bearingarms--2020-05-22--Suicides, Lockdowns, And The Real Risks Involved

By now , we on the gun rights side are kind of sick of it .
In particular , we ’ re good and tired of guns being tied to suicides .
While few would argue that suicide is anything but a tragedy , it seems far too many people rate suicide as a gun problem , rather than a mental health issue .
Now , with the economy going down the toilet , some are warning that the list of people at risk is growing…but not among the “ gun culture , ” apparently .
More groups of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun suicide , according to new research from Columbia University Medical Center .
These include people with lower incomes , those living with disabilities , and people who are socially isolated .
The Columbia study found that per capita gun suicide rates were highest among men ( 14 per 100,000 ) , people with military service ( 21 per 100,000 ) and disabled individuals ( 14 per 100,000 ) .
But researchers found that other groups were also at risk , including people who were unemployed , separated or divorced — and experiencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center , and lead author of the new study , says we already knew from previous research that certain groups were at higher risk for gun suicide : older , white men , people living in rural areas , service members .
But Olfson says the study highlights other groups of high-risk people who may not have been traditionally recognized “ Some of these findings sort of connect with what we know about the membership of what might be loosely called ‘ gun culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of gun ownership , ” said Olfson .
“ And therefore it isn ’ t entirely surprising they are at increased risk for firearm suicide .
But there are also some risk factors in here that aren ’ t [ gun culture-related ] and that are just more general risk factors for suicide and [ we found ] those people as well are at increased risk.
” Of course , many of those same groups are also members of the gun culture .
We ’ re not monolithic as a single group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , it ’ s interesting that now it ’ s not just about the “ gun culture , ” suddenly it ’ s a problem .
The thing is , it ’ s a problem , and it ’ s going to be a bigger one going forward .
After all , how many of us were locked down for months over the coronavirus ?
Well , enough that suicide did more damage in California than COVID-19 did .
Doctors in Northern California say they have seen more deaths from suicide than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the pandemic .
“ The numbers are unprecedented , ” Dr. Mike deBoisblanc of John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek , California , about the increase of suicide deaths adding that he ’ s seen a “ year ’ s worth of suicides ” in the last four weeks alone .
DeBoisblanc said he believes it ’ s time for California officials to end the stay-at-home order and let people back out into their communities .
“ Personally , I think it ’ s time , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients .
We have the current resources to do that , and our other community health is suffering.
” Kacey Hansen , a trauma center nurse at John Muir Medical Center for over 30 years , says she ’ s not only worried about the increased suicide attempts but also about the hospital ’ s ability to save as many patients as usual .
“ What I have seen recently , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I have never seen so much intentional injury.
” It ’ s important to understand that every action has ramifications .
The Law of Unintended Consequences doesn ’ t care about pandemics .
Now , if the number of lives saved by a lockdown is greater than the lives lost , you can make the case that the lockdown made sense .
However , that seems unlikely .
After all , the quarantine procedures most of us endured didn ’ t seem to help places like New York , which leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly as effective as some wanted to make them out to be .
Couple that with the impact noted in California , then the wisdom of the lockdown needs to be discussed , especially since the suicides aren ’ t likely to end after the lockdown is lifted .
People have lost businesses , will probably lose homes , and a whole host of other things that can drive them deep into suicidal depression .
The true impact of the lockdown won ’ t be known for years .
But , that impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about “ gun suicides , ” we need to talk about suicides in general .
We need to stop trying to make this a partisan thing and examine whether the lockdown was the right call or not .
In some places , it may well have been .
In others , not so much .
I mean , why would California , which had a relatively mild outbreak , require the same protocols New York City did ?
Sure , the case can be made that California didn ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those same protocols didn ’ t seem to help the Big Apple .
So did they really help ?
Honestly , I can ’ t definitively say one way or another .
What I can say , though , is that we need to have this conversation when all is said and done .
We have to understand how to handle outbreaks in the future and need to understand the ramifications for lockdown-type quarantines as opposed to just quarantining the sick and vulnerable .
But this isn ’ t about guns and never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

By now, we on the gun rights side are kind of sick of it.
In particular, we’re good and tired of guns being tied to suicides. While few would argue that suicide is anything but a tragedy, it seems far too many people rate suicide as a gun problem, rather than a mental health issue.
Now, with the economy going down the toilet, some are warning that the list of people at risk is growing…but not among the “gun culture,” apparently.
More groups of people in the U.S. are at risk for gun suicide, according to new research from Columbia University Medical Center. These include people with lower incomes, those living with disabilities, and people who are socially isolated. The Columbia study found that per capita gun suicide rates were highest among men (14 per 100,000), people with military service (21 per 100,000) and disabled individuals (14 per 100,000). But researchers found that other groups were also at risk, including people who were unemployed, separated or divorced — and experiencing social isolation. Dr. Mark Olfson, professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center, and lead author of the new study, says we already knew from previous research that certain groups were at higher risk for gun suicide: older, white men, people living in rural areas, service members. But Olfson says the study highlights other groups of high-risk people who may not have been traditionally recognized “Some of these findings sort of connect with what we know about the membership of what might be loosely called ‘gun culture’ — groups that have high rates of gun ownership,” said Olfson. “And therefore it isn’t entirely surprising they are at increased risk for firearm suicide. But there are also some risk factors in here that aren’t [gun culture-related] and that are just more general risk factors for suicide and [we found] those people as well are at increased risk.”
Of course, many of those same groups are also members of the gun culture. We’re not monolithic as a single group of middle-aged white dudes, after all.
However, it’s interesting that now it’s not just about the “gun culture,” suddenly it’s a problem.
The thing is, it’s a problem, and it’s going to be a bigger one going forward. After all, how many of us were locked down for months over the coronavirus?
Well, enough that suicide did more damage in California than COVID-19 did.
Doctors in Northern California say they have seen more deaths from suicide than they’ve seen from the coronavirus during the pandemic. “The numbers are unprecedented,” Dr. Mike deBoisblanc of John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek, California, told ABC 7 News about the increase of suicide deaths adding that he’s seen a “year’s worth of suicides” in the last four weeks alone. DeBoisblanc said he believes it’s time for California officials to end the stay-at-home order and let people back out into their communities. “Personally, I think it’s time,” he said. “I think, originally, this was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients. We have the current resources to do that, and our other community health is suffering.” Kacey Hansen, a trauma center nurse at John Muir Medical Center for over 30 years, says she’s not only worried about the increased suicide attempts but also about the hospital’s ability to save as many patients as usual. “What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury.”
It’s important to understand that every action has ramifications. The Law of Unintended Consequences doesn’t care about pandemics.
Now, if the number of lives saved by a lockdown is greater than the lives lost, you can make the case that the lockdown made sense. However, that seems unlikely. After all, the quarantine procedures most of us endured didn’t seem to help places like New York, which leads me to believe they weren’t nearly as effective as some wanted to make them out to be.
Couple that with the impact noted in California, then the wisdom of the lockdown needs to be discussed, especially since the suicides aren’t likely to end after the lockdown is lifted. People have lost businesses, will probably lose homes, and a whole host of other things that can drive them deep into suicidal depression. The true impact of the lockdown won’t be known for years.
But, that impact has to be discussed.
Rather than talking about “gun suicides,” we need to talk about suicides in general. We need to stop trying to make this a partisan thing and examine whether the lockdown was the right call or not. In some places, it may well have been. In others, not so much. I mean, why would California, which had a relatively mild outbreak, require the same protocols New York City did? Sure, the case can be made that California didn’t have a problem because of the lockdown, but those same protocols didn’t seem to help the Big Apple. So did they really help?
Honestly, I can’t definitively say one way or another.
What I can say, though, is that we need to have this conversation when all is said and done. We have to understand how to handle outbreaks in the future and need to understand the ramifications for lockdown-type quarantines as opposed to just quarantining the sick and vulnerable.
But this isn’t about guns and never should have been in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-05-22--Baltimore Mayoral Candidates Focus On Crime, Not New Gun Control

Technically , the mayoral election in Baltimore will take place on the first Tuesday in November , but since there ’ s virtually no chance of a Republic winning the office , the Democrat primary on June 2nd will serve as the de-facto general election .
There ’ s a crowded field of candidates hoping to replace Mayor Jack Young , whose polling has been tanking , and at the moment it looks like there are four candidates who have a shot at winning the nomination in a couple of weeks .
According to a recent poll , the overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing the soaring homicide rate , but unfortunately for them , almost all of the leading candidates are offering no more than another helping of the same gun control agenda that has failed to bring down the number of shootings in the city .
In fact , since lawmakers in Maryland passed the Firearms Safety Act package of gun control bills in 2014 , homicides in Baltimore have soared to record highs .
You ’ d think that the Democrats running for mayor would be calling for all kinds of new gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leading candidates have made new gun laws a focus of their campaigns .
Former mayor Sheila Dixon , who was forced to resign after accusations of embezzling money meant for at-risk families , is running for her old seat , and according to recent polls she ’ s actually one of the favorites to win the nomination , perhaps because she ’ s the last mayor that can boast about crime in the city going down under her watch .
While Dixon ’ s campaign website does tout failed policies like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Dixon ’ s focus , at least according to her campaign , is on the city ’ s most violent offenders , and the former mayor says she wants to work with federal prosecutors to target career criminals .
Mary Miller , a former Obama administration official , also doesn ’ t mention any new gun control laws in her platform .
Instead , she wants to focus on fixing the Baltimore Police Department , which has been plagued by scandals involving corruption and false charges .
And like Dixon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adopt a policy of focused deterrence that targets the city ’ s most prolific criminals .
One third of the city ’ s gun violence over the last five years took place in just five percent of Baltimore ’ s geographic area .
Focused deterrence targets high-risk , violent offenders and offers them comprehensive support from law enforcement , social services , and community organizations .
This strategy has been effective across the country , most notably in Boston , where it contributed to a 79 percent reduction in violent crime during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deterrence used to exist in Baltimore and led to a substantial decrease in violent crime—but this strategy requires committed funding and buy-in from city leadership to be effective .
City Council President Brandon Scott says he wants a “ holistic approach ” to fighting crime in the city , and that includes targeting gun traffickers .
Attorney Thiru Vignarajah is a former Deputy Attorney General in Maryland as well as a former federal prosecutor .
He ’ s pledging to reduce homicides in the city to less than 200 per year , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent highs , and his 20-point plan doesn ’ t mention any new gun control laws .
Instead , the former prosecutor wants to expand aerial surveillance , wiretapping of suspected gang and drug leaders , and move school resource officers to street patrols .
I don ’ t think any of these candidates are strong supporters of the right to keep and bear arms , and virtually none of them express any support on their campaign websites for any sort of pro-Second Amendment message .
At the same time , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are touting traditional gun control laws either .
Instead , they ’ re playing up their support for focused deterrence , ending “ mass incarceration , ” and other efforts that focus on cleaning up the Baltimore Police Department and targeting the most dangerous criminals in the city .
It ’ s a small step in the right direction for the city , and it ’ s another indication that even on the Left , there ’ s a debate about the effectiveness of the traditional gun control model that promises the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety .

Technically, the mayoral election in Baltimore will take place on the first Tuesday in November, but since there’s virtually no chance of a Republic winning the office, the Democrat primary on June 2nd will serve as the de-facto general election. There’s a crowded field of candidates hoping to replace Mayor Jack Young, whose polling has been tanking, and at the moment it looks like there are four candidates who have a shot at winning the nomination in a couple of weeks.
According to a recent poll, the overwhelming priority for voters in the city is reducing the soaring homicide rate, but unfortunately for them, almost all of the leading candidates are offering no more than another helping of the same gun control agenda that has failed to bring down the number of shootings in the city. In fact, since lawmakers in Maryland passed the Firearms Safety Act package of gun control bills in 2014, homicides in Baltimore have soared to record highs. You’d think that the Democrats running for mayor would be calling for all kinds of new gun control laws, but surprisingly, none of the leading candidates have made new gun laws a focus of their campaigns.
Former mayor Sheila Dixon, who was forced to resign after accusations of embezzling money meant for at-risk families, is running for her old seat, and according to recent polls she’s actually one of the favorites to win the nomination, perhaps because she’s the last mayor that can boast about crime in the city going down under her watch. While Dixon’s campaign website does tout failed policies like the city’s “gun offender registry,” Dixon’s focus, at least according to her campaign, is on the city’s most violent offenders, and the former mayor says she wants to work with federal prosecutors to target career criminals.
By working with the federal prosecutors and the State’s Attorney, we must pursue the toughest sentences against our most violent offenders, seeking harsher penalties and longer sentences. All of this can be done consistently and persistently so that we can stop responding only to the latest fatality and begin to proactively refine our system.
Mary Miller, a former Obama administration official, also doesn’t mention any new gun control laws in her platform. Instead, she wants to focus on fixing the Baltimore Police Department, which has been plagued by scandals involving corruption and false charges. And like Dixon, Miller says she wants the Baltimore police to adopt a policy of focused deterrence that targets the city’s most prolific criminals.
One third of the city’s gun violence over the last five years took place in just five percent of Baltimore’s geographic area. Focused deterrence targets high-risk, violent offenders and offers them comprehensive support from law enforcement, social services, and community organizations. This strategy has been effective across the country, most notably in Boston, where it contributed to a 79 percent reduction in violent crime during the 1990s. A version of focused deterrence used to exist in Baltimore and led to a substantial decrease in violent crime—but this strategy requires committed funding and buy-in from city leadership to be effective.
City Council President Brandon Scott says he wants a “holistic approach” to fighting crime in the city, and that includes targeting gun traffickers.
As Chair of the City Council Public Safety Committee, I led the way for Baltimore to use the “Crime Gun Intelligence Center” model, which provides BPD an opportunity to track illegal guns and ammunition. While this model already exists, it is not being used to its fullest extent. As Mayor, I will increase our commitment to tracking guns and ammunition used in crimes to their origin. I will also foster our relationships with state, regional, and federal law enforcement partners.
Attorney Thiru Vignarajah is a former Deputy Attorney General in Maryland as well as a former federal prosecutor. He’s pledging to reduce homicides in the city to less than 200 per year, which would be a dramatic drop from the recent highs, and his 20-point plan doesn’t mention any new gun control laws. Instead, the former prosecutor wants to expand aerial surveillance, wiretapping of suspected gang and drug leaders, and move school resource officers to street patrols.
We know gun violence is driven by a small number of identifiable repeat offenders, typically members of gangs, who ravage essentially the same neighborhoods year after year. Because of this, dramatically reducing gun violence does not require mass incarceration, zero tolerance, or cash bail. What is needed is relentless focus on the deadliest neighborhoods, deadliest criminals, and deadliest crimes. City Hall has failed to deliver that focus and, as a result, has failed to deliver justice to countless Baltimore families.
I don’t think any of these candidates are strong supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, and virtually none of them express any support on their campaign websites for any sort of pro-Second Amendment message. At the same time, it’s worth noting that none of them are touting traditional gun control laws either. Instead, they’re playing up their support for focused deterrence, ending “mass incarceration,” and other efforts that focus on cleaning up the Baltimore Police Department and targeting the most dangerous criminals in the city. It’s a small step in the right direction for the city, and it’s another indication that even on the Left, there’s a debate about the effectiveness of the traditional gun control model that promises the ability to ban and arrest our way to safety.


bearingarms--2020-05-22--Bloomberg Gun Control Group Trying To Oust Pro-Gun NM Democrats

Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety is targeting a pair of Democrat state senators in New Mexico ahead of next Tuesday ’ s primary , aiming to replace them with more reliable votes for gun control .
The Albuquerque Journal reports that the anti-gun group is spending about $ 50,000 on mailers that attack Gabriel Ramos of Silver City and Clemente Sanchez of Grants for their votes against universal background checks and red flag laws over the past couple of legislative sessions .
Ramos , who was appointed to the Senate last year by Lujan Grisham , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City in the Senate District 28 primary race .
And Sanchez , chairman of the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee , is being challenged by fellow Democrat Pam Cordova of Rio Communities in Senate District 30 .
Sanchez said Thursday he ’ s not a gun owner , but has due process concerns about the red flag gun law that , after taking effect this week , allows firearms to be temporarily taken from an individual deemed a danger to themselves or others .
“ I stand by my record because I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal .
He also said many voters in his largely rural Senate district are fed up with negative mailers sent by outside groups .
It is kind of amazing to think that a billionaire from New York City may be the biggest spender in an election in rural northwest New Mexico , but that ’ s the way it ’ s shaking out at the moment .
It ’ s not the first time that Bloomberg has spent big in the state either .
Back in 2018 his gun control group dropped almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races , helping to flip the legislature to an anti-gun majority , which in turn led to the passage of the universal background check and red flag laws .
The Journal describes Ramos and Sanchez as part of a group of five moderate Democrats in the state senate who have “ drawn the ire of progressives ” for their votes on a number of issues , from gun control to abortion .
While it ’ s nearly impossible to find a pro-gun Democrat at the national level these days , in New Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little more bipartisan .
In fact , Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace , who ’ s been one of the most vocal opponents of Gov .
Grisham ’ s push for gun control , is also a Democrat .
Second Amendment supporters are better off when our right to keep and bear arms is backed by members of both parties , and I ’ m very curious to see how the incumbents fare in Tuesday ’ s elections .
Will the outside spending help to knock off Ramos and Sanchez , or will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an out-of-state billionaire and send a message of their own to gun control advocates ?
We ’ ll be watching next week as voters head to the polls .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety is targeting a pair of Democrat state senators in New Mexico ahead of next Tuesday’s primary, aiming to replace them with more reliable votes for gun control. The Albuquerque Journal reports that the anti-gun group is spending about $50,000 on mailers that attack Gabriel Ramos of Silver City and Clemente Sanchez of Grants for their votes against universal background checks and red flag laws over the past couple of legislative sessions.
Ramos, who was appointed to the Senate last year by Lujan Grisham, is running against Siah Correa Hemphill of Silver City in the Senate District 28 primary race. And Sanchez, chairman of the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee, is being challenged by fellow Democrat Pam Cordova of Rio Communities in Senate District 30. Sanchez said Thursday he’s not a gun owner, but has due process concerns about the red flag gun law that, after taking effect this week, allows firearms to be temporarily taken from an individual deemed a danger to themselves or others. “I stand by my record because I know my district,” Sanchez told the Journal. He also said many voters in his largely rural Senate district are fed up with negative mailers sent by outside groups.
It is kind of amazing to think that a billionaire from New York City may be the biggest spender in an election in rural northwest New Mexico, but that’s the way it’s shaking out at the moment. It’s not the first time that Bloomberg has spent big in the state either. Back in 2018 his gun control group dropped almost half a million dollars on state legislative races, helping to flip the legislature to an anti-gun majority, which in turn led to the passage of the universal background check and red flag laws.
The Journal describes Ramos and Sanchez as part of a group of five moderate Democrats in the state senate who have “drawn the ire of progressives” for their votes on a number of issues, from gun control to abortion. While it’s nearly impossible to find a pro-gun Democrat at the national level these days, in New Mexico support for the Second Amendment is a little more bipartisan. In fact, Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace, who’s been one of the most vocal opponents of Gov. Grisham’s push for gun control, is also a Democrat.
Second Amendment supporters are better off when our right to keep and bear arms is backed by members of both parties, and I’m very curious to see how the incumbents fare in Tuesday’s elections. Will the outside spending help to knock off Ramos and Sanchez, or will voters in the districts reject the messaging of an out-of-state billionaire and send a message of their own to gun control advocates? We’ll be watching next week as voters head to the polls.


bearingarms--2020-05-22--Glendale Shooter Identified As "Incel," Authorities Say

Whenever there ’ s a shooting of any kind , it ’ s important we at least try to determine a motive .
Sometimes , we never get one , but when we do , we can start to peel apart the layers of psychosis to try and find something underlying , some pathology we can address that can possibly prevent these kinds of things from happening again .
In the aftermath of the shooting at the Westgate Mall in Glendale , AZ , that process has begun .
What ’ s disturbing is that this appears to be related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commit horrible acts before .
According to authorities , the killer described himself as an incel .
In a court appearance on Thursday , prosecutors said 20-year-old [ shooter ’ s name redacted ] described himself to authorities as an incel , or involuntary celibate , who wanted to shoot at least 10 people .
In the Snapchat video , seen by BuzzFeed News , the man wearing a camouflaged face mask can be seen aiming and firing his weapon , including at one woman who appeared to be injured and lay on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the exchange , the man can be heard telling the woman he was angry at society as she responded that she had nothing to do with that .
Incels are troubled individuals , to say the least .
Basically , they ’ re guys who can ’ t get girlfriends or , if they do , they end up with manipulative women who take every advantage of them and generally don ’ t get a physical relationship .
That , in and of itself , isn ’ t enough to make someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to really be classified as an incel , you have to be furious over it .
Critics of incels argue that the group–they ’ re not organized but they do congregate in various parts of the internet–is mostly just mad at women for not giving them the sex they think they deserve .
Of course , most of these guys are people we would often classify as losers anyway .
Many are jobless , have no college education , aren ’ t personable people , and generally have little to offer the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get angry at women in what often is real misogyny .
This can lead to violence .
Before this , one of the more prominent examples of incel violence was when an incel drove a van into a crowd in Toronto , Canada .
Interestingly , that attack killed 10 people , the exact same number that the Westgate shooter said he wanted to shoot .
Of course , that could also be a coincidence , but a very interesting one .
Another example is the rampage shooting in Isla Vista , California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killer has been linked to the incel “ community ” by praising the Isla Vista killer .
It seems this is a group of individuals we would do well to take a long , hard look at and start working toward helping them deal with their frustration and maybe come to recognize that violence isn ’ t the way to deal with things .
Of course , that ’ s difficult with a group of people who simply blame all their problems on other people , but that doesn ’ t mean we @ @ @ @ @

Whenever there’s a shooting of any kind, it’s important we at least try to determine a motive. Sometimes, we never get one, but when we do, we can start to peel apart the layers of psychosis to try and find something underlying, some pathology we can address that can possibly prevent these kinds of things from happening again.
In the aftermath of the shooting at the Westgate Mall in Glendale, AZ, that process has begun.
What’s disturbing is that this appears to be related to a group we’ve seen commit horrible acts before. According to authorities, the killer described himself as an incel.
In a court appearance on Thursday, prosecutors said 20-year-old [shooter’s name redacted] described himself to authorities as an incel, or involuntary celibate, who wanted to shoot at least 10 people. In the Snapchat video, seen by BuzzFeed News, the man wearing a camouflaged face mask can be seen aiming and firing his weapon, including at one woman who appeared to be injured and lay on the ground next to a car. In the exchange, the man can be heard telling the woman he was angry at society as she responded that she had nothing to do with that.
Incels are troubled individuals, to say the least.
Basically, they’re guys who can’t get girlfriends or, if they do, they end up with manipulative women who take every advantage of them and generally don’t get a physical relationship. That, in and of itself, isn’t enough to make someone an incel, though. No, to really be classified as an incel, you have to be furious over it.
Critics of incels argue that the group–they’re not organized but they do congregate in various parts of the internet–is mostly just mad at women for not giving them the sex they think they deserve.
Of course, most of these guys are people we would often classify as losers anyway. Many are jobless, have no college education, aren’t personable people, and generally have little to offer the opposite sex. As a result, they get angry at women in what often is real misogyny.
This can lead to violence.
Before this, one of the more prominent examples of incel violence was when an incel drove a van into a crowd in Toronto, Canada.
Interestingly, that attack killed 10 people, the exact same number that the Westgate shooter said he wanted to shoot. Of course, that could also be a coincidence, but a very interesting one.
Another example is the rampage shooting in Isla Vista, California back in 2014. Even the Parkland killer has been linked to the incel “community” by praising the Isla Vista killer.
It seems this is a group of individuals we would do well to take a long, hard look at and start working toward helping them deal with their frustration and maybe come to recognize that violence isn’t the way to deal with things. Of course, that’s difficult with a group of people who simply blame all their problems on other people, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.


bearingarms--2020-05-23--Moms Demand Miffed About Rifle Raffle To Help Small Businesses

When the folks at the North Baldwin Chamber of Commerce in Baldwin County , Alabama , decided they wanted to do something to help out small businesses struggling with coronavirus closures , they hit upon the idea of a raffle .
Over a ten-day period , the Chamber of Commerce will raffle off a number of items , but there are a few things on the list that have at least one gun control activist demanding a change .
“ In the mornings , we ’ ll be giving away 10 different prizes .
It ’ ll be gear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like that .
In the afternoons , we ’ ll be giving away a gun every day , ” said Cameron Lewis , Membership Development Manager for the North Baldwin Chamber of Commerce .
Lewis said revenue from the hundreds of people who purchased a $ 50 ticket will go toward a relief program for small businesses impacted by COVID-19 .
It sounds like a great idea , and according to Lewis the raffle has been a big hit , but the fact that firearms are being raffled off has a local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figuratively speaking , of course ) .
Donna Orchard is the leader of the Baldwin County chapter of Mom ’ s Demand Action , a national group calling for stricter gun laws .
She worries the firearms could end up in the wrong hands .
“ Why are we giving guns out as prizes ?
I don ’ t understand that .
I ’ m concerned that every gun we ’ re giving away has a federal background check , ” said Orchard .
Why are they raffling off firearms ?
Probably because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole goal of the raffle is to sell as many tickets as possible .
The Chamber of Commerce ’ s Lewis says that every firearm will go through a background check conducted by a local gun store before it ’ s transferred , so Orchard ’ s concern about background checks is unfounded .
Still , she ’ s objecting to the raffle because it involves guns .
This isn ’ t a “ common sense ” position to take , but merely anti-gun extremism .
As WPMI-TV notes , hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and since the TV station couldn ’ t find anyone criticizing the raffle besides the Moms Demand Action volunteer , something tells me that this really isn ’ t causing any sort of controversy in the community .
This seems to me to be more of a case of a local news station trying to create a controversy in order to cover it , and Orchard was ready and willing to play along .
If Orchard really thinks it ’ s inappropriate for rifles to be raffled off in an effort to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s time for her to engage in some activism of her own .
She could always protest outside of the small businesses that will benefit from the proceeds of the raffle , encouraging Baldwin County residents to refuse to shop at stores that have taken that evil “ gun money.
” How well do you think that would go over ?
I suppose she could call up Mike Bloomberg instead and ask the gun control sugar daddy to cut her a check so she could buy up all the raffle tickets and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win , or maybe she could raffle off a few Moms Demand Action gift baskets , complete with a “ Bloomberg 2020 ” campaign button , a Moms Demand Action t-shirt , and an empty holster to signify opposition to gun ownership .
Orchard will do none of those things .
Instead , she ’ ll simply complain about the rifle raffle , even if she comes off as more interested in blocking the legal transfer of firearms than helping the small businesses in her community .
I don ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Orchard has been touched by the criminal misuse of a firearm herself ( her father shot and killed his girlfriend during an argument ) , and I can understand why she has become a gun control advocate even if I don ’ t agree with her positions .
Objecting to a raffle that could keep some of her favorite businesses afloat in the coming months won ’ t do anything to stop violent crime or prevent suicides , however .
The answer doesn ’ t lie with banning rifles or raffles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with violent criminals and get troubled individuals the help that they need .

When the folks at the North Baldwin Chamber of Commerce in Baldwin County, Alabama, decided they wanted to do something to help out small businesses struggling with coronavirus closures, they hit upon the idea of a raffle. Over a ten-day period, the Chamber of Commerce will raffle off a number of items, but there are a few things on the list that have at least one gun control activist demanding a change.
“In the mornings, we’ll be giving away 10 different prizes. It’ll be gear, Yeti cups, fishing rods, and things like that. In the afternoons, we’ll be giving away a gun every day,” said Cameron Lewis, Membership Development Manager for the North Baldwin Chamber of Commerce. Lewis said revenue from the hundreds of people who purchased a $50 ticket will go toward a relief program for small businesses impacted by COVID-19.
It sounds like a great idea, and according to Lewis the raffle has been a big hit, but the fact that firearms are being raffled off has a local gun control activist up in arms (figuratively speaking, of course).
Donna Orchard is the leader of the Baldwin County chapter of Mom’s Demand Action, a national group calling for stricter gun laws. She worries the firearms could end up in the wrong hands. “Why are we giving guns out as prizes? I don’t understand that. I’m concerned that every gun we’re giving away has a federal background check,” said Orchard.
Why are they raffling off firearms? Probably because they’re popular items, and the whole goal of the raffle is to sell as many tickets as possible. The Chamber of Commerce’s Lewis says that every firearm will go through a background check conducted by a local gun store before it’s transferred, so Orchard’s concern about background checks is unfounded. Still, she’s objecting to the raffle because it involves guns.
This isn’t a “common sense” position to take, but merely anti-gun extremism. As WPMI-TV notes, hundreds of individuals have already purchased raffle tickets, and since the TV station couldn’t find anyone criticizing the raffle besides the Moms Demand Action volunteer, something tells me that this really isn’t causing any sort of controversy in the community. This seems to me to be more of a case of a local news station trying to create a controversy in order to cover it, and Orchard was ready and willing to play along.
If Orchard really thinks it’s inappropriate for rifles to be raffled off in an effort to help local small businesses, perhaps it’s time for her to engage in some activism of her own. She could always protest outside of the small businesses that will benefit from the proceeds of the raffle, encouraging Baldwin County residents to refuse to shop at stores that have taken that evil “gun money.” How well do you think that would go over?
I suppose she could call up Mike Bloomberg instead and ask the gun control sugar daddy to cut her a check so she could buy up all the raffle tickets and then melt down every gun she were to win, or maybe she could raffle off a few Moms Demand Action gift baskets, complete with a “Bloomberg 2020” campaign button, a Moms Demand Action t-shirt, and an empty holster to signify opposition to gun ownership.
Orchard will do none of those things. Instead, she’ll simply complain about the rifle raffle, even if she comes off as more interested in blocking the legal transfer of firearms than helping the small businesses in her community.
I don’t want to be too flippant here. I realize that Orchard has been touched by the criminal misuse of a firearm herself (her father shot and killed his girlfriend during an argument), and I can understand why she has become a gun control advocate even if I don’t agree with her positions. Objecting to a raffle that could keep some of her favorite businesses afloat in the coming months won’t do anything to stop violent crime or prevent suicides, however. The answer doesn’t lie with banning rifles or raffles, but in more effective strategies to deal with violent criminals and get troubled individuals the help that they need.


bearingarms--2020-05-23--The Real Costs Of Trudeau's Gun Ban

The Real Costs Of Trudeau's Gun Ban

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared war on the dreaded “ assault weapon ” in the aftermath of his brownface scandal .
Following the shooting in Nova Scotia , he finally had the opportunity he needed to make good on the deal he ’ d made with the media .
They ignored the racially-insensitive ramifications of his actions and he ’ d get rid of the evil assault rifles .
One of the problems with his move–one of many problems , I should add–is that it places a potentially lethal burden on gun stores .
As of May 1 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally used , sold or imported .
Gun owners have two years to comply with the new rules .
The government also said it would create a buy-back program for the roughly 100,000 weapons now covered by the ban .
Malin has $ 20,000 worth of newly prohibited weapons in stock that can no longer be sold .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s going to kill our business , but it ’ s definitely going to hurt it in the long run , ” he said .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy-back program , dealers and gun owners have no details about the plan .
There is plenty of skepticism that gun owners will get near the value of their weapons .
One would expect that it would include the gun stores that may or may not be eligible for the buyback ( Let ’ s all just insert here how it ’ s not really a buyback anyway since the Canadian government never owned them in the first place here ) .
While Malin says he thinks he can weather this , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many are sitting there with unsold and unsellable merchandise ?
Guns are big-ticket items , but they ’ re typically pretty low margin .
Yet they ’ re expensive to buy from the distributor , and without the means to recoup that loss , some gun stores are likely to be screwed .
Had Trudeau made the law effective after a given date and included a grandfather clause , these stores could have sold their existing inventory and adjusted to the new reality .
So why didn ’ t he do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too stupid to think about that , too callous to care , or this is precisely what he wanted .
None of those three paint a particularly flattering image of the Canadian prime minister , though .
I ’ m leaning more toward it being what he wanted .
By running gun stores out of business , he makes it harder for people to buy guns .
In his little pea-sized gun-grabber brain , if they can ’ t buy guns , then bad guys can ’ t get them .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t obtain any of his guns legally , even killing a police officer and taking her gun , but why let facts get in the way of a good gun grab , am I right ?
Regardless of what drove him , law-abiding Canadian gun stores will ultimately pay the price for Trudeau ’ s tantrum , something that should never be allowed .
It damn sure shouldn ’ t be allowed here within our borders .

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared war on the dreaded “assault weapon” in the aftermath of his brownface scandal. Following the shooting in Nova Scotia, he finally had the opportunity he needed to make good on the deal he’d made with the media. They ignored the racially-insensitive ramifications of his actions and he’d get rid of the evil assault rifles.
One of the problems with his move–one of many problems, I should add–is that it places a potentially lethal burden on gun stores.
As of May 1, the newly prohibited firearms cannot be legally used, sold or imported. Gun owners have two years to comply with the new rules. The government also said it would create a buy-back program for the roughly 100,000 weapons now covered by the ban. Malin has $20,000 worth of newly prohibited weapons in stock that can no longer be sold. “I don’t think it’s going to kill our business, but it’s definitely going to hurt it in the long run,” he said. While the government says it will roll out a buy-back program, dealers and gun owners have no details about the plan. There is plenty of skepticism that gun owners will get near the value of their weapons.
One would expect that it would include the gun stores that may or may not be eligible for the buyback (Let’s all just insert here how it’s not really a buyback anyway since the Canadian government never owned them in the first place here).
While Malin says he thinks he can weather this, how many gun stores can’t? How many are sitting there with unsold and unsellable merchandise? Guns are big-ticket items, but they’re typically pretty low margin. Yet they’re expensive to buy from the distributor, and without the means to recoup that loss, some gun stores are likely to be screwed.
Had Trudeau made the law effective after a given date and included a grandfather clause, these stores could have sold their existing inventory and adjusted to the new reality.
So why didn’t he do that?
My take is that Trudeau was too stupid to think about that, too callous to care, or this is precisely what he wanted. None of those three paint a particularly flattering image of the Canadian prime minister, though.
I’m leaning more toward it being what he wanted. By running gun stores out of business, he makes it harder for people to buy guns. In his little pea-sized gun-grabber brain, if they can’t buy guns, then bad guys can’t get them. Of course, the Nova Scotia shooter didn’t obtain any of his guns legally, even killing a police officer and taking her gun, but why let facts get in the way of a good gun grab, am I right?
Regardless of what drove him, law-abiding Canadian gun stores will ultimately pay the price for Trudeau’s tantrum, something that should never be allowed.
It damn sure shouldn’t be allowed here within our borders.


bearingarms--2020-05-24--Growing Demand For Answers Over Possible Surveillance Of Maine Gun Owners, Others

In the wake of a whistleblower ’ s accusations that the Maine Information and Analysis Center illegally collected and maintained information on several groups of people , including gun owners in the state , there ’ s been a growing bipartisan group of public officials and organizations that are calling for a complete investigation into the allegations .
George Loder , who worked for the Maine State Police for decades , filed a whistleblower lawsuit in federal court recently , alleging that he was demoted after alerting his superiors to the illegal practices .
The complaint does not say with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the information other than the state police .
It also does not say when the center began collecting it .
Loder expressed his concerns to supervisors in November 2017 .
Loder alleges that staff at the center illegally gathered and kept information gleaned from social media about people who legally protested in September 2018 against Central Maine Power Co. ’ s proposed transmission corridor stretching from the Quebec border to Lewiston .
State police maintain a database that can be searched to determine if a person is prohibited from purchasing a gun .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be destroyed after the sale is approved but the center stored that information in the database , the suit claims .
The Bangor Daily News reports that former Gov .
Paul LePage has denied any knowledge of the alleged surveillance , while current Gov .
Janet Mills , who was previously the state ’ s Attorney General , has to date made no comment .
On Thursday of this week , a pair of senior Republican lawmakers did speak out and demanded answers .
Assistant Senate Minority Leader Jeffrey Timberlake , R-Turner , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , R-Presque Isle , said in a Wednesday statement that they want an investigation into alleged illegal and improper collection by the Maine Information and Analysis Center .
“ If true , ( these allegations ) would mean that the state police have been collecting information about Mainers for years without the authorization of the legislative branch , ” Timberlake said in the statement .
“ Such a significant policy decision by the chief executive merits legislative oversight and a check on this power.
” If the state kept background check records on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backdoor gun registry , which would violate both federal and state law .
Maine ’ s current attorney general says the state is prepared to dispute Loder ’ s allegations in court , but with legislators on both sides of the aisle and groups from the ACLU to the United Sportsmen of Maine calling for an investigation , the best thing that Mills and the Democrats in control of the state legislature could do would be to create a bipartisan legislative committee to get to the bottom of Loder ’ s claims .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , but the people of Maine deserve real answers , and if Loder ’ s telling the truth , then the guilty need to face real consequences for their illegal surveillance of Americans exercising their rights .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

In the wake of a whistleblower’s accusations that the Maine Information and Analysis Center illegally collected and maintained information on several groups of people, including gun owners in the state, there’s been a growing bipartisan group of public officials and organizations that are calling for a complete investigation into the allegations.
George Loder, who worked for the Maine State Police for decades, filed a whistleblower lawsuit in federal court recently, alleging that he was demoted after alerting his superiors to the illegal practices.
The complaint does not say with which agencies the center may have shared the information other than the state police. It also does not say when the center began collecting it. Loder expressed his concerns to supervisors in November 2017. Loder alleges that staff at the center illegally gathered and kept information gleaned from social media about people who legally protested in September 2018 against Central Maine Power Co.’s proposed transmission corridor stretching from the Quebec border to Lewiston. State police maintain a database that can be searched to determine if a person is prohibited from purchasing a gun. Applications to purchase firearms are supposed to be destroyed after the sale is approved but the center stored that information in the database, the suit claims.
The Bangor Daily News reports that former Gov. Paul LePage has denied any knowledge of the alleged surveillance, while current Gov. Janet Mills, who was previously the state’s Attorney General, has to date made no comment. On Thursday of this week, a pair of senior Republican lawmakers did speak out and demanded answers.
Assistant Senate Minority Leader Jeffrey Timberlake, R-Turner, and Assistant House Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, said in a Wednesday statement that they want an investigation into alleged illegal and improper collection by the Maine Information and Analysis Center. “If true, (these allegations) would mean that the state police have been collecting information about Mainers for years without the authorization of the legislative branch,” Timberlake said in the statement. “Such a significant policy decision by the chief executive merits legislative oversight and a check on this power.”
If the state kept background check records on gun owners, that amounts to a backdoor gun registry, which would violate both federal and state law. Maine’s current attorney general says the state is prepared to dispute Loder’s allegations in court, but with legislators on both sides of the aisle and groups from the ACLU to the United Sportsmen of Maine calling for an investigation, the best thing that Mills and the Democrats in control of the state legislature could do would be to create a bipartisan legislative committee to get to the bottom of Loder’s claims. Maybe he’s making it all up, but the people of Maine deserve real answers, and if Loder’s telling the truth, then the guilty need to face real consequences for their illegal surveillance of Americans exercising their rights.


bearingarms--2020-05-24--As Northam Hints At Mask Mandate, He Should Remember The 2A Sanctuary Movement

At his daily COVID-19 press update on Friday , Gov .
Ralph Northam hinted that Virginians could soon be subject to a mandatory mask order as early as next week , after Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney asked Northam to take the drastic step in a letter sent to the governor .
Northam says that an announcement on masks could come as early as Tuesday , and it seems likely that the governor will try to press the issue despite the fact that in recent weeks he ’ s been pushing more for a regional reopening and response to the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attempt to implement a mask mandate , he should be aware that his order is likely to be met with almost as much pushback and local resistance as his gun control agenda has been throughout much of the state .
Law enforcement officials like Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins have already warned that social distancing orders from the governor will not be enforced by any of his officers , and I ’ m guessing other sheriffs will follow suit if asked to enforce a mask mandate on their residents .
WTVR-TV in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ACLU is also warning Northam that any mandatory mask order could run afoul of state and federal law .
Northam ’ s already lost one court case over the closure of indoor ranges , and it ’ s quite possible that a mandatory mask order for the entire state would be struck down if he attempts to put one in place .
So far , Northam seems unwilling or unable to think about how any mask mandate might be enforced .
The governor appears to believe that compliance will naturally follow any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s learned nothing from the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement in the state .
Since last November ’ s elections , the vast majority of counties have approved resolutions declaring their counties save havens for the right to keep and bear arms , and both sheriffs and Commonwealth ’ s Attorneys across the state have proclaimed that they have no plans to enforce any unconstitutional gun control laws .
Many of these rural counties have just a handful of coronavirus cases , and three counties in the western part of the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the moment , the main outbreaks of the coronavirus in the state are in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington , D.C. as well as the Richmond area .
It might be possible to try to enforce a mask mandate in those population centers , but I don ’ t see how the governor is going to ensure compliance in the more rural parts of Virginia , and I think he ’ ll be making a huge mistake if he tries to do so .
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has already backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally declaring an order very similar to the one that Northam is considering .
DeWine explained that his reversal came about after he realized that trying to enforce the measure “ just wasn ’ t going to work.
” I ’ d say that same calculus should be applied to Virginia ’ s Second Amendment Sanctuary counties , where Northam ’ s order is likely to be seen as another unconstitutional overreach on the part of the governor , and be met with widespread noncompliance .
The governor is also going to box @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he might try to enforce such an order .
The ACLU has already warned that enforcement can ’ t be discriminatory , yet it ’ s likely that urban residents in Richmond , Virginia Beach , and northern Virginia will be the ones to bear the brunt of any enforcement measure ( as will be the case with his gun control laws when they take effect in July ) .
Even if enforcement itself isn ’ t done in a discriminating way , the outcome is likely to lead to a disproportionate number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s order .
It seems counterproductive for Northam to try to order jail time for those not wearing a mask , and fining people during the current economic upheaval will likely be greeted with howls of protest as well .
From both a political and policy perspective , a mandatory mask order is a really bad idea .
The wiser move for the governor would be to encourage the use of masks , but not make them mandatory .
Given his reaction to the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that swept across the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Northam may be too heavy-handed and authoritarian to go that route , but if he ’ s truly more interested in public health than personal power then the choice should be an easy one to make .

At his daily COVID-19 press update on Friday, Gov. Ralph Northam hinted that Virginians could soon be subject to a mandatory mask order as early as next week, after Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney asked Northam to take the drastic step in a letter sent to the governor.
“There have been overwhelming recommendations to wear masks or face coverings in public spaces, and I stand firm that by doing this we can all reduce the spread of COVID-19,” Stoney wrote. “As the nation’s only doctor governor, I know that you understand that this is not the time for us to let down our guard, which is why I am continuing to encourage you to make it a requirement that Virginians must wear a mask or face covering while in a public space or visiting businesses.”
Northam says that an announcement on masks could come as early as Tuesday, and it seems likely that the governor will try to press the issue despite the fact that in recent weeks he’s been pushing more for a regional reopening and response to the coronavirus pandemic. If the governor does decide to attempt to implement a mask mandate, he should be aware that his order is likely to be met with almost as much pushback and local resistance as his gun control agenda has been throughout much of the state.
Law enforcement officials like Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins have already warned that social distancing orders from the governor will not be enforced by any of his officers, and I’m guessing other sheriffs will follow suit if asked to enforce a mask mandate on their residents. WTVR-TV in Richmond reports that the state chapter of the ACLU is also warning Northam that any mandatory mask order could run afoul of state and federal law.
“Any public health mandate should be imposed based on good science and positive impact, using the least restrictive measures possible. Steps must be taken to ensure enforcement isn’t discriminatory or based on biased policing (as has been the case in New York City). Also, enforcement of a mandate must not add people to jail populations that should be reduced,” ACLU of Virginia’s executive director, Claire Guthrie Gastañaga said in a statement.
Northam’s already lost one court case over the closure of indoor ranges, and it’s quite possible that a mandatory mask order for the entire state would be struck down if he attempts to put one in place.
So far, Northam seems unwilling or unable to think about how any mask mandate might be enforced. The governor appears to believe that compliance will naturally follow any order he might give, which suggests he’s learned nothing from the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement in the state. Since last November’s elections, the vast majority of counties have approved resolutions declaring their counties save havens for the right to keep and bear arms, and both sheriffs and Commonwealth’s Attorneys across the state have proclaimed that they have no plans to enforce any unconstitutional gun control laws.
Many of these rural counties have just a handful of coronavirus cases, and three counties in the western part of the state have reported no cases at all. At the moment, the main outbreaks of the coronavirus in the state are in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. as well as the Richmond area. It might be possible to try to enforce a mask mandate in those population centers, but I don’t see how the governor is going to ensure compliance in the more rural parts of Virginia, and I think he’ll be making a huge mistake if he tries to do so.
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has already backed off of a mandatory mask order after originally declaring an order very similar to the one that Northam is considering. DeWine explained that his reversal came about after he realized that trying to enforce the measure “just wasn’t going to work.”
“It became clear to me that that was just a bridge too far. People were not going to accept the government telling them what to do,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
I’d say that same calculus should be applied to Virginia’s Second Amendment Sanctuary counties, where Northam’s order is likely to be seen as another unconstitutional overreach on the part of the governor, and be met with widespread noncompliance. The governor is also going to box himself into a corner no matter how he might try to enforce such an order. The ACLU has already warned that enforcement can’t be discriminatory, yet it’s likely that urban residents in Richmond, Virginia Beach, and northern Virginia will be the ones to bear the brunt of any enforcement measure (as will be the case with his gun control laws when they take effect in July). Even if enforcement itself isn’t done in a discriminating way, the outcome is likely to lead to a disproportionate number of minorities charged with violating Northam’s order.
It seems counterproductive for Northam to try to order jail time for those not wearing a mask, and fining people during the current economic upheaval will likely be greeted with howls of protest as well. From both a political and policy perspective, a mandatory mask order is a really bad idea.
The wiser move for the governor would be to encourage the use of masks, but not make them mandatory. Given his reaction to the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that swept across the state in the winter of 2019 and 2020, Northam may be too heavy-handed and authoritarian to go that route, but if he’s truly more interested in public health than personal power then the choice should be an easy one to make.


bearingarms--2020-05-24--Cops Bust Trio Taking Target Practice In Public Park

Most gun owners are responsible gun owners .
Hell , most know the Four Rules , even if they don ’ t know the origin of them .
More importantly , most know how to operate a little common sense when handling their firearms .
Unfortunately , there will always be a few who make you question whether their parents fed the paint chips as a kid and called them corn flakes .
Take this trio from Louisiana .
Police confiscated what they said are some of the most dangerous guns on the street in a bust this week after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a patch of woods at a park in Baker .
Police Chief Carl Dunn said Thursday , a person called police about gunfire and officers could hear the gunfire through the phone , the chief said .
Dunn said officers confiscated handguns and two concerning rifles – one “ like an M-16 , ” he said .
Magazine rounds were also taken .
“ These are the ones that we try to avoid ; These rounds travel for miles at a time , ” Dunn told WBRZ .
“ These are what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the street.
” Three 19-year-olds were arrested : Katrell Rogers , Kalyn Jones and Trevaughn Parker .
They were charged with illegal use of a firearm , a charge because they had guns in a park , and also charges of illegal use of a weapon .
Now , let ’ s ignore the hysterics about the presence of what is probably just an AR-15 and look at reality as it stands .
The three were arrested not just with a gun “ like an M-16 , ” but also several handguns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchase lawfully .
Further , these three mental giants decided to practice shooting in a copse of trees in a public park .
Look , if you ’ re shooting into a full-on forest , there might be enough trees to serve as a backstop , especially if you ’ re shooting at a downward angle .
A stand of “ woods ” contained within a park isn ’ t going to be enough .
Dunn isn ’ t wrong when it talks about these rounds potentially traveling for miles–though that does take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of line to be upset .
As mentioned by Dunn in the above-linked article , there are gun ranges all over the place , especially in Louisiana .
Why not go there ?
My guess is that these weapons weren ’ t legally obtained , and they were worried they ’ d get caught if they were found with them at a public range .
Regardless , the three are now facing charges for their actions , but they should be eternally grateful that outright stupidity isn ’ t illegal , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level of a capital crime .
Luckily , their stupid will only hurt their lives .
That ’ s the upside .
It could easily have gone the other way , and we ’ re fortunate that we ’ re not talking about how some kid is dead because these three couldn ’ t be bothered to go to an actual range or , barring that , somewhere out in the middle of nowhere that there aren ’ t a lot of people around .

Most gun owners are responsible gun owners. Hell, most know the Four Rules, even if they don’t know the origin of them. More importantly, most know how to operate a little common sense when handling their firearms.
Unfortunately, there will always be a few who make you question whether their parents fed the paint chips as a kid and called them corn flakes.
Take this trio from Louisiana.
Police confiscated what they said are some of the most dangerous guns on the street in a bust this week after an eyewitness reported illegal target practice in a patch of woods at a park in Baker. Police Chief Carl Dunn said Thursday, a person called police about gunfire and officers could hear the gunfire through the phone, the chief said. Dunn said officers confiscated handguns and two concerning rifles – one “like an M-16,” he said. Magazine rounds were also taken. “These are the ones that we try to avoid; These rounds travel for miles at a time,” Dunn told WBRZ. “These are what we consider the most dangerous [guns] on the street.” … Three 19-year-olds were arrested: Katrell Rogers, Kalyn Jones and Trevaughn Parker. They were charged with illegal use of a firearm, a charge because they had guns in a park, and also charges of illegal use of a weapon.
Now, let’s ignore the hysterics about the presence of what is probably just an AR-15 and look at reality as it stands.
The three were arrested not just with a gun “like an M-16,” but also several handguns; firearms they were too young to purchase lawfully. Further, these three mental giants decided to practice shooting in a copse of trees in a public park.
Honestly, this is weapons-grade stupidity.
Look, if you’re shooting into a full-on forest, there might be enough trees to serve as a backstop, especially if you’re shooting at a downward angle. A stand of “woods” contained within a park isn’t going to be enough. Dunn isn’t wrong when it talks about these rounds potentially traveling for miles–though that does take some certain conditions–and he’s not out of line to be upset.
As mentioned by Dunn in the above-linked article, there are gun ranges all over the place, especially in Louisiana. Why not go there?
My guess is that these weapons weren’t legally obtained, and they were worried they’d get caught if they were found with them at a public range.
Regardless, the three are now facing charges for their actions, but they should be eternally grateful that outright stupidity isn’t illegal, because this much dumb would rise to the level of a capital crime.
Luckily, their stupid will only hurt their lives. That’s the upside. It could easily have gone the other way, and we’re fortunate that we’re not talking about how some kid is dead because these three couldn’t be bothered to go to an actual range or, barring that, somewhere out in the middle of nowhere that there aren’t a lot of people around.


bearingarms--2020-05-25--Memorial Day And The Fight For Freedom

Memorial Day And The Fight For Freedom

Don ’ t get me wrong , I respect it .
I think we need it , but I still hate it .
I even wish on some level that we didn ’ t need such a day in our holiday schedule , but we do and so we have it .
You see , the reason I don ’ t like Memorial Day is because I feel it ’ s impossible to like a day that remembers the fallen , those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our nation .
It ’ s too solemn for me to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poignant at this point in history .
You see , when I served , we ’ d enjoyed decades of relative peace .
I enlisted shortly after the Gulf War , an engagement that added remarkably few to the roles of the dead .
While there were things going on during my time–Somalia and Bosnia , to be specific–I was never called upon to go to those places .
The same is true of many of the people who served around that same time in all branches of service .
I got out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was just five years later when everything changed .
From the moment the first plane hit the World Trade Center , war was inevitable .
You don ’ t get to kill more than 3,000 civilians on American soil and punch our military in the mouth without some repercussions falling down on someone .
Turning the other cheek may have its place , but you can ’ t do it after something like that .
So , we went to war .
The generation of men and women who came after me went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came home .
For me , I don ’ t like Memorial Day .
I think of all those who never came home , most of whom I had no connection to whatsoever .
I think of my children who may be called to serve and make that same sacrifice .
It ’ s necessary , but never easy .
As someone who served during peacetime , I feel very odd about my veteran status .
Far too many who came after me saw more time in combat than I could imagine while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw was downtown Chicago .
I mean , close , but not really .
Invariably , someone will thank me for my service on a day like today , and I invariably shudder inside .
Sure , I served , but so what ?
This day isn ’ t for me and people like me , nor is it for the people who came home from all those wars .
No , it ’ s for the tens of thousands of American men and women who never did .
We , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ever repay .
We owe it to them to hold onto our freedoms , the freedoms they fought and died for .
We owe it to them to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies , foreign and domestic .
And yes , that means we fight political fights for things like gun rights and free speech because we owe it to them to defend those rights with every fiber of our being .
They fought and died to keep our nation free from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our national interests .
The very least we can do is keep it a nation worth defending .

I don’t like Memorial Day.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect it. I think we need it, but I still hate it. I even wish on some level that we didn’t need such a day in our holiday schedule, but we do and so we have it.
You see, the reason I don’t like Memorial Day is because I feel it’s impossible to like a day that remembers the fallen, those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. It’s too solemn for me to “like.”
Days like this are especially poignant at this point in history.
You see, when I served, we’d enjoyed decades of relative peace. I enlisted shortly after the Gulf War, an engagement that added remarkably few to the roles of the dead. While there were things going on during my time–Somalia and Bosnia, to be specific–I was never called upon to go to those places. The same is true of many of the people who served around that same time in all branches of service.
I got out of the Navy in 1996. It was just five years later when everything changed.
From the moment the first plane hit the World Trade Center, war was inevitable. You don’t get to kill more than 3,000 civilians on American soil and punch our military in the mouth without some repercussions falling down on someone. Turning the other cheek may have its place, but you can’t do it after something like that.
So, we went to war.
The generation of men and women who came after me went to war.
Far too many never came home.
For me, I don’t like Memorial Day. I think of all those who never came home, most of whom I had no connection to whatsoever. I think of my children who may be called to serve and make that same sacrifice. It’s necessary, but never easy.
As someone who served during peacetime, I feel very odd about my veteran status. Far too many who came after me saw more time in combat than I could imagine while the closest thing to a warzone I saw was downtown Chicago. I mean, close, but not really.
Invariably, someone will thank me for my service on a day like today, and I invariably shudder inside. Sure, I served, but so what? This day isn’t for me and people like me, nor is it for the people who came home from all those wars.
No, it’s for the tens of thousands of American men and women who never did.
We, as a nation, owe them far more than we can ever repay. We owe it to them to hold onto our freedoms, the freedoms they fought and died for. We owe it to them to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And yes, that means we fight political fights for things like gun rights and free speech because we owe it to them to defend those rights with every fiber of our being.
They fought and died to keep our nation free from foreign powers who sought to infringe on our national interests. The very least we can do is keep it a nation worth defending.


bearingarms--2020-05-26--With Recent Rhetoric, #ReopenNC Is Shooting Itself In The Foot

All 50 states have now begun to reopen after months of coronavirus closures and stay-at-home orders , but even as restrictions are being lifted , some in the reopen movement are ramping up their rhetoric and hurting their cause in the process .
Much like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that ’ s swept across the country over the past two years , the reopen movement is generally hyperlocal in its focus , and the movement hasn ’ t spawned national leadership , either organizationally or individually .
There is no national spokesperson for the reopen side of the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unified messaging either .
As the country begins to reopen , you ’ d think local reopen groups would be declaring at least a partial success , or point out that the states are moving in the right direction .
Instead , though , some local activists seem determined to make their cause as fringe-y as possible .
In North Carolina , for instance , # ReopenNC activist Adam Smith , posted a Facebook Live video over the weekend in which he talked about being willing to kill people to further the cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually relaxed more of the state ’ s restrictions over the Memorial Day weekend .
The # ReopenNC group , which has about 78,000 members on Facebook , could have used that act to point out that lockdowns can ’ t last forever and to push the state for an expedited reopening that ’ s safe and responsible .
Instead , Smith ’ s wife Ashley , one of the cofounders of the group , ended up defending her husband ’ s statement .
While calling anyone who took issue with her husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ashley Smith said Sunday that he “ maybe ” could have chosen his words better .
“ Could he have said it better ?
” Ashley Smith said on Facebook .
“ Maybe , but that ’ s not for anyone to decide how a free person should speak their mind .
Our founding fathers would not be pleased that we gave up so much for so little .
Look how hard we are having to fight to get our freedom back !
” It ’ s not up to any of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak their mind , but we ’ re all allowed to speak our mind in return .
Having an opinion doesn ’ t equate to censorship , and believing that a comment is counterproductive or stupid doesn ’ t violate anyone ’ s First Amendment rights .
Would the Founding Fathers be upset with us for not rising up and fighting back against lockdown orders ?
Many of them didn ’ t look too fondly on Shays ’ Rebellion in Massachusetts after the War of Independence , and of course George Washington himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 .
The Founders believed in individual liberty , but they also believed in the rule of law , and given the fact that the courts are still open and Election Day is coming up this November , I can ’ t help but believe that if the Founders were alive today , most of them would be running for office , drumming up support for pro-freedom candidates , and suing the pants off of governors that have overstepped their authority with their shutdown orders .
As for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , there are currently multiple lawsuits over Gov .
Rory Cooper ’ s shutdown orders and the local implementation of his coronavirus regulations .
A state representative has filed suit seeking to reopen all businesses in the state , churches have sued , and so have hair salon owners .
Groups like the Second Amendment Foundation have also brought lawsuits against sheriffs in the state who have suspended the processing of concealed carry and pistol purchase permit applications .
That ’ s one way to fight back against Gov .
Cooper ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil disobedience .
On Monday , about 50 people from # ReopenNC gathered in Asheville , North Carolina for a Memorial Day rally , and several small business owners spoke movingly about the hardships they ’ re facing under the governor ’ s restrictions .
Call me crazy , but I think “ The governor is killing our small business ” is a much more effective message than “ I ’ m prepared to kill people in order to reopen , ” and non-violent civil disobedience is a much more effective tactic than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe that we have the right to keep and bear arms as a check on tyranny , but I also believe that is the last resort of a free people , and both the ballot box and jury box remain viable channels to oppose unconstitutional actions taken by politicians in the name of public safety .
Breweries and restaurants were crowded in Charlotte over Memorial Day weekend , and thousands of people returned to the state ’ s beaches to soak in the sun .
I believe that most people in North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to some sense of normalcy , and things are moving in that direction , albeit not as fast as the reopen movement would like .
If # ReopenNC wants to truly grow its membership beyond Facebook , its leaders should be promoting that return to normalcy , praising peaceful acts of civil disobedience , encouraging lawmakers to step up and defend small businesses , and using litigation to push back against any unconstitutional orders by the governor .
That ’ s the way to build a movement , as opposed to dooming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

All 50 states have now begun to reopen after months of coronavirus closures and stay-at-home orders, but even as restrictions are being lifted, some in the reopen movement are ramping up their rhetoric and hurting their cause in the process.
Much like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that’s swept across the country over the past two years, the reopen movement is generally hyperlocal in its focus, and the movement hasn’t spawned national leadership, either organizationally or individually. There is no national spokesperson for the reopen side of the debate, and there’s no real unified messaging either. As the country begins to reopen, you’d think local reopen groups would be declaring at least a partial success, or point out that the states are moving in the right direction. Instead, though, some local activists seem determined to make their cause as fringe-y as possible.
In North Carolina, for instance, #ReopenNC activist Adam Smith, posted a Facebook Live video over the weekend in which he talked about being willing to kill people to further the cause.
“Are we willing to kill people? Are we willing to lay our lives down? We have to say yes,” Adam Smith said in a Facebook Live video posted on Friday. Later in the 17-minute video, he said, “If you bring force, we’re gonna bring force. If you bring guns, we’re gonna bring guns. If you’re armed with this, we’re gonna be armed with this.”
Keep in mind, North Carolina actually relaxed more of the state’s restrictions over the Memorial Day weekend. The #ReopenNC group, which has about 78,000 members on Facebook, could have used that act to point out that lockdowns can’t last forever and to push the state for an expedited reopening that’s safe and responsible. Instead, Smith’s wife Ashley, one of the cofounders of the group, ended up defending her husband’s statement.
While calling anyone who took issue with her husband’s comments “disgraceful,” Ashley Smith said Sunday that he “maybe” could have chosen his words better. “Could he have said it better?” Ashley Smith said on Facebook. “Maybe, but that’s not for anyone to decide how a free person should speak their mind. Our founding fathers would not be pleased that we gave up so much for so little. Look how hard we are having to fight to get our freedom back!”
It’s not up to any of us to decide how a free person should speak their mind, but we’re all allowed to speak our mind in return. Having an opinion doesn’t equate to censorship, and believing that a comment is counterproductive or stupid doesn’t violate anyone’s First Amendment rights.
Would the Founding Fathers be upset with us for not rising up and fighting back against lockdown orders? Many of them didn’t look too fondly on Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts after the War of Independence, and of course George Washington himself called out the military to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The Founders believed in individual liberty, but they also believed in the rule of law, and given the fact that the courts are still open and Election Day is coming up this November, I can’t help but believe that if the Founders were alive today, most of them would be running for office, drumming up support for pro-freedom candidates, and suing the pants off of governors that have overstepped their authority with their shutdown orders.
As for the fight to get freedom back in North Carolina, there are currently multiple lawsuits over Gov. Rory Cooper’s shutdown orders and the local implementation of his coronavirus regulations. A state representative has filed suit seeking to reopen all businesses in the state, churches have sued, and so have hair salon owners. Groups like the Second Amendment Foundation have also brought lawsuits against sheriffs in the state who have suspended the processing of concealed carry and pistol purchase permit applications.
That’s one way to fight back against Gov. Cooper’s orders. Another way is non-violent civil disobedience. On Monday, about 50 people from #ReopenNC gathered in Asheville, North Carolina for a Memorial Day rally, and several small business owners spoke movingly about the hardships they’re facing under the governor’s restrictions.
“I work at Rise ’n Shine cafe,” said Katie Feathers who also went to the podium. Feathers faces a misdemeanor, cited last week by Asheville police for serving customers indoors, violating the governor’s orders at that time. Her boss, Katie Grace, also spoke. Grace said she was unsure why Feathers was cited since it’s her restaurant. She said Asheville police have cited her with additional misdemeanors retroactive for the days the restaurant was serving customers during Phase I.
Call me crazy, but I think “The governor is killing our small business” is a much more effective message than “I’m prepared to kill people in order to reopen,” and non-violent civil disobedience is a much more effective tactic than threatening to start a civil war. I believe that we have the right to keep and bear arms as a check on tyranny, but I also believe that is the last resort of a free people, and both the ballot box and jury box remain viable channels to oppose unconstitutional actions taken by politicians in the name of public safety.
Breweries and restaurants were crowded in Charlotte over Memorial Day weekend, and thousands of people returned to the state’s beaches to soak in the sun. I believe that most people in North Carolina want to see their lives get back to some sense of normalcy, and things are moving in that direction, albeit not as fast as the reopen movement would like. If #ReopenNC wants to truly grow its membership beyond Facebook, its leaders should be promoting that return to normalcy, praising peaceful acts of civil disobedience, encouraging lawmakers to step up and defend small businesses, and using litigation to push back against any unconstitutional orders by the governor. That’s the way to build a movement, as opposed to dooming it to irrelevance and the political fringe.


bearingarms--2020-05-26--Anti-Gun Op-Ed Impressive In How Wrong It Is

The anti-gun arguments are tired for those of us who spend a great deal of time having to listen to them .
They ’ re rarely new or interesting , but more impressive is how wrong they almost always are .
Now , I get that some people in this day and age don ’ t believe in objective truth , but facts are facts .
You don ’ t get to rework reality just to conform to your personally-preferred worldview .
I ’ m sorry , but that ’ s not how it works .
So take this op-ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer is a former Illinois state senator turned columnist .
Unsurprisingly , he espouses the anti-gun nonsense his home state is so well known for .
I was about six years old .
My younger sister and I were playing in our parents ’ bedroom .
We started rummaging around in dresser drawers .
That ’ s when I found my dad ’ s revolver .
Next to it was a small , square box with several bullets .
I carefully loaded them into the gun , a six-shooter , and aimed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not remember .
I hope it was not at Julia , even in pretense .
I then removed the bullets , put them back into the box , and pulled the trigger several times to make a clicking sound .
I recall thinking that I was doing something wrong .
I couldn ’ t say what , probably that I would to get into trouble if mom or dad knew that I had been fooling around in their dresser .
Many years ago , a young friend was at a party when she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t recall the details ) .
She asked if it was loaded .
When assured that it was empty , she put the barrel into her mouth for a laugh , then pointed it at the wall opposite and pulled the trigger .
The bullet went through three rooms , one filled with people , No one was hit .
Stuff like that happens a lot .
Fooling around doesn ’ t stop at childhood .
Now , these are horrific incidents where all involved were fortunate that nothing else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People can be stupid with any other dangerous object as well .
I can ’ t tell you how many people I ’ ve seen cut up from fooling with knives and we all know what happens when you misuse something like power tools or vehicles .
Misuse of any object can be potentially fatal .
Firearms aren ’ t alone in that fact .
Killing is something that ethologists dealt with when studying links between animal and human behavior .
When animals fight over females — a prime motivation in all species @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of exhaustion ; until one gives up and escapes .
Scientists consider this a kind of built-in inhibition against killing your own kind .
Humans also have this kind of inhibition , but only if the contest is with bare hands .
It ’ s just too hard to kill that way .
But we have invented easier means , and guns are at the peak of that mechanical evolution .
It ’ s tough to fight to the death without tools .
Pulling a trigger is no work at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun is what a person reaches for when a flash of anger momentarily clouds one ’ s reason , or when reason fails altogether .
Oh , is it ?
Not really .
George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin not because of racism as the media would have you believe , but because the barehanded Martin was bashing Zimmerman ’ s head into the concrete , thus endangering his life .
The truth is , killing without weapons isn ’ t nearly as difficult as Wooten tries to paint it .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ personal weapons , ” ( i.e .
hands , feet , fists , etc . )
than with rifles and shotguns combined .
Just because Wooten doesn ’ t know how to kill people with their bare hands doesn ’ t mean it ’ s difficult to do .
Ban guns and watch how many people learn just how to do it .
Yet , he doesn ’ t stop there .
In the very next paragraph , he argues : The implication here is that once guns enter the equation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , is an outright falsehood .
Even the most conservative estimates for the number of people who use a gun defensively every year far outstrips the homicide rate .
It also outstrips the number of people killed in justified shootings .
Now , if people drawing firearms somehow automatically translated to killing someone else , those numbers should approach parity , yet they don ’ t .
Why is that ?
It ’ s probably because , contrary to Wooten ’ s assertion , people restrain themselves with guns all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mere presence of a firearm ends the danger and people can go about their day .
They don ’ t need to engage in further conflict .
Or , is Wooten saying he preferred an era where weaker people could be easily preyed upon by those who knew how to use their fists better ?
Of course , if Wooten offered nothing else , that would have been enough .
The problem is , on top of all this nonsense , he also illustrates the laziest assertion the anti-gun left knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The NRA is bad because it actually stands up for its members ’ rights .
Keep in mind that , by and large , the NRA advocates for maintaining the status quo at the federal level as well as in most anti-gun states .
While they might want to repeal some laws , the organization knows that ’ s not going to happen , so they don ’ t push it .
Since when is maintaining the status quo “ radical , ” anyway ?
Remember that the NRA caught a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they suggested President Trump enact the bump stock ban unilaterally .
Now , they had reasons for that but that ’ s a topic for another day .
Just remember that this “ radical ” organization did that .
On the state level , yes , the NRA advocates for things like constitutional carry in a number of states .
Since 20 states have some variation of constitutional carry on the books–some measures better than others–just how radical can this idea really be ?
Oh , and as for advocating for gun safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They do it plenty .
The media just won ’ t direct any attention to that because it might make it harder to vilify the organization going forward .
I mean , most Americans don ’ t even know the Eddie Eagle program exists , much less know how to make use of it to teach kids firearm safety .
Yet that ’ s what Wooten wants to focus on .
At the end of the day , Wooten and people like him will use whatever they can to paint a picture that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them have enough sense to bring better arguments than this .

The anti-gun arguments are tired for those of us who spend a great deal of time having to listen to them. They’re rarely new or interesting, but more impressive is how wrong they almost always are. Now, I get that some people in this day and age don’t believe in objective truth, but facts are facts. You don’t get to rework reality just to conform to your personally-preferred worldview.
I’m sorry, but that’s not how it works.
So take this op-ed from a newspaper in Iowa. The writer is a former Illinois state senator turned columnist. Unsurprisingly, he espouses the anti-gun nonsense his home state is so well known for.
For example:
I was about six years old. My younger sister and I were playing in our parents’ bedroom. We started rummaging around in dresser drawers. That’s when I found my dad’s revolver. Next to it was a small, square box with several bullets. I carefully loaded them into the gun, a six-shooter, and aimed it; at what or whom I cannot remember. I hope it was not at Julia, even in pretense. I then removed the bullets, put them back into the box, and pulled the trigger several times to make a clicking sound. I recall thinking that I was doing something wrong. I couldn’t say what, probably that I would to get into trouble if mom or dad knew that I had been fooling around in their dresser. … Many years ago, a young friend was at a party when she came into possession of a handgun (I don’t recall the details). She asked if it was loaded. When assured that it was empty, she put the barrel into her mouth for a laugh, then pointed it at the wall opposite and pulled the trigger. The bullet went through three rooms, one filled with people, No one was hit. Stuff like that happens a lot. Fooling around doesn’t stop at childhood.
Now, these are horrific incidents where all involved were fortunate that nothing else transpired.
But, so what? People can be stupid with any other dangerous object as well. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve seen cut up from fooling with knives and we all know what happens when you misuse something like power tools or vehicles.
Misuse of any object can be potentially fatal. Firearms aren’t alone in that fact.
But, the writer, Don Wooten, continues:
Killing is something that ethologists dealt with when studying links between animal and human behavior. When animals fight over females — a prime motivation in all species — they go at it to the point of exhaustion; until one gives up and escapes. Scientists consider this a kind of built-in inhibition against killing your own kind. Humans also have this kind of inhibition, but only if the contest is with bare hands. It’s just too hard to kill that way. But we have invented easier means, and guns are at the peak of that mechanical evolution. It’s tough to fight to the death without tools. Pulling a trigger is no work at all. It’s so easy that a gun is what a person reaches for when a flash of anger momentarily clouds one’s reason, or when reason fails altogether.
Oh, is it?
Not really. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin not because of racism as the media would have you believe, but because the barehanded Martin was bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete, thus endangering his life.
The truth is, killing without weapons isn’t nearly as difficult as Wooten tries to paint it. In fact, more people were killed with “personal weapons,” (i.e. hands, feet, fists, etc.) than with rifles and shotguns combined.
Just because Wooten doesn’t know how to kill people with their bare hands doesn’t mean it’s difficult to do. Ban guns and watch how many people learn just how to do it.
Yet, he doesn’t stop there. In the very next paragraph, he argues:
We try to control this testosterone problem with anger management, mental health programs, enforced social norms, and religious teaching, even as our amusements work against our nobler, more pacific instincts. What we can’t seem to manage is the multiplication and enhanced destructive power of guns.
The implication here is that once guns enter the equation, people are going to die.
This, of course, is an outright falsehood. Even the most conservative estimates for the number of people who use a gun defensively every year far outstrips the homicide rate. It also outstrips the number of people killed in justified shootings.
Now, if people drawing firearms somehow automatically translated to killing someone else, those numbers should approach parity, yet they don’t. Why is that?
It’s probably because, contrary to Wooten’s assertion, people restrain themselves with guns all the time. Much of the time, the mere presence of a firearm ends the danger and people can go about their day. They don’t need to engage in further conflict.
Or, is Wooten saying he preferred an era where weaker people could be easily preyed upon by those who knew how to use their fists better?
Of course, if Wooten offered nothing else, that would have been enough. The problem is, on top of all this nonsense, he also illustrates the laziest assertion the anti-gun left knows.
There was a time when the National Rifle Association worked to do just that. The group was formed to promote the interests of hunting and gun safety. To this end, the organization endorsed some forms of gun control. At one point, the NRA decided to move out of Washington because it had nothing left to do there.
Yes, yes, we know. The NRA is bad because it actually stands up for its members’ rights.
Keep in mind that, by and large, the NRA advocates for maintaining the status quo at the federal level as well as in most anti-gun states. While they might want to repeal some laws, the organization knows that’s not going to happen, so they don’t push it.
Since when is maintaining the status quo “radical,” anyway? Remember that the NRA caught a lot of flak from their own membership when they suggested President Trump enact the bump stock ban unilaterally. Now, they had reasons for that but that’s a topic for another day.
Just remember that this “radical” organization did that.
On the state level, yes, the NRA advocates for things like constitutional carry in a number of states. Since 20 states have some variation of constitutional carry on the books–some measures better than others–just how radical can this idea really be?
Oh, and as for advocating for gun safety, the NRA still does that. They do it plenty. The media just won’t direct any attention to that because it might make it harder to vilify the organization going forward. I mean, most Americans don’t even know the Eddie Eagle program exists, much less know how to make use of it to teach kids firearm safety.
Yet that’s what Wooten wants to focus on.
At the end of the day, Wooten and people like him will use whatever they can to paint a picture that guns are bad, but most of them have enough sense to bring better arguments than this.