis in reality.

What I find disturbing is that someone can study at the nation's top academic institution and bleat such fundamentally misinformed nonsense. I find it more disturbing if in fact he did indeed imbibe this intellectual swill from anyone in the university's faculty. If so, the standard of learning at Harvard has sunk to the level of Twitter.

©

The Power to Regulate Dangerous Tories and Mulattoes


In United States vs. Rahimi, the Fifth Circuit court recently invalidated a conviction for unlawfully possessing a fireram, based on the defendant being the subject of a civil domestic restraining order. The court ruled that while there were historical precedents preventing convicted felons from possessing firearms, there was no historical analogue for prohibiting firearms to people not convicted of a crime. The court rejected the Government's argument that there were many examples of legislatures prohibiting gun possession by slaves, Native Americans, Loyalists and free Blacks on the ground that there status made them dangerous. The court found such an argument to be "repugnant." A wave of schadenfreude swept through the Gun Rights Folk seeing how liberals were caught making "racist" arguments of their own.

-oOo-

Not so fast. The Government has a point. The perception that Blacks are per se "dangerous" is a racist stereotype; however the power of government to prohibit/preclude a danger is a distinct issue. The difference is shown by that law which prohibited Tories from having guns. That was hardly based on anti-Anglo-Saxon racism. It was based on the fact that the Tories were hostile to American independence. Playing the race card on this issue is a dead end. It is better to meet the issue head on and not try to escape through the rabbit hole of "isms"

All governments clearly have the power to seek to prevent harms from arising; i.e. to pass legislation based on calculated dangers. No one can dispute the legitimacy of laws prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. Those laws are not based on the abstract fact of a conviction but on the probabilistic determination that a person who has committed a crime presents a risk that he will do so again and therefore that it is dangerous to allow him to possess a firearm.

Therefore the question becomes: does "shall not infringe" mean that the government can pass NO law prohibiting possession of a gun? I.e. that the Second Amendment prohibits prohibiting convicted felons from possessing them? That absolutist argument will not pull out of the station; I can guarantee that.

Accordingly, the argument that has to be made is (1) that there is an analog for prohibiting guns to "dangerous" people but (2) the XIV Amnd. and Equal Protection Clause require that the prohibition be based on demonstrable, tangible facts and not on "profiles" or "generalized propensities."

Alternatively, or in tandem, that argument can be made that EXCLUDING race-based prohibitions; the common law ONLY forbade weapons to convicted felons and/or lunatics. But just don't play the librul 'racism' card as much as it might be fun to do so.


©

Letter to House Speaker Opposing Assault Weapon Ban


I am opposed to this legislation because it barks up the wrong tree. It resorts to scare tactics instead of addressing the actual underlying causes of gun-related deaths. The legislative “findings” are speculative, ideological opinions without support in non-partisan data.

1. “[G]un violence is a threat to the public health and safety...” “Gun violence” is a vague, ambiguous and misleading term. “Violence” signifies an injury to a third person or object; however, the overwhelming number of gun-related deaths are suicides. Nationally, suicides account for 54% of all gun deaths. (Pew Research, “What the Data Says...” (2/22).) In Washington state the number is 70%. Since 1968, suicides have always outstripped murders. (Ibid). So-called “assault weapons” are not used to commit suicide; neither are high capacity magazines. In fact it is difficult to imagine how a person committing suicide could even get to triggering the eleventh round.

2. “Assault weapons have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in the last decade...” This is a rhetorical teaser masquerading as a fact. Yes, so-called assault weapon(s) “have been used”... but what are the numbers? The data show that, in 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non- negligent manslaughters (Pew, op. cit., 2/22) So-called assault weapons “were involved in a mere 3% of firearm murders.” (Ibid.) I would challenge whoever compiled these legislative findings to produce data showing that ordinary crimes (non-suicide, non-mass shooting) are committed with semi-automatic “assault” rifles.

3. As for “mass shootings” the FBI "Active Shooter Incidents 2021," lists zero such incidents for Washington. The overwhelming majority of such incidents were in California which already banned assault weapons. The FBI's description of the 61 incidents at pp. 21-28 of its report indicates that 54 of the incidents were committed with handguns; six with a “rifle” and one (#23) with a “semi-automatic rifle.” One.

4. The U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment, recently released a report analyzing the 173 “targeted [mass] attacks” in the period 2016-2020. Of the 73% of incidents in which firearms were used, 74% used handguns and 32% used long guns, of which 26% (n=33 of 126) were semi-automatic. Only one firearm was fully automatic (i.e. a “military style” weapon.) The task force recommended multiple behavioral assessment interventions (Id., pp. iii-v, 50-51) but not one of its recommendation involved outlawing so-called “assault rifles” or for that matter any weapon at all.

Thus Bill 1240 seeks to ban a lawful weapon that is not or that is negligibly used in “mass-attack violence” situations and which haven't taken place in the state at all, while ignoring the weapon (handguns) that is used in 70% of all gun-related deaths. A more useless feel-good exercise of pointless legislation could not be imagined. The Legislative findings are nothing but factually empty, ideologically motivated conclusory statements swimming in ambiguous terminology and fear mongering insinuations.

I am assuming that the proponents of this bill will be unswayed by the Supreme Court's definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment. Gov. Hochul of New York enunciated the attitude well enough. Therefore I will not address any constitutional issues. Suffice to say, that given its own stated goals, the proposed legislation is useless and is not rationally related to its avowed ends. The proponents would better use their energies addressing the economic, medical and psychological factors resulting in an astonishingly high rate of suicide in this state.

As a person who both in and out of uniform was sworn to uphold the Constitution, the fundamental principles enunciated in the Bill of Rights (all of it), trump all other considerations of policy. “Progressive” as I might generally be, I cannot and will not vote for anyone who derogates or infringes on any of the fundamental rights that had defined our nation's political character since its inception.

Sincerely,


Letter to Representatives Opposing Permit to Purchase Law


I am opposed to House Bill 1143, and its companion bill in the Senate, because (1) they are constitutionally violative in their present form and (2) that there are better and more constitutionally friendly ways to achieve the bill's stated objectives.

(1)

The Bill of Rights set out a sequence of carefully structured rights that together reflect a certain and fundamental conception of society. They are not ad hoc benefits but rather establish the essential political nature of our country; not simply the balance between governors and governed but the relationship between the people themselves.

The right to speak is not simply the right to sound off in a closet but to converse, dispute and agree with others. The right to a jury trial is likewise the right to have, not some authority, but untrained fellow citizens make the decision as to whether to forfeit a person's freedom. Both these rights entail well known risks of which the Framers were well aware. But they explicitly rejected the notion that an attendant risk should qualify or negate the right. It is constitutionally inconceivable that a permit or training should be required for jury duty or to exercise free speech, even if it is granted that well-trained, well-informed people would make better jurors and betters talkers in general.

The same considerations apply to the Second Amendment. Both England and Colonial America were freely armed societies. The army, the militias and the constabularies were drawn *from* people who were self armed. For both political and personal purposes the Framer's insured the right to keep and bear arms. To be hostile to that provision is to be hostile to the conception behind the Bill or Rights as a whole.

(2)

It is undeniable that, in all things, a trained person is better than an untrained one. I have no objection to promoting training in firearms. My objection is to making it mandatory and (worse yet) to using it as a means to discourage the exercise of fundamental right.

If the Legislature is genuinely interested in promoting firearm safety training, the way to do that is to incorporate firearm training in high school curricula. When this country was rural there was not a boy or girl who did not learn how to shoot. There is no reason why that instruction should not be undertaken now by schools. Likewise county sheriff's offices could offer training programs to adults, for a very minimal fee and/or encouraged by a tax credit. Programs such as these would achieve the *avowed* objective of the proposed legislation without being punitive in character or constitutionally obnoxious.

Sincerely...