Check your privilege Chelsea

My armed guards aren’t killing children and don’t have semi automatic weapons.
— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) March 28, 2018

I’m not sure who she is, but she obviously thinks she has a right to physical protection. I agree with that bit. Unfortunately, I can’t afford armed guards.

My armed guard (me) sometimes carries a semi-automatic handgun and sometimes a revolver. In both cases, one squeeze of the trigger produces one discharge. The main difference is that my usual semi-auto carry holds 7 rounds and my usual revolver carry holds only 5.

If I were hired to defend someone else, I’d be less concerned about comfortable carry. I’d be much less concerned that someone could tell I had a firearm: Maybe it’s a deterrent if you realize someone has a professional armed guard you have to shoot first?

Since I’d be more concerned about multiple assailants, I’d definitely carry something that held 10 or more rounds: I.e., a larger semi-auto. If Ms. Handler’s guards aren’t doing so, then she should fire them.

I’m not shooting any children, either.

So. She thinks she should be allowed to pay someone else to defend her, and that I should not be allowed to defend myself.

No. If I can’t defend myself with a gun, Ms. Handler can’t be allowed to let someone else defend her with one.

And, you know what? If I thought I needed armed guards, I’d still carry my own. Especially then.

No one sane

Not the NRA; not people who voted for Donald Trump; not people who own guns, who like country music or pickup trucks: No one* wants it to be possible for a Stephen Paddock to murder even one person with a gun. However, none of the political policies put forward to ban or restrict weapons and ammunition actually address the problem. No one proposing them is able to say what set of laws could have prevented the Las Vegas massacre. They appeal to magical thinking.**

There’s a good reason for that. From the Washington Post:
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Leah Libresco is a person who dislikes guns, but she follows the evidence instead of the cynical talking points.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

I don’t expect this article will change the calculations of politicians and anti-Second Amendment types who can’t bear wasting any fundraising crisis, but any reasonable person – especially including those who dislike firearms – will gain from reading it.

Thank you, Leah Libresco, for your courage and honesty.

Read the whole thing, and the links there are also worth checking out.

Update, 1:25PM
*Maybe I spoke too soon, but I did say “sane”:

**Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings

“The images were not intended to portray Sen. Cruz in a negative light”

No, they were intended to suggest he should be shot in the head for speaking in favor of the Second Amendment. Or, if he was shot in the head, it would at least be deserved.

For Progressives, this:

Proved Sarah Palin was a deranged would be assassin.

While this:

Photo (by Charlie Neibergall) proves the Associated Press is an unbiased news organization.

Doubt it? Then name me a Progressive who’s complained that the picture of Ted Cruz promotes gun violence.

OK, let’s say you cheated and named yourself. The second requirement is to tell me what you think would have happened if, instead of Cruz, it had been Mrs. Bill or this guy:

Celebrating "Stimulus"

Today is the 5th anniversary of the President’s monetary stimulus, but at TOC we’re celebrating the only Obama stimulus that actually worked.

It created jobs, boosted private sector manufacturing and encouraged people to appreciate the Bill of Rights. Of course, none of that was intentional.

It’s tapering now, but the results are still far above pre-stimulus levels. CNN would have you believe otherwise in their headline, Gun sales are plunging, but the real story is a bit different:

Gun sales are dropping this year, according to FBI stats, but they still exceed sales from before Obama’s reelection and the Newtown massacre…

Though gun sales have dropped from their peak last year, they’re still outperforming monthly sales that preceded Obama’s reelection, said Lawrence Keane, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry group based in Newtown.

For example, the tally of 1.66 million gun sales in January, 2014 is significantly higher than the 1.38 million sold in January, 2012.

“So we have come down from the peak but the valley floor is higher than before Nov 2012,” said Keane, in an email to CNNMoney. “The consumer base has grown. This is because for the past few years, retailers tell us that about 25% of customers at the checkout counter are first-time buyers.”

There are only so many first time buyers, but I’m guessing many of them will eventually want another gun.

Ammo sales have also tapered off:

“Customers shifted away from ammunition more sharply than we expected,” said Cabela’s Chief Executive Officer Tommy Millner…

Maybe the prices will fall back, too.

Duh

A Washington Post editorial today begins with the sentence, “ONE UNSETTLING result of the debate over gun violence has been a spike in firearm purchases.”

Actually: One predictable result of government threats to force gun owners to buy special liability insurance, place confiscatory taxes on ammunition, ban firearms because of their appearance and limit the sale of normal capacity magazines has been more citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

There, fixed that for you, WaPo.

War on women

#MarissaAlexander I’ve never really understood why armed self-defense isn’t taught at domestic violence shelters.

A Florida woman faces prison after firing a warning shot to scare off an abusive husband.

Perhaps something other than a warning shot would have been more appropriate. After all, the serial abuser of women says he would have tried to take the gun away if his sons hadn’t been there.

He’s likely lying. I don’t think he was worried about setting a bad example for his sons by beating a woman in front of them. He was worried about getting shot.

Vast and Curious

On the heels of their claims that 90% of weapons supplied to Mexican drug gangs originate from the collusion of BATFE DoJ rogue US firearms dealers with HSA officials FBI informants purchasers who failed the National Instant Criminal Background Check, the Obama administration is preparing new anti-2nd Amendment proposals:

“As you know, the President directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve Americans’ safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights.”
-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, July 7.

Carney’s right – if the stakeholders are straw purchasers abetted by BATFE, if working groups are Mexican drug cartels and if shipping weapons to Mexico is a common-sense measure that respects human life.

Otherwise, not so much.

Carney unaccountably failed to euphemize “public/private partnership” and “smart diplomacy.” The former is BATFE using “stimulus” funds to mount an operation forcing firearms retailers to make sales they knew were bogus; the latter is DoJ failing to inform the Mexican authorities.

I wonder if the jobs “created or saved” by the Gunwalker stimulus expenditure is greater than the number of lives “negated or destroyed” as a result.

Update: 4:20PM
Mark Steyn: It’s time to re-aim our pitchforks

Best sentence:

“Stimulus dollars went to fund one federal agency to buy guns for the paid informants of another federal agency to funnel to foreign criminals in order that the first federal agency might identify the paid informants of the second federal agency.”

That’s the most concise and lucid explanation of Gunwalker/”Fast and Furious” you’re ever going to see.

Mexican firepower II

Another Murder Linked to US Gunwalker Case

This really isn’t news if you have been following Gunwalker, and it isn’t fair to blame the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the murders of US Border Agent Brian Terry or Mario Gonzalez Rodriguez. The thugs who killed these men, and many other Americans and Mexicans, would have used other weapons – probably firearms smuggled across Mexico’s border with Guatemala – if BATFE had not sanctioned the weapons they did use. The brutal and violent evil bastard Mexican drug thugs probably would have preferred to commit the murders with full automatic AK-47s instead of the semi-automatic “variants” BATFE intentionally put into their hands.

The egregious part of this is not that people died. It is that BATFE, the Presidents of the United States and Mexico, and the US Secretary of State all claimed drug-fueled firearm violence in Mexico should be blamed on the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. These sly and disingenuous evil bastards were clamoring for suppression of Americans’ civil rights based on false information they promulgated.

TOC has commented on this multiple times. Here are two of those posts.

There is not a better argument for abandoning the failed and costly “War on Drugs,” nor for disbanding BATFE. There is also an argument here for Mexican officials to increase their own southern border security rather than actively subverting ours.