Some Gunnie News

Been out of town for Christmas, and being doing a lot of shoveling.

Thought I’d share two stories I’d found that have ties to the 2nd Amendment fight.

First is one that dropped before the Holiday:

President Trump’s nominee to be the Pentagon’s health chief has withdrawn from consideration after a Senate panel stalled his confirmation over comments on gun control.

What did he say?

Winslow was asked about shooting during the hearing, to which he replied: “But I also would like to, and I may get in trouble with other members of the committee, just say how insane it is that, in the United States of America, a civilian can go out and buy a semi-automatic assault rifle like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used.”

Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) interjected, telling Winslow, “I don’t think that’s in your area of responsibility or expertise.”

Now the anti-gun forces were pushing this at the NRA stifling political speech or some such nonsense….even they knew it was a nutty position, as I can’t find this story on anti-gun channels anymore.

Really this was a guy who decided to speak up during a confirmation hearing about something that had NOTHING to do with any chain of questioning, or the job he was hoping for.

Better yet he knows that talking about gun control was controversial, he SAID SO, and then said it anyway. Now I can make some speculation on the popularity of the anti-gun side here, but that isn’t fair. What this guy displayed was he has remarkably bad judgement, and nobody wants a lose cannon in a position of authority. (Irony noted given this guy is a TRUMP nominee)

You all know me as a libertarian-leaning gun-rights advocate, but I’m also a Scientist….guess what I never talk about when I interview for a science position….
If I spend my time in an interview talking about politics guess who isn’t getting the job!

Next is this story from the People’s Republik of Massachusetts:

During a six-month investigation, Boston obtained police records through a public information request and examined 618 shootings over 994 days, from the start of 2014 through September 20, 2016. The results were staggering: During that time frame, Boston police had arrested fewer than 4 percent of gunmen involved in non-fatal shootings.

Gee that’s an awful lot of people shot in what is the most gun unfriendly state in the Union. Of course the antis ALWAYS say “But the guns are coming from the gun friendly states!”

Nope The vast bulk of traced firearms come from INSIDE the state, and the “Time-to-crime” numbers is over ELEVEN YEARS! That is not an iron pipeline, that is just people changing residences over time, and their guns moving with them.

Still another interesting point was how the story was framed:

No matter how you parse the numbers, though, one thing has become alarmingly clear: Shooting someone is not a punishable offense in Boston—so long as the victim doesn’t die.

Interesting angle…except:

Not that the BPD is doing such a great job of locking up murderers, either: During the same time period, police made arrests in barely 15 percent of fatal shootings.

I mean 15% is better than 4%, but that’s ARRESTS not convictions, and overall those numbers are SHIT.

Really this story isn’t about gun laws or guns….it’s about GANGS. See if I went out and murdered somebody, everybody on the planet would be gunning for me. My own wife would turn me in if she suspected I had committed a murder. That’s how it works in law-abiding America.

In the criminal underworld violence takes the place of most of our legal system. If you’re selling drugs, women, or having a turf war you can’t talk to the police, your lawyer, or the zoning board, you have to use violence, so when somebody uses violence in the bad neighborhoods, it’s considered “Business” by many.

Well really not MANY, as even in the worst parts of Boston or any other violent city the vast majority of people living there are good people with no options. These people know the gangs and know who’s doing what, but if they tell the police, they’re now a “Snitch”, and while Thug A might go away for murder, his posse is still in the neighborhood, and they will not treat prosecution witnesses kindly….or members of their family who had NOTHING to do with anything. That’s a LOT of incentive to keep mum, and that is why most violent crime goes unsolved in the gang-infested cities.

But about those poor good people with few options….there is where a gun rights angle comes in. See the anti-gun cycle goes like this, take an area that is high crime (generally doesn’t hurt if the crime is minority members either) and blame the crime on weapons (I say weapons, not guns, because remember, not only can you not carry a gun in a place like New York City, but you also can’t carry a pocket knife, and most urban areas have stupid weapon laws banning everything from “Gravity Knives” to Nunchaku.) and disarm the legal population. The criminals both have their guns, but also violence in general, so they can still shoot, stab, and stomp the life out of each other, as well do horrible horrible things to anybody who might help the police get the violence under control.

Well with the victim pool expanded and the criminals empowered violent crime goes UP, so the antis call for MORE gun control…..when really we need to empower the good people to fight back. Those horrible arrest numbers show that the cops are never there to save the day, so the person to protect the streets are the men and women living on it.

For the time being that is all wishful thinking as it will take federal laws to overturn this cycle of violence, and the politicians that represent the area are supporting it for a reason.

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Some Gunnie News

  1. Divemedic says:

    Similar indirect tactics are used in gun friendly areas. For example:
    Allow victims of a shooting to sue the owner of the property where they were shot. However, you also pass laws that hold the property owner harmless if they prohibit weapons on their property.
    Since corporations are required by law to maximize profit, it is a no brainer:
    If one person shoots another, even in lawful self defense, the property owner is legally liable, unless weapons are prohibited on the property. If weapons are prohibited, then the property owner is safe.
    We are seeing this play out in Vegas: the casinos are installing metal detectors so they can avoid legal liability.

  2. Angus McThag says:

    Just so long as the bills to fix the situation are sufficiently pure and without compromise…

    Oh wait…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *