“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.
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.
*Maybe I spoke too soon, but I did say “sane”:
**Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings
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.
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:
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.
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.