Wednesday, August 27, 2008
An Open Letter to Anti-Gun People
In short, a man checked into the same hotel that Nancy Pelosi was in. He was preparing for a hunting trip in Africa and carried cased rifles and had handguns in his luggage. The Secret Service and Denver Police arrested the man on concealed weapons charges, took him to jail, and let him out on a $10,000.00 bond. Pelosi congratulated law enforcement for their quick action.
There’s no evidence in the article that the man presented any sort of threat to Pelosi. Not only that, there’s no evidence he broke any laws. (I will grant you, that we’re talking about a newspaper article and they don’t always get the story straight.)
His guns were unloaded and in locked cases or suitcases. That’s exactly how the TSA lets gunowners transport guns in checked luggage. It’s how gun-fearing states like Massachusetts says we must transport guns to a range. He was following the law.
He was arrested because of arbitrary law enforcement. Granted, the Secret Service has to take executive protection very seriously. But, given the facts as we know them, did they have to arrest the man? Couldn’t they have interviewed him and suggested the hotel lock up his firearms?
Unless there’s some unreported fact, he won’t be convicted of anything. He will need a lawyer, probably cancel his hunting trip (possibly losing money), and he suffered the indignity of arrest.
Let me explain my chagrin in a way that even the most ardent gun hater will understand. Let’s imagine you’re driving 63 mph in an area clearly marked 65 mph. It’s a sunny day, there’s no construction, and traffic’s light. A cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket for speeding. He tells you that he thinks the speed limit should be 55 because it’s safer and saves gas. You fight the ticket and win, but you lose time in court and at least some of your trust in law enforcement.
Law-abiding gunnies by definition follow your laws—some of which make no sense at all. Even when we do that, we still get arrested. Is it going to get to the point where we can be arrested for even thinking about a gun? Is that what we’re coming to? Do we really want to allow cops and federal agents to arrest anyone on a whim?
I thought we were a nation of laws agreed to by our representatives. I thought that if we followed those laws we could have freedom within those well-defined limitations. I hope I’m not wrong, because if I am, then tyranny or strife lies ahead.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Criminals and Gun Skills
- Some criminals start to carry a gun from 9 to 12 years old;
- Nearly 40% of offenders have formal firearms training, primarily military;
- More than 80% practice more than 23 times a year;
- More than 40% had been involved in earlier shooting incidents;
- Offenders fully expect to kill or be killed and have little or no moral or ethical restraints;
- Most carry their guns in their front of their pants without a holster;
- Whatever handgun that is available is their weapon of choice;
- Some have a female companion carry a gun for them;
- Criminals laugh at gun laws.
What surprised me most in the study was the finding about practice and formal training. Too often we gunnies picture criminals as holding their guns sideways, being untrained, and never practicing.
Instead, we see a picture of criminals practicing about twice a month. We find that a large minority of them have professional training. That suggests that those with training are able to teach those who don’t have that training. Also, in a confrontation with more than one criminal, a female may have a gun that she can pass to her boyfriend or shoot you herself.
This is a very clear picture of armed criminals. It is also very sobering. While it is better to face these miscreants armed, remember that they are likely to have real street combat experience and possibly more training and practice than you. As they said on Hill Street Blues, “Let’s be careful out there.”
Monday, August 04, 2008
A Good Use for BATFE
I am an animal lover, but I don't think "a pig is dog is a boy." We should never be intentionally cruel to animals who can and do suffer. But scientists must be able to do research (not necessarily test cosmetics) on animals. We are also omnivores and we must use animals for meat. We also keep pets and dogs and humans have been together for a long, long time (cats only less so). Such are the facts of life and these animal activists need to grow up.