This is my Shocked Face

So a Canadian whack-job goes on a 12-hour shooting and arson spree, killing at least 23 people before suicide-by-cop.  No mention of what weapon(s) the killer used, but Prime Minister Trudeau came out immediately stating that Canada was going to implement an "assault weapon" ban.

Twelve hours.  Offhand, I'd say the Canadian government has done a bang-up job of disarming its citizens.

Well THIS Certainly Violates The Narrative™

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

From the linked piece:

Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events. In research publishing later this year, (James Alan) Fox (Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern) and doctoral student Emma Fridel found that on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school.
—
Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.
—
Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.
“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said

Not according to the bleating gun control crowd. The actual numbers are pretty bad, but they always have to inflate them because apparently reality isn’t bad enough. It’s like hate crimes. There’s more demand than there is supply.

Failure to Protect

Broward Ex-Deputy Sheriff Scot Peterson has been arrested and charged with seven counts of neglect of a child, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Peterson, a School Resource Officer, declined to intervene in that shooting, instead hiding behind cover for 45 minutes while the shooter killed seventeen and wounded seventeen others.

This is pretty much unprecedented.  Until now, officers of the law have been held not liable for the protection of any individual person or persons, as I explained in detail in my May, 2003 posts, Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? Part I and Part II.  As I explained in Part I:

Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were the appellants in a lawsuit against the District of Columbia and its police department for failing to protect them. Fail them it did, but the court found against them. And here is its reasoning:

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. (Emphasis is mine)

Note the quote: "without exception." This is not the first time someone has sued the government for not protecting them, not by a long shot. It's one of the most egregious examples, but far from the only one.

So, it isn't the government's responsibility to protect "individual members of the community," that is, you and me specifically.

This has been established for years, most recently in Castle Rock v. Gonzales from 2005. But in Part II of my essay I linked to a different case, Riss v. the City of New York, from 1968 in which a woman got a restraining order against her abusive boyfriend who had told her if he couldn't have her, no one else would want her - and then carried out his threat by hiring someone to throw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye and disfiguring her face. She begged for police protection before the attack and got nothing. After the attack she received 24-hour protection. She sued. She lost, for the same reason Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas lost - there is no duty to protect any particular individual or individuals unless they're in custody or under direct care.

Here's where it gets interesting. There was a dissent in the Riss case, and here's the pertinent part of that dissent:

No one questions the proposition that the first duty of government is to assure its citizens the opportunity to live in personal security. And no one who reads the record of Linda's ordeal can reach a conclusion other than that the City of New York, acting through its agents, completely and negligently failed to fulfill this obligation to Linda.

Linda has turned to the courts of this State for redress, asking that the city be held liable in damages for its negligent failure to protect her from harm. With compelling logic, she can point out that, if a stranger, who had absolutely no obligation to aid her, had offered her assistance, and thereafter Burton Pugach was able to injure her as a result of the negligence of the volunteer, the courts would certainly require him to pay damages. (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 323.) Why then should the city, whose duties are imposed by law and include the prevention of crime (New York City Charter, § 435) and, consequently, extend far beyond that of the Good Samaritan, not be responsible? If a private detective acts carelessly, no one would deny that a jury could find such conduct unacceptable. Why then is the city not required to live up to at least the same minimal standards of professional competence which would be demanded of a private detective?

So if someone volunteered or was paid to protect her and failed as spectacularly at it as the NYPD did, THEY would be held liable, but the City is not.

Scot Peterson was paid to protect the kids in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. It was his JOB. And he failed them. Criminally.

I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison contemplating his failure.

UPDATE:  Gun Free Zone has a different take.

Motive

When I first heard of the details of the shooting spree in Las Vegas, my immediate thought was of Matt Bracken's Enemies Foreign and Domestic.  My second thought was of the University of Texas, Austin tower shooting.  I was not alone on either thought.

Well, preliminary reports are that there were no obvious brain abnormalities.

Mark Steyn recently received a missive from one of his fans on the incident, and in keeping with letting other people say it better than I can, I recommend you read what he had to say, but I will offer some excerpts:

This man amassed (rough figures) 24 guns in the hotel and another 19 at his home - 42 guns in total. He spent some $100,000 on buying them. The guns at his home are one thing but he also spent days filling his hotel room with more weapons and ammunition than he could ever conceivably use along with an array of advanced modifications and accessories.

Everything brand new. And very expensive. And mostly entirely redundant. Representing in effect an enormous waste of money and time and risk.

Except that is in the realm of generating massive publicity. Guaranteed massive publicity.

Yet despite having gone to enormous lengths to achieve that goal we are asked to believe this same man never troubled - never took the most elementary steps - to speak to that publicity. Indeed left behind no trace of anything that might demonstrate indicate or even hint at his motive or motives.

That would appear to make very little sense.

We would argue the opposite - that it makes absolute sense.

Because this gentleman did not simply fail to leave behind a motive; He took substantial trouble to ensure that no motive could be found - or attributed to him. All of which can lead us to only one conclusion:

It has been said that 'the medium is the message'.

In this case that is the literal truth. There is only one plausible motive for what this man did. And here it is:

This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense.

On the question of why the shooter scoped out other venues first, but ultimately attacked the Harvest Music Festival:

The people he chose to kill supports the hypothesis on 'guns'. Country and Western fans are virtually guaranteed to own or at least to defend the ownership of guns. By a certain logic this provides the gunman with two sound moral positions (because it is not beyond possibility he has a conscience):

First - While killing a very large number of innocent people is an horrendous crime it is nonetheless entirely justifiable - in moral terms - if it causes a restriction on guns. Because such a restriction would - it is widely held - save innumerable lives in the long run. There is no evidence for this but it is still a widely and passionately held belief.

Second - Since the people he is shooting are actively or passively defenders of guns and an obstacle to gun control they are by definition responsible in part for all the people who have been and continue to be killed by guns.

You see it in almost every story - "We may never know the motive." "The motive remains a mystery."

I don't think there was any kind of conspiracy involved, but I can't disagree with this assessment. It's almost as if he was shouting "How DARE we be allowed to be free!"

"This is Public. Please Share."

John Ringo, author of many books I've enjoyed greatly, posted something on Facebook I'm going to reproduce here.  The title of this post comes from it.

Other than that, I have no commentary:

A Theory on Las Vegas

I may be the only person in the 'pundit' world who can put what we know about the Las Vegas shooter in perspective because I've dealt with something similar before. My personal take, at this point, is 'homicidal psychotic break, rationale currently unknown, possible pharmacological.'

To debunk a few of the recent urban legends and prolapse some of the stupider arguments:

ISIS: Nothing in his electronic trail indicates any contact with ISIS despite their claims and some rumors. Nothing.

'There were multiple shooters/he was a patsy!': All the guns in the room were registered to Paddock. He was covered in GSR and even had burns on his hands from hot barrel/rounds.

'He was antifa killing Republicans!': Nothing in his electronic trail indicates the slightest political affiliation or interest. Nothing.

There weren't even angry emails. He never posted comments. Rarely read political news. Nada.

Gambling debts! He was broke!

Paddock was a habitual hobby gambler who was the sort of person casinos hate. He would set a budget on his gambling and stick to it religiously. He also rarely lost big or won big and never let either one change his habits.

He was a perfectly normal, successful, retired accountant well-invested in real estate with very little or no recent change in demeanor or actions.

Perfectly normal guy and only a ‘loner’ to the extent he wasn’t terribly socially active. ‘Loner’ apparently means he didn’t frequent wild parties. If he had the narrative would be ‘wild party animal.’

'Homicidal psychotic break means he couldn't have done the planning!'

Au contraire. Deep sigh. Been here, had someone in my life nearly do if not that than similar. With their permission I will now recount a story and show why everything about this makes a terrible sort of sense to me. The story is about my lovely and extremely loving wife, Miriam, and her descent to homicidal psychotic break due to a nasty drug interaction.

My wife has had the same doctor since she was a child. Old 'country' doctor who is the only person who has ever been able to handle Miriam's many oddities. A limited list:

My wife:

Has four kidneys and four ankles. (She ate the good twin.)

Was once listed as one of the top five Adult ADHD in the US and the only one who was clinically functional.

Has supremely bizarre drug interactions and thereby hangs this tale.

Miriam is a 'limited case pharmacological phenotype.' What does that mean? You know where on the warning label it says: 'in rare cases may cause you to grow two heads and fly to the moon'? Miriam is 'rare cases.' Every single time she tries a new prescription drug (fill in reason here) she is 'rare cases.'

This involves the 'in rare cases' effect of a drug called Cymbalta. Notably, as Cymbalta NOW states 'in rare cases may cause homicidal or suicidal psychotic break. Should not be prescribed to teenagers.' (Because it turns out in MOST cases WILL cause psychotic break in teenagers.)

Miriam was prescribed Cymbalta for 'depression' by her doctor in the early fall of 2007. I don't really remember if it seemed to work or not but she remained on it. I do recall that there as a shooting (by a teenager) that December in Nebraska in a mall. And I do recall Miriam's uncharacteristic comment.

'He only managed to kill five people in a crowded mall at Christmas time with a pistol and three magazines? He really needed to learn how to shoot.'

My wife is extremely loving and extremely Christian. Her normal response would have been 'That's terrible. God bless their souls and I hope he finds peace!' 'I could have done better' metaphorically was... not Miriam. I'll admit I didn't really notice it at the time.
Nor did I notice that over the course of the next several months (not sure when it started) we started to have a lot of 'off-brand' bleach around the house. Miriam is a lovely wife but cleaning is not her thing. But she also purchases in a very random manner. (Note the ADHD thing.) This did seem to be alot of bleach, though. I mentioned it a couple of times in jest. (We finally ran through all the bleach she bought in 2007-8 about a year ago. That much bleach.)

I didn't realize there were twenty-nine more gallon bottles in the trunk of her car.

I do recall during a rather bad time (possibly around below) that 'when she was gone' (and it had the feeling of 'soon') I wouldn't have to worry about the cats because 'they would be coming with her.' Miriam occasionally says odd things but that stood out. I'm more than aware of various forms of murder suicide and it was... discomforting. But... Miriam sometimes says odd things. (Used to. Far less these days for a variety of reasons. She's gotten SANER with menopause which is... just as bizarre as everything else.)

Things around Mother's Day got bad but they usually are. (Reasons I won't relate.) Then at a certain point I got a call from my loving wife (GF at the time) saying she was coming home from work, early, and we needed to go to Parkridge. I wasn't even sure what 'Parkridge' was.

Parkridge is one of the hospitals in the area but the specific one she mentioned was the psychiatric hospital.

I asked her on the drive over what was wrong. She didn't want to talk about it. For various 'privacy' reasons I wasn't well informed at the time. But I'll fill in the blanks for you in ways they weren't filled in for me.

She finally realized something was VERY wrong and checked herself in. Miriam had had a 'homicidal psychotic break' due to a side effect of Cymbalta. In most cases this is light and happens during the first couple of months or first month. NOW doctors are told to evaluate regularly in the first few months. THEN there was no warning. And NOBODY goes nine months. Except someone with ENORMOUS coping skills who has had to deal with madness that drove others insane on a daily basis her whole life.

(By the way, the teenager in the mall above? Guess what anti-depressant he was on? One guess and it rhymes with 'Sin Malta'. He’d been on it a few months, prescribed right around the same time as Miriam.)

So my loving wife coped. She controlled. As she slowly went ever-loving NUTS.

The specific issue was she had 'an uncontrollable desire to do harm to those who do harm to others.' Notably, she'd built up a list of persons on the Megan's (sexual predators) List and had developed very carefully constructed kill plans for each. She was tracking them and targeting them carefully. She has an extensive background in forensics and was probably going to get away with it.

Now, people may look at the targets and go 'Well... Uhm... having a hard time with that being 'bad'.' But to be very clear, my wife had shifted, subtly and without warning, from sweet, Christian, Miriam to serial killer. And I do mean without ANY REAL WARNING.

I didn't know exactly what was going on at the time. I was approached by one of the staff after a few hours sitting in a hard chair out front.

'I understand you're an author?'

'Yes. What's going on? Is Miriam okay?' (We weren't married at the time. Yes, I married her AFTER this, people.)

'She's being evaluated. But I understand you work from home? Are there frequently?'

'Pretty much all the time.'

'We can release her if she is under 24 hour monitoring...'

I had to sign to get her out pledging I would maintain '24 hour monitoring.' (Yes, I had to sign an actual release taking responsibility for the actions of an adult. They wouldn't tell me FOR WHAT ACTIONS.)

Miriam covered the big stuff on the ride home. I didn't get lots of detail til... years later. Details such as: Manson-like she had started to get the other patients, and even staff, to agree that her plan totally made sense in her first group therapy session. That was the real reason they were sending her home. They were afraid she was infecting the patients and staff and would form a 'kill sexual predators' cult.

(I guess they thought I was immune or something.)

Issues with this went on and on for months as it slowly leached from her system.

But let me relate it to Las Vegas.

Most people think of 'homicidal break' as someone suddenly 'grabbing a letter opener and carving their way out of Cost Accountancy and into forensic history.' (H/t: the late Sir Terry Pratchett.)

That's not, generally, how it works. How much planning and preparation a person does depends upon how rapid the onset is (months in Miriam's case) and how good they are at planning and preparation. (Both Miriam and Paddock were planners. He was an accountant and multi-millionaire.)

So look at the story above and break it down:

Relatively normal person, perhaps a bit odd, has minor changes in behavior that no-one in their close circle really notices.

He/she is a methodical person with an agenda. Other people who've done mass kills simply did not do it right. He/she is going to do it right. He knows they hold concerts by the Mandalay. That's the perfect venue for the most kills.

Suddenly they're a mass killer for no apparent reason.

That was what WAS going to happen with my wife.

So, Paddock doesn't really surprise me. I've seen it before.

My guess is it will be doctors who figure it out. And if they do they'll find he either was having a bad drug reaction (in which case nobody will admit nothin’ just as they’ve never admitted it was Cymbalta that caused the Westroads Mall Shooting) or neurological degeneration of some sort. (A tumor caused the University of Texas ‘Bell Tower’ shooting.) If pharmacological, the drug doesn't even have to be a definitively 'psychotropic' drug. Many drugs these days from heart medicine to anti-malarials have some psychotropic effect.

(If this had anything to do with a drug reaction, any drug of any type, I hope the survivors sue the shit out of the drug manufacturer. Because most of these recent 'crazy' mass kills, going all the way back to the 'postal worker' epidemic (overdosage of Prozac) and Columbine (both kids were hopped to their gills on prescription anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs), have had SOMETHING to do with psychotropic drugs pushed by drug companies. Many of the murder/suicides of returning military personnel were closely linked to an anti-malarial. And nobody seems to be willing to speak truth to power on the subject. Just writing this post will probably get me sued.)

The only lesson to take from this is 'keep an eye on your loved ones especially if they have ANY changes in prescription.' Doesn’t matter if it’s heart medication. Keep an eye on their personality as well as health.

Homicidal break does not always happen quickly. Sometimes it creeps in like the fog on cats feet. It is only at the last that the cackle of madness is heard. By then it is too late.

May God rest all their souls and let them find peace.

Hunter Cressal Hits the Mark

Hunter draws the e-comic Vexxarr!  Here's today's:

But This NEVER Happens in Other Countries!

Gunman kills at least 37 in Tunisia:

A gunman disguised as a tourist opened fire at a Tunisian hotel on Friday with a weapon he had hidden in an umbrella, killing 37 people, including Britons, Germans and Belgians as they lounged at the beach and pool in a popular resort town.

Terrified tourists ran for cover after the gunfire and an explosion erupted at the Imperial Marhaba in Sousse, 140 km (90 miles) south of the capital Tunis, before police shot the gunman dead, witnesses and security officials said.

"This was always a safe place but today was horror," said an Irish tourist who gave only his first name, Anthony. "He started on the beach and went to the lobby, killing in cold blood."

--

Rafik Chelli, a senior interior ministry official, said the gunman killed was unknown to authorities and not on any watchlist of potential jihadists. A security source named him as Saifeddine Rezgui, a 23-year-old electrical engineering student.

After pulling out a weapon hidden inside an umbrella, the assailant strolled through the hotel grounds, opening fire at the pool and beach, reloading his weapon several times and tossing an explosive, witnesses said.

A security source said another bomb was found on his body, which lay with a Kalashnikov assault rifle where he was shot.

Local radio said police captured a second gunman, but officials did not immediately confirm the arrest or his role in the attack.

"It was just one attacker," said a hotel worker at the site. "He was a young guy dressed in shorts like he was a tourist himself."

Yet according to GunPolicy.org, Tunisia has "common sense" gun regulations that gun ban er, control, ah safety advocates want implemented here to stop such incidents:

1. In Tunisia, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law

2. In Tunisia, civilian possession of automatic weapons is regulated by law

3. In Tunisia, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under license

4. In Tunisia, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law

5. In Tunisia, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

6. Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Tunisia are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security

7. The minimum age for gun ownership in Tunisia is 20 years

8. An applicant for a firearm license in Tunisia must pass a background check which considers criminal and mental records

9. In Tunisia, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

10. In Tunisia, State agencies are required to maintain records of the storage and movement of all firearms and ammunition under their control

And yet with all of these restrictions, one young man was able to murder at least 37 people.

But we're told this only happens here in the U.S., and it's because of our lax gun laws the Confederate Battle Flag.

Wow...It's a Good Thing China has Strict Gun Control!

Otherwise somebody might have gotten hurt!

Knife-wielding assailants attacked people at a train station in southwestern China on Saturday in what authorities called a terrorist attack and police fatally shot five of the assailants, leaving 28 people dead and 113 injured, state media said.

According to the BBC:

Mass stabbings are not uncommon in China, but none have been recently reported on this scale.

I'm sure terrorism will be ruled out shortly....

What He Said

Ice cream machine is still on the fritz.  Please read what I wish I'd written on the most recent Colorado school shooting.

Rampage shootings end one of two ways - when the shooter decides he's finished, or a good guy with a gun shows up to force that decision.  The Arapahoe shooting lasted 80 seconds, because a good guy with a gun showed up.  The shooter was armed not only with a shotgun, but with molotov cocktails.  You'll never hear it in the media, but more people have died at the hands of arsonists than rampage shooters.  He tossed one firebomb.  He never got to use the others.

One Person at the Navy Yard Probably Was Shot to Death with an AR-15...

Aaron Alexis.

See?  The AR-15 is the preferred weapon for "legally hunting humans."  "For sport," you understand. 

The shooter just has to be sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of a .gov paycheck.

Quote of the Day - No Right to Feel Safe Edition

Police...released all the names of the dead — many of them workers whose offices were behind high walls and armed guards, seemingly in one of the safest corners of federal Washington.

They were not safe. The dead were found in the building’s lobby, police said, and on the third and fourth floors.

If someone is willing to die in order to kill you, there is no place that is safe. There is no "right to feel safe," it's an illusion, just as "gun free zones" are an illusion.

So, Let's Review What We Know, Think, Believe About Aaron Alexis

I love modern media and the 24-hour news cycle.

There were three, two, was only one shooter at the Navy Yard.  It was a mid-fifties white male in fatigues, 34 year-old black male - excuse me, "Texan."  He had a rifle, pistol, and shotgun an AR-15 a shotgun.  He entered a secure base using someone else's ID his own ID.  He had a past history of violent behavior, but passed not one, but two background checks very recently to get a "Secret" security clearance.

In other words, we don't know SHIT.

Give it 24-48 hours.

And please, don't judge all Buddhists by the acts of one man.

But feel free to judge all gun owners by the acts of one man!

Once Upon a Time...

...a newspaper journalist was on his way to cover a story when a tire on his car blew out.  He pulled to the shoulder and looked to discover that the passenger-side rear tire was shredded.  So, he popped the trunk and started working on changing it - he was running late.  As he was jacking the car up, he noticed that his car was just a few feet from a very tall, very sturdy fence, and the fence had a sign on it warning not to pick up hitchhikers because inside the fence was a facility for the violently insane.

He spun the lugnuts off the bad wheel and placed them carefully into the hubcap he'd put on the ground nearby, but as he was pulling the bad wheel off, he heard a cough behind him.  Startled, he dropped the blown tire and it fell onto the hubcap, throwing the lugnuts into the air.  When they came down, four of the five rolled directly into a nearby storm drain.

Looking behind him, he saw that a man in a suit and tie was standing just inside the fence, watching.  His hair was perfectly groomed, and he was freshly shaved.  He didn't look insane.

"Well, hell," the reporter said, "I'm running late, and now I only have one lug nut to put the spare on with."

"Simple," responded the man behind the fence, "take one lug nut off of each of the other three wheels.  That'll give you four lug nuts per wheel, and that's enough to get you where you need to go until you can get replacements for the ones you lost."

A little stunned, the reporter replied, "That's great!  I'd have never thought of that!  Are you a doctor?"

"No," the man replied, "I'm one of the patients."

"But, how could someone as intelligent as you be in there?" the reporter asked.

"I'm insane.  I'm not stupid."

--

So we've had another rampage shooting, this time in California - land of the Roberti-Roos assault-weapon ban, no "gun show loophole," "bullet buttons," magazine capacity restrictions, etc., etc., etc.

And another known nutcase still managed to get his hands on an AR-15 and a bunch of standard capacity magazines, plus a black-powder revolver with a cartridge conversion cylinder.

But one more law will prevent this from happening again!

Which is both insane AND stupid.

Clayton Cramer Wrote a Book About This

A family's mentally ill son buys a gun with the intent to perpetrate a massacre. Prior to this, he'd planned on doing it with a knife.


Note that they can't get their son institutionalized, even though it's apparent that he's dangerous. Clayton Cramer in his book My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill discusses the changes in America's mental health system that has led to dangerously violent people wandering around free until they finally do something that will get them incarcerated.

Kudos to the parents. By age 21 I would imagine the daily grind of dealing with a mentally ill son would have worn most people out.

Gun Control

So the most recent attempt at "gun control" legislation died in the Senate to the lamentations of the Left and the media (but I repeat myself).  Claims that "90%" of the populace supported "universal background checks" and that this legislation "might have prevented the next" rampage shooting have been thrown around, but as Senator Mike Lee put in his recent op-ed Why I Voted Against Background Checks:

Gun-control advocates point to polls that show support for expanding background checks. But members of Congress do not get to vote on broad poll questions. They have to vote on specific legislation.

As I have said in the past, when gun control laws go on a ballot they most often lose, and usually badly.  ("Yes, I support more effective gun control, but not THAT!").  And that is in the popular vote, not in the houses of Congress.

It was apparent to anyone who looked that this legislation would have had no effect on the Sandy Hook massacre, yet it was the families of the victims of that slaughter that were trotted out in an attempt to force legislators to vote the way the President wanted, an outright appeal to emotion defeating reason, implying that voting against it would make one an accomplice to the next such event.

This essay is inspired in part by perennial gadfly Markadelphia, who in a comment thread raised a couple of points I'd like to expand upon. First:

If everyone had supported this bill, the cry for action would have died down considerably.

Of course it would, until the next mass shooting.  Whereupon, emboldened by their success in this case, additional legislation would be passed to help "prevent the next" mass shooting that this legislation failed to prevent.

There would have been virtually no chance for a new AWB or ammo clip limit.

See above. 

You see, we've seen this strategy employed successfully in England. A heinous act committed with firearms, followed by legislation that either had nothing to do with that act, or would have had no effect in preventing that act. But it was seen as DOING SOMETHING.  It was promoted as "doing something."  As Say Uncle puts it, Gun Control: What you do instead of something.  But it's not.  It's something else.

Yet with nothing being done, the next shooting will almost certainly bring more support and voters to the side of the Diane Feinstein's[sic] and Michael Bloomberg's[sic] of the world.

No, I don't think so. Twenty dead children didn't do it.  Newtown, Connecticut was not Dunblane, Scotland.

Why not?

Because enough people now refuse to take the blame for something we didn't do that we're politically powerful.  We refuse to be shamed.  We reject shaming.  And as Instapundit put it recently,

It’s pretty irritating, being shamed by people who have none themselves.

Word.

And in this battle, numbers count. Democracy, don't you know.  And democracy works for those who show up.

There is a poll on the right sidebar of that Mike Lee op-ed, asking readers whether they strongly agree, agree, don't know, disagree or strongly disagree with the Senator's piece. At the time of this writing, 55% agree, with 43% strongly agreeing. Only 36% percent strongly disagree. A similar poll on another op-ed supporting magazine size restrictions shows 74% in opposition to the editorial.  Of the people who feel strongly enough to read or at least vote on these op-eds, those who support the right to keep and bear arms are in the significant majority.  Supposedly 90% of the populace supports universal background checks? Well, according to a Gallup poll taken after the Sandy Hook massacre, Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem. Other current polling indicates that 51% of people now believe a gun in the home increases safety, with only 29% saying it makes a home more dangerous.

Politicians know who votes. Gun owners vote.

The reality is that the NRA doesn't really give a crap about the second amendment anymore. They see the shrinking number of people buying guns (even though that smaller percentage are buying more guns) and know that any sort of increased background check system is going to be mean  because some of those people will fail.

There's two parts to this I want to address. First, the assertion that there's a "shrinking number of people buying guns." Kathy Jackson (The Cornered Cat) wrote on her Facebook page recently:

"The greatest pleasure in life is to do what people say you cannot do." – Walter Bagehot

Last year, I sat at a bar with a friend and listened to a friend list a dozen very logical, well-explained reasons why I'd never be able to fill serious training classes with female shooters alone, or build a business based on that model, or get any respect for teaching women's classes only.

This year, I have a completely full calendar with fully-filled classes all over the country, most of them for women only.

Life is sweet.

And Kathy is not alone.  Does that sound like a "shrinking number of people" getting into firearms? I don't know about anyone else, but I have added on average 2.5 firearms per year to my collection for the last several years. (I know, I know, but I can't afford one-gun-a-month.)  With the economy the way it's been, I certainly haven't been buying in bulk.  But I and people I know have been reporting a lot of newbies buying guns and showing up at the range. The National Instant Check System (the "background check" that supposedly this bill was to strengthen) reports record usage, having "nearly doubled in the past decade." Markadelphia, the New York Times and CNN would have you believe that a shrinking demographic is spending more than double what it used to, apparently building arsenals. I don't think so, and I've said why before.

In fact, after Sandy Hook you can't find much on the shelves in gun stores anywhere in the country, only this time ammo is harder to find than firearms.  (.22 Rimfire?  Seriously?)  Yet violent crime and especially violent crime involving firearms has declined pretty steadily to levels not seen since the 1960's, so it has become obvious to anyone who looks that more guns do not equal more crime.  Add to that the spread of concealed-carry legislation that was predicted to bring "blood in the streets" in every state where it was proposed.  Instead the worst accusation that can be made is that concealed-carry might not have contributed to the overall decline in violent crime. In view of these facts you can begin to understand why "gun control" is off the radar even for many people who don't own them.  Add to that Sept. 11, 2001 and other events, and it becomes apparent why more people are buying them. But that goes against The Narrative.

The second assertion is that "any sort of increased background check system is going to be[sic] mean less gun sales because some of those people will fail."  This is a two-parter also.  First, let's look at the NICS system and its history.   Markadelphia says in another comment in that thread:

As I said above, the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related.

Oh, really? Well first let's look at how the NICS system has been used since it was implemented following the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (that wasn't - but was a "good first step.") The NICS system began operation in November 1998, touted as a tool that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. In the interim, background checks were handled at the state level. A Department of Justice report on the system for the year 2010 was published in 2012, entitled Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010 (a PDF file). Pertinent excerpts:

The FBI conducted over six million NICS transfer checks in 2010 and denied over 72,000 applications, a denial rate of about 1%. The most common reason for denial by the FBI was a record of a felony indictment or conviction (over 47%), followed by fugitives from justice (19%), and state law prohibitions (about 11%) Other reasons included drug use or addiction (about 10%), domestic violence misdemeanor convictions (over 6%), and domestic violence restraining orders (over 4%)

(My emphasis.)  So, of 72,000 denials, 97% were for things that falsely filling out the BATFE Form 4473 meant that the person denied had put his or her signature on a confession to a felony that comes with a 5-year sentence.

The DENI (ATF’s Denial Enforcement and NICS Intelligence) Branch screened 76,142 NICS denials received from the FBI during 2010, and referred 4,732 denials (approximately 6%) within the established guidelines to field divisions. The referred cases were made up of 2,265 delayed denials (3% of all denials) and 2,467 standard denials (over 3%). The remaining denials (71,410, or nearly 94%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned or canceled. Overturns occurred after review by the DENI Branch or after the FBI received additional information. The FBI canceled a small number of denials in cases where a NICS check should not have been conducted.

--

Field offices declined to refer 4,184 cases for prosecution. The most common reasons for declinations were no prosecutive merit (1,661 cases or almost 40%), federal or state guidelines were not met (1,092 cases or 26%), and subjects found to not be prohibited (480 cases or about 12%).

Other reasons for declination by a field office included closure by a supervisor (457 or 11%) and no potential or unfounded (396 cases or about 10%).

--

A total of 62 Federal charges from the 2010 cases were referred by field offices for consideration by prosecutors.

--

Of the 62 charges referred from the 2010 cases, 18 (29%) had been declined by a prosecutor as of December 13, 2011. A guilty plea was obtained on 13 charges (about 21%) and 10 charges (about 16%) were dismissed as part of a plea agreement . Twelve charges (approximately 19%) were still pending action by a prosecutor as of December 13, 2011.

(Again, my emphasis.)  So out of 76,142 denials in 2010, a year in which the data that USAToday says produced 14.4 million background checks, not "over six million" (though 14.4 is greater than six), sixty-two violators were referred for prosecution.  That's (carry the three...) 0.5% of all background checks resulting in denials, and 0.08% of the denials referred for prosecution.  And not all referrals yielded a sentence.  Eighteen (29%) weren't prosecuted.   Nearly half ("47%") of the 76,142 denials were due to a "record of a felony indictment or conviction."  Now, either those records are severely screwed up, or a LOT of felons signed their names to a confession...and just walked away scot-free.  (Bear in mind, I'm not at all happy about what qualifies as a "felony" these days, but still....)

The Brady Campaign report Brady Background Check:  15 Years of Saving Lives (PDF) proclaims that over that 15 year period through 2008 the background check "blocked" 1,631,000 purchases, but the DoJ report states that from 2006 through 2010 a total of only 209 guilty pleas or guilty verdicts were recorded due to background check prosecutions.  Moreover, the "referrals for prosecution" declined from 273 in 2006 to 62 in 2010. 

"So what?" you may ask.  Well, if the prohibited person wasn't put in jail, what was to stop him or her from getting a gun some other way?  I mean, if we're not even willing to imprison the stupid felons, what's the point?  It's as though the DoJ didn't want the background system to do the job we were told it was created to do.  And if a Federal program fails, what is the inevitable result of that failure?  Do It Again, ONLY HARDER! 

UPDATE: John Lott looks at background check denials and concludes that the records ARE severely screwed up.  Which makes my next point more likely:

But what if the purpose of the background check system isn't to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Then what is it for?  What if its actual purpose is "less gun sales"?  Each year we've added well in excess of four million new or imported old guns to those already in circulation, bringing the total in private hands to somewhere in excess of 310 million by one recent estimate. (PDF) Well, obviously it's failed there too, and thus: Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!

And when Sandy Hook occurred, what was the proposed banner legislation?  Strengthened background checks!  (Along with the inevitable "assault weapon ban" and magazine restriction renewal, of course.) 

I concur totally that "the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related" which has been declining without new gun control laws, but apparently neither the government nor the "gun safety" groups do. Why do I say that? Well, instead of just taking them at their word, I observe their actions - with the exception of the Violence Policy Center which states plainly that its charter is the disarming of the American public.  If "the ongoing violence that is not spree-related" was what was being addressed, we wouldn't be having this argument.

It has been well documented for decades that the majority of violent crime up to and including homicide is committed by a small, identifiable population - people with prior police records of violent offenses:

* From 1990 to 2002, 18% of felony convictions in the 75 largest counties were for violent offenses, including 7% for assault and 6% for robbery.

* Six percent of those convicted of violent felonies were under age 18, and 25% were under age 21. Ten percent of murderers were under 18, and 30% were under 21.

* Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active criminal justice status at the time of their arrest. This included 18% on probation, 12% on release pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on parole.

* Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record.

* A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction for a violent felony.

--

An estimated 70% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties had been arrested previously. Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of murderers, and 53% of rapists.

Sixty percent of violent felons had multiple prior arrest charges, including 40% with 5 or more, and 23% with 10 or more. About a fourth of those convicted of robbery (26%) or assault (24%)had 10 or more prior arrest charges, as did about a fifth of murderers (21%) and a tenth of rapists (10%).

A majority (57%) of violent felons had been arrested previously for a felony. The percentage with a felony arrest record ranged from 40% of rapists to 63% of robbers. Fifty-nine percent of those convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of murder had at least one prior felony arrest.

Forty-four percent of violent felons had more than one prior felony arrest charge, and 22% had at least five.

Criminal violence is a behavior, but it's much easier to attack a physical object, a deodand, rather than face politically incorrect facts.  It's much safer to attack the law abiding gun owner in rural Arkansas or suburban Houston than Crips or Bloods in South Side Chicago, for example.

Yes, "the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related."  Like the 319 school-age children shot in gun-control haven Chicago between January 1 and June 15, 2011.  Twenty dead schoolchildren in Sandy Hook?  What about the 24 dead children in Chicago, where no one can legally own a handgun, much less an "assault weapon"?  Where everyone in Illinois who wants to legally own a gun must have a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card.  How's that working out?  And bear in mind, criminals are legally exempt from registering their firearms because to do so would violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Apparently, dead children don't really matter to gun control supporters unless they're little white kids killed with an AR-15 or an AK-47.  I'm a racist for pointing this out, but I refuse to be shamed into ignoring it.

As noted, overall violent crime is down.  Homicide is at rates not seen since the 1960's, and where homicide does occur is largely in densely populated urban areas, mostly by a small, easily identifiable demographic.  All of this is in the face of a nationwide easing in the restrictions on firearms and their carriage.  If "the ongoing violence that is not spree related" was the concern, then the gun control forces should be pleased.  Instead they are desperate because "the ongoing violence that is not spree-related" isn't, in their minds, "the problem." 

Back in 2006 when I wrote The Other Side, I noted the single article of faith shared by all members of that Other Side™:

There are too many guns.
That's the single thing our side needs to keep in mind, the lens through which we need to analyze every action their side takes.  Because they concern themselves exclusively with "gun deaths" and "gun violence," the problem is too many guns.  From that perspective, it's a tautology:  fewer guns must mean fewer "gun deaths" and less "gun violence."   I've quoted this before, but it's appropriate once again - from the conclusion of the gun control study commissioned by the Carter Administration in 1978, published in 1983 and titled Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared.  This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare. (3) Most of the firearms involved in crime are cheap Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. [Still true. - Ed.] (4) Many families acquire such a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime. (6) Most of the public also believes this and has favored stricter gun control laws for as long as anyone has asked the question. (7) Only the gun lobby prevents us from embarking on the road to a safer and more civilized society.

The more deeply we have explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become.  We wonder, first, given the number of firearms presently available in the United States, whether the time to "do something" about them has not long since passed. If we take the highest plausible value for the total number of gun incidents in any given year - 1,000,000 - and the lowest plausible value for the total number of firearms now in private hands - 100,000,000 - we see rather quickly that the guns now owned exceed the annual incident count by a factor of at least 100. This means that the existing stock is adequate to supply all conceivable criminal purposes for at least the entire next century, even if the worldwide manufacture of new guns were halted today and if each presently owned firearm were used criminally once and only once. Short of an outright house-to-house search and seizure mission, just how are we going to achieve some significant reduction in the number of firearms available?

To members of the gun subculture who have been around guns all their lives and have owned and used guns as long as it has been legal for them to do so, the indictments of gun control advocates must appear to be incomprehensible, if not simply demeaning. We should not be surprised to learn that they may resent being depicted as irresponsible, nervous, potentially dangerous, prone to accidental or careless firearms handling, or as using their firearms to bolster sagging masculine self-images. Of course, from their viewpoints, they have none of these characteristics and in all likelihood resent being depicted as a demented and bloodthirsty lot when they are only guilty of embracing a set of rather traditional, rural, and masculine values. Indeed, one can only begin to understand the virulence with which gun control initiatives are opposed in these quarters when one realizes that what may be at stake is a way of life.

Or a system of government.

Logically, if the problem is "too many guns," then the only logical solution must be to reduce the number of uncontrolled ones to some arbitrary value indistinguishable from zero. Yet we peons won't comply, and we tell our elected representatives so.  We also tell them with our wallets.  Gun store shelves are empty.  NRA membership has surged.  And the Violence Policy Center has problems making payroll.  What is left for gun ban control safety forces to agitate with?

Despite claims to the contrary, mass shootings have not increased but media coverage of them has.

As Professor Brian Anse Patrick explained in his book The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage, the media overwhelmingly sees itself as the clergy of the Church of State:

Journalists acquire importance in the mass democratic system precisely because they gather, convey, and interpret the data that inform individual choices. Mere raw, inaccessible data transforms to political information that is piped to where it will do the most good. Objective, balanced coverage becomes essential, at least in pretense, lest this vital flow of information to be thought compromised, thus affecting not only the quality of rational individual decision-making, but also the legitimacy of the system.

Working from within the perspective of the mass democracy model for social action it is difficult to specify an ideal role model of journalistic coverage other than a "scientific objectivism" at work. An event (i.e., reality) causes coverage, or so the objective journalist would and often does say. Virtually all of the journalists that I have ever talked with regard coverage as mirroring reality.

--

An ecclesiastical model most appropriately describes this elite journalistic function under mass democracy. Information is the vital substance that makes the good democracy possible. It allows, as it were, for the existence of the good society, a democratic state of grace. Information is in this sense analogous to the concept of divine grace under the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church. Divine grace was essential for the good spiritual life, the life that mattered. The clergy dispensed divine grace to the masses in the form of sacraments. They were its intermediaries, who established over time a monopoly, becoming the exclusive legitimate channel of divine grace.

--

Recollect that the interposition of intermediaries, the clergy, along a vital spiritual-psychological supply route was the rub of the Reformation. The clergy cloaked themselves in the mantle of spiritual authority rather than acting as its facilitators. Many elite newspapers have apparently done much the same thing, speaking and interpreting authoritatively for democracy, warranting these actions on the basis of social responsibility.

--

Journalists, particularly elite journalists, occupy under mass democracy this ecclesiastical social role, a functional near-monopoly whose duty becomes disseminating and interpreting the administrative word and its symbols unto the public. Democratic communication in this sense is sacramental, drawing its participants together into one body. We should not overlook the common root of the words communication, community, and communion.

--

What might be termed as the process of democommunication has aspects of transubstantiation an interpretive process by which journalists use their arts to change the bread and wine of raw data into democratically sustaining information. Democracy is a kind of communion. Objectivity and social responsibility become social necessities, legitimating doctrines much like the concept of papal infallibility, which had to emerge to lend weight to interpretive pronouncements.

In this light, even the laudable professional value of objectivity can appear as a nearly incredible claim. Both claims, objectivity and infallibility, function to lend credence, authority, and an impeachment-resistant moral/scientific base to organizational or professional products. Both are absolute in nature. Both also serve the quite necessary social function of ultimately absolving from personal responsibility or accountability the reporter, whether ecclesiastical or secular, who is, after all, merely duty-bound to report on the facts. As it is in heaven, so it will be on Earth; and as it is on Earth, so shall it appear in The New York Times.

Or as former President of CBS News Richard Salant put it:

Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.

I go through this in detail in my January 2008 essay The Church of the MSM and the New Reformation, but the gist of it is, journalists overwhelmingly have what Professor Patrick calls "an administrative control bias," and see government as the solution to all problems by controlling everything centrally. They are anti-gun not because they're Leftists, but because they're authoritarians (a distinction almost without a difference, I know,) and "Guns simply invite administration."  I mean, seriously.

And government itself is, by definition, run by authoritarians.  St. George Tucker in his 1803 Constitutional law review Blackstone's Commentaries wrote:

The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

It's always been that way. As Mao Zedong put it,

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

And authoritarians are loath to share power.

So the authoritarians in government, aided by the authoritarians in the media and their useful tools in the "gun safety" movement work together in their attempt to reduce the number of guns in private hands to some value indistinguishable from zero.  But how to go about it?  Using England as the archetype:

1. Make gun ownership difficult thus reducing the number of lawful gun owners through attrition.
2. Increase the difficulty and expense involved in complying with regulations,
3. Keep making ownership more and more onerous through rule changes and fee changes.
4. Carry out publicized prosecution of gun owners for petty or trivial violations, producing a chilling effect on other owners. 
5. Demonize guns and gun ownership in the media.  
6. Once the population of gun owners has been decreased sufficiently to make their population politically ineffective, crank up the regulation even further - impose licensing and registration.
7. Once the population of legal gun owners is small enough to be politically impotent, start confiscation.

Look at what it takes for a person who already owns guns to buy a new rifle in Australia:

Shooting Buddy arrived down from "up north" yesterday so this morning we decided to attack the paperwork for the new rifles.

The forms have to be completed on-line and then you take them to the Post Office for them to be sent to Firearms Branch.

I logged into the online forms process on one of my computers and the form didn't display - not to be discouraged I woke up one of my other computers and tried again and this time it worked.

We decided to do Shooting Buddy's application first. The form is interactive, so depending on how you answer questions additional ones come up. I am sure there are questions on there that weren't on the form last time I did it, that or I've blanked it out of my mind! You have to answer questions about names / previous names / addresses / previous addresses (sure, list all previous addresses with dates!) / criminal convictions / medication / VROs etc, etc.

Once you get through these type of questions you actually get to the bit to do with the firearms. To be honest this bit was quite simple - as you require a Firearms Serviceability Certificate for each firearm which contains all the relevant details (make, model, serial number, calibre) you don't actually have to fill this in on the form - only the Serviceability Certificate Number (and attach it to your application).

I only ended up having to ring the Firearms Branch twice during the process. Once was regarding how to put the 'other licencee' information (i.e. my information) in and the other time was at the end of the process as the guy on the phone had mentioned an additional form (Co-Users Permission Form) to me but the application process did not refer to this form at all. (Yes, you do need to submit it).

After filling in the six pages of information for Shooting Buddy we went to print it, which requires it to contact via the Internet to Firearms Branch and get a unique barcode - and for some reason this didn't work and we lost all of the entries and had to start again. Filling it in the second time was a bit quicker!

Validated and printed and then it was time to repeat the whole process for me.

No problems this time and once that paperwork was also printed and supporting documentation photocopied, we headed off down to the Post Office.

So for my application I had a five page printed form, a Firearms Serviceability Certificate for my firearm, a copy of Shooting Buddy's Firearms Serviceability Certificate, the Property Letter and the Co-Users Permission Form signed by Shooting Buddy.

Shooting Buddy's collection of paper was similar but he had a six page printed form as he had different answers to some of the questions than I did.

At the Post Office we had a short wait in the queue (apparently we were in the wrong queue but given that there was no signage showing two queues I didn't worry about that too much). Then the lady behind the counter had a look through my Firearms Application form and attachments (slight change from the last time I did this process where the initial response was "Do we process theses?") and then she asked me for 100 points proof of identification. No where in the online forms or documentation do I recall reading that I needed to supply this, however, luckily I did have enough cards in my wallet to prove that yes, I am who I say I am. (Interestingly enough the "Working with Children" Card does not count (even though it has photo, address and signature and itself was obtained with a 100 points ID check). My Medicare card - First Name & Surname only - and Credit Card - full name only - were taken in preference.

Once she had scanned the form's barcode, entered the reference numbers off each of the identification cards, asked for $72.50 and printed me a receipt it was Shooting Buddy's turn.

The legal hoops one must go through in Australia and the UK are designed not to reduce violent crime, but to control the number of legal guns in circulation - to make legal ownership so onerous that very few people will make the effort.

Now look what it takes to buy a BB GUN in New Jersey:

"You'll need a license for that," the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun.  Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter.  At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I'm not a gun person.

"To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township's police chief.  Even a BB gun.  Can't even take one down to show you without it."

For better or worse, there would be no BB gun that day. Not for me anyway. Without a comprehensive criminal background check first I couldn't buy one. I couldn't even look at one. Not even a pink one. 

Read that whole piece, and note that the author was pissed off enough to go through with the ridiculous effort and expense to get a New Jersey Firearm Purchaser ID card.  But how many people are dissuaded?  And yet Chris Christie wants to make it more difficult.  Why?  Well, he says:

It’s hard for me to sit here today and say, ‘If all these things got imposed we’d see an ‘X’ percentage drop in gun violence in this state.’ I don’t know. Bad people are going to do bad things and so, would greater penalties deter people? You hope they do.

And I think he's being honest about that (wrong, but he believes it), but look at another example, Massachusetts:

In 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic "assault" weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.

"Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence," said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. "It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities." Scott Harshbarger, the state's Democratic attorney general, agreed: "This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods." One of the state's leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. "The new gun law," he predicted, "will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief."

It didn't.

The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. "There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998," the AP reported. "In June [2002], that number was down to just 200,000." The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State's stiff new restrictions had made it possible to "weed out the clutter."

That's what law-abiding gun owners are to our elected officials: "clutter." And the number of law-abiding gun owners was cut by over 87%.  But criminals?

But the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals.

Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — "a striking increase from the 65 in 1998." Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong. The treatment they prescribed may have yielded the opposite of the results they promised, but they’re quite sure the prescription wasn’t to blame.

Gun laws strengthened, "gun death" and "gun violence" increased.  Of course they won't admit they were wrong, even when faced with the fact that the Boston Marathon bombers were armed without having gotten handgun licenses first.  Or explosive licenses, for that matter.  The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!

They won't admit that they were wrong because this is the outcome that is desired, because from an authoritarian perspective, "guns simply invite administration."  The "Fast and Furious" scheme that "walked" guns across the border into Mexico with no effort to interdict or trace them was, without a doubt, a government effort to inspire outrage over "lax gun laws" - laws that the Department of Justice and Homeland Security deliberately violated in order to put these weapons into the hands of drug cartels. The body count, attached to guns traced back to border gun shops was to have inspired calls for a renewed assault weapon ban and stronger gun laws.  This is the only analysis of the program that makes any logical sense, but it blew up in the administration's face when a Border Patrol agent became one of the bodies.  Violators of the existing background check system aren't prosecuted because the powers-that-be aren't interested in disarming the criminals, only the law-abiding.

Declining violent crime is the death-knell for gun control, and its supporters know it.  Worse, the authoritarians in government know it, too.  Add to that the spreading public realization that gun control doesn't make society safer, and another nail is hammered into the coffin.  The UK has universal licensing and registration, has banned full-auto weapons, semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and all handguns, yet these laws seem to have no effect on the number of guns still in criminal hands.  Criminals there can get machine guns, pistols and hand grenades, and they're still trying "to reduce the number of guns on the streets," by closing "loopholes" in the "strictest gun laws in the world" though officials admit "where there's a will there's a way". Economics 101: Supply and Demand.  More people every day realize that we don't need to follow their failed example.

More than 300 million guns are in an unknown number of private hands here.  The vast majority of gun owners are not licensed.  The vast majority of firearms are not registered.  Their trail ends at the Form 4473 in a dealer's file cabinet or box somewhere, and what happened to them after that is known only to the current owner.  It's been this way for decades.  But in order to "control" something, you must know where it is, and who has it. 

And the only people who will tell you who they are and what they own are the law-abiding.  "Universal background checks" are the gateway to a registration system, despite denials by the parties supporting both.

"Gun Control" isn't about guns, it's about control.  It isn't about disarming criminals, it's about disarming the law-abiding.  It isn't about making the public safer, it's about controlling us.  We've had almost two decades of increasing gun ownership and declining violent crime rates, and that has resulted in a population that in the majority does not view firearms as talismans of evil nor gun owners as social pariahs.  As Teresa Nielson Hayden put it back in 2002:

Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.

And as the GeekWithA.45 put it in 2005:

In a truly civil society peopled primarily by enlightened, sober individuals, the carriage of arms might be deemed gratuitous, but it is nonetheless harmless.

In a society that measures up to anything less than that, the option to carry arms is a necessity.

America has achieved an armed population sufficiently large enough and motivated enough to effectively resist the authoritarian urge to disarm it. It is a never-ending struggle though, because The Other Side will not stop.

Newtown, Connecticut is not Dunblane, Scotland

But gun control forces desperately want it to be.

Back in November of 2004 after the spree killing of six hunters in a Wisconsin wood, I wrote Birchwood, Wisconsin is not Hungerford, England. It seems another comparison is equally (in)valid. Yes, 27 people and one creature are dead, eighteen of those dead people are small children - first-graders. Yes, it's horrible, senseless, inexplicable.

And no, the guns were not at fault.

Moreover, banning them wouldn't help.

This is where I normally cite charts, graphs, data tables, and numerous articles supporting my position. I'm not going to do that here. I've done it for the better part of ten years. If you're interested, check the archives.

Instead, I'm going to quote the words of John Green, father of 9 year-old Christina Taylor-Green, who was killed in January of 2010 by another spree shooter here in Tucson:

This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.

The gun control forces say all they want is a "dialog." Joe Huffman's been having site problems recently, but he said it well back in August:

We had the "conversation". Your side lied, cheated, and took unfair advantage at every opportunity. But still your side lost. Big time.

Your side lost on the safety argument and your side lost the legal argument (see the U.S. Supreme Court decisions D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago). You have no arguments left. The conversation was over years ago and all you are doing now is whining about the outcome. Go tell your problems to a therapist because the adults in this conversation aren't interested in your delusions of relevancy.

Tam put it even more bluntly:

Incidentally, this is one of my biggest gripes about wading into fact- and data-laden poo-flinging arguments with anti-gunners about crime rates and murders-per-100k and so forth. The correct answer is "Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can't own a gun? I don't care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn't. So piss off."

The tinfoil-hat crowd has been claiming that Obama (or his BATFE) will write an executive order or change the regulations making "assault weapons" and "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" into Class III regulated items under the 1934 National Firearms Act, bypassing Congress and requiring licensing and registration. Others think that finally they'll get a new "Assault weapon" ban through Congress, or even more.

Let me just say again for the record:

I won't license.

I won't register.

I won't turn them in.

If you want to make me and several million other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens into felons, beware what you wish for. You may get it.

A Fisking

I haven't done this in a while, but I ran across a piece in The Economist from last month that I thought I ought to respond to.  It drew (as of this reading) 1979 comments, so others apparently felt the same way.  The piece is Gun control:  Too late, and it's a blog post by "M.S."

Let us Fisk:

PEOPLE'S ideas often don't make any sense when you try to hold them together in your head simultaneously, as Richard Rorty, Daniel Kahneman or Desiderius Erasmus will be happy to tell you. One of the areas in which people tend to have ideas that don't make sense, when you hold them together in your head simultaneously, is that of rights. For example, many Americans believe that our rights derive from God or from the very nature of being human. As Paul Ryan put it in a discussion of Obamacare this month, folks of his political persuasion don't believe that the people have the power to make up new rights; rights come from God and nature. These same Americans also generally believe that our rights are those delineated in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution, including a non-infringeable individual right to bear arms. And yet, clearly, people in most law-governed democracies other than the United States, countries like Britain, Canada, France, Israel, the Netherlands and Japan, do not have an individual right to bear arms. How, then, can the right to bear arms as enshrined in the constitution derive from God, or from the very nature of being human? Is this a special sort of right, one that can be created by the people via government if they so choose? If so, then what stops the people, through their government, from creating other sorts of new rights, like a right to education, or a right to health insurance?

Now, I find this essay interesting because I've spent many hours and billions of pixels discussing "What is a Right?" on this blog - several essays linked over there on the left sidebar attest to this. For me, the question is no longer "What is a Right?" but "Why don't we teach this stuff in school?" because it's obvious we don't. The author of this essay asks the very question I did, but doesn't actually bother to try answering it.

Continuing:

Take this essay by Cliff Stearns, the Republican congressman and (to be reductionist) gun-rights advocate. "Not only is the right to be armed a Constitutional right, it is also a fundamental natural right," Mr Stearns writes. And then, in the very next paragraph: "Once again we can trace the right to be armed to legal and political events in 17th century English history, this time pertaining to hunting and gaming laws." How does a fundamental natural right lie sleeping throughout the first 6,000 years of recorded history, only to wake to full flower due to conflicts over gaming laws in Regency Restoration England? And what of the benighted 95% of humanity who still do not enjoy the fruits of this natural right, including, rather confusingly, the actual English who supposedly roused it from its primeval slumber?

Yes, what of that?

It isn't just rights we don't teach in schools, it's political philosophies. What "M.S." is asking here is "Why does America recognize an individual right to arms when no other political entity does?" This is a question I believe no American ought to have to ask - it should be explained to them from childhood. But let's continue with the piece before I start waxing philosophic:

Perhaps American supporters of gun rights would say that in fact people in every country do have a natural right to bear arms, but their enjoyment of that natural right is denied them by oppressive governments in countries like Britain, France, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands and Japan. Meanwhile, the so-called "right" to health insurance enjoyed by citizens of those countries is presumably only a fake right which they do not in fact possess. This just doesn't seem to be a satisfactory explanation. Is the problem that we use the word "right" in two ways, meaning in one sense an inalienable moral consideration which we believe all humans possess regardless of the context of government in which they live, and in another sense an enforceable claim within a country's legal system which commands government and other persons to guarantee certain kinds of treatment to every citizen? Which kind of right would the right to health insurance be? Which kind is the right to bear arms?

As I have discussed at length, one of those - the right to arms - is a right. The other - the "right" to "health insurance" - is not. Calling it a right does not make it one. Yes, "we use the word 'right" in two ways" - correctly and incorrectly. If that's not a satisfactory explanation, I submit that the problem lies not in me, but in the person unsatisfied.

Any "right" that demands that someone else provide a service, a material good, or any other thing of value is not a RIGHT. And "health insurance" or "health care" or whatever term they're using today IS NOT A RIGHT. You can call a tail a leg, but it remains a tail.

The right to bear arms isn't the only right that faces this paradox. They all do, really. In the mid-1980s, the idea that people have a right to have consensual sex with partners of any gender, in whatever position they like, was pronounced "facetious" by the Supreme Court; 25 years later it feels like an obvious, natural outgrowth of the Bill of Rights. If rights evolve this way through the dialectics of culture and history, just how "natural" can they be?

This is a valid point. The first question that must be answered is "Does this purported 'Right' demand something of another?" In the case of consensual sex between two or more adults, no it doesn't. (It's that "consensual" thing.) In my libertarian viewpoint, it's none of the government's goddamned business who inserts Tab-A into Slot-B. That "obvious, natural outgrowth" was something our Founders considered and the author of the Bill of Rights at least attempted to account for. It's the Ninth Amendment that Robert Bork characterized as an "ink blot":

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the fact that there are many more rights than just those enumerated in the Bill of Rights was discussed by the Founders at length.

But the right to arms was one of the enumerated rights, and the United States of America is unique in putting that right into its foundational legal document.

Such are the idle thoughts that occur in the aftermath of America's latest episode of horrifying, meaningless mass slaughter. At least, such are the idle thoughts that occur to me. A large segment of the American public these days apparently finds it offensive, not just misguided but actually offensive, to talk about gun control after these sorts of atrocities occur. As economist Justin Wolfers tweeted this morning: "Let's not talk about gun control. It's too early, right? It's always too early. Except when it's too late."

Mr Wolfers is right: the "too early" construction is ridiculous. He's also right that it's too late. It is too late for gun control in America. It's never going to happen. There are too many guns out there, and an individual right to bear arms is now entrenched in constitutional law.

He says that like it's a bad thing.

Gun control in America is as quaint a proposition, at this point, as marijuana prohibition, with two important differences: first, that the government is still for some reason pursuing the absurd project of marijuana prohibition; and second, that guns are actually a significant threat to public health.

Now this I find fascinating. "M.S." acknowledges that marijuana prohibition is "absurd," but does not acknowledge that "gun control" is similarly absurd - unless you take "there are too many guns out there" as such acknowledgement. I don't think it is, because the entire gist of his essay is in favor of "gun control."  Guns are not a "significant threat to public health, the misuse of them is.  But strangely no one seems interested in looking at the people who are misusing them.  It's always easier to blame the gun.

In this sense, gun control is on a long list of things that could have saved many people's lives and made the world a better place, but for which it is now probably too late: a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, EU action to avert economic catastrophe, stopping global warming.

EXCELLENT comparisons!  And a magnificent illustration of the mindset of the author.  A "two-state solution" is a freaking pipe-dream. The "Palestinians" are apparently never going to love their children more than they hate Israel. The EU is constitutionally (no pun intended) incapable of behaving with fiscal rationality, and apparently neither are we because somewhere along the line a great number of people became convinced that things like "health insurance" were RIGHTS, and not commodities that had to be paid for. And "global warming" hasn't happened for about 12 years - with no change in any government policy anywhere - but because that doesn't fit the models, reality must be in error.  That excerpt from the "long list of things that could have saved many people's lives" is four things that won't WORK.

"Gun control" fails everywhere it's tried, but the philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again only HARDER!

So this is just what one of America's many faces is going to be: a bitterly divided, hatefully cynical country where insane people have easy access to semi-automatic weapons, and occasionally use them to commit senseless atrocities. We will continue to see more and more of this sort of thing, and there's nothing we can realistically do about it.

I will close this post with the words of the father of Christina Taylor-Green, the nine year-old killed in the January shooting here in Tucson that claimed her and five other people, leaving another thirteen wounded:

This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.

So do I.

"M.S." is right, we're bitterly divided, but gun control is only one of the points on which the various sides differ, and we know what the gun control side wants.