Amy Dickenson: Ignorant About Firearms.

A hysterical correspondent writes to Ask Amy and receives an ignorant reply.  Let's first fisk the letter to Amy:

"Dear Amy: This week, I discovered that my intelligent, hard-working, responsible 24-year-old daughter (who lives with me) is a gun owner!"

Bravo! Good for her. She is a responsible woman who refuses to be a victim or to be dependent on a man to protect herself. I hope she has received, or will seek out, quality training to learn how to handle a firearm safely, and how to shoot in defensive situations effectively.

"And it’s not a normal gun, either — it is a 40-caliber semi-automatic, and she has hollow-point bullets to go with it."

A .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol is a normal gun. I wonder what kind of gun Dumbfounded Father thinks is "normal"?

"Amy, this is the kind of weapon a criminal would possess! She says it is for emergencies. There have only been two home invasions in our neighborhood in the last 11 years."

Millions of law abiding gun owners possess guns just like the one described for lawful purposes, including self defense.  Dumbfounded Father does not mention whether his daughter has a concealed carry permit, but hope she does. "Emergencies" are not limited to the home, and are more likely to occur outside of the home. Hence the ability to apply for and receive concealed carry permits in ALL 50 states. Except Hawaii, which has a concealed carry law, but does not issue permits. Young v. Hawaii will correct this, hopefully.

"I’ve given her three choices: She can either give her weapon to me, sell it or move out in three weeks."

Hey Dumbfounded Father, I thought your daughter was a "Intelligent, hard-working, responsible" woman? Here you are treating her like a child.  And if you're worried about safely possessing a gun in your house, it seems to me that you're hardly the most qualified person to possess it: your daughter is, because she obviously sought out a firearm for purchase.  Did she get any training?  If not, why not offer to pay for training, and then go together as a father-daughter bonding experience?

"I love my daughter and would be so sad for her to move into a place that she would hardly be able to afford, but now I have to lock my bedroom door at night because I don’t know what she’s going to do."

WTF! So, you're daughter owns a gun, and now she is potentially going to shoot you in your bed?!  Either there is more going on in this household than is stated, or Dumbfounded Father has MAJOR trust issues.  WTF!

"Now she says that I don’t trust her, and is barely speaking to me. How can I convince her to stop endangering us?

Dumbfounded Father"

Your daughter is correct, sir!  You do not trust her. I don't blame her for being angry. Dumbfounded Father obviously believes that firearms have no social utility, hates them, and wants them out of his house.  His feelings are irrational, he seems hysterical, but his house, his rules.  I gotta respect that. 



And now for Amys profoundly ignorant and equally hysterical response:

"Dear Dumbfounded: According to my research, possessing hollow-point bullets is illegal in 11 states; is it legal in your state to own this sort of exploding ammunition?"

Citation, or I call BULLSHIT!  If anyone reading this knows better, please cite a credible source or statute prohibiting hollow point ammunition in any jusrisdiction in the United States.

The only state that I thought prohibited hollow point ammunition was New Jersey, but I did some research and found that not even New Jersey prohibits hollow point ammo: they strictly regulate possession of hollow point ammunition in public places.  One may not carry a weapon loaded with hollow point ammunition in public unless at a shooting or hunting venue where hollow point ammunition is legal. Hollow point ammunition must be transported directly from and directly to places where it is legal to possess.  And even in NJ, hollow point ammunition is legal to possess, load in weapons, and shoot if one is on their private property or in their domicile. Even in Dumbfounded Father's house, if it is located in NJ.

Hollow point ammunition is legal in all states in the United States. Amy is full of crap.

"In a report published in 2015, researchers at the University of Chicago found that 31 percent of households reported having a firearm in 2014, down from about 48 percent in 1980.

According to this study, there are more guns, but concentrated in fewer households. Why must your household be one of them?"

Undoubtedly citing the General Social Survey, very popular in anti-gun circles.  I dispute the accuracy of this suvey on this subject because many gun owners are reluctant to admit to owning firearms to a stanger calling on the telephone. But what does this have to do with the daughter owning a gun?

"Where did your daughter get this weapon and ammunition? Has she received any safety training or certification? (Accidental gun death is a substantial risk of owning a gun.) Is she perhaps engaged in another activity outside of your household that exposes her to increased risks and makes her believe she needs to have a weapon?"

Amy, are you implying that the daughter obtained the weapon illegally? That the daughter is some kind of criminal?  That owning a gun neccesarrily makes one a criminal, because only criminal own guns?  I agree with the desirablility of training, but accidental gun deaths are very uncommon, and have been fallen by half in recent years. See this LA Times story:

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-20180101-story.html

"I have news for you: A locked bedroom door is no match for this weaponry; as I write this, just five days ago a father in South Carolina tragically shot and killed his own 23-year-old daughter through a closed door — when he mistook her for an intruder."

Fear mongering, Amy.  A bedroom door is no match for ANY gun. And in the South Carolina incident cited, the shooter violated all four of the rules of safe firearm handling.  There is no excuse for such a tragedy, and you're assuming, Amy, that the daughter is equally incompetent, with no proof.

"I agree with your ultimatum; I also weep that there is yet another (likely unsafe) gun owner in this country."

There is no data to show that most gun owners are unsafe with their firearms, and much data to show that they tend to be very safe.  You're response is just spreading FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  Shame on you Amy.  You could have used this letter to do something constructive, but instead you spread debunked anti-gun canards.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/13/ask-amy-dad-horrified-learn-gun-house/

A Horrifying Reminder That Church Shootings Don't Happen...

...only in the United States. What else but people armed with firearms could have stopped such a methodical and ruthless attack?

Ordinary Citizens Stopping Mass Shootings with Guns

Yes, this really happens.  Here is an article by John Lott which lists ten incidents of ordinary citizens stopping mass shootings:

"Permit holders haven't just stopped public shootings.  They have stopped everything from public knife attacks to vehicle attacks.  

I haven't found a single case where gun control advocates' fears were borne out by the facts.  In not one of these cases did a permit holder accidentally shoot a bystander, or a police officer accidentally harm a permit holder."

They Really Do Want To Take Your Guns Away, Part 2

One of the favorite words the gun grabbers like to use is "compromise".  This is what one grabber calls a compromis:

"I’d love a compromise, where no one had (or felt they needed) handguns, and hunters and recreational shooters got to enjoy their registered and safely stored shotguns and old-fashioned repeating rifles."

So, ban handguns, ban semi-automatic rifles, register everything else, and that is a compromise? Wow.  And that is not even the most radical thing the author proposes.

Yes, they really do want to take your guns.

NJ Legislators are Douchebags

They are proposing a bill to exempt themselves from the "justifiable need" requirement, making concealed carry permits shall-issue to state legislators.

What douchebags!

     This bill provides that legislators, judges of the Superior Court, and municipal court judges will be issued permits to carry handguns in certain circumstances.

     Under current law, in order to be granted a permit to carry a handgun, an applicant is required to demonstrate “justifiable need.” Justifiable need is defined in the regulations, at N.J.A.C.13:54-2.4, as, “the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.”

     This bill exempts legislators, judges of the Superior Court, and municipal court judges from the “justifiable need requirement.” Under the bill’s provisions, the permit to carry will be issued as long as the applicant is not subject to any disabilities set forth in current law and presents evidence of successful completion of at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

They Really Do Want To Take Your Guns Away, Part 1

Yes, they actually do want to confiscate your guns:


Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

Feinstein Introduces a New Assault Weapon Ban

Will Feinsteins bill pass? No. At least not in this Congress, and Feinstein knows this. Here are few facts:

Republicans control the Senate.

Republicans control the House.

President Trump sits in the Oval Office.

This bill may pass one house in Congress, probably the Senate because the Republican'ts are getting squishy, but that will be its high water mark. There are some other facts to consider:

5,000,000: the number of AR-15 owners (estimated). Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/owned-by-5-million-americans-ar-15-under-renewed-fire-after-orlando-massacre.html

14,500,000: the number of concealed carry permits in the United States (estimated). Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/22/demand-soars-for-concealed-carry-permits-data-shows.html

5,000,000: the number of NRA members (estimated) Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/15/most-gun-owners-dont-belong-to-the-nra-and-they-dont-agree-with-it-either/?utm_term=.ba91758437aa

81,000,000: the number of gun owners in the United States (estimated).

Granted, there is a lot of overlap between these sets of people, but my point is that there are a lot of people that do not want an entire class of rifles, shotguns, and pistols banned. Why does a smart legislator like Feinstein think it can pass? My guess is that she thinks it cannot, but she is going to use this as a campaign tactic to beat Republican'ts over the head during the mid-term elections.

So sad, but I think she will be disappointed, I do not think that this will be effective as a campaign issue. The numbers are bad for the Democrats on this issue. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that happens.

The members of the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and Second Amendment Foundation will be the tip of the spear, but this bill is the hill that we are going to die on, legislatively.

IT. WILL. NOT. PASS.

A Movement, or a Feel-Good Moment of Navel Gazing?

Now that the "Nasty Women" have had their march to protest Trump's presidency, it is time to reflect. What could have been accomplished by this stunt, other than helping the ladies feel empowered?  Is it the beginning of a movement, or just a fleeting moment of feel-good navel gazing?

Time will tell, but the recent past is not an encouraging sign. The Occupy "movement" has dried up and blown away on the populist winds, and BLM is in the process of descending into idiocy.

An looking at some of the signs carried by the marchers, does anyone think that these will change the minds of the millions of women who voted for Trump?   Movements convince people to take up their cause, and I have yet to see any proof that the match was anything more than an outing of a Progressive club.

Misleading Article About Stand Your Ground Law

The article in question is here.  In the article a study is described which blames Florida's stand your ground law with an increase in homicides.  I'll leave the validity of the study for other to comment about. I want to focus on this passage:

"Florida's Stand Your Ground law allows people to stand and fight, including fire a gun, if they feel threatened, without having to be attacked first."

This comment is incorrect and misleading.  To explain why, I must explain the five elements that must be present for one to legally claim self defense, weather deadly force is used or not.  These elements are:

1. Imminence. The threat must be immediate and proximate to your person.
2. Innocence. One must not have initiated the incident.
3. Proportionality. One must respond with similar levels of force with which one is confronted.
4. Reasonableness. One actions must be those that a reasonable person perform.
5. Avoidance. In some states, one must make an attempt to retreat or avoid the incident.

All stand your ground laws do is remove the requirement to retreat.  All four of the other elements must be present for a person to claim self defense in an incident.  It is not enough to "feel threatened" to justify using a firearm to defend oneself.  Doing so would likely land one in prison.

I hate the fact that so many journalists are so ignorant of the law.

Armed School Faculty in The United States

Some people think that guns have no business in schools. Most of the time I would agree. But what happens once a killer has introduced a gun into a school environment with intent to kill as many people as possible? The Sandy Hook shootings give one example: police did not arrive for four minutes, and did not enter the school until 14 minutes after the shooting started. By then, it was all over, the killer having done all the damage he could, shot himself 5 minutes after the shooting started.

The faculty and staff at Sandy Hook were incredibly courageous. The principal ran toward the sound of gunfire, assessed the situation, and gave verbal warning to saved other lives, before she was killed. The schools janitor ran through the school, warning of the active shooter, which allowed teachers to barricade themselves and students inside closets an bathrooms, saving many lives. Some teachers were found dead with their bodies covering those of children they tried to save.

Five minutes, 26 dead, one person killed every 11.5 seconds.  Here is the ugly lesson of Sandy Hook: police cannot help you. The only help one will have in a mass shooting incident will be the resources that are already on site when the incident happens. How might the terrible incident have turned out if Principal Dawn Hochsprung had something more effective than a piece of chalk to confront the killer?

In Ohio people have come together to provide a solution to mass shootings in schools.  The F.A.S.T.E.R. (Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response) program, as described in this article, attempts to provide the training necessary to survive an active shooter incident, and protect children's lives. This is being done now in schools in Ohio and Kentucky, and i have heard of similar training programs in Missouri. It is time for American to stop deluding themselves. Being unprepared is a dereliction of our duty to protect school children.

 

Jerry Brown Screws California Gun Owners

I'm sorry Californians, but you been royally screwed once again by your ever so
helpful state government.

Jerry Brown signed six gun control bills that take the states gun laws to a new
level of insanity. Here are the new bills, and a short description of what they
would do, starting January 1, 2017.

AB1135

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1135&sess=CUR&house=A
&search_type=bill_update

This bill redefines "assault weapon" to include firearms that are equipped with
a bullet button. All such rifles must now be registered as assault weapons, and
the future possession and transfer of such weapons is now a felony. Law
enforcement officers are exempted, as is usually the case in California.

Missouri residents: do NOT visit California with your AR-15 and similar rifles.
These are "assault weapons", possession of such is a felony in California.

AB1511

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1135&sess=CUR&house=A
&search_type=bill_update

This bill outlaws the load of a firearm to any person who is not related to the
owner in the following: spouse, registered domestic partner, child, sibling,
grandparent, or grandchild.

If you loan the firearm to your buddy at the range, you're guilty of a felony.

AB1695

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_1651-1700/
ab_1695_bill_20160701_chaptered.htm

This bill expands the 10 year firearm prohibition to a new midemeanor: making a
false report of losst or stolen firearm.  This is obviously aimed at straw
purchasers.

SB880

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/
sb_880_bill_20160701_chaptered.htm

Senate version of AB1135.

SB1235

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/
sb_1235_bill_20160701_chaptered.htm

Well, they finally got it: background checks for ammunition purchases.
Note that in California, "ammunition" includes magazines.

This bill requires ammunition vendors to obtain a license, and for ammunition
purchasers to obtain authorization to purchase. There would be a NICS-like
check at time of purchase to ensure that the purchaser was not prohibited. It
seems that potential purchasers must apply to he state to be placed in the
ammunition purchase authorization database, with required $50 fee.

This bill also outlaws mail order and Internet ammunition sales would be
prohibited. Visitors from out of state would be unable to purchase
ammunition.


SB1446

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/
sb_1446_bill_20160701_chaptered.htm

Here is another one that the gun-grabbers have wanted for years: prohibit
possession of magazines greater than 10 rounds capacity.  No grandfathering, no
compensation.

This is huge: Assault Weapon Ban is Not Favored in TWO Polls.

Read the article here, but this is a HUGE development.  The demon black rifle is no longer universally vilified.  This is a big cultural shift, and is a reflection of ever wider gun ownership and acceptance.  The modern sporting rifle has crossed the divide, and i do believe that the recent efforts of the gun grabbers will be for naught.

Here is the thrust of the Democratic Party: "We want to take your guns, and admit tens of thousands of potential terrorists into the country!" I wonder how down-ticket Democratic candidates feel about that.

The new emphasis on gun control by the Democrats is a confirmation that the party has turned their back on white working class voters.  I hope the Democrats get totally punished at the polls.

Is The Cultural Narrative Changing?

Could it be that the cultural narrative is changing? Look at this article.

"What’s actually been leaving the store, though, are NRA members, specifically new ones. A couple of months ago, at the fall NRA board meeting, the owners of Chuck’s were invited. The reason was simple; Chuck’s gun shop was the Top NRA recruiter in the nation in 2014. Stop for a minute and let that sink in. A gun store in a black neighborhood on Chicago’s south side was the NRA’s top recruiter. They sold more NRA memberships than any other store in the country."

This is in Illinois, folks, just south of Chicago's South Side.  Home of the Gun-grabber in Chief. Things are changing. This is what winning looks like.

Never Believe That They Don't Want to Take Your Guns - Part 3

This article is a little older, but it is still a call to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or modify it in such a way as to allow State and Federal government to legislate away the right.

Never Believe That They Don't Want To Take Your Guns - Part 2

At least they are being honest, not hiding behind euphamisms.  Another statist declaring their support for a total ban and confiscations, even for police!

The author is not very clear about how she would go about banning guns, especially since the 2nd Amendment outlaws outright bans.  Good luck repealing the 2nd Amendment! I wonder what Ms. Bovy would do if she got her gun ban and nobody turned in their weapons?

Never Believe That They Don't Want To Take Your Guns - Part 1

The gloves come off in this editorial:

"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."

And who is to define what "certain kinds" of weapons and ammunition might be?  The grabbers are being honest for once: they will take everything is we do not stop this.

Molan Labe

So, what happens now? They passed law banning magazines of greater than 10 rounds capacity.  In L.A. they gave people 60 days to turn them into police, or to transport them out of state.  Not one magazine has been turned into the police. Not one.

So, what next? What does a gun grabber do when the citizens refuse to comply?

The Real Prize in 2016

Here is a blogger that understands what the real prize is in 2016:

"Let me list a few numbers for everyone: 78 80 80 83 Those are the ages that Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be when the next president is sworn in, respectively. The next president we elect (assuming he or she serves two terms) could very well be the individual who selects four Supreme Court Justices. 

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reality-hillary-clinton-liberals-need-face/"

The liberal wing of SCOTUS is generally considered to comprise of Ginsberg, Breyer Sotomayor, and Kagan, so the next President has the opportunity to increase by two either the Conservative wing or the Liberal wing of the Supreme Court. That will have an impact lasting decades.

This reality really makes me think twice about voting against Trump.

Three Years post-Trayvon: What Has Changed?

Asks the author of this article.

Not much, apparently.  Left-wing apologists in the media continue to misrepresent the facts in  the Martin-Zimmerman case.  The facts revealed during the trial indicate that Martin attacked Zimmerman, who defended himself  by shooting Martin.  Martin unfortunately died of his wounds.

Trayvon Martin was NOT murdered.

The verdict was not even close. No civil rights case was brought against Zimmerman due to lack of evidence.  THERE WAS NO CASE.

Similarly, Darren Wilson was not indicted for the shooting of Micheal Brown because the facts of the case did not warrant prosecution.

The author conveniently neglects to mention other cases where justice served minority victims when the circumstances were different: Theodore Wafer, sentenced to 17 years, Michael Dunn, sentenced to life in prison, Markus Kaarma, sentenced to 70 years is prison.

The justice system works for most people, most of the time.

CCW Reciprocity - Four Points to Ponder

This article appeared on the Reasoned Politics blog today, and it gave me some points to ponder.  I give my take on them in order:

1) "Shall Issue" concealed carry permits are here to stay. 

This is certainly true, with more than 8 million permits active.  Anti-gun rights people are nervous about people carrying in public, but the fact is, a lot of people are already doing it in most of the country, with the exception of blue coastal states.  This is not going to change, and I do not think a Federal Statute prohibiting concealed carry would have a prayer of passing in Congress. And we're close to getting carry in some form included as part of the 2nd Amendment.

2) A reciprocity bill could be used to increase training requirements. 

There is precedent for Federal law to set minimal standards for state issued licenses. See the Real ID law that is driving drivers license requirements.  In general, I think that this could be a good thing overall.  While keep and bear is a right, guns are deadly weapons and real safety laws (as opposed to fake "gun safety" laws pushed by the anti-gun rights groups) could be a net plus if done correctly.  We would have to resist attempts to make training requirements so onerous as to eliminate the right.

3) A reciprocity bill would encourage more people to get permits - even if their state does not require them.

I think that this is definitely true. Look at all the people getting non-resident Florida and Utah permits to increase the states where they may carry.

4) Gun control advocates might be able to get some things they want - such as expanded background checks - in return for agreeing to national carry permit reciprocity. 

Yes, indeed they could.  I would be willing to exchange universal background checks for national reciprocity, depending on the details of the background checks bill. Attempting to require full background checks for loans of guns to family members, friends, or at shooting ranges, or any of the other shenanigans attempted by the anti-gun rights people would sink the deal. So would increasing the scope of prohibited persons, and the national introduction of "gun violence restraining orders".  Universal background checks would be for permanent transfers ONLY!

This won't happen, of course.  The gun-grabbers idea of compromise consists of limiting existing rights in some manner, and compromising by not limiting even further. After all, they have to leave something on the table to pass more feel-good legislation during a later election cycle.

Even more problematical would be the blue coastal states that severely restrict concealed carry today: New York, California, Maryland, and New Jersey.  These states HATE the idea of people from other states carrying concealed weapons.  In spite of 25 years of evidence, authorities in these states think that more guns on the street are dangerous. If a national reciprocity bill is passed by Congress, there will be intense pressure from these states for the President to veto the bill.

Anti-gun people have not ever really compromised on gun issues.  It is not in their nature to negotiate in good faith on this issue, so we should not, unless there is no other way to advance the right. We must compel them to accept expanded gun rights, through Congress and the courts.  We have done well in these venues so far, and the future looks promising.