Tom Gabor: Firearms Owner Licensing. A Weer’d Fisk

So Mike Weisser is likely crazy, and definitely anti-gun. Still he did what I consider a great thing, he’s opened his blog up to other anti-gunners to preach propaganda, and the occasional gun article written by an out-of-touch anti-gun Elmer Fudd.

One of his latest guest articles is by Dr. Thomas Gabor. Dr. Gabor is a criminologist from Canada who now lives in Florida. In case you’re curious on how much of an anti-gun nut Tom is, I did a two-part Audio Fisk of him on the Gunblog Variety Cast, episodes can be found here and here. Needless to say he’s the type of anti-gun nut we’ve gotten so used to. He’s for ANY proposal that inconveniences bothers, or restricts guns or gun owners….but he claims to “Support the 2nd Amendment and Gun Owners”. Further since he has a science background he uses that to twist facts and data to support his agenda at every step of the way…but from time-to-time he just gets lazy and outright lies.

So yeah his latest article on Mike’s Website can be found here (FYI there is a semi-open comments section, last I checked Mike had it moderated, but he’s since banned me), also Tom has been backpedaling on some of the statements he made, which is also amusing.

So let’s dive into the fisk:

America has a grave gun violence problem. Gun deaths are approaching 40,000 per year, mass shootings are occurring daily and they are becoming more lethal.

This is his first line, and it’s total crap. Of course “Gun Violence” and “Gun Death” are meaningless terms. Nobody really lives their lives considering them, unless of course they are lobbying against the 2nd Amendment. No REAL people are concerned with VIOLENCE! They care if there are a lot of ATTACKS, or MURDERS. Really if somebody up the street from you is murdered that’s a concern, if they were shot, stabbed, or beaten with a spitting maul that’s irrelevant. Same goes with mass violence, somebody shoots up a church people get upset….and somebody mows down people with a truck same reaction, only there isn’t a corporate anti-truck lobby.

“Gun Deaths” are not APPROACHING 40,000. This is like saying “The Rock of Gibraltar is Approaching North Africa”, no the rock has been sitting there at the very edge of Europe since long before humans, and likely it will be in approximately the same spot after we have all departed this world. “Gun Deaths” have been stagnant at about 36-38,000 deaths per year as far back as I’ve looked at the numbers.

Also Mass shootings are NOT occurring daily, the anti-gun groups have been tweaking the definition of “Mass Shooting” until it no longer resembles what we think of as a “Mass Shooting”, but we still think Mass Shooting when somebody brings out that bullshit term.

Las Vegas was a Mass Shooting, Sutherland Springs was a mass shooting. These events are SO rare they dominate the news for WEEKS….there was not a “Mass Shooting” Every day. Further they are NOT more deadly because the “Gun Death” numbers are stagnant. Tom is playing a little game by taking statistically very rate events and implying trends because of them.

Think of it this way, I suspect if you look at per-capita murder rates in Texas, Sutherland Springs will rank pretty darn high. It is a small town, and it had a MASSIVE mass murder in it, so looking at this one point in time you could imply that you are more likely to be murdered in Sutherland Springs than you are in say Houston….except Houston is a MUCH more dangerous city….but it has a HUGE population, so all the gang violence gets smoothed out in the rate.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill, currently making its way through Congress at the behest of the National Rifle Association, represents a complete disregard for public safety and the desire of the public for tighter gun laws. This bill would make it lawful to carry guns across state lines, even if the state issuing a permit has very weak requirements for permit holders relative to the state the permit holder is visiting.

Well except there aren’t any of problems one might predict in states that have looser concealed carry requirements. The logical predictions is that Constitutional Carry states, and States that don’t require firearms training, or require minimal training for a carry permit MUST have: Higher Accidental Death, Higher negligent homicide rates, and higher fraudulent self defense cases.

Of course none of this is true, because mandatory training is ALWAYS bullshit, I’ve talked about it here, force somebody to do something and they will do JUST what it takes to pass whatever test you demand and no more, so the level of training is really irrelevant, people who care about safety will make it a top concern, and people who aren’t concerned about safety will disregard their training.

This is why we need to pass National Reciprocity (well besides the fact that I hate having to disarm when I travel and maintain multiple permits) is that when this bill passes NOTHING BAD WILL HAPPEN, and the antis lose another fear tactic.

The US needs stronger not weaker national laws. Studies show that states with more permissive laws tend to have higher, not lower, gun death rates than states with more stringent requirements.

Here is another fun little game Tom is playing with data. This “Study” looked at a snapshot of states with their laws and their “gun death” rates. They did NOT look at these states over TIME as they passed more and more restrictive laws. As we know no firearms restriction has ever been followed by a significant violent crime reduction. Also nobody seems to point out that the data set is a total mess. For example Massachusetts is considered one of “Safest” states on the list, and of course we have the most gun restrictions….except we’re bordered by Vermont and New Hampshire which are the most gun FRIENDLY states in the WORLD, not just the nation. I can’t think of any other place you can be that allows you the most gun freedom as Vermont and New Hampshire, and you’d be hard pressed to find a place safer, and they are VASTLY safer than Massachusetts.

Of course Massachusetts has a bigger population, more diversity, more population density etc etc…..excuses excuses the overall take-away is violent crime numbers have NOTHING to do with guns or gun laws.

Virtually every other advanced country has a national licensing system that is substantially stronger in vetting gun owners than the standard checks undertaken in a matter of minutes in the US at the point of sale. Just over a dozen states have some form of licensing requirement.

This is what Tommy is hanging his hat on. He wants to license gun owners. I told you he was a nut! Of course Tom mentions in the comment section that this is a complete fantasy, and in no way is there any logical way this law could be passed….but it begs the question….why write a post on it.

Of course you can beg the question of me as well, why am I typing now? Simple, this is what hard-core anti-gun nuts fantasize about, and by God if we give them an inch, this, as well as their constant dream of door-to-door confiscation, and deploying the Predator Drones on their enemies, these fantasies will become reality.

Still I was scratching my head when he said “Just over a dozen states have some form of licensing requirement.” Really? I mean he’s told some REAL whoppers, and I’m only about half way through what is a very short article.

I found what is maybe his source materiel, from the Gabby Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Rule Number 1 of being an anti-gun nut, only cite sources from other anti-gun nuts….even better is FUND anti-gun research so you can essentially cite yourself!)

To sum it up, NO. Just Massachusetts and Illinois have the type of license Tom is asking for, and even Illinois doesn’t have much for their FOID requirements. And again Massachusetts and Illinois, states that are MORE dangerous than Vermont and New Hampshire.

Also their “Fact” sheet has some bit about a Massachusetts Permit to Purchase Handguns that is valid for 10 days….no clue what the hell they’re talking about there. I don’t know the other states’ laws intimately enough to know if there are other errors, but putting something like that in there implies that there probably are.

So here are Tom’s Fantasies for what he wants to subject EVERY SINGLE GUN OWNER IN AMERICA to.

A comprehensive screening process undertaken by a designated law enforcement agency, including an in-person interview. Currently, there is no licensing requirement at the federal level and the typical background check at the time of sale, appropriately referred to as an “Instant Background Check”, involves a search of three FBI databases and takes just minutes to complete.

What does this accomplish? Now there are lots of states that require in-person interviews for concealed weapons permits….but these are the insane anti-gun states, and generally it means they won’t issue you a gun, or they will, and the in-person shit is just to annoy you. Seriously, I used to live in Medford Massachusetts, and they deny LITERALLY EVERYBODY, and my current town, is essentially a may issue permit.

What is the in-person supposed to do? Since he gives no reason, I’ll assume its what such interviews were used for in the past: Looking at skin color, and seeing if you might be poor. Sorry Tom, but that’s how gun control has worked in the past, Medford has a lot more diverse population than my current one, and one issues carry permits and the others don’t, there’s a town with a large black and Hispanic population near me…oddly they don’t issue permits either! Funny how that works.

People often talk about how gun-friendly Texas and Florida are, except I’m from Maine, Northern New England never bothered with gun laws, and never has had much issue to, meanwhile the Southern States birthed gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of former slaves….well that an Nazi laws imported to the United States. Gun Control is racist at its heart, so if you somehow have other motivations, you must state them.

Sign off by the applicant’s current or former domestic partner (where applicable) attesting to his stability and lack of violence.

In the comments Tom clarifies this isn’t an ex-wife Veto, they just need her signature…..which is the same as a Veto.
Again unless there is some form of documented domestic abuse, this is subject to all sorts of problems with due process.

Successful completion of gun safety training (through written and performance-based tests), including training in the operation, safe use, handling, and storage of firearms (including child access prevention) and in laws relating to the appropriate use of force;

See above, mandatory training is crap, and there is NO evidence that it does ANYTHING.

Reference checks in which the applicant’s mental fitness and use of alcohol and drugs would be probed

Who is going to do all this work? More on this later!

Certificate of mental aptitude from a psychologist or other accredited professional if he or she is under 26 years of age.

I’ve never been evaluated by a psychologist, never had the need…but Tommy is going to send me to the shrink, because us gun nuts need it! Oh and who’s going to PAY for that?

A waiting period of 10 business days for receipt of the license would allow those bent on harming others or themselves to let their anger or self-destructive feelings dissipate.

Another anti-gun myth. Waiting periods arose from the early days of the Brady Background Check. Back in those days it took 5 business days to buy a gun from a gun shop. See, in those days rather than phone or internet, the background check went through the MAIL, and that takes time. There was NEVER a waiting period for emotional “cooling off”, that was later invented by anti-gun states when the National Instant Check System (NICS) came into law, and the waiting period was scrapped. See anti-gun states can NEVER allow anything that gun owners approve of, so they invented a lame-brain story that people might walk into a gun shop angry and buy a gun to kill somebody RIGHT NOW. Not only is it pure fantasy, bit it also has never happened.

So this all leads to an elephant in the room, who’s going to do all this work? That’s a LOT of extra background check work, as well as interview time. Plus who’s going to get forms to ex spouses….double when you think about child support deadbeats. And who’s paying for the time in the shrink couch?

Remember there are already a HUGE number of lawful gun owners in America, and this a LOT of work. Of course Tom could give two shits about that, he HATES gun owners, and if this becomes a colossal boondoggle, fuck them!

And I saved the best for last!

The license would be valid for 5 years.

WHY? Jesus, make this colossal task, and have it expire in 5 years? Remember, this is for GUN OWNERSHIP, so if you’re wait listed 6 months with the shrink, and 4 months with your chief of police and your permit expires…..YOU GO TO PRISON! This isn’t like the time it took 2 extra months for my Maine carry permit to renew (Thankfully you don’t need one of those anymore), this meant a few trips to Maine where I didn’t bring a gun with me. But I still OWNED GUNS, and without Tom’s little permit, that would be a CRIME.

But let’s finish him off!

Some readers will look at this proposal and think it represents government overreach or violates the Second Amendment. It is neither. Many other advanced countries have requirements that are at least as exacting, if not more so.

These other countries don’t have a right to keep and bear arms! When people make claims that positive voter ID is illegal, how on EARTH can this be legal?

Simple, because Tom says so, and he’s a nut! This is your anti-gun nut!

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

5 Responses to Tom Gabor: Firearms Owner Licensing. A Weer’d Fisk

  1. Curtis Cook says:

    Thanks for posting this. I am going through serious withdrawal from having my weekly dose of “This week in anti-gun nuttery” cut off.

  2. Angus McThag says:

    One sure fire way to tell that someone isn’t defending the 2nd amendment is for them to enthusiastically gush about the laws of nations that have no right to arms whatsoever.

  3. Divemedic says:

    The psychologist rule is there for one reason: if there is ever a shooting carried out by a person who has been examined, the antis are going to sue the shrink. Since the shrink is not engaged in the gun business, he or she is not protected by the lawful commerce in arms act.
    After that doctor gets sued into the poorhouse, you will not find another in the entire nation who will sign off. Defacto gun ban complete.

  4. mike w. says:

    Here in DE the “put an ad in the paper saying you’re applying for a permit” requirement can, and has in some cases, lead to some crazy ass ex-girlfriend / wife telling our issuing authority so and so shouldn’t get a permit. This happening is pretty much a guarantee that you will not get your permit, because the Judge who signs your permit is going to go into full CYA mode and not issue it, even if the wife/gf is just a crazy vengeful nut who wants to make things hard for you out of spite.

Leave a Reply

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