Abolish Gun-Free Zones Says Ron Paul

LewRockwell.com reports

Texas Congressman and GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul continues to champion constitutional rights. His latest endeavor is a bill that would abolish “gun-free zones,” ultimately permitting teachers to carry firearms on school grounds. Predictably, anti-gun groups are calling the legislation “extremist.”

Well, that's no surprise. Ron Paul is the hero of those who hate to be told what to do and what they can't do. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, the only thing that matters is the authority demanding obedience must be resisted.

The most fascinating part of the article, biased as it is with the only reference to the opposition being that they find it "extremist," is the incredible spin job that Gottlieb does. Get a load of this history lesson.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said that despite the intentions of the School Zones Act, it ultimately created “target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building.”

"This sort of thing didn't happen before the advent of gun-free school zone laws," Gottlieb said. "You never saw such an outrage in the days when high schools typically had rifle teams, and – particularly in the West – where it was common in the fall to find both teachers and students with hunting rifles or shotguns locked in their cars.”

The pro-gun crowd are the first to cry that correlation does not equal causation, yet they'd flock around in support of their lawyer-hero Alan Gottlieb when he says nonsense like this.

I suppose the idea is the REASON there were no mass shootings at schools in the good old days is BECAUSE folks had guns. Does that make sense to you?  Why didn't that work in Akron Ohio the other day, or in Grand Prarie Texas last month?  Those are both fairly rich gun environments.

Isn't it true that the phenomenon of mass shootings is a fairly recent one?  There were examples years ago, but they were few and far between.  Nowadays, thanks to the ever-increasing gun availability and lax gun regulations, they are anything but few and far between.

What's your opinion?  Do you believe that basic premise that "monsters" choose gun-free target-rich environments for their massacres?  Do you like the basic idea of arming more of the good guys in order to offset the increasing numbers of bad guys with guns?

Please tell us what you think?  Leave a comment.

Bring a Gun Control Person to the Shooting Range

Gamasutra published a wonderful op-ed by Amy Kalson about her conversion.

I have a confession to make: I have become an all-American semi-automatic owning secret gun lover. Fifteen years ago I was giving money to anti-gun groups, and now I am a gun owner with a membership to the local firing range.

How did this happen? You know what I'm about to say, but before you start throwing rocks at my head, please hear me out.

The video games made me do it.

The rest of the story indicates that it wasn't so much the interest in video games as the suprisingly positive experience she had at the range.

I loved it almost instantly. It wasn't the feeling of power or the knowledge that I was using a deadly weapon that I liked. It was the concentration and precision – the stillness it took to line up the sights, relax, and squeeze the trigger. It was much more zen and stress-relieving than I ever expected it to be. Guns demand your attention. You cannot think about anything else when you hold one in your hand. I loved the way my mind would go completely quiet while shooting. Also, the gun went boom and blew a hole in something, and that was satisfying, in the same way popping bubble wrap is.

Her experience definitely seems to support that silly pro-gun suggestion that all you have to do is take one of us to the range and we'd be convinced. One problem I see is that most of the gun control folks I know have already been to the range.

But, what do you think? Please leave a comment.

Michael E. Hance, Gun Owner Extraordinaire

The Chicago Tribune reports and provides several videos.

 

Risk Factor cross post from my blog

One of the arguments we hear from the pro-gun crowd is that more people die from swimming pools accidents than guns. I'll add in that one of the riskiest things you can do is cross the street in particular Philadelphia's Roosevelt Boulevard which features 2 of the US's 10 most dangerous intersections:

2. Philadelphia, PA: Red Lion Road and Roosevelt Boulevard
3. Philadelphia, PA: Grant Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard

Of course, one can reduce the risks by following safety rules, but here's the original post:

This comes from Min S. Yee’s, The Great Escape; a Source Book of Delights & Pleasures for the Mind & Body (ISBN: 0552685593 / 0-552-68559-3)

The harder the task and riskier, the greater the feeling of self-fulfilment.

Here are some risk quotients for you to keep in mind:

High Risk Quotient: scuba diving, Skiing, surfing, mountain climbing, fox hunting, auto racing, bobsledding, sky diving, ski jumping, playing polo.

Very High Risk Quotient: Gang fighting, building atomic bombs in your garage, flipping the bird to voodoo priests, french kissing cobras, being a member of a snake handling church.

Risk Quotient squared and cubed: Driving an automobile, crossing the street, going out at night in the city, eating TV dinners.

Part of the reason that I mention this is that a fav gunloon argument is that other things besides guns can be lethal. The problem with that argument is that firearms are MEANT to be lethal weapons. If this list seems a bit skewed with things that are commonplace seeming incredibly risky, that is because they are indeed incredibly common.

For example, one of the most dangerous things to do is cross the street. But is it the crossing the street that is the dangerous act, or the dickbrain driver who fails to stop for, or otherwise avoid hitting, the pedestrian? As a former paratrooper, sky diving is dangerous, but you follow the checklist and safety rules to make it safer. Likewise, scuba diving can be dangerous if you have no idea of what you are doing, but you can still be safe if you follow the safety rules.

Negligent Discharges (for Anonymous)

Since our anonymous friend has such a thing for the time I had a "negligent discharge" with a Reck PK800, an 8mm blank firing gun. I thought I would humour him with this post about the Stansfield Report on Negligent Discharges from the RAMC Journal.

As far as I know, the Stansfield Report is the only one of its kind that investigated the incidence of unintentional firearm discharge and injury across the military, in this case across the UK Armed Forces. The report's conclusion was that Armed Forces doctors should be aware of the incidence of UK Military unintentional firearm injury and the context in which they occur in order to facilitate informed discussion with the chain of command about preventing (preferable) or responding to these injuries.

Of course, is the subject of negligent discharge addressed in a properly informed manner, which I would point out that anonymous's continual comments about the ND with a blank firing weapon demonstrate that they are not. While the Stansfield report pointed out that The UK Armed Forces unintentional discharge rate must be put into context, other country’s militaries do not actively place this sort of information in the public domain. Of course, there is a stigma to this topic since the name Negligent Discharge implies the assumption that a trained soldier has control of his weapon at all times. Thus, there can be no accident involved, but only negligence in handling.

The Stansfield report points out that Over the 5 year period that this study ran, there were 1158 Unintentional firearm discharges, forty three (4%) of which resulted in injury. Fifty five military personnel sustained unintentional firearm injuries during the review period, more than half of which were gunshot wounds and this included one fatality. The Regular Army suffers an average of 7.7 unintentional firearm injuries per 100 000 Regular Army person years

Nevermind that one of the ND mentioned in the Stansfield report was a REME armourer servicing a challengingly blocked rifle. I put it to you that a loaded weapon presents the possibility of an accidental discharge or negligent discharge no matter how well you are trained. As the Stansfield report points out, The comparatively low rate of UK gun ownership may be one explanation; nevertheless UK unintentional general injury fatalities are significantly lower than elsewhere.

I put it to you that there is probably a significant amount of negligent discharge in the US firearms owning population. I point to this post at TTAG: Self-Defense Tip: STFU:

TTAG has an entire series called Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day, wherein we admonish readers to take responsibility for every bullet fired from their gun or guns every time. No matter what.

However, there is a time and a place for everything. The best time for a gun owner to take responsibility for their safety and the safety of those around them: before bad shit goes down. So that it doesn’t. But life is a messy business. People make mistakes. Shit happens. When it does you need to weigh your options before you own-up—especially to the cops.

The first problem with accepting the blame for an ND immediately post-facto (without consulting an attorney): you don’t know how the Man’s going to take it. For example, you might be ready to take the heat for loosing a round whilst pointing the gun in a safe direction. After all, no one was injured. Why not put your hands up?

Because an over-zealous DA could look at a “simple” ND and decide to prosecute you for failure to maintain control of your firearm (check your state’s laws). If he or she’s successful, you will lose your Second Amendment rights. Forever. If not, you’re still going to have a $100k-ish lawyer’s bill to pay.

To protect your gun rights, to defend your ability to defend yourself with a firearm, you have to assume that the police and the DA don’t give a shit about you or your family. They play politics and you, sir, are a pawn. In fact, it’s best to assume that they’re all out to get you.

I think that pretty much sums up the popular belief on negligent discharges.

Especially from our Anonymous friend.

Cowman, you know so much about the Second Amendment

I trust you are familiar with US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

At the end of the decision it says:

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.

That refers to Justice WIlliam O. Douglas who had just joined the court at the time the decision had argued. In a later case, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143(1972) Justice Douglas said at 150 -51:

The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id. at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be [p151] secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

Id. at 178-179.

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment.

Please state why the is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days who happened to be a member of the Miller Court would not have a better understanding of US v. Miller than you do?

OK, Cowman--strut your stuff!

Now that I am a co-blogger...

Cowman has said that he knows more about the Second Amendment than I do.

I will challenge his knowledge on this topic by asking him to show that Patrick Henry's "The great object is, that every man be armed" speech from 3 Elliot's Debates 384-7 (June 14, 1788) found here and this speech from Elliot 3:51--52 found here have nothing to do with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, which states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

and deals with a personal right to arms outside the militia context.