« March 2009 | Main | May 2009 »
April 2009
Suicide in DC
Say Uncle notes a sad irony.
UPDATE: While doing oneself in is an overreaction to a layoff under any circumstances, I can guess at a context. He's head of the Supreme Court appellate section in a major DC law firm, so he's surely a partner or shareholder. I don't know how those sort of firms are set up, but odds are that "firing" a person in that status requires an extraordinary event... everyone agreeing to those rules knows that they could be used to fire themselves, too.
Odds are that there were some very nasty meetings, in which some very unpleasant things were said, and this being DC, he discovered that a lot of people he'd figured were friends were willing (when their own bottom line was the issue) to pitch him and the others over the side. Likely something like "you can take a 25% cut in your staggering pay, or knife these guys in the back." Or even "if he doesn't go, you might go, so form an alliance that screws him and lets you stay on." This might make things more understandable than if we treat it as he got laid off and did himself in.
Insider thoughts on piracy and arming crews
Reader Diogenes emails (his original command having been blocked, for some reason, by the spam filter):
I work in the insurance industry as a large property underwriter and work closely with our marine underwriters. I understand that the issues with armed crew on merchant vessels are mainly with insurance premiums and crew pay. Current marine rating rules classify any armed merchant vessel as a warship and the hazard premiums increase. In addition, arming the crew incurs additional training costs and often an increase in pay for the increased "hazard". Thus for the shipping company, it's a matter of economics. It's less expensive for them to lay off the risks(hull, cargo and ransom) to the insurer and the insurer is a willing accomplice.
Insurers, while often slow learners, do in fact learn. As more shippers tire of the current situation and either arm their crews or take on private security personnel; such as the Italian cruise ship, insurers will note higher losses on the unarmed vessels and reduced losses on the armed ones. The grey hairs at Lloyds will rapidly revise their rating rules shortly thereafter.
As a sidebar, it's been reported that the Chief Steward from the Maersk Alabama has filed suit against Maersk Lines alleging that they created a hazardous work environment. His requested damages is only $75,000, so it appears that he's trying to force Maersk into providing arms for their crews.
Interesting mandatory sentencing case
Dean v. US, handed down today by the Supreme Court.
18 USC 924(c) imposes a mandatory sentence for use of a firearm in a federal violent crime -- 5 years if carried, 7 if brandished, and 10 if the firearm is discharged. The first sentence of the opinion sums up the case (with rather more wit than we are accustomed to seeing, but Roberts can do that):
"Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns. The question here is whether extra punishment Congress imposed for the discharge of a gun during certain crimes applies when the gun goes off accidentally."
The majority holds that the 10 year mandatory does apply to an AD during a crime.
Arms vs. pirates
A cruiseship captain issues handguns and the crew uses them to fend off Somalian pirates. Two warning shots in the air and the pirates (who had AKs) bailed out, surprised that the crew actually had guns. (I find this story receiving little play in the US media. I guess that a person held hostage by pirates makes for a string of emotional stories, whereas Long John Silver bailing out after a few warning shots does not).
But the Maersk Line still says no to defensive arms aboard:
"“Weapons onboard could lead to a dangerous escalation and raise a number of multi-jurisdictional legal issues,” the company said in a statement as it continued with its inquiry into the Maersk Alabama hijack, when US Navy personnel shot and killed three of the pirates who were holding the ship’s captain hostage."
Piracy and arming crews
General Petraeus has proposed arming merchantmen. The main resistance seems to be coming from the ship owners, who'd rather pay ransom than risk ... whatever they fear. "Joe Cox, president of the Chamber of Shipping of America, cautioned that deploying armed guards aboard cargo ships could escalate violence if pirates expect a gunfight."
What might change the dynamic: via reader Don Hamrick comes the link to lawsuit filed by Richard Hicks, against the Maersk Line. He was injured in the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, and charges that the ship's owner exposed the crew to piracy without providing security. In a regular court, that'd probably fail, since one person is not ordinarily responsible for prevent someone else's illegal acts, but the complaint alleges that maritime law places certain duties on the ship owner.
UPDATE: Yes, the amount named may have an importance, but I'm hard put to see what it is. $75,000 is the minimum for a federal suit in diversity jurisdiction, i.e., one that gets to federal court because the parties are citizens of different States. But this case is filed in State court. And I think that maritime law would be a federal question, which can get you into federal court regardless of the amount. Pleading over $75K in State court, against parties who are probably diverse, is just begging for removal into federal court (in which event why not file there to begin with?)
Nine bills up for vote in Albany
Story here. In case you wonder what NY could outlaw that it hasn't already, one of the bills would require firearm dealers to have million dollar liability policies covering criminal misuse by purchasers.
Reader David Lawson asks, "What insurance company would write that kind of policy?" Good point.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
NYC: knife killings skyrocketing
In NY City, gun killings are down but knife homicides are up by 50%.
"amnesty for pocket knives or steak knives is not a reasonable option, said the Rev. Darryl Frazier ..."
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (0)
Obama mulls ban on full-auto transmissions
That's what Scrappleface reports. The claim is that cars kill far more people than guns, but the real reason is the hopes that it will boost car sales the way the potential of an assault rifle ban has boosted gun sales.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson....
Jimmy Carter on AW ban
Carter's NY Times Op-Ed is here, and Alphecca's response is here.
An interesting gap in the discourse on this issue: arguments for such laws invariably dodge what should be the central question for any proposed law of any type, namely, what is the evidence that this law will do any good? We had such a law on the books for ten years, after all, so if there is any evidence it shouldn't be hard to produce.
Gun and ammo sales
In the last three months of 2008, that's right, three months, Americans bought enough guns to outfit the Chinese and Indian armies, combined. Actually, that's just reflective of the NICS checks, which don't cover sales by private parties, and buys by CCW permit holders. There were also 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammo sold, which explains why I'm having trouble finding .45 ACP lately.
Hat tip to reader Joe Olson, who also points out that a large share of those firearm sales were of "assault rifles," which means it'll be hard to argue that they don't meet the Heller test of arms "in common use."
UPDATE: Here's a link to some pdfs breaking down background checks by year, State, and State rate per capita.
Internat'l Law Enforcement Educator & Trainers on mass shootings
The legendary Massad Ayoob is attending the annual conference of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. He writes:
"Thursday afternoon, I chaired the panel of experts discussion on deadly force issues. I had been able to assemble ten superstars of police training. [He lists them, and their credentials are indeed impressive].
One of the topics that inevitably cropped up was response to mass murders in schools and other public places. Among us was Ron Borsch, instructor at the Southeast Area Law Enforcement Academy in Ohio, who has been an advocate of “sole response” entry into such situations by the first responding officer. Though controversial in law enforcement, his theory was validated recently by the courageous 25-year-old cop who entered a mass murder scene only a few weeks ago at an old folks home, and stopped the killing with a single bullet from his Glock .40 service pistol coolly and expertly delivered to the gunman’s chest.
Borsch’s impromptu discussion revealed the fact that some 25% of mass murder shooting sprees he has researched were ended by armed private citizens. This led in turn to a discussion of the Israeli Model, in place since the Maalot massacre of schoolchildren decades ago, in which teachers and other school personnel were trained and discreetly armed with handguns, which has proven famously successful ever since in Israel. Across the ten-member panel AND the dozens of police instructors attending the discussion, not a single voice was raised against that concept, and many spoke enthusiastically in favor of it.
Don’t listen to the politically motivated figureheads. Talk to the REAL cops. They’re the ones who best understand the dynamics of violence, and of protection of the innocent from evil."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (10)
New book on militia
Robert Churchill, an EXCELLENT historian (we cited him several times in our Heller brief), has out a new book on the militia movements. I put it in the plural because he documents how the recent movement fits into the long term historical context. The title is "To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face: Libertarian Political Violence and the Origins of the Militia Movement."
UPDATE: Here's the U of Michigan Press description page.
Amazon listing is right here.
Permalink · militia · Comments (4)
ATF webpage
A page calling for cleaning up ATF, together with a blog, written by agents.
I've griped about the agency as much as anyone, but the bottom line is there are folks with it who are decent, and folks who are not, and the problem is that the folks who are not get promoted, get into power, and are in positions to shaft those who are decent. As the page notes, there have been about 100 employee complaints a year, which in my federal experience, is staggering. In my decade with Interior, I heard of two from our agency (nearly a thousand employees) and one was valid and one BS. Even if I only heard via grapevine of a small fraction of complaints, that still would suggest that ATF is generating an incredible number of complaints, even without Good Old Boys parties.
Gun Buyback in Los Angeles
And, as Crime, Guns and Videotapes notes, it's time for every gunnie to trade in their junkers for $100-200, and have some cash to spend on ammunition!
Storm brewing in Milwaukee
The Wisconsin Attorney General has ruled that open carry is lawful and cannot be charged as disorderly conduct. (I find it amusing that the article claims that open carry is only allowed in two States, when in fact it's OK in the vast majority).
But the Milwaukee police chief issues orders to arrest any open carriers and seize their firearm. (He issues orders to his "troops," as he puts it). There are others:
"Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said the memo just muddies things. Police still aren’t clear on what might constitute disorderly conduct, he said.
"How we approach a person with a gun, I can tell you right now, isn’t going to change. As far as a law enforcement person is concerned, you just don’t walk up to a person with a gun and say ’excuse me, sir,"’ Clarke said. "On the ground, give up. Get that gun under control and then we’ll figure out what we got here.""
I find the "down on the ground" interesting. If the person were to be dangerous, he'd of course draw before getting down. So giving such a command implies that the giver thinks the citizen is not dangerous. What then is the purpose, other than to stress that they must prostrate themselves to their superior?
Oh, well. That's what section 1983 is for.
[Update to correct city name]
So nice to live in Tucson, where if a peace officer asks you about your gun ... he probably wants to find out if you'd sell it. Well, not that far, but I once during a minor traffic stop was asked whether I liked my .45 1911 clone, because the officer wanted to get one and didn't know if he should go with a clone or pay extra for a Colt model, and we stood there discussing the virtues of Colt vs. clones. If any non-AZ people drove by, it must have seemed unreal. Officer and civilian passing a .45 back and forth, and then me sticking it in my waistband as we debated its virtues.
Gun Self Defense Blog passes a milestone
Clayton Cramer's gun self defense blog just chronicled its 4,000th such incident, and pauses to list a few conclusions:
In six cases, the criminal managed to get a gun away from the defender, but in 183 cases the defender managed to get a gun away from the criminal.
There was exactly one case of mistaken identity among the 4,000 -- and the shooting there began with the officers, who thought the defender was an armed burglar. Nobody was hurt.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Interesting 4th Amendment decision today
Opinion handed down today in Arizona v. Gant. Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed and put in the squadcar. Officers then (with no probable cause) searched his car and found cocaine.
Traditional reasons for search incident to arrest were officer safety, to make sure there was no weapon within reach, and also to prevent destruction of evidence. Rationale for this search was New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460 (1981). which laid out a "bright line test" -- a lawful arrest justifies search of a vehicle incident to it, and the Court wasn't going to listen to debates about whether this or that part of the car were within the arrestee's reach.
Arizona v. Gant held that doesn't apply where the arrestee has been secured and removed from the vehicle. What's interesting is that it's written by Stevens. In Heller, Stevens argued for adhering to his reading of US v. Miller even tho he agreed that only one side had briefed or argued in that appeal. Stare decisis, precedent, bound the Court no matter what.
In Gant, stare decisis seems decidedly less important:
"The doctrine of stare decisis is of course “essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law,” but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands “careful analysis.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003) ."
"The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations."
Permalink · General con law · Comments (8)
Additional thoughts on Nordyke
This has got to hurt. Only three days ago Chicago filed its brief in the 7th Circuit. Reading over it--
"The cited footnotes were dicta and when the issue was actually presented in the Ninth Circuit, it ruled that the Second Amendment does not limit the States."
Lots of followup at the Volokh Conspiracy, especially this post, where Prof. Volokh discusses en banc review. You need not be the technical loser to ask for such (unlike a petition for cert.), so the County could do so. But to get it takes a majority of active judges, in this case 14. Two Demo appointment signed the panel opinion, so it would take all remaining 14 Demo appointees to get a majority, or at least one GOP appointee agreeing for every Demo who refuses. Not impossible, but a long shot.
Permalink · Nordyke v. King · Comments (5)
Nordyke v. King 9th Cir. incorporates 2nd
A tip from reader Alice Beard that 9th held 2d was incorporated in a ruling not yet posted. Will update.
UPDATE: here's the ruling.
On a quick read:
Court incorporates the 2A on a selective incorporation, due process, theory, holding that the right is a fundamental one, deeply rooted in Anglo-American history, and traditionally seen as a natural right rather than a politically-created one. Court declines privileges or immunities incorporation, as ruled out by Supreme Court case law.
Court holds, tho, that the regulation at issue (banning firearm possession, but only on county owned property) was a reasonable regulation, etc..
My read on strategic posture:
1) This means plaintiffs, the good guys, are the ones who can petition the Supreme Court for cert.. They may have won on incorporation, but they "lost" on the appeal overall, and thus are the ones who can appeal further. This is good for them. Defendants are not in control, cannot move for rehearing en banc, or decline to file for cert..
2) It may however make the case less cert-worthy, a little less appealing to the Supreme Court. Not quite so clean an issue, need to reach reasonable regulation which the Court may be unready to do.
UPDATE: Yep, it's binding in the 9th Circuit. Can be cited in other Circuits, which they would take into account, but doesn't bind them. Note that "binding" is often more theory than fact, since there are ways to get around a binding decision (distinguish it -- facts in this case are somewhat different from facts in that case -- or sometimes outright ignore it, or call for en banc review by all the judges in the circuit and try to get them to overrule the prior decision). And a well-reasoned opinion from one circuit can carry weight in others; this one will surely be cited in the Chicago case. And a circuit split, where some circuits go one way and others go another, is a good basis for asking the Supreme Court to take it on and settle the issue.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This shows you how, esp. in the 2A arena, guessing a judge as liberal or conservative, or Demo or Repub appointee, does little good. Two of the judges are Demo appointees. The concurrence, which is even stronger than the majority, and argues that an armed citizen can be an important resource against terrorism, is written by a Clinton appointee.
Permalink · Nordyke v. King · Comments (42)
Wash. Times tears into 90% figure
Editorial here.
"Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number.
Democrats aren't alone in repeating phony gun statistics. The New York Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create the notion that a major problem exists with American guns - and Mr. Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico."
UPDATE: Here's more from the WT.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (3)
April 19 thoughts
Rivrdog has some thoughts, appropriate to the date.
Always wondered about the "shot heard round the world. In the days of blackpowder, the smoke would have made the shooter obvious to everyone for hundreds of yards. He'd know who it was, and so would everyone around him. They might keep quiet for the time being, or for years, but you'd expect at some point decades later, perhaps on deathbeds or in private diaries, people would have talked.
The REAL DHS report on extremism
Here's a real scoop. Just remember you first saw it here.
More thoughts on guns and Mexico and cartels
As noted earlier, everyone from President Obama to the Mexican ambassador is claiming that 90%, or even 95% of criminal guns recovered in Mexico come from the US. The fact that 90% of guns submitted to ATF for tracing trace to the US, but the Mexican government only submits guns that it thinks came from the US; a while back FoxNews ran the numbers and concluded that only 17% of guns recovered in Mexico came from the US. Now Factcheck.org reruns the numbers and concludes it's more like 34%, still a minority.
One mystery remains: the difference between the two sets of numbers is explained as the smaller one reflect guns that could be traced to a particular State, the larger one includes those that couldn't be. A successful ATF trace at the very minimum tracks it to retail dealer, thus you know the State. If they couldn't report the State, it probably means an unsuccessful trace -- we know that Colt made it in the US, but can't trace it to the dealer. Unsuccessful traces are disproportionately traces of sales long ago -- those made before the 1968 GCA are about hopeless, and even subsequent to that, the farther back in time, the more likely records have been misplaced.
Which would suggest, at least, that about half of the traces relate to very old gun transfers. Say a gun was sold at retail in 1960, has gone thru 2-3 legit owners since then, a burglar steals it and fences it across the border -- that'd go down as a gun "traced to an American source," and be portrayed as if it was a straw man sale or crooked dealer.
The other possibility is that guns not traced to sale in a particular State include guns not sold in the US at all, but exported. In 2007, American manufacturers exported 10,530 handguns and rifles to the Mexican Ministry of Defense. Think the cartels have enough money to get their hands on as many as they want?
Permalink · non-US · Comments (5)
City's brief in Chicago challenge
Online here, in pdf. I think it's dead wrong, of course, but it is rather well written.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (11)
Wash. Times takes aim at Pelosi
Editorial here.
Hat tip to reader Scott D. Camassar...
Proposed OAS treaty
In floating an OAS proposed treaty with regard to control of small arms, the administration commented that it had been worked out with the aid of pro-gun groups. NRA says the hell it was.
Montana's exemption
Story here. While I agree with the idea, I can't see the legislation as having much practical impact. If a Federal law is unconstitutional, it is so whatever a State may legislative. If it is constitutional, then under the Supremacy Clause it overrides whatever a State may legislate. And, unfortunately, courts have tended to find anything constitutional that relates to anything vaguely resembling interstate commerce.
Lott's on a roll!
Now, he's tearing into ABC 20/20.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Permalink · media · Comments (3)
Supreme Court watching
A few weeks ago Justice Ginsburg commented that we might see changes in the Court's composition in the near future. Above the Law notes that every Justice has picked his/her four clerks for the next Term.... except Justice Souter, who hasn't picked any. The next Term formally starts in October, but in practice the new clerks begin work over the summer break.
John Lott on many topics
Gun free zones, foreign experiences, "assault weapon" bans, and other issues.
Video here.
U.S. Miller question
This just popped into my head. Miller won in the trial court.
The government filed for cert., Supreme Court accepted. Miller's attorney never formally appeared in the Supreme Court, did not show for oral argument. He also didn't brief it, and in fact sent a telegram asking the Court to consider the case submitted on the government's brief.
Where's the case or controversy here?
I suppose there must be some doctrine that allows the case to proceed. Otherwise defendant who wins in the trial court need only refuse to appear on appeal, and the higher courts would be powerless to review the decision in his favor.
Permalink · US v. Miller · Comments (17)
Mayor Bloomberg pays for Virginia campaign ads
Story here. He's attacking pro-gun gubernatorial candidate Robert F. McDonnell, who as Attorney General dared write Bloomberg a letter notifying him that if he tried to set up Virginia FFLs in the future he'd face criminal charges.
I suppose it's hard to be a millionaire, or a politician, let alone both, without becoming a narcissist, but to write someone "But all is forgiven if you do what’s right. I understand people say things, and as they mature and get more information, hopefully they’re intelligent enough to assess that information, include it in decisions," is, well, rather self-betraying. Anyone who dares criticize the one speaking is doing wrong, immature, and unintelligent. It's not possible the critic has a difference of opinion. He has offended the almighty.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Thoughts on a Heller v. DC exception
Kurt Hoffman discusses attempts to bar private sales at gun shows.
What's esp interesting is a comment by reader Carl in Chicago. His point is that the Heller case is sometimes read to allow (or at least list as presumptively allowable) restrictions on sale and transfer. But Heller actually refers to imposing conditions "on the commercial sale of arms." A narrower qualification.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (2)
Two die in Indiana swordfight
It seems more a vulgar brawl than an affair of honor.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (3)
Criminal investigation of a police dept....
Over claims that lead fragments may have escaped its shooting range.
I'm quite open to the argument that neighbors who want the range closed are spreading lead around. Hard to see how lead fragments (not dust) could travel a fair distance (i.e., to somewhere on a school described as across a street). The rest is just the usual hysteria.
UPDATE: the comment is quite perceptive. I am president of a gun club where folks tried to drum up a hazmat issue. Bottom line: lead does not dissolve in water. Without such, it can hardly affect a human. Nor get to the water table, here several hundred feet down, thru rock. I found an account of excavation of a Roman-era lead smelter in Britain: in 1-2 millenia, its lead had migrated two or three feet downward. The other side investigated lead dust transport by wind. No, no evidence there, either. And it turned out that the ordinary soil in the area (edge of mountains) was higher in lead and arsenic than EPA standards. So they fell back on the fact that everyone inadvertently ingests a bit of dust daily, and argued some range users might (if somehow they ingested all their dust from the backstops, which had almost all of the lead) in twenty years be in some trifling danger.
Our response: there were a few retired folks who virtually lived at the range house. It was their club house, they went there seven days a week and spent most of the day there. We had a doctor run their blood levels, and they were way BELOW the national average. Doc commented that most of our lead exposure comes from ... driving a car. Roads have lead dust from decades of leaded gas. These folks were spending their day at the range, rather than driving, and so wound up with lower lead levels.
Impressive self-defense
Video here.
As pointed out, in each of the shopkeeper's gunfights, the robber started with his gun out and the shopkeeper with his stashed, but the good guy prevailed (albeit getting hit twice). This answers the 20/20 assertion that a defender will invariably freeze up and be helpless, while the thug will always be functional and confident.
Strange events at Dept of Justice
It's almost as if they want to see an informant killed or something.
David Codrea on the NFA database
Right here.
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (1)
More on Mexico
The Narcosphere points out that reports that (insert imaginary number) % of guns seized in Mexico trace to the US may illustrate a different problem. With State Department approval, American companies sell about $300,000 a year of military/police arms and hardware to the Mexican military and law enforcement.
"The deadliest of the weapons now in the hands of criminal groups in Mexico, particularly along the U.S. border, by any reasonable standard of an analysis of the facts, appear to be getting into that nation through perfectly legal private-sector arms exports, measured in the billions of dollars, and sanctioned by our own State Department. These deadly trade commodities — grenade launchers, explosives and “assault” weapons —are then, in quantities that can fill warehouses, being corruptly transferred to drug trafficking organizations via their reach into the Mexican military and law enforcement agencies, the evidence indicates.
“As in other criminal enterprises in Mexico, such as drug smuggling or kidnapping, it is not unusual to find police officers and military personnel involved in the illegal arms trade,” states an October 2007 report by the for-profit global intelligence group Stratfor, which Barron’s magazine once dubbed the Shadow CIA. “… Over the past few years, several Mexican government officials have been arrested on both sides of the border for participating in the arms trade.”"
The approved shipments in FY 2006 and 2007 included 13,000 firearms, $3 milllion of ammunition, and 42 grenade launchers. The report quotes a retired customs official:
"I would agree entirely [that] DCS (and DoD gifted, as opposed to DCS sold) weapons are obviously the simplest explanation for the massive rise in the number of fully automatic weapons, grenades, rockets, etc., obtained by the narcotics gangs. … That is to say, they are obtaining their weapons from their own, Mexican, government, by various illegal means.
… The Mexican government has a long and well-documented history of corruption at all levels, from city to federal. Most of the weapons being "displayed" [in the media] are simply not available for sale to American civilians, particularly including the grenades — both 40mm and hand types. …
… The source of these weapons can be easily traced by ATF. … All foreign sales must be reported to ATF prior to shipment, just in case the government wishes to hold up a shipment to a particular country, etc. Tracing the serial numbers would be easy, with US government assistance, of course."
It also reports that while State Dept has a program to track and verify such shipments, it is almost never employed. In two recent years, it examined exactly exactly three transfers.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
ABC on self defense in active shooter cases
The story, or at least the predictable propaganda, is here. At least it has the virtue of unintended humor.
Antigunners "point out that most people are unprepared to handle a gun," because most states don't require a permit that requires formal training. In a fight, bullets will be flying at you, people running, screaming, you get so pumped up that you forget how to do things, can't even draw, get tunnel vision.... it's like trying to fly an airplane without lessons.
Some truth to that ... but if that means you cannot fire... isn't that also a proof that there can be no such thing as an active shooter? He's got all that AND knows to a certainty that he's going to be dead at the end. So he's worse off, can't draw his gun, forgets how to reload. So if the above were truly an bar to useful shooting, there would be no mass killers.
So what's ABC's alternate plan? Play dead. Hide and call 911.
Then they have a scenario with simunition guns in which the prospective students come off badly against a supposed mass killer. Sensibly Progressive takes that drill to pieces.
Oh, and the comments are chewing into them (even while some say they're being deleted)...
Reader Eric emails:
"You can go over to Clayton Cramer's Gun-Self-Defense blog and read dozens and dozens of news stories of people defending themselves with guns. Sometimes it doesn't work out well, occasionally the wrong person gets shot, but overwhelmingly the good guys win (either by killing, wounding, or repelling their assailant(s)), without injury to themselves or innocent bystanders.
I find it very unlikely that every one of these citizen defenders attended a Gun Site, Farnam, Suarez, or any other formal self-defense school. Most load up the gun, put it away until they need it, and when they do, pull it out. I don't recommend this as a conscious strategy, but the notion that an "untrained" adult cannot figure out how to use a handgun is nonsense."
Permalink · media · Comments (9)
PBS webpage seeking gun-related stories
Right here. They're soliciting stories dealing with guns, with an eye toward an HBO documentary -- self defense, crime, how a person got interested. Just starting out, and the balance is tipping toward antis. I'd suggest routing any people with self-defense stories their way.
The media we remember
Freedom States Alliance (a/k/a Joyce Foundation astroturf) is joyfully announced that it has the media back in harness.
10 PM tonight, ABC News on the evils of gun shows and why guns are no good in defense against crime (leaving us to wonder why police bother carrying them around).
The webpage also rejoices over how often the media quotes Freedom States Alliance and other Joyce operations (e.g., Legal Community Against Violence).
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson.
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
911 calls from Hell...
Story here.
It must really suck to be on the other side....
Scripps News: Prospects dim for new restrictions on gun ownership.
"The White House Web site's description of the administration's agenda calls for a variety of gun-control measures, .... But the Democratic majority at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue has shown no appetite to act on any of those proposals."
Democratic Underground: Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control.
"The California senator who authored the nation's now-lapsed 1994 ban on assault weapons says she will hold off trying to renew that ban. "
Eric Holder, to CBS: "I understand the second amendment... I look forward to working with the NRA."
And, best of all... Brady Campaign flips out over Gallup polling. "Today's Gallup news release, "Support for Gun-Control Laws at All-Time Lows", is one of the most misleading I've seen in a long time."
UPDATE: SayUncle notes a posting by Tom Diaz, of Violence Policy Center, that, well, suggests he is profoundly depressed. I mean, to the point of throwing in the towel, saying that Chuck Shumer and Hilary Clinton are selling them out, etc..
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (4)
New acting head of ATFE
Kenneth Melson, who has been head of the Exec Office of US Attorneys, has been named acting director of BATFE. He comes from outside the agency, having been a Justice Dept attorney since 1983. On the side, he taught forensic science at George Washington U law school.
UPDATE: Yep, he sounds like a good guy. Problem with any bureaucracy, tho ... top guy is surrounded by people with years or decades invested in the status quo (which may include corruption, and always includes inefficiency). They control what reports he hears, what recommendations he gets, what options he hears about. At Interior, the Secretary gets nothing direct. In fact we once received written instructions not to talk to him if he called! All info must go thru the chain of command, being edited and manipulated at each stage. Even the Solicitor (head of about 400-500 people, out of the 70,000 in the department) was heard to complain that he was surprised at how powerless he was. If the bureaucracy dug in its heels, whatever reforms he wanted were undermined at many levels, people would just make sure he heard only certain info and knew only of certain options (info and options chosen so that only one option would be sane).
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (10)
AP story on killings
Right here.
Ah, that's the media I remember, with an agenda to push! The agenda here being that permit systems, even that of NY, are not functioning -- because they're just too liberal.
Reader Carl in Chicago notes that he emailed the AP ([email protected]) to point out that the writer equates having a firearm permit with being "entitled" to use a gun in homicide assault.
"They had more in common than unleashing carnage — nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons."
From the photo caption: "Nearly every gunman in this month-long series of mass killings was legally entitled to wield the weapons he opened fire with. "
Permalink · media · Comments (17)
New Gallup conclusions
Gallup's findings indicate public support for gun restrictions is hitting all-time lows.
Thoughts on "active shooters"
The manager of South East Area Law Enforcement has some thoughts, of which the most relevant are:
"Where times have been reliably documented, the average post-Columbine “rapid mass murder episode” lasts just 8 minutes, according to Borsch’s calculations. “The murderer’s timeline begins when he says it begins. Any prevention, deterrence or delay efforts have failed at that point, and the police are handicapped with catching up whenever they are notified.”
.......
• 98% of active killers act alone.
• 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.
• Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.
• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”
• “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.
• They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”
• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”
Because active shooters seem so intent on killing, it’s often difficult to convince first responders that “this bad guy is one of the easiest man-with-gun encounters they will ever have,” Borsch observes. “Most officers have already faced worse opponents from a personal safety standpoint than these creeps.”
.......
Once into the scene, to further gain confidence in advancing aggressively toward the suspect, officers need to understand the nature of these killers. Unlike conventional criminal predators, who often have no reluctance about attacking police, active shooters tend to be “cowardly,” Borsch says.
“They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant. The tracking history of these murderers has proved them to be unlikely to be aggressive with police. If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves.” In his research, he has found no evidence of any LEO in the U.S. yet being wounded or killed in an active-shooting incident where mass murder was intended or accomplished."
UPDATE: yep, I think everything he says supports Joe Olson's conclusion that the only way to stop such a shooting is for someone not in uniform -- a civilian, an off-duty officer, whatever -- to deliver immediate counterattack and counterfire. The attacker is counting upon hitting the defenseless, for a period of a few minutes, certainly less than police response time. If within that period he is attacked by someone who is not defenseless, he will kill himself rather than continue the battle. That may also explain the phenomenon noted earlier here, that active shooters tend to home in on "gun free zones."
John Lott on mass shootings
A short piece here.
"For years I would tell news people about the fact that every single multiple victim public shooting in the US involving more than three people killed took place in one of these gun-free zones. The response was they might include this information as part of the story if I could get it to them fast enough so that it could be included as part of the news story. But when I started to do that I was told that it would be editorializing to include that information. My response has been that if news stories can contain long (often inaccurate) discussions of the type of gun used in the crime, why isn’t it also newsworthy to note one common characteristic that occurs in attack after attack?"
Haven't been able to confirm that the Binghamton site was in a gun free zone. If anyone has info, it would be appreciated.
Ht to reader David McCleary...
Response time at Binghamton NY killing
Police took 1 to 1.5 hour to organize and enter the building (the gunman apparently having shot himself as they first arrived).
"The chief defended the time it took officers to go into the building — an hour to 90 minutes.
"If some crazy lunatic decides to pick up a gun and go someplace and start shooting people, I really don't have the answer how long for us that could prevent anything like that," Zikuski said.
"What I will tell you is that the police did the right thing," he said. "We have procedures and protocols."
I thought those standards had changed after Columbine. As Joe Olson has said, with a killer like this the ONLY thing that saves lives is accurate counterfire, quickly delivered. Whether it's by off duty officers or civilians doesn't matter. It won't be by officers in uniform, because if the killer saw anyone in uniform he'd wait until they left the area.
Hat tip to reader David McCleary....
Civil War resource
Just found that Nat'l Park Service has an online search capability for Civil War troopers' records.
Fight for L.A. City Atty position
Carmen Trutanich, partner to pro-gun attorney Chuck Michel, is one of the last two contenders, and the race is getting pretty combative:
"Trutanich cast Weiss as a legal “novice” with little to show for his two terms on the City Council. Weiss hammered Trutanich for representing polluters and sharing a law practice with an attorney for the National Rifle Association, among other gun groups.
At various points during the hour-and-a-half debate, Weiss stood inches from Trutanich, jabbing his finger in the air and demanding that Trutanich disclose all of his firm’s clients.
“You are a walking, talking conflict of interest. You need to tell the people of this city who the conflicts are, and how much its going to cost us,” Weiss said, arguing that the city would be forced to spend millions of additional dollars on outside counsel if any of Trutanich’s former clients faced the city in court. “Please do us a favor now, rather than on July 1, of fessing up on who your clients are."
“Here’s a guy who is in the back pocket of almost every developer in the city telling me to disclose something?” Trutanich retorted. Questioning Weiss’s accomplishments, he continued: “He fell asleep on his shovel and woke up to run for city attorney. There’s an entitlement about him -- he feels he’s entitled to this job and he’s not, because he’s done nothing to deserve it.”"
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
More on border wars
A few days ago I posted to the FoxNews story, showing the falsity of claims that 85-90% of guns seized in Mexico come from the US (the 85-90% figure only includes those the Mexican government asks ATFE to trace, which logically are guns they already figure came from the US. If all guns seized in Mexico are counted, the percent tracing to the US is only 17%. Even that is misleading, since the public announcements describe them as traced to a US dealer, when any gun ever sold in the US will trace to a dealer (even if it was a completely legit sale years ago, and the gun was stolen from the buyer last month and sold by the thief).
But the refuted narrative lives on. Even in stories where you'd expect someone to ask "how are the cartels getting hand grenades and full autos in the US?"
From the Chicago Tribune:
"An estimated 90 percent of guns used in Mexican crimes were acquired in the U.S., and the illegal flow has begun to include more grenades and other military-style arms."
"According to U.S. law-enforcement officials, about 75 percent of guns that end up in Mexico are bought in the border states of Arizona, California and Texas. Officials say, however, that one significant pipeline feeding eastern Mexico begins in Illinois.
.......
Law-enforcement officials say the .38 caliber handgun had typically been the weapon of choice for drug traffickers. Now facing an increased Mexican military presence and an arms race among rival gangs, they are turning to weapons such as AK-47 rifles and even grenades."
From the Associated Press:
"The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has traced 95 percent of the weapons seized at the scenes of Mexican drug violence back to the U.S. The weapons are growing in power and include .50-caliber Barrett rifles and ammunition that can pierce the armor of Mexican soldiers and police."
The Economist adds some flights of fancy:
"Mexican police claim that since the ban lapsed in 2004, the cartels have become much more powerfully armed: of 30,000 guns they have seized since December 2006, 15,000 are assault weapons, nearly all bought at the 7,500 or so gun shops on the American side of the border."
At least Eric Holder must have read the FoxNews report, since he's getting evasive on the numbers (albeit avoiding the real figure of 17%). The AFP reports:
"More than 6,400 people have died since the start of last year in drug-related bloodshed in Mexico that experts say is fed by easy access to guns of which some 90 percent are supplied by the United States.
"It almost doesn't matter if it's 60 percent, 70 percent or 90 percent. The reality is that too many weapons are flowing from the United States and into Mexico," said US Attorney General Eric Holder."
Sen. Ensign gets support for DC gun ban repeal
From some TSA screeners.
Central Florida's not a good spot for robbers
It's just not hospitable for that trade.
"A pharmacist shot an armed robber dead Tuesday at a drugstore off South Orange Blossom Trail, the Orange County Sheriff's Office said.
It was at least the fourth time this year that a robber was killed at a Central Florida business and was the second drugstore holdup that ended in death."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Crossbow assault
Story here. "Police said alcohol fueled the incident." No kidding -- the argument was over whether a dog was a pit bull or a lab.
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (4)
Oregon Universities bar student for lawful carry
Story here. Apparently the student has been informed that, not only is he suspended from the U he was attending, but he is barred from attending any State university in Oregon.
Drug cartel story in WashPo
Story here.
Two notes:
"Holder agreed that the "vast majority" of weapons used by the cartels come from north of the border."
and
"Holder [added] that the United States is not seeking to change any of its gun laws to slow weapons smuggling."
The government will protect you...
Via Instapundit comes this report of a lawsuit brought by a NY subway rape victim. Two subway personnel saw it, and their response was to send a message for someone to call the police.
As Glenn Reynolds notes, "Eric Holder talked about a “nation of cowards.” This is the real thing."
GREAT coverage of guns and Mexico
On FoxNews. A great story that I'd say is the definitive piece to date, and will remain so for quite a time.
An interesting comparison....
Latest data for the adjacent States of Maryland and Virginia. Virginia, whose laws are gun-friendly, "is the 14th safest state in the country, improving its position for a fourth consecutive year."
Maryland, which is NOT gun-friendly, "has the second highest murder and robbery rate in the country, with Baltimore being the 12th more dangerous city in America."