Seen at Facebook:

This is the sudden exposure to the fact that the police HAVE no "Duty to Protect." Now someone needs to introduce people to the Killhouse Rules:

Quote of the Day - Glenn Reynolds Edition

What's up with this? It's not based on any concern with safety. Lego guns, cap guns, bubble guns, nibbled Pop Tarts, and fingers are no threat to safety. And the wild overreaction in these cases says there's more going on here than simple school discipline. As I said, who treats a 5-year-old this way? It smacks of fanaticism.

In fact, it seems like a kind of quasi-religious fanaticism. I think it's about the administrative class -- which runs the schools with as little input from parents as possible -- doing its best to exterminate the very idea of guns. It's some sort of wacky moral-purity crusade. If a few toddlers have to suffer along the way, that's tough. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

-- Fighting education fanatics

Quote of the Day - PSH Edition

This one is by email suggestion. Reader "Cormac" sent the link. Jennifer of In Jennifer's Head brings the snark on the day that concealed-carry in national parks becomes legal. I hope she'll forgive me, but her post is not excerptable, it's of a piece and 100% USDA Prime snark, done rare just like I like it:

Today is the day that all law-abiding gun owners will collectively lose their minds and begin shooting the moment they cross the invisible barrier between national parks and everywhere else. As someone who has passed the sheriff's background check, the OSBI's (Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation) background check, the FBI's background check, I intend to avoid any national parks so as to avoid the creeping insanity. I would hate for today to be the day that I break my non-murdering streak.

Thank goodness the law requires me to remove my firearm before entering a school! Just think about the carnage that's been prevented by limiting the freedoms of all those dastardly permit holders.

Bravo, Jennifer, bravo!

Armed Man in Grocery Store

Armed Man in Grocery Store

No one injured or even frightened. Shopping completed without incident.

That is all.

An Accompanying Sea of Disinformation

An Accompanying Sea of Disinformation

The whole quote is:

Simply put, gun control cannot survive without an accompanying sea of disinformation. - Anonymous

Here's a perfect example. I'd make a drinking game out of it, but nobody can drink that fast, or that much:


"Gun Facts" my aching sphincter. You have to wonder about someone who can spew that much bullshit in that short a period. You really do.

As Mostly Cajun put it recently, “Remember, being ignorant isn’t your fault; staying ignorant is.” This isn't ignorance, though. It's deliberate misinformation. And it's just one of the reasons I started this blog - to expose these people for what they are.

Now THIS is Reasoned Discourse™!

Now THIS is Reasoned Discourse™!

James did indeed print my reply to him (see the post below), and responded.

And then closed his comments.

Here's what I would have left, if he was still allowing comments:

". . . my stated suspicions at the outset were correct – that your honeyed words in challenging me to a debate were bogus, and that you are not remotely interested in meaningful dialogue . . . ."

Except, James, I never even suggested that we were going to be engaged in "meaningful dialogue" - I don't know where you even got that idea. I was quite clear on the fact that I HAD NO ILLUSIONS THAT I WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND, NOR YOU MINE:

I did not engage you in Rachel's comment thread because I came to it too late, but I now invite you to actually debate this topic. I suggest that the forum for this debate be our two blogs. We can trade posts, or I'll be more than happy to give you guest posting privileges at my blog.

I'm quite serious. And I promise that you will learn things you didn't previously know. I don't expect to change your mind, but I do predict that you will be made uncomfortable by what you learn.

--

No, James, it's not about "winning" or "losing," it's about the philosophy. As I said above, I don't expect to change your mind, nor you mine. What I want to do is get the discussion out there where "fence-sitters" can find it.

You seem like the type capable of defending his position, and (given your performance at Rachel's) willing to.

You have no idea how rare that is. On my side of the fence we have a running joke about "reasoned discourse" - it's what your side does here on the internet generally when confronted with facts and reasoned arguments. They close their comments and often delete them. I don't think you'd do that.

(Emphasis added.) Obviously I was wrong about the "closing comments" part, and we've yet to see about deletion, but I can honestly say that you you totally mischaracterized what I promised, now you're all butt-hurt and your taking your ball and going home. As I said:

I can guarantee you that I won't quit first!

So much for defending his philosophy.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

The first thing a conservative notices about leftists is how afraid they are. Any conversation with them soon, no immediately, leads to something they fear, and they fear almost everything. They fear food, tobacco, the sun, clothing, cars, open discussion, life, death, etc. Because of many of these deep fears it is not surprising that they are passionately interested in making life 'safe.' Life must be renewed. If something incidental, such as this freedom or that freedom, must be given up in order for life to be 'safer,' than so be it. (Perhaps this makes perfect sense because when someone is consumed by fear he is in effect imprisoned. Accordingly, the meaning of freedom changes.) -- Ed Detrixhe

Thanks to commenter Windrider for that one. And there's this corollary:

Family member Ed Detrixhe points out that when you overload the circuits on your computer the screen goes blank. Likewise, when you confront a hoplophobe with reasoned argument, his mind goes blank. We have so little contact with those other people that it is sometimes hard for us to understand that they exist - but they do. The media, the megalopolis and academia are lousy with them. Reasoned argument is entirely on our side, but sometimes it is hard to find anyone to reason with. That blank screen is hardly an interesting antagonist. - Jeff Cooper, Cooper's Commentaries, Vol. 9, No. 10, September 11, 2001

eBay Strikes Again

eBay Strikes Again

My boss has a run-in with eBay. Quote of the Day:

eBay can pucker up and kiss my hairy, old, wrinkled.....

(Click for the visual aid, and the rest of the story.)

Apparently eBay is frightened of images of firearms. Who knew?

"These out-of-town internet dudes are another matter."

In a follow-up to last Thursday's "They mostly seem like ordinary folks" piece on the decision by California's North Coast Journal to publish the names of CCW permit holders in Humboldt County (and the associated "They seem so normal!" story), we have a post at CalGuns (h/t to reader John):

I just received a call from HANK SIMS, the editor of the North Coast Journal (707) 826-2004. It came across my Caller ID, so it MUST be "public Information"

He wanted to verify that I had indeed submitted a "Letter to the Editor" online (not comments to the article, but an actual letter submission which I assume they have printed, or may print.)

The conversation started out pleasantly, but quickly turned into a heated debate. I told him that he should be able to glean from the 137+ NEGATIVE comments about posting the names of CCW holders, that it was the wrong thing to do. He refused to see it that way.

He told me that MY reading of the public information act, that the info is there for anyone who wants to go get it but purposefully publishing it from a data fishing expedition is wrong, is flawed. He saw NOTHING wrong with compiling the list of CCW holder names and publishing them on the front page. His defense? He didn't publish their addresses or anything potentially damaging!

He said that the names alone give no usable information, but I told him that from Heidi Walters' name ALONE, I have her PO Box mailing address, former residential addresses, work history, DOB, husband's name, EX-husband's name, the names of their current and former neighbors and a lot of other "public information" I have been able to gather by simply surfing the net. I haven't even bothered to find out what car she drives, the names of her children if any and so forth. I have more important things to do, but I darned sure could find out a lot more with little effort.

RTWT.

So, needless to say, editor Hank Sims [(707) 826-2004], has gotten an ear- and an inbox-full of irate mail from gun owners. In fact, AAN, the "Association of Alternative Newsweeklies" has discovered our interest:

North Coast Journal Story on Weapons Permits Causes a Stir

The Humboldt County alt-weekly provoked an angry response last week with a cover story revealing the names of citizens who have permits to carry concealed weapons in the county. The cover illustration of a handgun was composed of names supplied by the county sheriff's office of 641 individuals holding such a permit. The story has caused an "internet shitstorm," editor Hank Sims tells AAN News, as evidenced by the comments on the story itself and various online forums and blogs. Sims notes that the reaction online has been much harsher than his face-to-face encounters. "A number of local people called or came into the office last week a little bit angry, wondering how we got their name or why we should be allowed to publish the list. They were all very cool, and I had some great conversations," he says. "These out-of-town internet dudes are another matter."

THR, Calguns, and this blog were linked in the blurb. Interestingly, the report was credited to "AAN News." I guess whoever was responsible for actually typing the words didn't want to risk an "internet shitstorm" themselves.

You know, it's remarkable that the local response has been so low-key, seeing as how gun owners and especially CCW permit holders only appear to be ordinary folks. But journalists know that, deep down, they're really bloodthirsty killers who need to be exposed! It's only with the anonymity of the Internet (yeah, I'm anonymous as hell) that our true bloodthirstyness can be released!

In the form of harshly-worded missives!

I am, once again, reminded of the words of Dr. Michael S. Brown. We're tired of the decades-long slow motion hate crime against guns and gun owners. This is another piece of evidence that we're not taking it quietly anymore.

"They mostly seem like ordinary folks."

Well, another case of the Defenders of the First Amendment sh!%%ing all over the Practitioners of the Second Amendment, with the prerequisite smug superiority. The Humbolt County, California North Coast Journal has acquired a list of Concealed Carry permit holders in the county, and published it. (h/t to reader Jason who emailed the link.)

Read Pistol Packing People:

Hundreds of Humboldt County residents have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Who are they, and what are they thinking?

By Heidi Walters

Anybody want to dig up Heidi's personal information? After all, it's our right to know!

We recently asked the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office for the names of all of the people holding a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in this county.

Why did we ask for this list? Call it curiosity sparked by the recent Supreme Court ruling overriding Washington, D.C.'s ban on private ownership of handguns, in which the court decided once and for all that the words in the Second Amendment, "the right to keep and bear arms," define an individual's right, not just that of a well-regulated militia.

Or call it pure nosiness -- an "invasion of privacy," one CCW permit holder told us, in a calm, patient voice.

We call it exercising our rights under the First Amendment as well as the California Public Records Act.

Yes, it's always the case that the Press has a First Amendment Right to expose. . . what? People exercising their rights as citizens of this country?

A CCW permit in California allows a person to carry on his or her person, or in a car, a concealed, loaded handgun. You don't need a CCW permit to keep a gun in your house. You also don't need one to openly carry a gun in unincorporated areas (but who'd want to do that?)

A lot of people, Heidi. A lot of people. But it tends to frighten people like you, so they generally opt for CCW permits instead.

or to have one, unloaded and locked away, in your car. But, just so you know, in California even with a CCW permit you can't carry a loaded firearm into a bar, within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school, or into a public building like a courthouse.

More interestingly, it's a way to take the pulse of the generally law-abiding portion of the community (for, there's no telling how many people out there are packing without a permit; in Humboldt it's probably a pretty damned high number).

Generally law-abiding? CCW permit holders, Heidi, are statistically far more law-abiding than the rest of the population. They're even more law-abiding than law-enforcement officers, on average.

How many of us feel the need to carry a concealed weapon? And why?

As to why, could it be because of those who carry without a permit? The vast majority of which are known as violent criminals?

The number of CCW permit holders in gun-tolerant Humboldt has fluctuated over the years, but it's always been high up on the per-capita list -- at one time second only to gun-encouraging Kern County. According to a state Department of Justice report on the number of CCW permits in California counties between 1987 and 2007, Humboldt's count rose steadily from 387 in 1987 to 794 in 1993, then jumped to a high of 1,439 in 1994. In 1995, the number of CCW permits in the county dropped to 1,339, and in 1997 there were 977. By 2003, the number of CCW permits hit another peak, 1,247, then tapered off in years after that, to 1,031 in 2007. As of late August 2008, there were 652 CCW permit holders in the county. The count could change, as permits are good for two years and some may expire while others get issued or are renewed.

Humboldt County Sheriff's Office Records Supervisor Melva Paris and three other staffers put the list together for us, hand-pulling files and typing up the names of 652 permit holders and the number and type of guns they're packing (you're allowed up to three guns on the permit, the serial numbers of which get printed on it). Eleven of the CCW permit holders remain confidential, said Paris, because their stated cause for wanting to pack a gun (such as having a stalker, for instance) indicates they could be endangered if identified.

But you'd publish those if you could, wouldn't you? After all, the Public has a RIGHT TO KNOW!

Besides, CCW permit holders are just like sex offenders, right?

Looking at the list, one thing is immediately apparent: Having a CCW permit in Humboldt is very much a family thing. There are oodles of couples packing. Packs of siblings. Mom-dad-and-offspring groupings. There are also great quantities of Republicans, a generous dollop of Democrats, and a sprinkling of Greens and assorted others. There are people many of us know. A retired police chief. School employees. Lots of real estate agents. Judges. A garbage company owner. A pastor. Gun dealers. Government workers. Caltrans employees. A harbor commissioner. An HSU professor. Letter-to-the-editor writers. Activists. Our sales manager, Mike Herring (who, we hasten to add, does not pack while on Journal business). Shopkeeps. A famous tennis player. Artists and mechanics. A man who shares the name of that musician who, legend has it, found himself at a crossroads one day and sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for some serious chops. A deputy D.A. A sitar player. A loan officer.

And not an "Authorized Journalist" in the lot, is there? I bet you were shocked! SHOCKED! to find Mike Herring's name on the list. How long until he's ostracized, or am I too late already?

They mostly seem like ordinary folks.

But it's just an appearance, right? I mean, there's got to be something wrong with these people!

Still, something makes them different from those of us who don't carry a concealed weapon.

See?

To get a CCW permit a person has to pass muster with the local Sheriff, whose job it is to decide who gets a CCW permit and who doesn't. CCW laws differ from county to county and even more from state to state. In Los Angeles County, gun people say it's next to impossible to get a CCW permit. But in rural counties such as Humboldt, which Sheriff's Lt. Michael Thomas said has been called a "rifle-rack community," it's easier.

You do need to be a Humboldt County resident, a non-criminal (no conviction within the past 10 years), stable of mind, of "good moral character," not on any psyche meds or under the influence of any other drugs, at least 21 years old, able to pass the shooting test (shoot 50 rounds and hit the target dead-on with 40 of those, at a distance of 45 feet), and able to show a good cause for wanting to carry a concealed weapon. And, said Lt. Thomas, who interviewed applicants for a couple of years, you have to show you know the laws regarding gun ownership and gun violence.

(Psssst! Hey Heidi! In Arizona you don't need a "good cause!" Just a clean record.

BOO!)

Thomas said most applicants have done their research. But he likes to stress to them the possible ramifications of carrying a gun around. What if an attacker grabs it from you? What if you drop it and it goes off?

"You have to ask yourself: Do I really understand if I pull that gun out and point it at somebody, I could change at least two people's lives forever?" said Thomas. "That's scary. The potential there is life-ending or life-changing. And kids at home -- handguns in the house. If you're going to carry a concealed weapon, you're obviously going to have it in your home somewhere. And kids can find anything. If you hide something, they'll find it. ... That scares me to death."

Thomas said the most common causes people give for wanting a permit is for personal protection -- in places where there might be a long response time by the Sheriff's office, or while hiking, or while carrying large sums of money. Most aren't planning to pack all the time. He said he only rejected a couple of otherwise eligible applicants because of something they said in the interview.

"One guy was just so honest with me that he wanted to be there for law enforcement whenever it was needed -- ‘I want to be there for you guys,'" said Thomas. "He actually pretty much saw the light, so to speak, and he actually praised me for explaining to him why maybe he didn't actually need one and how that would put him in a very liable situation."

Of course, said Thomas, some people don't bother to get a permit to carry. Maybe they don't want to pay the $170 application fee. Maybe they think it's nobody's business.

Still, it's better if they get the permit, he said. If you're caught carrying without one, the gun is seized and you face possible jail time and a fine.

But at least your name won't end up in the newspaper if you're not.

Some of the CCW permit holders we called weren't happy about it. One, a pastor, warned: "Be careful what you say -- you might get bit."

Which is code for "shot!"

Another CCWer said we couldn't use his name, but he wanted to say that he thought the actual physical part of the application process -- where you shoot the gun and display your familiarity with it to a trainer -- could be more thorough. A woman who used to ride her bicycle alone a lot into remote country, who also asked that we not use her name, shared that she first got a permit 10 years ago after serial killer Wayne Adam Ford turned himself in at the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office, bringing with him the severed breast of a woman. "That really scared me," she said.

And she's not afraid of a gun? She could get SHOT!

Others, some reservedly and others goodnaturedly, agreed to talk. And at least one guy, David Elsebusch, said he thought the story might even motivate other people to get a concealed carry permit. "Everyone has a right to defend himself," he said.

Now that's a frightening idea!

And now, a few of our local CCW permit holders:

If you've been to a public meeting -- county supervisors, perhaps, or the harbor commission -- you likely know David and Penny Elsebusch. The McKinleyville citizens have been vociferously active in community dialogue ever since they moved up to Humboldt from Los Angeles and found themselves appalled by what David characterizes as shockingly slipshod government demeanor.

They're a dynamic couple -- David's a Republican who may have been leaning sort of Obama-way but now vows gleefully that he's going to be voting for "that gun-toting Palin!"

"Are you kidding me?" he said the other day on the phone. "She should be on top of the ticket! Don't even think about anybody else. I'm serious. I'm voting for the maverick reformer. ... In fact, I want to find a McCain/Palin sticker and cut it so that Palin is on top."

Penny, a Democrat, got on the phone and said she doesn't vote party line, but, still, she guesses they're "going to have different campaign signs on the lawn."

The Elsebusches both first got their Humboldt CCW permits 10 years ago -- they'd have had CCW permits in Los Angeles, too, if they could have. Twice their home was burgled down there -- one time, said David, he wasn't sure if the burglars were still there when he got home. And Penny had a couple of scary close encounters with carjackers while leaving her office at night.

Nah, not a valid reason for carrying a gun. The police can protect you! And these people are obviously insane. Palin?

They both belong to the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. But neither grew up around guns. They're not into competitive gun sports. And they certainly don't hunt.

"I'm not a Humboldter in the sense that so many people just love to go out there, they get all drooly about the thought of going out there to find some innocent animal and cause it to suffer and die," said David. "And I'm an animal lover, so, why would you do that?"

Because they're tasty?

However, David did qualify as an expert marksman while he was in bootcamp with the Marine Corps in the 1950s. He was even assigned to coach fellow recruits on how to fire firearms.

The Elsebusches each are permitted to carry the same two firearms. One is a .22-caliber Beretta semi-automatic that's generally Penny's -- "a little bitsy thing; I can carry it in my hand and you can't see it," she said. The other is a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver with a two-inch barrel, a bigger gun that's generally David's.

David and Penny said they carry concealed not so much for burglars, however, but because of the nature of their jobs. Penny is a real estate agent, and David is a licensed private investigator and an independent insurance adjuster.

"So, the type of assignments that I have, which would include sometimes surveillance, can be a little dangerous if someone is thinking you're stalking them and they're the kind of person that you don't want to meet on the street," said David. "If I have an assignment and I know I'm going to go into Southern Humboldt to some rural location and investigate some matter, that's when I would want to carry. Particularly during marijuana time. If I'm going to the city of Eureka and investigating, I don't bother with it, that's not an issue."

Penny said she hasn't carried her gun in years, actually. These days she's mostly in town, working with people she knows. But she keeps her CCW permit renewed and may carry still on rural trips by herself.

"Because I've always remembered a gal who was driving a bright red car," she said. "They found her car on 299, and they have never found her. That's why I decided to get a concealed weapon. Something happened to her car, and whoever stopped to help her certainly did not."

C'mon Penny, that's just paranoid.

I wonder if it was her breast that guy brought to the Sheriff's office.

And you really ought to up-gun to at least a .38.

On a recent afternoon at Ron and Donna Queen's real estate office on Main Street in Fortuna, Donna was dabbing a soft sage-colored paint onto one of the walls -- they're sprucing the old place up and converting the walls into gallery space. Her husband, Ron, was fielding calls from clients. Donna went to clean the brushes, and Ron gave a quick tour into another room to show where they plan to hang some of their photographs, including ones of sea creatures taken while scuba diving off La Paz and Cozumel. "We go to Mexico every year," said Ron.

Ron and Donna Queen are Republicans. They're voting for McCain. Ron, 59, has lived in Humboldt County for 35 years, and Donna, 50, for 17 years. Ron moved to Humboldt after he graduated from Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo. Donna moved up here from San Diego. Donna's had her CCW permit for about 15 years, and Ron's had his 26 years. Donna's license is for a revolver, and Ron's for a revolver and a semi-automatic. Ron has a son who has a CCW permit, but he didn't want to be interviewed.

But a short records search will yield his first name and probably his address.

Ron, not very tall, blue-eyed and with short white hair, was wearing jeans cinched by a belt with a massive oval belt buckle that said "Champion" on it. Years ago he trained horses for a living, and he had one special quarter horse that won the High Point All Around Horse. Donna, tall, blonde and hazel-eyed, also wore jeans and a crisp white blouse.

Both grew up around guns. Ron spent his early years in Illinois, then later lived in Bakersfield. His dad trained bird dogs and kept the hunting rifles in Ron's closet. "When I was 5 years old I had a BB gun and a dog," said Ron. "We lived out in the country. That's all I had to play with."

So he shot the dog with the BB gun, right? That's Rural Entertainment!

Donna's dad also hunted. "I was going out with him since I was 10 or 11," she said. "My kids grew up with guns, too. My son has 'em. He hunts. Our grandkids are learning how to shoot. So, it's a family tradition."

"In order for a gun to hurt somebody, somebody has to pull the trigger," Ron said suddenly, sensing a possible argument. "Guns aren't dangerous. People are."

Ron used to take his Smith & Wesson .38-caliber horsepacking: "Something big enough to stop something big."

Eventually. I'm not sure I'd trust a .38 to stop, say, a mountain lion. At least not fast enough.

These days he and Donna don't hunt much. "We stalk animals to photograph them, now," said Donna.

But they still want to be able to carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves against bad characters. They live in a rural area near Hydesville, where Ron said it could take the Sheriff's department a long time to respond to a call for help.

"You drive in the driveway, you don't know who's going to be there," he said. "My parents have been robbed. One of my college roommates came home to a guy in the house; he lived in a rural area."

And sometimes their work takes them into sketchy places.

"One guy I met, he told me to put my camera away," said Donna. "I was meeting him to refinance his house, and I was told not to take my camera out till we got to his house."

"I got caught between growers and a CAMP raid one time," said Ron. "We had a client that had foreclosed on a 40-acre piece out in the Alderpoint area. And we were out wandering around, and a bunch of helicopters come in with CAMP, and we get back out on the road and there were guys checking our vehicle out. They had assault rifles, and they were not police. We got the hell out of there."

Ron also has had trouble in town. He's been representing the people trying to sell a church on Wabash in Eureka that was in the headlines earlier this year when a group called "Redwood Teen Challenge" wanted to house recovering adult addicts in it. That fell through; now the building's in escrow again and still sits vacant.

"One time I walked in there and there were people ripping wires out of the wall," Ron said. "I didn't know who they were. I thought they were somebody from the church cleaning, and I had no idea they had broken in. ... And there's a guy running through the hallways upstairs carrying a bunch of wire. I was quoted in the newspaper as saying, ‘I don't show up there without a gun anymore.'"

Ron said he and Donna also drive Highway 36 to Oroville frequently to visit his parents.

"I've seen some scary things out there on Highway 36," said Ron. "I remember years ago there was a lady, on a Sunday morning, walking down the highway in a short skirt trying to hitchhike. It was like, ‘What the hell are you doing out here?' You never know if somebody's going to jump out of the bushes if you pull over to help somebody. That was the first thing that came to my mind."

Paranoid lecher.

One evening last week, as sun approached ocean beyond Clam Beach, Stephanie and Craig Casey sat on the back porch of their home in McKinleyville. Cats, theirs and assorted strays, sauntered in and out of the yard. One crept close to where they sat then stopped, frozen, staring up into the jungly overgrowth of the neighbor's yard where some apple trees slowly drowned in blackberry vines: A rat was scurrying along a treelimb amid the apples.

The Caseys, both Republicans, are pretty much immersed in guns. Craig, 47, who was born in Arcata and grew up in McKinleyville, owns Craig Casey Gunsmithing. Mostly he just sells guns now, but he used to work on them, too, until he went to work full-time at Schmidbauer Lumber. Stephanie, 51, who works at Coast Central Credit Union, was born in Yuba City, and her family moved to Humboldt when she was a child.

"There were always guns in the house," said Stephanie. "We were taught as kids, every gun was loaded and not to touch it. And we abided by that. My dad hunted, he hunted pheasants, ducks and deer."

She's hunted most of her life, too. As has Craig. When they started dating in 1993, though, neither knew the other was into guns.

"She asked me, ‘Do you like to hunt?'" recalled Craig. He said he worried she might not like his answer, but went for it anyway. "I said, ‘Yes.' And she said, ‘Oh good! So do I.'"

But aside from Craig's gun business, which finds him making big bank deposits sometimes, the main reason the Caseys carry is to protect the valuables associated with their big hobby: cowboy action shooting, where they dress in 1860s-1900s attire and blast away with era-specific guns. "And for each stage, or scenario, you have two pistols, a rifle and a shotgun that you shoot," said Stephanie.

"With our cowboy competitions, we probably shoot more than 99 percent of the people across the country do," said Craig. "This year, we probably shot over 10,000 rounds between the two of us."

That means, at these competitions and gun shows, they're often carrying around in their car thousands of dollars worth of guns and ammunition, which some savvy crook might figure out and try to get his mitts on.

Neither Craig nor Stephanie carry their guns to their day jobs, of course. But Craig said he'd like to see a more expansive and streamlined permit system. A federal permit would be nice, so you don't have to always be checking what this or that state's carry laws are. He also said California's three-gun-per-permit limit is silly -- especially for people like them, with lots of guns. He chafes at the ban on bringing guns near school campuses, too -- what's a guy who regularly carries supposed to do when he goes to pick up his kid?

They're voting McCain. "If Obama gets in there, he's going to sign away our rights," said Stephanie.

You poor, deluded fools. Obama is the Messiah. The NRA lies! Factcheck.org says he's pro-gun!

And now we come to Al Koog. Koog, 79, lives in McKinleyville, and he's one of the half dozen or so trainers in Humboldt certified to train CCW permit applicants and assess their shooting skills. He's been doing it since 1994. He also has a CCW permit, of course.

Koog is a retired assistant fire chief from the City of Oxnard. He moved to Humboldt in 1981, although he'd been coming up here since the 1960s. He grew up on a ranch in Texas, shooting pesky tree squirrels that liked to get into the attic and tear things up; rattlesnakes that sneaked into the basement where the food was stored and scared the bejeezus out of everybody; and birds and other critters that became "basically part of the table supplement for surviving in those days," as he put it in a phone interview last week.

He's had a gun since he was a small child. That first one was a single-shot 22 with the stock sawed off to fit him.

"My grandad set me up for it when I was about almost 6," Koog said. "I was just getting ready to start school."

Child abuse!! No wonder Kook, er, Koog turned out so twisted!

Koog figures he needs to have a CCW permit so he can show his trainees what one looks like. Plus, it doesn't hurt to be prepared for surprises.

"Where we live, you can step out the door and there's a bear standing there, or a rabid fox," he said. "Or you go down to open your gate to leave your property and there's a mountain lion come strolling down to visit with you. And then there are all kinds of people that roam the areas with packs on their back and they camp all over the place and you never know whether one's on your property or not. And then there's the marijuana folk, and they wander around in the rural areas."

Koog said the first thing you do -- and he makes this point very clear in his classes -- is try to back out of a tricky situation. Give the rattlesnake some room, if you can.

"I teach along the lines of, a person should use every method of avoiding any situation that they can, if they have to go on a dead run," Koog said. "There's nothing macho about having a gun."

Most of all, he preaches awareness.

"Most people walk around in, I call it a daze," Koog said. "They lack the knowledge of what's around them.

You mean . . . like, journalists?

Say you walk out in the morning to get the paper, and there are mud tracks along the edge of the road. Supposing it's 'just a doe' -- that was scared out of the woods and ran down toward your clear area, trying to escape what is behind them. And there stands some unarmed human, upright, and they don't get out of the way -- it's going to run over you. Follow me? So, you can get run over by a rabbit that's running from something."

Koog likes to train women, especially -- the gun, he said, is the best equalizer between a small woman and a large adversary. But he warns "the younger ladies" about talking too much.

"One of the first things that an instructor tells them is, if you're going to conceal this in public you keep your mouth shut and nobody's supposed to know anything about it," Koog said.

That's OK! The local paper will take care of that for you!

"Because, you tell your best girlfriend who's sittin' in the beauty shop tellin' her best girlfriend and next door is a drug dealer's girlfriend and she tells him that you have one, so they watch you and the first dark night you come out of a corner shopping center and head for your car, well, they're gonna mug you and take your gun."

Koog -- who's a Republican, and who's happy Sarah Palin has come along -- is proud of his new hobby. "I'm passing on something, that people may use down the way, before I take a dirt nap," he said.

Those gunnies! Always with the quaint rural ways of speech!

In the NRA publication the Caseys get, Stephanie said, there are usually some personal accounts of people who ended up in situations where their concealed weapons saved their or some other victim's life.

Interestingly, it turns out that none of the people we picked to interview have ever had to pull their gun on an attacker. And, actually, none of them had ever been attacked, by animal or human, prior to getting their permit either.

Which just proves they're paranoid.

But each said they'd willingly use their gun to save themselves or someone else. Which brings us back to what distinguishes the gun-packing folks from the non-gun-packing ones. At some point, the CCWers had to come to the sharp realization that there may come a time when they actually pull out that gun and kill someone.

And we should all fear them for that!

"I'd do it in a heartbeat," is how one guy put it. Mary McCay -- who has had a CCW permit for 10 years, and whose late husband, E. Dale McCay, was in the gun-selling and training business with Al Koog -- put it another way: "Well, I'm 88 years old, and I don't play games."

So don't mess with these people.

Like we just did.

Here's how The Journal printed their names. It's a big image.

Enjoying a Fight

Enjoying a Fight

Back in 2005 I wrote Fear: The Philosophy and Politics Thereof. The general topic was the fact that the gun-control philosophy is based on just that - fear. As I said then:

It's important to understand this: We call ourselves "gun nuts" - embracing the label thrust upon us by the ignorant, anti-gun bigots - but many of them really believe it. We're "potentially dangerous" because we like guns.

I think that's something most gun owners don't really grasp. I know it initially took me a while to get my mind around the idea.

The Brady Campaign linked to several gunbloggers yesterday. (No link, on purpose. You can find it below if you want.) The author was horrified at that famous letter to the editor, but even more horrified that we gunbloggers didn't "denounce it as morally degenerate and unrepresentative of gun owners at-large".

And we didn't.

Our dedicated opposition is made up of people who actually believe there is (or ought to be) a Right to Feel Safe. The fact that there are people around them, armed and willing to use violence scares the crap out of them. As I've noted before, they either refuse or are unable to distinguish between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective". They see only violence, and violence is bad, mmmmkay?

But what really gives them PSH are people who aren't afraid of fighting. It's taken me a while, but I swear that half the antipathy the Left has for the modern military must come from the fact that soldiers are trained to fight, and volunteer for the training. When I wrote Fear there had been a Great Outrage at the pronouncement of Marine Lt. Gen. James Mattis that:

You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.

One typical response was from Juan Cole:

Just as few priests are pedophiles, few soldiers are sadists. Mattis has brought dishonor on the US Marine Corps with his words. Killing is never appropriately called "fun." I think he should resign.

As I said then, according to the Left, enjoying the practice of violence is the definition of insane.

Eric S. Raymond posted today on this topic. He's got some interesting insights. Here's a taste:

It used to bother me that I like fighting. I had internalized the idea that while combat may sometimes be an ethical necessity, enjoying it is wrong — or at least dubious.

So I half-hid my delight from myself behind a screen of words about seeking self-perfection and focus and meditation in motion. Those words were all true; I do value the quasi-mystical aspects of the fighting arts very much. But the visceral reality underneath them, for me, was the joy of battle.

In 2005 I finally came to understand why I enjoy fighting. And — I know this will sound corny — I'm much more at peace with myself now. I'm writing this explanation because I think I am not alone — I don't think my confusion and struggle was unique. There may be lessons here for others as well as myself, and even an insight into evolutionary biology.

If that's not enough of a teaser, you're not interested in the topic.

Eric is not alone, but I don't count myself among that group. I don't like fighting. I haven't been in a physical altercation since I was probably 12. I have no idea how I would perform in an actual combat situation. I'd like to think I'd be adequate, but I don't expect more from myself than that. I remember reading W.E.B. Griffin's series Brotherhood of War. In the first book, The Lieutenants, a soldier is sent to Greece in the immediate post WWII period during America's initial, stumbling efforts to check the spread of Communism. He is sent as a liaison to the Greek army during their civil war. He was not supposed to be a combatant, but his position comes under major attack, and there are numerous casualties. During WWII he had not been exposed to battle, but in the hills of Greece, he comes under mortar and small-arms fire.

And he shits himself.

Then he picks up his Garand, and goes to war anyway.

That was not the behavior I was expecting from a major character in a war novel, but it rang true.

If the S does HTF, all I can hope for myself is that I do what is right, but I'll remember what I learned from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - about 2% of the population is able to kill without hesitation and without remorse. Half of those are clinically insane. But the other half are perfectly sane, and they're the ones who lead in battle. I suspect Eric is one of that 1%. But the rest of us can do violence, if it's necessary.

What decides that is the philosophy (or lack thereof) you live by.

Paul Helmke and Super Dangerous Weapons

ABC News interviewed Mr. Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Disarm America. He had some interesting things to say:

(W)ith the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

As I noted in my comment there, Mr. Helmke once again avoids mention of the fact that he and his ilk were attempting to change the Constitution without recourse to the Amendment process through REDEFINING the meaning of "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". They failed. Spectacularly. That doesn't mean we think they've given up. And his mouthpiece confirms:

Brady Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan said there are multiple gun control measures that would not run afoul of a Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban.

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

Yet the Brady Campaign supported the D.C. ban at least in part because they believe that handguns are a "super dangerous class" of weapons. The Violence Policy Center, of the same ilk, has been trying to get a national handgun ban passed since its inception. They even sell a book on the topic: EVERY HANDGUN IS AIMED AT YOU.

But somehow Mr. Helmke thinks that "assault weapons" - which I doubt he could define - are "super dangerous." Apparently only when they're in the hands of people not on the .gov payroll, since almost every police force in the country (including, most recently, Chicago) is armed or arming with AR-15 or M16/M4 rifles and carbines. You know, those spray-firing bullet hoses designed to be fired from the hip and that are only good for mowing down crowds?

In current news, Utah's Hill Air Force Base has apparently misplaced a crate of M-16 select-fire rifles (read: "machine guns"). Apparently since these are official government firearms, the Salt Lake Tribune notes that they are "small caliber rifles," though they are "worth up to $5,000 each on the street."

"Small caliber rifle" doesn't sound like a "Super Dangerous Weapon," does it?

They're missing twelve of them.

Helmke must be having kittens.

Ayn Rand Was Right

Do you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that's the system! - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

Several bloggers have reported on the 10 year old Winchendon, Massachusetts boy who was suspended from school for five days for bringing a spent (that's "fired," "inert," or "empty" for those of you in the Journalism profession) blank (that's "never had a projectile" - the pointy bit that's designed to come out of the barrel, the long tube-thingy that... never mind.) cartridge case to his school - a fired blank case that was given to him by a veteran, presumably after it was fired in a 21-gun salute on Memorial Day.

Yes, that's outrageous.

But Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has a little different spin on the story:

Well, the problem is, if you don't have a license to have a firearm in Massachuetts, you can't even possess ammunition or ammunition components. The truth is, this kid and everyone involved in this situation is lucky that it's only resulting in a five day suspension. Under Massachusetts law, both the kid, the veteran who gave the kid the empty shell casing, and the teacher to took if from the kid could be looking at two years in prison for having ammunition components without a license.

These are the "reasonable restrictions" that the Brady Campaign wants to impose on the rest of the country. And they call us "nuts" and "paranoid" for arguing that these regulations are anything but reasonable.

I would be very curious to learn how often these laws are actually used in prosecution against armed robbers, drug dealers and the like.

A license to possess a spent cartridge case. It boggles.

Still the Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest...

(with apologies to Simon & Garfunkel)

Markadelphia dropped this in a comment on the post about the school shooting in Portsmith Ohio:

So, there were guns there and nothing could be done to stop it. Having people armed in schools will prevent nothing. While I think that if many people here were armed in a school would be responsible, most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow and would probably shoot someone by accident. Simply put, I don't trust most American and I don't think you do either, Kevin, as evidenced by your writings.

Let us parse:

So, there were guns there and nothing could be done to stop it.

Really? You again exhibit your God-like powers of prescience and prognostication. Wherever do you find those? Is there a pill?

Having people armed in schools will prevent nothing.

Is that so? Well it is difficult to "prove a negative." The probability that such an incident doesn't happen because a gunman was dissuaded due to the fact that one of his victims might shoot back (or first) is, admittedly, impossible to calculate. Oregon school teacher Shirley Katz seems to believe with a weapon she could prevent her ex-husband from doing something unpleasant to her (since restraining orders are essentially tissue paper and she knows it), but the law requires her to be a disarmed target while she's at work.

Just like Christi Layne.

However, it's never really been that much about prevention, Markadelphia, it's been about attenuation. Only two things will stop a rampage shooter - either he (or she) decides they're done, or someone with a gun stops them.

As Tam put it so eloquently after the Montreal college shooting in 2006:

I ain't goin' out like that. Whether it's some Columbine wannabe who's heard the backward-masked messages on his Marilyn Manson discs, distressed daytrader off his Prozac, homegrown Hadji sympathetic with his oppressed brothers in Baghdad, or a bugnuts whackjob picking up Robert Frost quotes transmitted from Langley on the fillings in his molars, I am going to do my level best to smoke that goblin before my carcass goes on the pile. I am not going to go out curled into a fetal ball and praying for help that won't arrive in time.

--

Even if the police are right there, it might not do me any good. Heck, I might not do me any good. But, dammit, I am going to try. If a 51 year-old nurse can overcome a hammer-wielding psycho with her bare hands, the least I can do is go out on my feet. I'm not going to wait for the coup de grace under a desk; I'm not going get in the abductor's car; I'm not going to comply with their demands; I'm not going gently.

Help in this case didn't arrive in time to stop the shooter before he decided he was finished, nor did it in the Baton Rouge shooting yesterday, but it did in the City Hall shooting in Missouri. There's no way to know how many people Charles Lee 'Cookie' Thornton intended to kill before he decided he was finished, is there?

But now we get to the heart of the matter:

While I think that if many people here were armed in a school would be responsible, most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow and would probably shoot someone by accident. Simply put, I don't trust most American and I don't think you do either, Kevin, as evidenced by your writings.

Then you've not been reading what I've been writing. (There's a surprise.)

Prior to Florida starting the current trend in 1987, there were eight "shall-issue" states, where citizens who applied for a CCW permit and who passed a background check and a minor licensing requirement had to be issued a permit. It was not at the discretion of local law enforcement to deny. Vermont has always been a "no permit required" state. Seventeen states were "no issue" - you couldn't get a CCW at all. Since then the number of "shall issue" states has increased to 37, Alaska has joined Vermont in not requiring a permit, and only two states remain "no issue."

In each of the states where "shall issue" is the law, approximately 1-3% of the eligible population jumps through the relatively minor hoops in order to get a permit. The number of people who actually carry is unknown. What we do know is that those people are remarkably law-abiding. They are much less likely to be arrested for anything than the general population.

In point of fact, they do not "jump at their own shadow" or "shoot someone by accident" - at least if they do shoot someone by accident, it's at rates far below those of police officers. It is a fact that the worst thing you can say about "shall issue" concealed-carry legislation is that it might not have contributed to the decline in violent crime during the same period. In state after state, opponents to the laws have had to admit that none of the "blood in the streets" and "shootouts over fender-bender" fearmongering came true.

You're right, Markadelphia, I don't trust "most Americans," and with reason. Apparently "most Americans" are like you. But I do trust those who get CCW permits far above and beyond "most Americans" because - for the overwhelming majority - they've given thought to their own protection, and understand that the police can't be everywhere, all the time. They are connected to reality in a way "most Americans" really aren't.

And if you're interested in the efficacy of concealed carry, I suggest you peruse the archives of Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self-Defense blog. Admittedly, the number of CCW defensive gun uses are low, but they do happen.

Contrast Tam's words above with these of Barry of Inn of the Last Home from a while back:

I just...I just blink my eyes in amazement everytime this crops up - actually watching people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in public...

If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation. To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.

Obviously that is not your intent. You want to protect yourself - maybe that is how you feel in California. But being brought up in Eastern Tennessee I've never once felt the need to protect myself from imminent bodily harm in public. And if I were aware of a location that might be unduly hazardous - a dark alley, a badly lighted parking area - I would avoid it. I've never been mugged, nor can I readily pull up a name of any person I've ever met that's been mugged or even bodily threatened in my whole life.

What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat? Is it a criminal pulling a gun on you? In which case, unless you're a gunslinger, you're not going to outdraw him. Is it someone pulling a knife? Threatening words? Bad language or rude gestures? Where is that one point where you decide, "Yes, my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger and I must now take it upon myself to take the life of another person." What if the guy is reaching into his jacket, and you are sure, absolutely certain that it is a weapon. You pull your gun and shoot--and see he's reaching for his wallet. Or worse, you miss and hit a child running in the street. Where is that line?

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself.

Maybe it's different in California. Maybe it's different in Tennessee. Maybe I don't love my family enough...maybe I love them too much. But I know myself, and know that if I surrendered to the paranoia - and I mean that in the most basic sense - there would be no turning back.

You can bet your ass I don't trust him to make decisions for me.

UPDATE:  Original JSKit/Echo comment thread is available here. Thank you, John Hardin.

Do It Again, Only HARDER!.

Say Uncle points to another Laura Washington piece on gun control. It seems Ms. Washington wants to "energize the base," since in her previous jeremiad she stated that she wanted to "get organized and shove tougher gun policies right down their throats."

One of those throats, obviously, would be mine. Now she wants to "pry open those cold dead hands."

Guess whose?

Say Uncle has done a masterful job fisking her op-ed (and I'll get back to that), and Ahab has some things to say about it, as does Sebastian, and Countertop, and Alphecca. Since Ms. Washington states in her current piece, "Whenever I write about the plague of gun violence, I get a huge blowback from the gun lovers of America," I thought I'd do my part as well.

Before I do that, though, allow me to bask in the pleasure that Ms. Washington took what I told her in my first email to her, and wrote an op-ed from it. I wrote previously:

Ms. Washington, you note in your piece: "(I)t seems the gun control advocates have been outmatched. Abigail Spangler acknowledges as much. Spangler is the founder of ProtestEasyGuns.com, a Virginia-based group that has been spearheading a slew of anti-gun protests around the nation.

"Gun control activists, she wrote me, 'are TRYING HARD but they are seriously affected in state after state by lack of funding and contributions." She recently met, she says, with the leader of Virginia's only gun control group. "He says they may not even be able to afford any lobbyist at all soon in Virginia!'"

Ms. Washington, the citizenry will offer an opinion to anyone. Opinions are free. But activism costs money - and the anti-gun side has shown that the hearts and wallets of the general public are not really into it. Ask any hundred random people on the street if they favor stricter gun laws and most likely the majority will say "yes." Ask them what the current gun laws are, and they won't be able to tell you. Gun rights activists can. The gun control side of the argument has been supported for decades with money from foundations, perhaps the largest contributor being the Joyce Foundation. Look them up. Those of us who believe in the right to arms are the true grass-rooters, and there are far more of us than the mere four million that the NRA claims as members. As someone once put it so pithily: "Poor Lefties; they've been playing on astroturf so long that they don't know grassroots even when fed a mouthful of divot."

In the current piece she writes:

Through organizing, the Internet, and plunking down plenty of cold hard cash, the gun lobby has proven it is ready for primetime. Meanwhile, its opponents are languishing in the wee-hours of late-night local cable.

Right. The Violence Policy Center, the Brady Center, IANSA, the Second Amendment Research Center of Ohio State University, the Harvard School of Public Health, the.... Well, you get the idea.

Gun control advocates should piggyback on the success of online activist groups like MoveOn.org and MeetUp.com. These efforts have raised millions to promote political candidates and the antiwar movement. The money is there. Barack Obama, for one, has raised over $17 million on the Internet. Marches and protests are fine, but it is imperative to devise a response that is sophisticated and symmetrical to the gun lobby's tactics.

She realizes her side needs money, but I don't think she knows the mailing address for her grant application to the Joyce Foundation.

ANYWAY, back to Say Uncle's fisk. In it, he uses one of my favorite "Uncleisms" - "Gun control is what you do instead of something."

Ms. Washington makes two statements that I think are crucial to understand about the topic, but that almost no one on either side ever addresses. To wit:

The gun army, made up almost exclusively of white men from suburban and rural areas....

and:

According to a recent report by the U.S. Justice Department, nearly half the people murdered in the United States in 2005 were black. Most lived in cities and were felled by guns. While blacks make up about 13 percent of the nation's population, they comprised 49 percent of all murder victims.

I am reminded of the truth of the first point every time I go to the range. While Zendo Deb, Denise, Tam, Bitter, KeeWee, Breda, and hundreds if not thousands of women, not to mention black men like Kenn Blanchard and Walter Williams, are members of the "gun army," the overwhelming majority of us are white males, mostly suburban or rural.

But very nearly half of the victims and perpetrators of violent crime are less than 13% of the population. A very identifiable less than 13%.

Young. Urban. Black. Males.

In fact, the level of violence committed by and upon this tiny demographic skews America's violent crime rates markedly, as I pointed out in Questions from the Audience? back in January of last year.

But whose throats does Ms. Washington want to shove "tough new gun policies" down? Whose "cold dead hands" does she want to pry open, in the apparent belief it will somehow affect the problem she herself identifies?

If you misidentify the problem, it's no surprise that you misidentify the solution, but it's more than a little exasperating when the other side points right at a crucial datum, and continues to make the same error. It leads one to suspect either a logical disconnect, or an ulterior motive.

"Gun control is what you do instead of something" indeed.

Quote of the Day

From an excellent post by Joe Huffman. Joe's formerly hoplophobic friend explains why he felt it necessary to demonize gun owners in his own mind:

Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.

But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)

Read Joe's whole post. There's a good comment by Clayton Cramer at the bottom, too.

"Authorized Journalist" Misses the Key Facts.

Big freaking surprise.

A Keyboard and a .45 has the real scoop on how the legacy media once again allowed itself to be manipulated in the battle against those eeeevil guns, the giant gun industry and its all-powerful lobby that wants to see a gun in every child's hand!

Hie thee hence. And maybe write a short letter to the editor when you're done reading.

"You're an American!!! We don't do that sort of thing!".

A reader sent me an email with a link to a really outstanding first-person account over at OpenCarry.org. It seems a young American serving in the Israeli Defense Forces had an encounter with a couple of New Yorkers in Tel Aviv.

I imagine that couple counted themselves among those who have "been against violence and guns their whole lives." I think he rocked their world a little bit.

Give it a read.

Thanks for the link, Chuck!

Like Water Off a Duck's Back

Say Uncle pointed to a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed yesterday by columnist and journalism professor Laura Washington. I won't reproduce the whole piece, but here's a taste:

Gun lovers disarm control advocates

August 27, 2007
LAURA WASHINGTON Sun-Times columnist

It looks like the petulant, gun-toting NRA stalwarts have won the first round.

Last time, I used this space to ask where you stand on the issue of gun control. A torrent of e-mails later, it's clear: Gun-control advocates were outgunned, four to one.

The gun lovers were legion, robust and vitriolic. Many of you told me to go places where the sun doesn't shine and the temperature is way too hot. Yet, if you believe public opinion polls, that reaction is an anomaly. For instance, last April, ABC News polled adults nationwide, and asked: "Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?" Sixty-one percent favored them, 36 percent were opposed, and 3 percent were "unsure."

CBS News asked, "In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of handguns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" Two-thirds of respondents nationwide opted for "more strict."

What is the problem with the advocates of gun control? Why are their voices not being heard? They are consistently cowed and overmatched. Gun violence is out of control, yet the gun lovers are ascendant.

You think we've got problems now? Just listen to Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential aspirant. At a recent Conservative Political Action Conference, he bragged, "I'm not a newcomer to the NRA," the New York Times reported on its political blog. "I was the first governor to have a conceal-carry permit, so don't mess with me."

Huckabee, mind you, recently made a flashy second-place showing in the Iowa presidential straw poll.

Do you want to be standing in line for gas, popcorn or a gallon of milk and find yourself next to someone who's packing heat? If he takes the White House, we can all go shopping for embossed leather holsters and pearl-handled pistols. I'll be looking to accessorize that with rhinestone-studded boots.

You know, the usual Reasoned Discourse™ we've come to expect from our opposition. Please, RTWT. (And yes, I do know about the Zogby poll.)

Instead of fisking her piece, I thought I'd drop her a nice email (and copy the paper's letters-to-the-editor while I was at it. What the hell, worth a shot.) Here's what I sent:

Ms. Washington:

I read with interest your op-ed in the online edition of the Sun-Times, and I had some comments to make. I hope that you will see this epistle in the volume of email I am sure has been forthcoming since your little jeremiad was published. Provoking an outpour of response was, I am sure, one of your intentions. Let me apologize in advance (though it is not really my place) for those who will shower you with invective and vitriol. We on the side of the right to arms have been fighting against a decades-long slow-motion hate crime,¹ and it tends to wear on our patience. I understand such responses, but I cannot countenance them.

I am eternally fascinated by people who see themselves as "gun control advocates." I find them fascinating because they epitomize to me the phrase "cognitive dissonance." The fact that you write from Chicago, one of the epicenters of "common-sense gun control" only adds to my fascination.

Cognitive dissonance has been defined thus:

"When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn't seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn't executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as 'escalation of failure'.)"²

Or, as I phrase it, "The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again, only harder!" We see this behavior in gun control advocates all the time. There's always a "loophole" to blame. Always a "next step." But "gun control" never improves crime rates, never reduces homicide rates. Never. Gun control advocates always - without exception - predict "blood in the streets" and "wild West shootouts" when "shall issue" concealed-carry legislation makes progress in state legislatures, but this never happens. Never. Somehow this data fails to make a dent in the "gun control" mindset. The strategy constantly fails, but the ideology cannot be questioned. Do it again, only harder!

Ms. Washington, you note in your piece: "(I)t seems the gun control advocates have been outmatched. Abigail Spangler acknowledges as much. Spangler is the founder of ProtestEasyGuns.com, a Virginia-based group that has been spearheading a slew of anti-gun protests around the nation.

"Gun control activists, she wrote me, 'are TRYING HARD but they are seriously affected in state after state by lack of funding and contributions." She recently met, she says, with the leader of Virginia's only gun control group. "He says they may not even be able to afford any lobbyist at all soon in Virginia!'"

Ms. Washington, the citizenry will offer an opinion to anyone. Opinions are free. But activism costs money - and the anti-gun side has shown that the hearts and wallets of the general public are not really into it. Ask any hundred random people on the street if they favor stricter gun laws and most likely the majority will say "yes." Ask them what the current gun laws are, and they won't be able to tell you. Gun rights activists can. The gun control side of the argument has been supported for decades with money from foundations, perhaps the largest contributor being the Joyce Foundation. Look them up. Those of us who believe in the right to arms are the true grass-rooters, and there are far more of us than the mere four million that the NRA claims as members. As someone once put it so pithily: "Poor Lefties; they've been playing on astroturf so long that they don't know grassroots even when fed a mouthful of divot." ³

Ms. Washington, our side is winning because we can see reality. We are not blinded to a flawed ideology. The ideology you operate under is expressed best as "Guns are baaad, mmmmkay?" This ideology springs from an inability or unwillingness to see a difference between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective." You see only "violence" and violence offends you. From this inability you mistake the tools of violence to be the cause of violence, and from that error comes the desire to eradicate the tools. But this does not address the actual cause. In other words, "Gun control is what you do instead of something."⁴

When disaster strikes and civil society breaks down, when the government proves unmistakably that it cannot protect everyone, everywhere, all the time, then some people have an awakening - and they go to a gun store or a Wal-Mart and try to buy a gun.

And that's when they discover just what the gun laws really are.

And many become gun-rights activists because, as one woman put it when she found out she had to wait a week for a gun while being stalked by an ex-boyfriend, "I've been against guns and violence my whole life."⁵ She and those like her were responsible for that interminable week wait. She finally understood the difference between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective," and wanted protection - which the law denied her for a full week.

Some of us are "gun lovers," Ms. Washington. I am, unashamedly. But many, many more simply want to be able to choose how to defend ourselves. That is a choice you wish to deny us out of a belief in a flawed ideology that you cannot bring yourselves to recognize.

I'd love to discuss this topic with you further, but I seriously doubt you've bothered to read this far.

Thank you for your attention, however much of it I was able to garner.

(Footnotes not in original).

Somewhat to my surprise, she replied:

Dear Mr. Baker,

Thanks for your comments on the gun control column. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

Be consoled that you are winning the battle. And yes, I did read your entire letter.

Best, Laura

=================================================================
Laura S. Washington
Ida B. Wells-Barnett University Professor
DePaul University
Contributing Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times
Senior Editor, In These Times

The fact that she responded was surprising. The content was not.

I sent her a short reply:

Dear Laura:

Thank you for your gracious reply, and for taking the time our of your obviously busy schedule to read my missive.

Water off a duck's back, eh?

My sincere condolences,

Kevin

But wait! There's more! Phelps had a beautiful response of his own that I hope he sent to her. I urge you not to miss it.

Footnotes:

¹Dr. Michael S. Brown
²Steven Den Beste
³Tamara K
⁴Say Uncle
⁵Seraphic Secret

Credit where credit is due.

UPDATE: Commenter Kevin P. notes that he maintains (an EXCELLENT) Wikipedia page on the Joyce Foundation and their funding efforts. Way to go, Kevin!

Cognitive Dissonance

It raises its head once again. To quote Steven Den Beste:

When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn't seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn't executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as "escalation of failure".)

Or, as I put it:

The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again only harder!

We have some new stories coming out of the petri dishes of the UK Commonwealth.

Let's start with this one:

Victims and offenders get younger

By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 7:01am BST 24/08/2007
Periodically, there is a national outcry about guns on our streets. It reached a climax 20 years ago this week when Michael Ryan shot and killed 16 people, including his mother, wounded 15 others, then killed himself.

The massacre in Hungerford led to a ban on the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles.

In 1996, the murder of 15 children and their teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland, led to a complete ban on handguns.

Yet since then, the number of crimes involving guns has risen.

In 1996, there were 14,000 recorded offences in which firearms were reported to have been used. In 2005/6, the last period for which figures are available, there were 21,500.

Although the numbers dying through shooting is roughly similar, 50 victims in 1996 and last year, attempted murders and woundings are up 50 per cent.

Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world - yet they did not prevent the appalling events in Croxteth.

Ergo: the strategy failed.

But the ideology cannot be wrong!

Yesterday, Gordon Brown said the Government was "working urgently" to tackle gun crime. But if previous laws have made little difference why should new ones?

The past year has seen another avalanche of legislation. The Government introduced a minimum five-year sentence for possessing an illegal firearm. They made it an offence to possess an air weapon or imitation firearm in public without legal authority or reasonable excuse.

The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 made it illegal to manufacture or sell imitation firearms that could be mistaken for real firearms. It also strengthened sentences for carrying imitation firearms, and created tougher manufacturing standards so imitations cannot be converted to fire real ammunition.

The Home Office boasted: "We're cutting off the supply of firearms into the country."

"Do it again, only HARDER!

But the guns are already here; and they are increasingly easy to get. Home Office research indicated that an imitation firearm could be bought for £20 and a shotgun for £50. A military-quality handgun will go for around £1,000. An automatic weapon sells for between £800 and £4,000.

Think about that. Gun control supporters here object to our pointing out the failure of DC's draconian gun ban (there were seven homicides in DC last week, at least five of which were by firearm), or Chicago's handgun ban to have any positive effect on the level of gun crime in those cities. They blame "lax gun control laws" in the surrounding areas for the influx of guns into those cities. However, England has all the laws that the Brady Campaign et. al think are "common sense": "may-issue" ownership licensing with full background check and character references, "safe storage" requirements with surprise inspection powers by the State, restrictions on the amount and type of ammunition permit holders can possess, a complete ban on "military style" semi-automatic rifles, a complete ban on handguns, the whole nine yards. More importantly, the UK is an island - there are no neighbors just across the state or county line with "lax gun laws" that allow an easy flow of illicit guns. You've got to smuggle them in through the ports of entry, or by boat. Yet gun prices are barely above American retail, and fully-automatic weapons can cost less than a handgun.

But does anybody learn from this? Hardly. Washington D.C. is going to the Supreme Court to prevent its bans from being overturned. The city of Philadelphia is currently experiencing a tremendous increase in homicides, so two city council members are suing the state legislature so that Philadelphia can pass its own gun control laws, and activist lawyer Michael Coard wants to sue the NRA for influencing the Pennsylvania state legislature into passing preemption laws.

There's more to that piece, and I recommend you read it, but let's move on to the next story that covers the slaying of an 11 year-old boy in Liverpool:

Former detective: It is a gangland culture

Albert Kirby, Former Detective Superintendent, Merseyside Police, on the problem of gun crime in Liverpool:

"Like other areas of Liverpool, Croxteth has become increasingly more difficult to police over the years due to the gang type culture and the reluctance of people living in the area either to come forward and give either evidence or information about those involved in the gang culture, drugs and crime groups.

"It is the same throughout the city. Once upon a time it used to be fists on the street corner. Then they started to use any sort of weapons - hammers or axes. Now the readily availability of fire arms has opened up a whole new ball game.

But licensing, registration, "safe storage" and outright bans are supposed to prevent "ready availability," aren't they? That's what the ideology says!

"Fire arms can be obtained very cheaply and after they have been used criminals can dispose of them because they are so cheap - a handgun can be bought for about £25 a time.

Yet the earlier piece said a "military quality" handgun would go for about £1,000. What are these, cheap "Saturday Night Specials"? Just so you know, at current exchange rates, £25 is $50 US.

"Fire arms are so readily available that you can go out on the street, make the necessary enquiries and come up with them. It is that easy.

Ergo: the strategy failed.

"The legislation that came in after the Dunblane shooting in 1996 has been utterly and totally ineffective. It was a waste of space. With the borders disappearing in Europe there are no checks on firearms coming in from abroad. They come from Eastern Bloc countries, recommissioned firearms, and a steady flow coming out of the world's conflict zones.

See! See! It's the fault of neighboring states with lax gun laws!

Oh, wait...

"Merseyside Police have done a tremendous amount of work to recover firearms. But bearing in mind the amount of firearms that are available it is very difficult.

"For a lot of these kids, it is a status symbol to them. In the sixties they would have the drainpipe trousers and the slicked hair, and then the mods and rockers in the 1970s with their crash hats.

"Now guns are like a status symbol: 'If you diss me I will shoot you because I have got a gun'. It is part of the culture, it is a gangland culture.

"Croxteth is a poor area. I would think there are a lot of unemployed people there. In that area drugs are just prolific.

So are guns. Cheap guns.

"This poor lad was in the wrong place at the wrong time. These people have been feuding and the poor guy has got in the way. What justification can these people have to shoot an 11-year-old boy who has not done any harm to anyone. He comes from a decent family.

"Where do we go from here? Firstly, we have to change the street culture which accepts guns. That will be a long-term issue - like tackling anti-social behaviour.

With what? Judicious application of ASBOs?

"Secondly, these incidents will continue to happen unless people are willing to come forward as witnesses.

Even though you cannot/will not protect them from retaliation, and they cannot protect themselves.

"The system in the judicial process is so good now at protecting identities. People have to learn to have faith in the system.

You're going to protect the identities of the witnesses? How? Relocate them to Australia? The people have an abiding faith in the system. They believe faithfully that it's not going to do squat to help them. They have reason to believe that.

"Thirdly, the courts are so woeful. These people hate going to prison. Scousers have an expression that they can do it standing on their head. But standing on their head gets harder as they get older.

"The courts should say that if someone is sentenced for an offence, and a firearm is used, even if it is a replica, that person are going to prison for a long time."

They may say it, but as you said, the courts are woeful, and your prisons are overcrowded already.

No wonder there's no trust.

Finally we travel far across the pond to Australia, to the little town of Roseville, a Northern suburb of Sydney in New South Wales where a new gun shop has opened:

Residents irate over gunshop permit: what do we tell our children?

What a fascinating question!

UP IN arms would accurately describe the incensed reaction of Roseville residents to news that a gunshop is to open in their midst.

Last night hundreds were expected to pack a community hall to protest against the approval granted by Ku-ring-gai Council, apparently without notification to those who may have an opinion about such an enterprise.

Andrew Peter, a gun enthusiast and coffee shop owner from Bondi Junction, made an application last month to turn an old printing shop into a sporting goods and firearms store. One of the main reasons for his decision was the estimated 1300 firearm owners who live in the area.

I'm curious as to how much territory "in the area" covers.

The shop is opposite a community hall that runs a preschool centre. It is also near a bus interchange used by schoolchildren, and some neighbouring businesses say the approval, although legal, is inappropriate.

Lisa Warrand is one of dozens of parents who fear the worst: the potential for an armed hold-up and shootout, or merely having to explain to children who walk past every day why a shop sells guns. (My emphasis.)

"Roseville has five churches and no pubs. People buy in this area because they want a more family-focused area," she said yesterday. "We teach children about how bad guns are and yet we are being put into a position where we have to explain why there is a man in the car park carrying a gun bought across the road." (My emphasis.)

Sally Cochrane runs the Zest hairdressing salon a few doors away. She concedes that the chances of a hold-up are slim but says it is a risk that should rule out the shop from the neighbourhood. "Children and guns don't mix. It's as simple as that, and if there is a robbery then it could be disastrous. I accept that this man has a right to open his shop and to sell guns, but not here."

Rob Hudspith disagrees. He owns the bicycle shop nearby and says the biggest mistake was that no one was given details of the application by the council.

"If they didn't have a legal obligation, then they had a moral one," Mr Hudspith said. "Personally, I don't have any problems, but there is an inherent fear of firearms, and who can blame people for being worried?" (My emphasis.)

A council spokesman said the approval was assessed under State Government planning laws. The business would have to comply with strict laws covering handling, storage and safety.

The Liberal MP for Davidson, Jonathan O'Dea, backs the residents, denying it is nimbyism.

The Shooters Party accuses Mr O'Dea of stirring up trouble by instigating a survey of residents. Mr Peter says he is willing to compromise with extra security to ensure residents feel safe. "Sure, I understand their feelings and I'm happy to talk to them about their concerns, but they don't have anything to worry about." (My emphasis.)

There's the ideology, ladies and gentlemen: "GUNS ARE BAD, mmmkay?" Its root is the belief that all violence is bad; the inability to differentiate between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective" that leads to the totemic belief that the tools of violence are the cause of violence. The outcome of that flawed ideology is licensing, registration, restriction, bans, confiscation... and rising violent crime.

But cognitive dissonance prevents people from questioning the ideology. The result is escalation of failure, and a complete inability to implement any kind of successful strategy. As Say Uncle put it, "Gun control is what you do instead of something."