BornLib's Blog

Life, Liberty, and the Firearms that protect them both

Archive for the ‘Gun Grabbers’ Category

The educator war on gun culture continues

leave a comment »

Subtitled: Being a dick to children.

Legal Insurrection: All your front yards are belong to school zero-tolerance policies by William A. Jacobson

Reason: School Defends Long Term Suspension of Students For Playing With Air Soft Gun: It’s For The Children, Even the Suspended Ones by Ed Krayewski

NRO: Schools Are Not Parents by Charles C. W. Cooke

Quotes from the 911 call made by a neighbor:

“He is pointing the gun, and it looks like there’s a target in a tree in his front yard,” she told the dispatcher. “This is not a real one, but it makes people uncomfortable. I know that it makes me [uncomfortable], as a mom, to see a boy pointing a gun.”

Yes, you read that right.  She called 911 over a boy pointing something she knew was not a gun, at a tree, in his own yard.

Quote from the Larkspur Middle School principle:

This was a dangerous situation that involved the intervention of law enforcement, the Office of Safety and Loss Control and our school administration.

Translation: everyone massively overreacted so we are going to retroactively brand them as dangers to society to cover our backsides.

Written by BornLib

September 26, 2013 at 10:40 am

I have a slightly different take on this

with 2 comments

Via Gunfreezone: Underpants Gnomes Statistics & Research.

Methods. We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled for potential state-level confounders.

Taken literally, this would indicate that the CDC Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) had data on gun ownership. I examined both the Fatal Injury Data system there and National Violent Death Reporting System and no data is provided on gun ownership at all.

Now, if we assume that Miguel is correct, and they examining the databases of registered firearms possessed by the individual states (those that actually exist) then all they actually demonstrated is a correlation between “firearm homicide rates” and registration of firearms.

However, they mention that they also use a proxy for levels of household firearm ownership: the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm.  The problem here is that an assumption is made that the percent of gun owners who commit suicide is a constant no mater what state they are in despite it being known that suicide rates between the states vary wildly (Alaska’s is double Ohio’s for example).  They also don’t say if they assume that percentage of suicides is the exact percentage of households with guns or modify it somehow to make it useful to compare to data “measured directly”.  The proxy is of dubious value.

This study isn’t in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health so I will have to wait until it actually sees print to find out what they actually did.

There is also the usual issue that they were only concerned with “the firearm homicide rate” and not “the homicide rate”.  Being 1% less likely to die by gun but 1% more likely to die overall (for example) is not a good trade.  Gun control advocates not only try to ignore externalities, they try to hide them from everyone else so they don’t realize they are making a fool’s bargain.

Written by BornLib

September 16, 2013 at 4:39 pm

Video: ZoNATION: The Black N.R.A.?

leave a comment »

Written by BornLib

September 14, 2013 at 3:13 pm

Great job BFA!

leave a comment »

HotAir: Gun control rally turns into gun rights rally

“There’s no reason for Mayors Against Illegal Guns to be in Ohio,” said Linda Walker of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. “Ohioans stand up for our constitutional rights and that’s the way it’s going to be.”

“People are fired up, people are concerned,” said Walker. “It’s overwhelming this many people show up on a Friday afternoon because our constitutional rights are that important.”

I am so mad at myself for missing this, even though I was at work when this was going on.  A big “thank you” to everyone who did attend.

Written by BornLib

September 1, 2013 at 9:53 pm

Something worth pointing out (Update: or not)

leave a comment »

John Hinderaker raises what I think is an important point:

What is odd about this is that a filibuster occurs in the context of a cloture motion, for which 60 votes are required. “Cloture” means cutting off debate, but the Democrats aren’t planning on having a debate–any debate. They apparently intend, in keeping with their recent practice, that senators should read Reid’s bill and vote on it simultaneously. It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who would relish a debate on the Left’s harebrained gun control schemes.

We’ve already seen a lot of this from the Democrats on the state level in places like New York and Connecticut: they want to avoid public debate of their legislation.  They don’t want the public to know what is being done to them until it is already law.  Despicable.

Update: Learn something new every day.  There are apparently several stages at which a bill can be filibustered, and in this case it was filibustering the motion to open the bill for consideration and debate.  There will be a later stage where the filibuster occurs in the context of a cloture motion.

Written by BornLib

April 10, 2013 at 7:32 am

Educator drafts students to make war on gun culture

leave a comment » Prof at public univ under investigation for allegedly forcing students to make anti-gun posters

According to the complaint, obtained by Campus Reform, the professor compelled students in her graphic design class to create artwork opposing firearms on campus and opposing pro-gun legislation currently pending before the Texas state legislature.

The professor then used the artwork students created online to publicize an anti-gun petition entitled “MSU is anti-Concealed Carry on Campus” and on a now deleted Facebook page opposing firearms, says the complaint.

“On Monday, April 1, around 7 PM (class was 5:30 – 8:20), Jennifer Yucus, Assistant Professor of Graphic Art/Design, compelled students from her Computers For Artists class to advocate in favor of a political petition opposing firearms on campus, in opposition to a pair of bills currently before the Texas legislature, using personal art materials and MSU resources,” reads the complaint.

“Several of my classmates were uncomfortable with the assignment and either quietly or openly expressed this,” it continues. “Professor Yucus asked students to rationalize objections by thinking of it as a job from an employer (or words to that effect).”

Of course in reality the students were the ones paying for this class.  They aren’t employees; they are customers.  I think the ethical thing to do would be for the university to refund the student’s cost for the class.

The complaint adds that Yucus “did require all works to include the URL to the petition” she had created and adds that students were photographed while crafting the posters to give the illusion of youth support.

“Professor Yucus took photos of her students in the process of drafting and creating the posters, but did not say how these would be used,” says the complaint. “The posters were then hung in the hallways of the Fain Arts building, giving the impression of student support.”

Some of the photos later appeared on an anti-gun Facebook page that appeared to have been created by Yucus. The page appeared to have been deleted after the complaint was filed, but Campus Reform was able to capture the posted images before they were removed.

I am not a lawyer, and that goes double for Texas law, but I wonder if that crossed the legal line into misappropriating the student’s likenesses since it sounds like she was taking advantage of their reputation, prestige, or other value associated with them, for purposes of publicity.

According to the complaint, Yucus used her official university-issued e-mail address to later forward a URL to her petition to the entire class.

State law in Texas appears to forbid professors at public universities from using their authority to compel others to advocate for political causes.

“A state officer or employee may not use official authority… to interfere with or affect the result of an election or nomination of a candidate or to achieve any other political purpose,” reads subsection C of 556.004 of Government Code, Title 5, entitled “Open Government, Ethics.”

So at the least, that bit of the law seems to have been broken.

Written by BornLib

April 10, 2013 at 7:17 am

“Smart guns” and dumb journalists

leave a comment »

Bob Owens: NY Times editorialist Joe Nocera deceives readers about ‘smart gun’ technology

There have been, for decades, attempts to create devices to keep unauthorized users from firing firearms. The overwhelming majority of these devices have been developed with the law enforcement market in mind, because of the relatively high percentage of police officers murdered with their own firearms. There have been attempts to use magnets, electronics, radio signals, micro-processors, biometrics and other devices to restrict the access of firearms to authorized users only.

They’ve been tested by manufacturers. They’ve been examined by the military, as well as deep-pocketed law enforcement agencies on the local, state, and federal level, and yet, not a single military or law enforcement agency in the United States OR THE REST OF THE WORLD uses smart gun technology to equip their rank and file.

Not any department, agency, or division.



Read the whole thing; it is a truly epic takedown.

Written by BornLib

March 25, 2013 at 3:40 pm

If they were smart they wouldn’t be supporting gun control

leave a comment »

The Daily Beast: Did the Assault-Weapons Ban Kill Gun Control?

Banning the sale of assault weapons was a bad idea from the start. These guns may be scary looking, but they are rarely used in criminal activity. While involved in a handful of high-profile mass shootings, including in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, these weapons aren’t a significant contributor to gun violence overall. Only a fraction of gun-related homicides every year are attributed to rifles of any kind; assault rifles make up a fraction of a fraction. And anyone looking to do maximum damage, like a deranged mass killer, can easily find other guns just as deadly. So even if the assault-weapons ban were enacted, it would not have a major impact on America’s daily death toll from guns.

Of course, we’ve known this since even before the last ban.  Here is how a Washington Post Editorial explained it back on Sept., 15, 1994:

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban).  Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime.  The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

The simple fact of the matter is, gun control advocates didn’t care then and don’t care now.

Assault weapons are often misunderstood. Although many people mistakenly believe that these guns have automatic fire, that’s wrong. They aren’t machine guns, which are already heavily restricted and illegal to sell in most cases. The weapons primarily covered by Feinstein’s proposal, largely variants of the AR-15, fire only one round for each pull of the trigger.

Not mentioned in the article is that this is not a mistake:

“In a September 1988 report on “assault weapons” that he prepared for the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, gun control advocate Josh Sugarmann candidly observed: “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns.”

This is an act of intentional deception.

One reason these guns are misunderstood is that there’s no set definition of “assault weapon.”

In other words, it’s a term invented for political purposes that means whatever the gun control advocate wants it to mean at that particular moment.  Or as Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson put it:

“Prior to 1989, the term “assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of “assault rifles” so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined “evil” appearance.”

The guns targeted by Feinstein’s proposal were mainly semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and one or more military-style characteristics, like a pistol grip or a folding butt stock. This wasn’t the same definition used by the prior federal law enacted in the Clinton years. That ban required two or more military-style features. One thing the two laws would have had in common, though, is the ability to be easily skirted by gun manufacturers. Just as with the old ban, gun makers would just make the exact same guns, only without the military characteristics. And sell them by the millions.

President Obama gun control plan from January 16th referred to this process:

“That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons.”

They removed the cosmetic features which the law banned.  That’s not circumventing the law.  That is complying with the law.

That’s what many gun-control advocates failed to realize about the assault-weapons ban: the same gun, with the same rate of fire, the same bullets, and the same detachable magazine, would be perfectly lawful. It’s as if the problem with “assault weapons” wasn’t their lethality but their pistol grips.

Refering back to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson again: “The key elements of this definition are looks or style (“cosmetically similar”), the absence of a rational difference from “good” guns (“functionally identical”), and the availability of non-functional accessories (“detachable box magazine” etc.).” Since determinations of similar appearances or style vary from person to person, the political nature of the concept and its ambiguity were exposed early.”

There was one certain impact of proposing to ban the sale of assault weapons: it was guaranteed to stir gun-rights proponents to action. Ever since Obama was elected, they’ve been claiming that he wanted to ban guns. Gun-control advocates mocked this claim—then proposed to ban a gun. Not only that, the gun they were trying to ban happened to be the most popular rifle in America. It’s one thing to ban machine guns, which few law-abiding people ever wanted or used. It’s another thing entirely to ban a gun that millions of American gun enthusiasts love to shoot.

The Obama camp has been talking about bringing back the Assault Weapon Ban for years.  AG Eric Holder even mentioned the administration’s desire to bring back the AWB in testimony before Congress!  I know politicians lie a lot but how does believing what Holder says about his own boss make me a conspiracy nut?

Ironically, the people who may be saddest to see Feinstein’s proposal go down are the gun-rights hardliners. They knew all along that the ban was riddled with loopholes, was easy to evade, and had little potential to impact crime.

And you know this because the “gun-rights hardliners” have actually been telling everyone that “the ban was riddled with loopholes, was easy to evade, and had little potential to impact crime,” this entire time, unlike gun-control hardliners who have actively tried to suppress this information.

That’s in part why they wanted to focus on this proposal, rather than on background checks…

Which will be easy for criminals to evade and have little potential impact on crime.  Open secret: criminals get most of their guns by stealing them or from straw purchasers.  Background checks affect neither of these things.  Also, both of those things are already illegal.

“Yet it’s harder for them to make a persuasive public case against background checks…”

Take a look at what the proposed law will actually do and tell me with a straight face this is about preventing another Newtown.  Also, there was that little thing you might have heard about where the Obama DOJ says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration.”

… or magazine restrictions, which, in allowing people to have 10 rounds plus readily available, already-loaded replacement magazines, didn’t interfere with self-defense.

As this sheriff was kind of enough to demonstrate, you have that that backwards.  Because criminals in general, and mass shooters in particular, are the aggressors, they can prepare as many firearms and magazines in advance as they want for their destructive purposes.  The thirteen 10 round magazines for the Hi-Point 995 used at Columbine  and the nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines used at Virginia Tech are the most immediate historical examples.  In contrast, the lawful citizen engaged in self-defense is limited to what they have readily at hand.  People who carry handguns for self defense often dispense with the inconvenience of carrying spare magazines or carry only one.

Written by BornLib

March 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm

Continuing the fine gun control tradition of just making stuff up

leave a comment »

Yesterday, Senator Rangel was in the safest place in the world for a Democrat, a MSNBC program:

The Washington Times: Rangel: ‘Millions of kids’ being shot down by assault rifles

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel appeared on MSNBC this morning to opine about the assault weapons ban getting dropped from the Senate gun-control bill.

And here’s the money quote:

“We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons,” he continued.

How many was that again?

The FBI’s 2011 data says only 323 people were killed by rifles, compared to 728 people who were killed by hands, fists, feet etc. Handguns are much more likely to be used in a homicide with 6,220 killed nationwide in 2011.

323 people were killed by ALL types of rifles, out of a population of a third of a billion people.

Written by BornLib

March 22, 2013 at 6:10 pm

Posted in Gun Grabbers


leave a comment »

Courtesy of The Weekly Standard:

VP Biden: “Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded,” in the 2011 Tucson Shooting.

It is bad enough that he doesn’t know what at clip is ( even after all this time) or what infringe means, but mortally?

Written by BornLib

March 22, 2013 at 5:45 pm

Posted in Gun Grabbers