Guns (again)

Well, once again a crazy has surfaced, killed a bunch of folks, and got himself killed.

The President wants more laws to keep this from happening.

Has nobody noticed that the laws he wants and the laws that are being proposed in congress will not affect him or the CongressCritters, since they have, and can afford bodyguards, all of whom have, guess what, GUNS?  The laws only affect the Common man, who works for a living and might like to protect his family, home and hearth from the increasing number of people who are criminally inclined or crazy and would seek to do him harm?

Who among you actually believes that one more law will suddenly be obeyed by the criminally inclined when, so far, those folks have managed not to obey so many?  Is there a magic tipping point at which a criminal says to himself, "Golly, there are so many laws now I really have to start paying attention - they just passed another, and that makes one more than I can ignore."

The criminally insane have been a problem since someone's social conscience decided lo these many years ago that their civil rights were being violated by their commitment to a treatment facility.  Are Americans all so dumb as to believe that it is the purest of coincidences that the rise of mass shootings by folks later found to be criminally not responsible for reasons of mental illness is not related to the fact that they can no longer be institutionalized because of their civil rights?

What of the civil rights of the rest of us?  Do we not have the right to be secure in our own homes?  Do we not have the right (indeed the duty) to protect our homes and families from uninvited interlopers who would take the fruits of our labor and do our loved ones harm for the sole reason that the aforementioned loved ones were there and might have objected to being victims at the time?

Why is there no hue and cry to restrict automobiles as used by drunks, who kill far more people than we do with guns?  Instead of blaming the car, which is ludicrous, we blame the person in charge of the car - why is it not the same with guns?  Where is the logic, folks?!

mr. obama (lowercase purely intentional) would reduce us to serfs.  Frankly, we worked too hard to get away from serfdom, and I've no interest in being controlled.  Advised, yes, but not controlled - and you may rest well assured that that is what we are facing if we allow the rights which the constitution recognizes as having preexisted itself to be turned into privileges, which can always be removed.

For the moment, that's all I have to say.

Anyone care to argue?

Starbucks

I see a lot of hoohah about Starbucks on FaceBook, among other places, and I am wondering just what folks are thinking....

Starbucks has not yet banned guns - although it might.  Starbucks became upset about becoming a rallying point for folks who carry openly.

I have never really thought that carrying openly did anything but identify a person as the first to be shot if a crazy comes into the area to shoot people. The only place I ever carry open is on the range.  I have had a concealed carry permit, and for many years did carry concealed - everywhere.  Done correctly, nobody would ever know unless the carrier develops a bad case of either the clumsies or the stupids.

I don't know why an ordinary civilian would want to carry openly.  The only reason to carry is for protection against Bad People, and while Bad People can be stupid, they aren't suicidal - and if the think you might be able to counter their desires with superior force and there's another victim near you who they believe cannot counter their efforts, well, guess what - they'll take the easy target.

I find it hard to comprehend that so many people have failed to note how well the gun-free zones are working - working, that is, to assure a miscreant a goodly supply of defenseless targets. Have you ever noticed that where there are likely to be folks that can make life hard when you try to hurt them or take their stuff there are not many attempts to Do Bad Things?  Can it be that the Bad People cal tell a hostie environment and avoid it?

The reasons to carry concealed are many, to wit:

• Keep people who might do you harm from knowing that you can do them harm right back
• Keep people who are afraid of guns from becoming afraid and doing something stupid
• Keep children from becoming curious enough to be a distraction to you.
• Keep from embarrassing your spouse.
• Keep from upsetting the neighbors (although if you shoot in your basement they will probably figure something out....)

I can't think of that many reasons to carry openly - 

• It won't impress your girlfriend (at least not if she's worth the effort)
• It will warn evildoers to leave you alone and while this could be a positive, it will also point you out as the first person to be shut down if it gets ugly.
• It will frighten anyone around that is ignorant or fearful
• It will further polarize Joe Citizen against you and by extension other folks who have guns.

Where I live, carrying concealed is the only way to get a permit for a regular person, and it isn't easy to get.  I know there are places where they don't care about open or concealed carry - Vermont has the right idea - carry open, carry concealed, they don't care - but shoot someone not in immediate need of being shot and they'll have yr arse right now!

It remains an inconvenient fact for gun grabbers that the overall crime  rate is decreasing as the number of guns in private hands increases.  It is also an inconvenient at that if the cities in the US that are large with laws that make it impossible for a citizen to own a gun are removed, the US is close to the bottom of the list of places where violence is the norm.

I wish folks had not decided to use Starbucks for a gathering place to show off their expensive guns, but had simply carried concealed.  Since Starbucks has said they will not ban them (not yet anyhow) presumably someone carrying concealed would not be questioned or thought of as anything but a customer, and not a customer with a gun that might scare other customers away.

If I am carrying it will be concealed, and you will not be able to tell that I am carrying, at least not if I have done my job right. If you ask if I am carrying, I will probably deny it because I don't think it is any of anyone's business what I own or choose to take with me when I go somewhere. Unless we are in someone's private home, even if you know I might be carrying, I won't show it to you - again to avoid frightening folks who don't know me.  Concealed is the way that avoids most of the headaches.

Starbucks has done what they feel to be necessary, and in many ways their handling of the situation is as good as it will get.

I'll still get a coffee there once in a while when I am traveling, along with a scone or something.  I just won't advertise what I have with me, or where whatever it is may be located.

That's all I have to say - for now....

Guns, Gun Laws, Fools & Knaves

Anyone that seriously believes that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment is a reference to the National Guard might as well stop reading right here - they're wrong and mostly don't want to know what the actual reference means.

That having been said, I read a letter to the editor this morning that set my hair on edge.  Someone somewhere wr0te, apparently totally seriously, that in order to protect the youth of Baltimore we need some more laws to make guns unavailable - since our youth are spending a lot of time shooting at one another.

I don't know where this person lives, but apprently the concept of criminal behavior having as a characteristic the refusal to adhere to laws is foreign to this person - she apparently thinks (or thinks she thinks) that laws result in instant compliance by all who live and breathe.  This is demonstrably false, but never let reality interfere with lofty ideals.

The problem, dear readers, is not that guns exist, it is that people find it somehow useful to misuse them, or to use them in ways contrary to existing laws.  Why should anyone believe for a moment that a felon in possession of a gun (which is against any number of laws) will pay any attention to another law that makes his intended activity illegal?  Criminals do not necessarily choose laws to disobey - they simply disobey whtever laws contradict whatever it is that they plan to do.  

Indeed, all that added laws do is make life harder on the legitimate gun owner who tries to obey a large number of occasionally contradictory laws.  This is particularly true right here in Maryland where, for reasons known only to lawyers, it has become an onerous task to gain permission to carry a gun.  Permits are expensive to get, expensive to renew, and do nothing more than give the police a known subgroup of citizens to bother when someone does something with a gun that contravenes existing laws.  

There is no requirement that criminals have permits - indeed, the Constitution guarantees exemption form any such requirements for criminals because to spread knowledge of their illegal activities contravenes the right to avoid self-incrimination.  That's right, folks - if you are a criminal, you don't have to pay any attention at all to any law requiring permits to own or carry guns - because to record this would require that you supply incriminating evidence on yourself.

I own guns.  I grew up around guns - took safety instruction as a child, shot targes (and rats) practically from the time I could hold  gun.  Even though several different girls dumped me in high school, I did not shoot any of them - I already knew it was a misuse of the firearm, and could get me talked about in unfavorable terms and was generally supremely uncool.  

I know people who never saw a gun until entry into the military - that's OK, because the military generally does a pretty good job of teaching gun safety, and you can really end up in deep poo if you use your issued weapon for anything not specifially ordered - like shooting a superior, or just shooting up the barracks.   

I believe that adults should be permitted to own pistols and rifles if it pleases them and they are not convicted felons - as many in whatever variety as pleases them. I believe it's none of anyone's business what I own or what I keep in my home unless and until I make a prohibited use of whatever the item is.  None of my guns has ever unlocked the safe, loaded itself and bounced down the street looking for someone to shoot. Judhing from the rhetoric I see in the news organs, they must be defective, because a person is never shown to be the problem, the news always lays the problem on the gun, which is inanimate and lacks the capability to self-direct.

At this point, Vermont is the only state that has it right.  Vermont permits any non-felon to carry, either concealed or open.  Do something inappropriate with the weapon and they'll toast you, but as long as there is no inappropriate use, you don't need Mommy's permission.  

The news also loves to write about semi-automatic weapons, which as everyone knows makes it nastier and more dangerous.  I hate to be the one to burst a bubble, but today's double action revolvers work semiautomatically - pull the trigger and it shoots - no cocking, one shot per trigger pull (until all ammunition is used.)  Many folks reading this are confused and think that it means you hold down the trigger and it just sprays all the ammunition it has - this is wrong, but the news will take up that extra space because the writers know that there are folks who don't know this important fact.

Another interestsing fact is that there are many fully automatic weapons out there - and many are legally owned!  ANYONE can own a machine gun if they are permitted to own any other gun - you pay the Federal Government a tax for the privilege (and of course absorb the incredible cost of ammunition.)  There are limits on which may be owned, but it is a fact that ownership is not a blanket illegality.  Interestingly enough,  only one legally-owned machine gun has been used in a crime - and it was one belonging to a police department, used by a police officer.  The rest of those that are owned whose owners have paid for the privilege have never been used in a crime.  Your daily newspaper would never tell you that.

What is it about guns that fascinates me so?  It isn't the noise - it is the fact that they are all mechanical, depend on lighting a fire in an enclosed place to cause anything to happen, and are reliable and predictable.  The engineering, the motion of the parts, how safety parts work, all the mechanical aspects fascinate me.  An hour on the firing range will help you focus - after a bit, your mind does not wander - its sole concern is holding the gun, squeezing the trigger and not moving in a way to make the shot have a poor result.  All extaneous BS goes away, and you emerge from your hour or two refreshed and relaxed - because you haven't had all that nonessential crap eating away at your mind, taking away from the time you have to do important things.  It's even good therapy.  It's a lot safer than having road rage on the way home from work, or being so distracted that driving becomes a secondary task.

If you find guns scary, it is probably because you have no experience with them, but that's OK - I would never require that someone own something that induces fear. Do, however, take the time to learn about something before you dismiss it as intrinsically dangerous.  And please don't be fooled by the "More Laws" folks - lots of them are lawyers and have a vested interest in keeping the legal system riddled with rules that no mere person can understand.  

And please bear in mind - a gun does not a criminal make, nor does a gun law discourage a criminal from pursuing his chosen profession.  We all have choices - demonizing an inanimate objec will however derail us from going after the real problem.

/Rant Off