01/06/13

The Great American Novel

Sorry this is so long, but I got carried away. I Promise I won't write about guns again, unless they really piss me off again.

I grow weary of discussing gun control. I truly do. I started back in the 1970’s when I was the rabid liberal and thought all guns should be taken out of the hands of the public. I took it up again in the 80’s, with a somewhat different perspective and conclusion. And by the 90’s I was completely caught up in the controversy along with the rest of the good folks in this country. This debate has continued, with some increase and decrease since then, with a considerable growth in volume and ferocity. And in case you haven’t noticed, the subject has surfaced again.

I’ve learned some things along the way. In these past 40 years I’d hope I learned something. I’ve been taught a few things, been indoctrinated about a few others, and have sought out information when it has been available, not being one to always believe that which others have wanted me to think. I don’t claim any absolute truths here. One thing I have learned is that there are few absolute truths in this world. In fact, the most important thing I have learned is that when an absolute truth is presented to me, I’d best check it out, for guess what…absolute truths often have the very least truth attached to them.

Going back to my mind in the 70’s, I see an optimist, a sheltered, reasonably well educated and socialized young professional, who watched and read the news, discussed issues with friends.  Presumably I was an asset to the community. For instance, I voted for Dianne Feinstein a couple of times, for the Sierra Club liked her, and she had pushed through the preservation of large tracts of wild country I thought worth saving. And she had argued for a handgun ban in San Francisco, and everything I had heard from my friends and seen in the newspapers and on TV had taught me that handguns were pure evil, the scourge of mankind, and of course they should be banned.

It was only much later, when I learned that Ms Feinstein had a concealed carry permit in those days, and this was because she felt she was entitled to protection. Then later when she got those armed guards, those armed guards that she still has, I began to wonder again about her honesty. For she was trying to disarm people who thought they also needed protection, but these were those who could not afford armed guards and didn’t have the influence in government to get most anything they wanted, like the people in the ruling elite. People like Ms Feinstein.

Later, I discovered that that bit of land in Utah that Ms Feinstein managed to preserve from mining, scenic land that I wished protected, just happened to hold a precious mineral much in demand in this country. Imagine my surprise to find that the mining company in Southeast Asia that supplied this mineral to our country was owned by her wealthy husband. Excuse me for being human here, but I kinda lost faith in the lady senator’s honesty around then.

Back in the 70’s it was expected that if you were a liberal, you were opposed to handguns in the hands of regular folks. Handguns were just for killing. No other purpose. They were more dangerous than most anything on earth. Kids picked em up and blew their little brains out every day. Only idiots and savages owned them, and all the rest of us were put at risk as a consequence. 

Heck, when Barney Miller came home from the police station on TV, the first thing he did, before kissing his lovely stay at home wife, was to unload his service revolver and lock it in that little drawer way up by the ceiling, and then lock those nasty bullets in the other little drawer way up over there, because even though they had no children, no grandchildren, no day care children in their apartment, and he didn’t get raging drunk every night and beat his wife, the TV made it clear that a handgun was so dangerous that if you didn’t lock it up un-loaded, somebody was going to get killed, and that really hurts.

Politicians, like Ms Feinstein told me that handguns were worthless and dangerous. So did the TV news, the newspapers, my friends, musicians and movie stars, and my teachers. And there was not a voice within hearing that even suggested any other view. This would be the indoctrination part. It was very effective.

I voted once to ban handguns in California. I thought that “Saturday Night Specials” should all be rounded up and melted. Imagine, an inexpensive killing machine like a “Saturday Night Special” could still be bought in California, and all it was good for was killing people.

It was only later that I learned that the proposed ban on “Saturday Night Specials” was essentially an attempt to disarm poor Black people down in the bad neighborhoods. It was little more than another example of the institutional racism I had thought I had been fighting for all those years. 

Ya see….there was a piece to the puzzle of life that I had missed out on for many years. It’s a little known fact, mostly ignored, or suppressed, depending upon one’s view of life I guess, whereby the use of a handgun to defend against crime is actually a common event. You won’t hear about this in the newspapers or the TV news. The politicians won’t mention this. Movie stars and musicians often pass right by this notion. Teachers will argue against even the thought. And your friends will look at you in total disbelief if you so much as mention it. Heck, somebody will email me tomorrow to take them off this weekly little gab session because I bring this up.

But some people actually think that a handgun in the house is more likely to help you defend yourself from a crime than it is to harm you or anyone you know. 

Blasphemy!

This is a minority view. I’ll concede that. The Department of Justice, the federal version, who keep track of the misuse of firearms by criminals and have a long history of downplaying any positive aspect of firearm ownership, estimated that firearms have been used to prevent crime as often as 110,000 times a year. Other than the usual “zero times” you are likely to get if you ask the media, or the likes of Ms Feinstein, this is about the lowest estimate you can find. One guy set out to survey random people to prove that defensive use of firearms is a myth came up with a result he didn’t expect, an estimate of defense against criminal attack… 2.5 million times a year. This on the plus side in case you are wondering.  This author was surprised. Others with different methodology came up with only .75 million.

Don’t look for this information in the Media or from Ms Feinstein.

They will argue against it, and have. Shortly after such numbers have been released, the Media and politicians have asked all the gun ban organizations to get their take on these numbers. Each and every one of the gun ban organizations has lambasted the conclusions of these studies. They are so sure of themselves that they rejected the conclusions often without even reading the studies.

I know, my paranoia here, right? Well…look into this. Read Gary Kleck and John Lott. Then check into the responses from the gun control advocates. It’s rather shameful.  Then come back and tell me I’m paranoid. Sure, we can argue the numbers, just how many times the good guys win, but the numbers are pretty solid that it’s mostly the good guys.

The next time a gun control issue shows up in the Media, such as the coverage of the recent school murders, take quiet note of the number of gun control advocates consulted and quoted in the stories. Note the slant of the story itself. Note the horror in the tone of the Media content. Note the Media editorials. And then notice how any opposition to the gun control stance is handled. If any shows at all, it will receive fewer words in print, less time on the air, and often you will not hear much more than a sound bite or two, and then a synopsis of the pro firearm stance by one or more opponents of such a stance. Our Media consults the opponents of firearm ownership to paraphrase the arguments that they oppose, rather than presenting to the public those arguments. 

Notice the nearly total absence of reports of crimes prevented or stopped by citizens with firearms. Note the near complete absence of reports of mass murders prevented or stopped by citizens with firearms. And try to avoid the temptation to disregard this request with some response that you have never heard of such defenses. You have just made my point.

You will notice that I am no longer the gun hating liberal I was in 1972. And for some reason, I am far more skeptical of politicians and the Media.

Consider the discussion about “Cop Killer Bullets” some time ago. Two guys invented a bullet intended for law enforcement use. Normal handgun bullets often deflect when fired into car windshields and doors. A denser metal bullet would penetrate better, and in the hands of the police could prove useful in urban settings. Somebody asked the developers if such a bullet might defeat the body armor that the police were beginning to wear, and from this the notion of a “Cop Killer Bullet” was born. 

Politicians and the Media smelled blood in the water, and turned a non-issue into the next great threat to civilization. NBC I believe, decided to televise a special intended to raise alarm among the general public, and over police protest, proceeded to give a primer to criminals on how to kill a police officer in a gun fight. The cops were thrilled. Politicians took the nonsense and ran with it, demanding a ban on every cartridge in America that could defeat the body armor of the day. In other word, virtually every hunting rifle cartridge. Some people objected to this draconian measure. They were of course, vilified in the Media. Hunters were all branded as cop killers.

The argument raged between people who saw this as a way to render so many firearms worthless, and the citizens who thought this un-necessary. Eventually, a law limiting the actual armor piercing bullet in question to use only by police was written. (In case you care, the dreaded demon known as the NRA helped congress write this sane law, which passed easily)

Oh, and after all the fuss, the sum total of police officers killed by “Cop Killer Bullets” remains at zero. And they haven’t been manufactured in years.

Mel Gibson used a “Cop Killer Bullet” in one of his movies a few years ago, after they were no longer made. Blew a hole through a bulldozer blade to kill the bad guy at the end of the movie. Clever trick, if a bit exaggerated. Mel doesn’t much like guns. He has made a fortune misusing them in his movies, but he doesn’t want us citizens to own any. He talks often of disarming all of us. 

Imagine that.

Mayor Blumberg mentioned “Cop Killer Bullets” the other day too. He thinks we should ban them. He doesn’t care that they do not exist. He has a few billion dollars and the ear of the Media, so he can say anything he wants. He presumably gets along well with Ms Feinstein as long as they are trying to disarm people.

Mel has used and misused machine guns to make a fortune in his movies. In a movie the bad guy with an Uzi sporting a thirty round magazine hoses down the neighborhood for a minute or two, in slow motion sometimes, burning up a few thousand rounds without reloading. The bad guy generally holds the Uzi with one hand while cradling his beer with the other. Mel fires back with an automatic rifle holding twenty rounds, launching back a few thousand bullets, blowing up cars and chopping down buildings.

I’m pretty convinced this is where the notion of “spraying bullets” came to be attached to the “Assault Weapons” ban idea. From stupid nonsense in movies. I’ve fired an Uzi. Legally I might add. I have some firearms experience, and yet I could not make a thirty round magazine last more than a second. It goes empty that fast. Course I didn’t try, for if you use that weapon like a hose, the recoil causes the muzzle to rise to the ceiling if you really don’t know what you are doing, and really knowing what you are doing doesn’t include holding the weapon with only one hand. “Spraying Bullets” from a machine gun is a movie myth. And by any definition, "Assault Weapons" are not machine guns.

The last “Assault Weapon” ban was kinda funny, looking back on it. Ms Feinstein is deadly serious with her “New Assault Weapon” ban. But we have to see what will come of this new one.

The last “Assault Weapon” ban left us gun owners a bit confused. I know a bunch of people who are extremely educated in firearms, and yet not one has ever owned, used, or seen an “Assault Weapon”. At least they don’t think they have. Sounds a bit weird, but firearms owners didn’t invent “Assault Weapons”. The Media and the politicians did. Maybe these folks know what an “Assault Weapon” might be, but the rest of us don’t. 

Mostly, it appears that this new “Assault Weapon” ban will again be a “whatever we want it to be” definition reminiscent of the “Cop Killer Bullet”. And since the Media will be educating the public on how they should view “Assault Weapons” this will become interesting. And since Ms Feinstein is pushing the deal again, honesty shall not likely rear its ugly head.

Last time, the Media chimed in with their usual distortions and lies. On the TV news you could watch discussion of the “Assault Weapon” ban with machine guns firing in the background and the spokespersons from all the gun ban organizations talking about how horrible these mythical weapons are, how they are the guns of choice among the gangs roving the inner city neighborhoods, the source of the pile of dead gang members clogging the streets, and the scourge of civilization. And the gun ban folks got to paraphrase the argument they expected back from the spokespersons opposed to the “Assault Weapons” ban, like they always do. All while we tried to figure out just what firearms they were talking about.

Ultimately, they settled on a buffet of firearms, some grenade launchers that were already illegal, machine guns that have been illegal since 1934, and a variety of models judged solely by what they looked like.

The Media propaganda blitz continued for a while. Pistols became “high-powered “even though they weren’t. “Military Style” became style, for like the models strutting down the walkway in designer gowns, appearance was everything. Suddenly a black colored rifle was more dangerous than it had been the day before. Twenty-two caliber rifles also became “High-powered”, and if they had magazines that “Nobody Needs To Hunt Deer” we had to remind them that such caliber rifles were not legal for deer in most states because they are not powerful enough for that.

The “Assault Weapons” ban didn’t remove a single firearm from the street. It did limit the sale of some for a short while, and some were no longer sold, but everything they called an “Assault Weapon” that existed before the law passed was still there when the law expired ten years later. In fact, virtually identical firearm continued to be sold throughout the ten years of the ban. Lots of them. A few cosmetic changes made them legal, which suited the spirit of the law. It was all about appearances, after all.

Ms Feinstein is making the rounds as we speak, touting the reduction in crime brought about by her first “Assault Weapons” ban. And presumably she is talking up the carnage she claims has washed across the nation since the ban expired. Ms Feinstein has an active imagination, but her pronouncements are echoed by the Media and those spokespersons from the gun ban groups. 

Crime rates, including murder rates, which presumably would be influenced by an “Assault Weapons” ban have been falling steadily since the very early 90’s. The number of firearms in the hands of American citizens has climbed consistently since then. The number of firearms identical to the banned “Assault Weapons” grew by the thousands each year of the ban. An estimated three million are in private hands. And crime rates and murder rates fell. Most city police department don’t track the numbers of crimes committed with “Assault Weapons” because they see so few. Which hasn’t changed since the onset of the ban, and hasn’t changed since the ban expired in 2004. But Ms Feinstein shouts that the ban has been so very effective, and its expiration an unmitigated disaster. Ms Feinstein is a bit full of it. But I guess you don’t have to believe me. I admit that I have an agenda.

As before, it is difficult to get much information from the people opposing the new “Assault Weapons” ban. It’s not that we don’t have much to say, but it definitely is in line with the influence of Media and politicians. Control of information is critical to the passage of the next “Assault Weapons” ban. And if anyone wants an opposing view, they will have to work to find it.

I was completely indoctrinated back in the 1970’s, and today I argue with people similarly “educated”. To them, I am an idiot because they have never seen or heard anything that opposes the point of view they’ve been fed. They point to the fall in crime and go…”SEE!” Dianne was right!

Well, lots of things probably resulted in the drop in crime. A ban that never actually happened doesn’t seem to be one of these. And heaven help ya if you mention all those statistics that suggest that concealed carry permits in all those states just might have contributed.

Oh, I know. We’re right back to how nasty those handguns are, and how they shouldn’t be in the hands of citizens. The studies quoted by Media and politicians show that those guns are a bazillion times more likely to kill the baby in its crib than to defend the people in the house. EVERYBODY knows this!!!

OK sorry. I’ll go back to my corner and put on the dunce cap. I’ve other statistics, but the folks who run the gun ban organizations all say these aren’t true. The Media echoes them, and the politicians prattle on.

Thirty nine states now have concealed carry. Some for twenty years. Five million carry permits have been issued. Crime and murder rates go down, faster than the trend already mentioned, and the numbers all began changing at the onset of the CCW permit laws, and continue to this day as more permits are issued. States without CCW don’t see the same changes. Not one state has even considered rescinding the permits. The number of accidents involving permitted people is nearly zero. The number of crimes committed by permitted people is nearly zero. The number of murders is so much lower than the general public that it would amaze and confuse the Media and politicians who predicted a slaughter. 

The gun control groups have looked at these statistics, and a rare few have actually acknowledged their results. Mostly however, they have chosen to attack the messengers rather than address their message, or to cherry pick and cook the numbers to suit their preconceived notions, rather than let the numbers speak. Liars can, it appears, figure. 

I won’t suggest that CCW permits are the sole source of the improvement, but I will suggest that the chaos and carnage predicted for states that adopt CCW by the Media, politicians, and gun ban spokespeople have not come to pass. And I will suggest that those Media, politicians and gun ban spokespeople might prosper from looking at the rise in crime and murder that seem to accompany most of the gun control measures they have foisted upon the citizens. For that would be kind of embarrassing.

Of course, when a gun control law fails to do what it was intended to do, the Media, politicians, and gun ban groups have a predictable response. They need more laws. And as long as the indoctrination succeeds, they will get them.

The numbers are there, but you will have to do your own work to find them. Subject to interpretation, certainly. I’m not talking absolute truths here, but guess what…the Media, politicians, and gun ban groups all spout absolute truths. And the best way to swallow absolute truth is not to ever question it. But is that the best way?