Always laugh when someone asks why I think I need to carry a gun to go grocery shopping. I always say if I think I need a gun to go somewhere, I don't go there.
— Voluntary J (@_BuyLowGetHigh_) November 15, 2022
Category: Safety
An friend terms posts like this übërpösts™ (in other words: It’s looong)
I’ll append commentary and observations from around the net.
Observation O’ The Day
It’s a look into the smartest minds of the enemy. Joe Huffman
The Ad Industry’s Plan to Fix America’s Gun Crisis
If you want a crude sketch of the biggest corporate players in a given year of TV, look no further than the Emmy Award for best commercial. Twenty-five years of winners form an ensemble cast of petty bourgeois preoccupations: Nike, Chrysler, Bud Light. This year’s nominees included a commercial for Meta (the artist formerly known as Facebook), one for Chevy (repping the still-muscular auto spend), two for Apple (a perennial contender), and two for the prevention of school shootings—one of which won the Emmy.
Remember, Professor Yamane is presenting the standard model, not defending it.
This video concludes my ongoing series systematizing the dominant academic approach to understanding Gun Culture 2.0, what I call “The Standard Model of Explaining the Irrationality of Defensive Gun Ownership.”
Here I engage the 5th of the model’s 5 points: That something other than objective risk motivates defensive gun ownership.
From a sociological perspective, that something else centers on the discipline’s Holy Trinity: class, gender, and race. From a psychological perspective, defensive gun ownership is a maladaptive coping mechanism.
More Reasons Anti-Gun Policymakers Are Wrong About Armed Self-Defense
Despite the June U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clearly affirmed the right of lawful Americans to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, many state and local politicians continue to try to pass more-restrictive laws on firearms carry.
As this was being written, the New Jersey legislature was pushing for a ban on guns in so-called “sensitive places,” while in Longmont, Colo., city councilors were considering similar restrictions.
Unfortunately for the citizens in those jurisdictions, these policymakers ignore the fact that guns are used in self-defense well over a million times each year; in fact, four separate instances of armed self-defense in the last week of October show just how wrong-thinking these gun-ban advocates are.
On Halloween night in Spring, Texas, a woman was moving her car into her driveway when two men—one with a handgun, the other with a rifle—allegedly approached her from behind, then forced her back into her home at gunpoint.
According to a report from local media, the woman’s roommate, who was inside the home, heard her screaming and emerged, armed with a handgun to confront the intruders. During the confrontation, he appears to have shot one of the alleged criminals in the abdomen.
Fortunately, neither the woman nor her roommate were hurt. At last report, police were still looking for both of the suspects that entered the home, as well as another suspect that drove them away.
Just two days earlier, an Alabama woman proved that a loaded firearm is much more effective protection than filing a protective order. In the 1:15 a.m. break-in in Hatchechubbee, Ala., the victim shot her estranged husband once in the abdomen.
According to reports, the woman had previously filed an order of protection against the intruder, but it had expired the week before. She was in the process of having the order reinstated when the break-in occurred.
That same day, in Ferguson, Mo., a man who was attacked by alleged carjackers shot one of the three men, who he said was holding a gun, and who he claimed had reached for his car door handle.
Later that morning, a man in a nearby neighborhood looked out of the window of his home and saw what he thought was a body in his backyard, according to a report. Police believe the dead man—who was dressed in a black hoodie, black sweatpants and black tennis shoes—was likely one of the attempted carjackers.
Lastly, in Edinburg, Texas, on Oct. 25, a woman likely feared for her life when someone broke into her house through the garage and tried to get into her bedroom. According to media reports, the woman warned the man that she had called the police and that she was armed.
The man apparently didn’t believe her and, unwisely, continued his attempt to break into the bedroom. That’s when the woman shot him through the bedroom door, ending the attack.
Investigators later found the suspect in a nearby open field with a gunshot wound to the arm. He was arrested and was being held at the Hidalgo County Jail with a $750,000 bond. The woman was shaken up, but unharmed.
The next time a cynical anti-gun politician tells you normal citizens never successfully use firearms for self-defense, just tell them to read the NRA’s Armed Citizen column.
Gun Control vs. Gun Rights: The State of Play
Two trends that are reflected in recent state and federal gun legislation. One trend stems from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n Inc. v Bruen ruling in June, the other from the New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed in response to Bruen.
Bruen’s Domino Effect
In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court found that New York State’s concealed carry law was unconstitutional because it required “proper cause” for an individual to obtain a concealed carry permit. As a result, a new precedent was set for Second Amendment legislation, with many states’ gun control laws now challenged. The National Association for Gun Rights has sued several states and cities to end their assault weapons bans, including the Illinois cities of Highland Park and Naperville along with the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Hawaii. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, along with two former Connecticut corrections officers and a firearms instructor, have also filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut assault weapons ban. In Colorado, a judge recently blocked an assault weapons ban following a lawsuit filed by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Bruen was also cited by a judge in West Virginia who abolished a federal law requiring firearms to have serial numbers, and by a judge in Texas who ruled that citizens under criminal indictment retain the right to bear arms.
New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act’s Domino Effect
However, Bruen’s no-tolerance stance did not deter Governor Kathy Hochul in her push for more gun control legislation. In July, Hochul signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). This legislation makes it illegal to carry a gun in public places such as churches, schools, subways, and Times Square. It also makes issuing concealed carry permits dependent on completion of hours of training, along with the review of every applicant’s social media activity from the past three years. Gun rights advocates immediately won a temporary restraining order against New York’s new law, but a federal appeals court lifted the restraining order a few weeks ago.
California bill similar to New York’s CCIA failed to pass the legislature by one vote. In early October, New Jersey unveiled its version, which includes stipulations such as disqualifying conceal carry applicants who have past restraining orders or other “character of temperament concerns,” (similar to the CCIA’s “good moral character” requirement which has been accused of having racist roots) and requirements for permit holders to carry insurance to protect against accidental discharge.
As we approach the 2022 midterm elections, Biden once again amped up calls to Congress to pass an assault weapons ban, Stacey Abrams vowed to roll back Georgia’s permitless firearms carry law, and candidates like Illinois senator Tammy Duckworth and Connecticut governor Ned Lamont support assault weapons bans. Politicians such as Governor Lamont have also recently referred to the overwhelming public support of gun control.
Does Gun Control Save Lives or Cost Lives?
The world is violent. Lots of people think that we should pass more laws to make the world safer and less violent. It sounds obvious that we could reduce the number of criminals who use weapons by passing more gun-control laws. We’re not the first ones to think of that. We have thousands of gun-control regulations on the books already. I’ve been looking at the subject of gun-control and personal safety for a decade. I think gun-control laws put us at risk. The reasons are complex and not necessarily obvious.
Let’s be clear what is not under discussion here. We’re not talking about rights. Some people say they have a right to “be safe”. Some people say they have a right to “self-defense”. What you have a right to do may not have anything to do with how laws actually work in practice. Let’s look at what we already know.
We know that criminals commit violent crimes with a firearm about 510 times a day. That data is from 2019. That is the last year where the FBI has data from all 50 states.
Isn’t it obvious that we need more laws to stop those criminals? Shouldn’t we pass another law even if it only stopped a single crime? Isn’t that the least we should do?
I like that you obey the law and you think other people obey the law too. The problem of violent crime is more complex. There is more violent crime, much more than I’ve mentioned so far. There are also lots of gun-control laws. Last, and certainly not least, honest citizens stop a lot of violent crimes because the intended victim had a gun of their own. Each of those factors has a vital influence on what gun-control laws can actually accomplish.
While it is true that criminals use guns to commit crimes, criminals also commit crimes without using a gun. In fact, that’s closer to the rule than the exception. Only one-out-of six violent criminals used a firearm (15 percent). That means that taking guns from every criminal would still leave us with a lot of non-gun crime. The remaining five-out-of-six violent criminals would still commit their acts of violence. And that assumes the currently-armed criminal will suddenly become peaceful if we took away his gun. That isn’t very realistic. Taking the gun away from a violent criminal doesn’t turn him into a nice person who obeys the law.
But we have to do something. We can’t just let armed criminals hurt people. Why shouldn’t we pass more laws?
Those are good questions, but what makes you think we haven’t “done something” already? We have over 23-thousand firearms regulations on the books today. And anti-gun politicians pass more gun-control laws every week. We should certainly be safe by now if ink-on-paper was all it took to stop crime. We’ve tried that approach tens-of-thousands of times.
OK, maybe those gun-control laws didn’t work. We just need to write ones that will.
Let’s think this through a little more before we propose more laws. Life is more complex than what we see on the news. Bad guys are not the only ones who use guns. Good guys use guns too, a lot. Honest citizens legally use their firearms between 1.6 and 2.5-million times a year to stop violent crime or to prevent great bodily injury. That is over 4,500-times-a-day that honest citizens use a gun to save lives in the United States. Four-out-of-ten households have a gun today. One-out-of-a-dozen citizens are legally carrying a concealed firearm in public every day.
That is hard to believe. Why don’t I know that? How do I know you’re telling me the truth if the news didn’t show those stories?
Those are good questions. Those are brilliant questions. The answer will take more than a minute.
Study: 27 of the 30 Cities with Highest Murder Rate Are Democrat Run
A study published by the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Judicial and Legal Studies shows that 27 of the 30 cities with the highest murder rates are controlled by Democrats.
FOX News noted that the study indicates “27….[of the 30 cities] have Democratic mayors. Within those cities, there are at least 14 “rogue prosecutors” either backed or inspired by billionaire Democrat supporter George Soros.”
The Daily Signal reported that the authors of the study–Charles Stimson, Zack Smith, and Kevin D. Dayaratna–noted, “Those on the Left know that their soft-on-crime policies have wreaked havoc in the cities where they have implemented those policies.”
Stimson, Smith, and Dayaratna added:
It is not hard to understand why ‘reforms’ such as ending cash bail, defunding the police, refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes, letting thousands of convicted felons out of prison early, significantly cutting the prison population, and other ‘progressive’ ideas have led to massive spikes in crime—particularly violent crime, including murder—in the communities where those on the Left have implemented them.
The study undercuts Hillary Clinton’s claim that Republicans’ emphasis on crime and violence in Democrat-run cities was not valid.
On November 3, 2022, CNN quoted Clinton suggesting Republicans were “just trying to gin up all kinds of fear and anxiety in people.”
She added, “[The Republicans] are not dealing with it. They are not trying to tackle it. So I view it as an effort to scare voters.”
Dr Yamane bats it out of the ballpark again.
Defensive Gun Ownership is Irrational – The Standard Model Part 4 (Light Over Heat #45)
Sheriff Judd isn’t a perfect Sheriff, but he’s pretty darn close
Sheriff defends Stand Your Ground law following arrests
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has been met with controversy for quite some time. A lot of people don’t really understand what’s covered under the law and what isn’t.
The problem is that a lot of those who don’t understand it like to talk about the law as if they do. That leads to a lot of confusion.
And I can’t help but think that’s part of what happened in this case:
A Florida sheriff is justifying his encouragement of residents to shoot intruders “like grated cheese” after two men were charged with opening fire at a woman who they thought was trying to burglarize their home.
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said in an interview with the The Orlando Sentinel published Tuesday that he stood by urging his constituents to use lethal force to defend their homes in the wake of Hurricane Ian. Other Florida officials have offered similar advice to residents. But Judd said two of his constituents took it too far…
Two weeks later, Judd announced at an October 17 news conference that Winter Haven resident Gino Colonacosta, 73, and his 15-year-old son Rocky Colonacosta had been charged with attempted murder, accused of firing seven times at a woman parked outside their home.
Sheriff Judd went on to explain that the two didn’t understand the Stand Your Ground law, which is completely accurate.
The law in question makes it so you don’t have to retreat if faced with a threat to your life. What it doesn’t do is allow you to shoot someone who is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time but no threat to you.
This whole thing started because some medication was misdelivered. The two accused then reportedly freaked because their Ring doorbell told them someone was there, so they started hunting the intruder, then saw the victim sitting in her car and opened fire. Thankfully, they missed her.
Look, people, here’s how it goes. If someone illegally enters your home when you’re there, that’s usually a safe use of the Stand Your Ground law. If someone threatens you with a weapon, that falls under it, too.
What doesn’t, however, is freaking out because your doorbell tells you someone is outside, so you start blasting the first person you see.
Further, someone sitting in their car and doing nothing is. Not. A. Threat.
If they’re trying to run over you? Sure. If they’re just sitting there? Nope.
Can it be suspicious? Absolutely, especially if they just sit there. After all, they might be casing your house or another for robbery. If they’re just hanging there, call the police and let them investigate.
But they could also be a private investigator checking out one of your neighbors. They could be stopped to make a phone call or check their phone for something. They might be waiting for someone and just got the address wrong.
There are a thousand good, lawful reasons to sit in your car outside of a home. None of them warrant shooting at the driver and trying to use a Stand Your Ground defense.
“I’m scared” or, “I thought they were up to no good” isn’t covered under the law. It’s not about your impressions of the situation so much as what any reasonable person would believe.
No one is going to look at this situation and assume that the person in the car means anyone harm based on the facts as we know them.
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law isn’t to blame for this. People not understanding the law is, though.
Northwest Body Counts Suggest Time for Change on Gun Control Is Here
It is familiar political ground in the Pacific Northwest, with rising homicide numbers providing strong evidence that gun controls in Washington have been an abject failure.
Seattle has recorded its 52nd homicide, and with two full months remaining in the year, there is no doubt the number will eventually exceed the 53 recorded two years ago. The city, as previously reported, is headquarters to the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group Alliance for Gun Responsibility. The organization has bankrolled two restrictive gun control initiatives since 2014, making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights while demonstrably not accomplishing the promise of reduced gun-related violence and murder.
Down the road 175 miles, Portland is the tarnished gem of Oregon, with more than 80 slayings so far this year and an outlook for hitting a new record. It is against this backdrop Beaver State anti-gunners hope to pass next week a restrictive gun control measure—Ballot Measure 114—that will require a permit to purchase a firearm and add more restrictions including a training requirement.
At least one county sheriff—Brad Lohrey of Sherman County—told Fox News, “It is impossible for us to do what they’re asking us to do.”
In decades past, Seattle and Portland were known as laid-back growing metropolises, with far left politics and lots of tourist attractions. Nowadays, both cities are experiencing drug and gang epidemics, and crime is spiking because police manpower is down.
There may be change coming, in both states. Oregon appears on track to elect the first Republican governor in a generation. In Washington, there could be changes in the legislature and some changes in congressional representation as well. With changes in people, there will be changes in policy, but it all depends upon a strong turnout of gun owners and conservative voters across both states.
Gun politics is playing out in other regions. The Des Moines Register is editorializing against a proposed state constitutional amendment affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Iowa is one of a handful of states without such an amendment, and gun owners are seeking to change that.
But the newspaper is dead set against protecting the right at the state level, continuing a trend where the media uses the First Amendment to throttle the Second. It excoriates the June Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for opening the door to both legal challenges and court corrections of infringements on the right to be armed. This suggests anti-gunners still haven’t accepted the explanation in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion that the Second Amendment must be treated like all other rights.
For decades, gun control proponents have had it their way, with incremental imposition of restrictions on gun owners. Violent crime is increasing, not decreasing. Election Day could change that pattern, with a new Congress and power shifts at the state level, rejection of Oregon’s ballot measure and adoption of Iowa’s proposed amendment. At least, that is the perspective of Second Amendment activists who are hoping for a strong turnout of “gun voters” Nov. 8.
Abstract
Guns shows are estimated to account for 4–9% of firearm sales in the US. Increased regulation of firearm sales at gun shows has been proposed as one approach to reducing firearm injury rates. This study evaluated the association between gun shows and local firearm injury rates. Data regarding the date and location of gun shows from 2017 to 2019 were abstracted from the Big Show Journal. Firearm injury rates were estimated using discharges from trauma centers serving counties within a 25-mile radius of each gun show. Clinical data were derived from the National Trauma Databank (NTDB). We used Poisson regression modeling to adjust for potential confounders including seasonality. We evaluated injury rates before and after 259 gun shows in 23 US locations using firearm injury data from 36 trauma centers. There were 1513 hospitalizations for firearm injuries pre-gun show and 1526 post-gun show. The adjusted mean 2-week rate of all-cause firearm injury per 1,000,000 person-years was 1.79 (1.16–2.76) before and 1.82 (1.18–2.83) after a gun show, with an incident rate ratio of 1.02 (0.94, 1.08). The adjusted mean 2-week rate did not vary significantly by intent after a gun show, (p = 0.24).
Within two weeks after a gun show, rates of hospitalization for all-cause firearm injury do not increase significantly within the surrounding communities. The relatively small increase in available firearms after a show and the short time horizon evaluated may account for the absence of an association between gun show firearm sales and local firearm injury rates.
The Range Access Act Would Bolster Public Lands and Gun Rights
As more Americans purchase firearms, opportunities to access shooting ranges on public lands should be expanded.
A newly-introduced House of Representatives bill aims to bolster public range access for new and returning recreational shooters.
Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT) introduced the timely Range Access Act to “require the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to ensure that each qualifying National Forest and BLM district” designate—at a minimum—one public recreational shooting range without charging a user fee.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which manages the USFS, states some ranges located on National Forest lands impose usage fees.
“This legislation is an important step in expanding access to recreational shooting practice. Americans from coast to coast love spending time in the outdoors, and expanding our ability to recreate on and enjoy our public lands is one of my core focuses in Congress,” said Congressman Blake Moore in a press release. “The Range Access Act would establish free shooting ranges for sportsmen to safely participate in target practice while supporting our wildlife conservation and local economies.”
The legislation also received praise from the nation’s preeminent shooting sports and conservation organizations.
“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Congressman Blake Moore for introducing this vitally important legislation to increase access for the public to practice marksmanship at safe recreational shooting ranges,” said Lawrence G. Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation, which would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district, is crucial to ensuring safe public recreational shooting. Congressman Moore’s bill would also benefit conservation by reducing pollution at non-dedicated ranges on federal public lands while also generating additional Pittman-Robertson revenue.”
Just more willful ignorance
BLUF
The stereotype of gun owners is a lie. The media calls us male-pale-and-stale, and who cares if old white men are disarmed anyway. In fact, gun owners now look like a cross section of the USA. Minority urban women are the fastest growing segment of new gun owners. I think Democrat politicians are afraid that more women and minorities will decide to become gun owners. These new gun owners might enter the culture of armed America and protect themselves.
That fear keeps Democrat politicians up at night.
New Gun Owners are Invisible to the News Media and Democrat Politicians
More people own guns today than ever before. That growth is a continuation of a long term trend that goes back several decades. In addition to that gradual increase, we’ve also seen an extraordinary growth in new gun buyers in the last two years. We had to rewrite who owns guns and why they own them. Today, about four-out-of-ten families have a firearm in their home. Despite the astounding changes in gun ownership, the way some politicians talk about guns and gun owners is out of date. New gun owners are subjected to a crash course in being misperceived and misrepresented by politicians and by the mainstream news media alike.
What is real and what is fantasy?
Sitting President, Joe Biden, echoed old myths about gun owners at a fundraising event in June. He said,
“More people get killed with their own gun in their home trying to stop a burglar than, in fact, any other cause.. Think about that. Because it’s hard to do. It’s a hard thing to do.”
Mayor John Fetterman, the Democrat candidate for the US Senate from Pennsylvania, also felt the need to comment on guns and gun ownership. He said,
“I have seen with my own eyes at the scenes in my community what a military grade round does to the human body.” He said that rifles, particularly modern rifles, should be outlawed.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul said,
“This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”
Those statements don’t fit what we know. We know a lot about new gun owners because we talked with them. Gun stores asked new gun owners why they wanted a gun so the gun shop employee could direct the customer to the appropriate products. The industry trade group representing firearms manufacturers and distributors collected those answers. The stereotypical gun owner used to be an old white man who bought a gun to go hunting. Several years ago, personal safety replaced hunting as the major reason new gun owners buy a firearm. Today, gun owners are from every demographic group; male and female, rich and poor, urban and rural. Gun owners represent every ethnic and racial group. About one-out-of-four African-American adults own a firearm. It seems strange that the mainstream media and politicians have deliberately ignored that change.
If my research convinces me of anything,” [John R. Lott Jr.] said, “it’s that you’re going to get the biggest reduction in crime if the people who are most likely victims of violent crime, predominantly poor Blacks, are the ones who are getting the permits.”
In Dallas, there has been a rise in the number of homicides deemed to be justifiable, such as those conducted in self-defense, even as overall shootings have declined from last year’s high levels.
“We’ve had justifiable shootings where potential victims have defended themselves,” said the Dallas police chief, Eddie Garcia. “It cuts both ways.”
Last October in Port Arthur, Texas, a man with a handgun, who had a license, saw two armed robbers at a Church’s Chicken and fired through the drive-through window, fatally striking one of the men and wounding the other. His actions were praised by the local district attorney.
Michael Mata, the president of the local police union in Dallas, said that he and his fellow officers had seen no increase in violent crime tied to the new permitless carry law, though there were “absolutely” more guns on the street.
Sheriff David Soward of Atascosa County, a rural area south of San Antonio, said he had also seen no apparent increase in shootings. “Only a small percentage of people actually take advantage of the law,” he said.
— J. David Goodman in Texas Goes Permitless on Guns, and Police Face an Armed Public
HOUSTON — Tony Earls hung his head before a row of television cameras, staring down, his life upended. Days before, Mr. Earls had pulled out his handgun and opened fire, hoping to strike a man who had just robbed him and his wife at an A.T.M. in Houston.
Instead, he struck Arlene Alvarez, a 9-year-old girl seated in a passing pickup, killing her.
“Is Mr. Earls licensed to carry?” a reporter asked during the February news conference, in which his lawyer spoke for him.
He didn’t need one, the lawyer replied. “Everything about that situation, we believe and contend, was justified under Texas law.” A grand jury later agreed, declining to indict Mr. Earls for any crime.
The shooting was part of what many sheriffs, police leaders and district attorneys in urban areas of Texas say has been an increase in people carrying weapons and in spur-of-the-moment gunfire in the year since the state began allowing most adults 21 or over to carry a handgun without a license.
At the same time, mainly in rural counties, other sheriffs said they had seen little change, and proponents of gun rights said more people lawfully carrying guns could be part of why shootings have declined in some parts of the state.
Far from an outlier, Texas, with its new law, joined what has been an expanding effort to remove nearly all restrictions on carrying handguns. When Alabama’s “permitless carry” law goes into effect in January, half of the states in the nation, from Maine to Arizona, will not require a license to carry a handgun.
The state-by-state legislative push has coincided with a federal judiciary that has increasingly ruled in favor of carrying guns and against state efforts to regulate them.
Judge Lynch: "How can there be probable cause to believe that there is an unlawful firearm anywhere based on the fact that there is a permitted firearm?"
Andrzejewski: "The answer to that is it really doesn't matter whether it was permitted or not." https://t.co/cd7QRWEodv
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) October 28, 2022
Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit
“Any contrary holding ‘would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals’ by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid.”
From Friday’s decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.):
Massachusetts Gun Control Scheme an Abject Failure
Gun Related Homicides Increased 111% Since 1998 Gun Control Act
2020 Massachusetts Department of Public Health Report on Deaths Still Reflects the Commonwealth’s Gun Laws are an Unmitigated Disaster!
On Thursday, October 27, 2022, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) released a report reflecting a nearly two-fold increase in gun related homicides in Massachusetts. The report included data taken directly from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Injury Surveillance Program (ISP). The report breaks down gun deaths in the Commonwealth into three categories: Homicides, Suicides, and Accidental deaths.
“What just jumps off the page is the more than doubling of gun related homicides since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “For more than two decades we have constantly heard that Massachusetts is leading the nation in ‘common sense’ gun control laws. Using the State’s own data, we are proving that is simply a false and dangerous narrative.”
Using the State’s own data, the report reflects an 111% increase in gun related homicides since 1998. Gun related suicides are down a few points, but that marginal success is outweighed by a huge increase in suicide by hanging/suffocation. Virtually no gains have been made in accidental gun deaths as those numbers were so minuscule already.
It is GOAL’s hope that the legislature will finally see what this so-called, gun control effort for what it really is. An affront to our Second Amendment civil rights. There is absolutely no way to justify what has been done to the Second Amendment Community in the name of “safety”. One of the first things the legislature needs to address in the next legislative session is a complete revamp of the State’s gun laws in a manner that respects our community’s civil rights. Further, the political leadership needs to start addressing the human criminal element head on and the growing mental health crisis.
THE AYOOB FILE
READERS KNOW MASSAD AYOOB AS A WRITER, BUT HE’S ALSO A LEADER
American Handgunner and GUNS Magazine readers have known Massad Ayoob over the years for his insight and careful analysis of self-defense incidents, and for his several books on the subject, but there’s another side of this multi-talented fellow with the deep voice and New England accent.
He also serves as president of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights organization that has become the national leader in firearms litigation. It’s also where I hang my hat as editor and communications director. It was a SAF case — McDonald v. City of Chicago — which won a Supreme Court ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. It is SAF, sometimes with national and/or local partner organizations, which now has nearly 40 active lawsuits challenging restrictive gun control laws across the states.
And it is SAF, along with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which annually sponsors the Gun Rights Policy Conference. This year, the event was in Dallas, Texas, and it was Ayoob — a pal of mine for decades — who delivered opening remarks and later on the agenda, some timely and important tips on how to win the “gun battle.”
Suffice to say, Ayoob did it with a style all his own; a bit of activist, some diplomat, a dash of cop humor and a heavy dose of reality.
I would have already done so. licenses or not.
Leaders Urge Christians To Defend Selves After Militants Kill 70
BENUE, Nigeria (BP) – Leaders in Benue, Nigeria, are seeking to give Christian farmers AK-47s for self-defense after suspected militant herdsmen killed at least 70 Christians in several days of attacks there.
“We are standing on our request for the federal government to give us a license for our Volunteer Guards to bear AK-47s and other sophisticated weapons,” Morning Star News on Oct. 25 quoted Anthony Ijohor, a spokesman for Benue Gov. Samuel Ortom. “The security agencies have been overstretched and, that being the case, our people have to defend themselves.”
Gabriel Suswam, an area senator and former Benue governor, also called on Christians to defend themselves.
“Since the federal government has gone to sleep and does not care about the security of the people,” Leadership Nigeria quoted Suswam Oct. 22, “it is time for them to rise up and defend themselves. We cannot continue to allow herdsmen terrorists to keep on killing these peasant farmers and destroying their property.”
Balanced Christian Man Bundle Thumbnail Ijohor and Suswam made the comments following days of attacks during the week of Oct. 16 by terrorists suspected to be militant Fulani herdsmen. More than 70 residents in majority Christian areas of Benue state were killed, more than 100 were injured and thousands were displaced, Morning Star reported.
“In just two days, over 70 Christians were killed by Fulani militiamen in Gbeji community in our local government area,” Morning Star quoted Terumbur Kartyo, chairman of the Ukum Local Government Council in Benue. Udei and Yelewata villages were also attacked, Terumbur told Morning Star.
The killings were likely revenge attacks following the alleged killing of five Fulani herders in three different incidents on Oct. 18, Morning Star said, referencing remarks by a Benue state police official who was not named in the report.
It’s Still a Very Good Idea to Have a Conceal Carry Permit in Permitless Carry States.
Let’s get this out of the way first: constitutional carry should be the rule, not the exception. That being said, I don’t think conceal carry permits should go away any time soon. Even as my home state moved to permitless carry several years ago, I maintained my permit and encourage others to get theirs as well.
Why should someone put in the time, money, and effort when it isn’t required? I’d love to tell you.
People arming up to deal with violence…in San Francisco
The city of San Francisco is one of the most anti-gun cities on the planet. If they had their way, guns would be completely and totally outlawed within the city limits.
Actually, they’d be outlawed everywhere, but they can’t really make that call for everyone else.
Luckily, they can’t go that far. However, between the city itself and the state of California, getting a firearm lawfully isn’t easy.
Despite that, a lot of people there are doing what they have to do to protect themselves from violent encounters.
In June, the SOMA RISE Center, a drug sobering facility, opened in northeast San Francisco and attracted dangerous drug-addicted vagabonds to the area, causing residents of the once peaceful neighborhood to walk with weapons such as baseball bats and tasers for self defense.
According to local news, a 31-year-resident of the neighborhood named Ghis said, “More troublemakers settling in, feeling comfortable doing their drugs, pissing and sh*tting in the street blocking the sidewalks,” all because of RISE.
“They’re letting their clients come out here and get high, go inside and get sober and then get high again,” said Mark Sackett, a businessman who said the drug-addicted itinerants have cost him $100,000 in lost business.
It’s so bad, according to ABC 7, “Some even resorted to arming themselves against the belligerent or violent with baseball bats and tasers.”
So no, they’re not arming themselves with guns. At least so far as the reporting goes.
The truth is that anyone who is carrying a firearm in San Francisco isn’t likely to go around telling anyone, especially the media.
But it’s the right to keep and bear arms, not just guns, so if we look at it that way, baseball bats and tasers certainly count. More than that, though, I don’t blame them.
Look, I respect what these drug treatment centers are trying to do. Getting clean and sober shouldn’t just be the domain of the wealthy, after all.
Yet when these same people are doing this kind of mess in the neighborhood, you’ve got a huge problem. If people are scared, they’re going to arm themselves with whatever they think they can get away with. Yes, I honestly do believe that includes guns–even if those guns are being carried illegally.
The people of San Francisco tend to prefer gun control. That’s been obvious in their politics for decades now.
But we also see when they’re the ones facing a threat, they’re going to arm themselves with whatever weapons they have at their disposal.
Unfortunately, handheld stun guns–most likely what they’re carrying instead of actual Tasers–and baseball bats have their serious downsides. It’s only a matter of time before someone gets hurt by one of these homeless people lurking around the streets of San Francisco.
And the kicker is that, knowing the local government there, they’ll blame the stun gun or the bat and not the homeless drug addict strung out and assaulting people.
That would just be par for the course for the city.