Don’t make rules from the exceptions

Do you own a car?  Do you have the occasional drink?  Do you head down to the local club zone and get smashed?  If you do either of the latter two, do you drive?  No?  Because you’re RESONSIBLE!!!  It’s a crime.  Something only criminals do.  When you drive drunk and kill somebody you have committed a horrible crime that deserves some harsh punishment.  Like jail harsh.  But should my car be taken from me (or yours from you) because of this dick?  Just because we might do it?

Now many people own firearms.  But very few are used to commit crimes.  But now there’s a demand to end the sale of some of them.  “Who needs a gun that can fire 30 rounds?” “’Those guns’ (always ‘those’ when the speaker is against whatever) are only good for killing people.” (back to that one later).  I have a friend who owns a Porsche Carrera.  Who needs a car that’s capable of doing 150+ mph?  How about that pickup?  “Those trucks” are only good for ranching.

The problem is that the exceptions are made into the rules.

How many gun owners are there in America?  How many of them commit a violent crime with their gun?  Interestingly, the FBI thinks that the average criminal commits more than one crime with the same gun.  Look at the number of “frequent flyers” in our system who shoot, get busted, go to prison, get out.  Rinse and repeat.  But how many of my 30 or 40 (or so) gun owning friends are going to commit a violent crime with a firearm?  I won’t say none.  I won’t say none.  The hell I won’t! (thank you Duke)

If you kill someone for any reason other than defensive you need to go to jail.  Regardless of the weapon used!   But some people are choosing to pick on gun owners.

Insurance, yeah that’s going to happen

I’m a responsible gun owner.  I’ve never shot anyone, never mind shot at.  Most of you reading this who have shot someone or shot at someone did it either as a law enforcement officer or in the military.  ie, in a role designed to responsibly do so.

So, now folks proposing  “reasonable” gun control laws say that gun owners should carry liability insurance.  If that actually happened I certainly would do so, since that would be the law and I’m a law abiding citizen.  Just like I buy insurance for my cars.  I’m pretty certain most of you would also do it.

Now, here’s the problem with that theory.  Criminals are, by definition, those who DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! Law abiding citizens, those of us who buy liability insurance for our cars, pay for those who don’t. The insurance companies don’t make money by writing checks, they make money by cashing checks.

Many insurance companies base at least someone the premium you pay on your “experience.”  That is, the number of claims you make and your driving record.  Run a red light?  Bump the premium.  Drive 70 in a 55 zone?  Bump the premium.  Go 2 years with no claims and no tickets? Drop the premium.  Will so called “gun liability insurance” do the same? Yeah, that’s going to happen.

I have to wonder, how many unlawful uses of of firearms from cars are committed in cars with insurance?

Oh yeah, as long as we’re talking about criminals and guns, how many crimes committed by people with illegally owned guns (that’s two) are committed by people who are involved other crimes?  In many cases drive by shootings involve one gang attacking a member or members of a rival gang.  And the reason the gangs are rivals isn’t because one roots for the Dodgers and the other for the Angels, it’s because they both want to perform other criminal activities in the same area. So, let’s see.  Illegal possession of guns.  1.  Driving a car without insurance. 2. Murder/Attempted murder. (the actual crime being performed). Attempting to control an area for the purpose of an on-going criminal activity. 3. The criminal activity (drugs, “protection”, prostitution, etc). 4.

But let’s go back to the insurance part.  How much insurance? And just what does it cover? More hand waving answers on those questions.  There was one speaker who stated that people who had trigger locks, kept their guns in safes and kept their ammo away from their guns might get better rates.  This is kind of like saying that if I keep my car locked at all times, kept the garage door locked and had my keys in a separate location would get a better rate.  My insurance company doesn’t even bother asking that question.

Will we be a safer place if gun owners have to buy insurance? How?

Money and gun banning. The Law of Unintended Consequences

I’d like to address a quick question. Am I ranting? Yeah. Is it about the truth? I think so. Is this all about guns? Well, I also have a pretty good recipe for chocolate chip cookies and some great crème brule. I’m not a gun nut. I’m a human being concerned about my country.

There’s one aspect of the proposed bans that no one has considered. Money. Specifically tax money.

Over 2/3 of the so call “assault weapons” are purchased by lawful gun owners. We, therefore, subsidize the police and military. Now the military purchase fully automatic rifles, but even this is supported by us. So the prices are going to go up. A lot. And an even larger portion of high cap magazines are purchased that way. The Federal government purchased so much .40 S&W ammo in the previous few years that there was actually a shortage as other manufacturers covered the demand on the contracted companies.

Consider. The US Army (primary purchaser) ordered approximately 60,000 M4 (full auto) carbines at $1100 each ($66M). About 15,000 AR-15 pattern rifles and carbines (auto and semi-auto) were purchased by law enforcement organizations nationally for prices between $1200 and $2000 each (let’s call it $20M). A total of around $86M. Nationally civilian purchases for these semi auto rifles (civilians can’t buy a new full auto firearm of any kind) bought about 500,000 AR pattern rifles at between $900 and $1200 each ($450M). That comes out to $7.50 of civilian purchases for ever dollar of military and law enforcement purchases. Now not all of the civilian purchases subsidize the Mil and LEO purchases, but I’m willing to bet that it’s over $6.60. So now that $20M becomes over $110M. But that’s okay, the Feds pay for part of the LEO costs. WAIT!!!! Who gives “the Feds” that money? Did you say “I do”? And where does the Army get its money?

We’re going to ignore the number of companies that would go out of business which would result in how many unemployed workers. And remember, like the car industry, the company that assembles the rifles doesn’t make all of the parts. Somebody makes the gas blocks, somebody makes the butt stocks, and somebody makes the slings. The gas block is part of the rifle that turns some of the exhaust and makes the gun load the next round. There are a number of replacement parts out there that allow the owner to customize his rifle. The same goes with the other parts. These people become “new filers for unemployment”.

But as long as it saves only one life. Regardless of how many it ruins.

The 18th Amendment

Today celebrates the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.  The amendment went into effect in 1920 but was repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment, the only amendment to be repealed. The amendment reads:

”    Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.”

History shows how well this succeeded.  The 21st Amendment was passed in less than 10 months.

Banning something doesn’t make it “go away”, it only seems to spawn a criminal operation to supply it.  The War on Drugs has also amply demonstrated that fact.

(Thank you to the State University of New York, University at Albany for the exact text of the amendment and other information. Ironic, isn’t it?)

“Those who would give up …

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin 1759
“And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
– Luke 22.36

Weapons, throughout history, have been viewed as a tool of individual defense. But as individuals choose to give up this right for the presumption of group safety, there is a greater demand for the remainder to give up their weapons, and thus their right to self defense. Hang on here while we get to that point