Tag: gun

Categories
crime and punishment Second Amendment rights self defense

Defense Against Road Rage

Road Rage, Florida, gun, guns, self defense, stand your ground

In February, Tina Allgeo was indicted on charges of murdering Mihail Tsvetkov in what the Orlando Sentinel called “a road-​rage incident that escalated and turned deadly.”

“Gun violence stemming from senseless disputes will not be tolerated,” the paper quoted State Attorney Monique Worrell.

The Sentinel provides more details in a September 8 report about how Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, is demanding that Worrell drop the case since Allgeo was clearly defending her own life when she shot Tsvetkov.

The two had quarreled after Tsvetkov, who had been closely following Allgeo, struck her car “and then struck her during an attempt to escape after she got out of her car to survey the damage to her rear bumper.” Allgeo then accidentally sideswiped Tsvetkov’s car when she followed him to try to inspect his license plate.

“Video surveillance then showed Tsvetkov exit his car, open her driver’s side door and punch her repeatedly while trying to drag her out her vehicle before she shot him in the face.”

What recourse did she have except wait and see how badly Tsvetkov would beat her?

The Bearing Arms site comments that Worrell would have to show that Allgeo somehow set up Tsvetko, some random guy on the road, so that she would have an opportunity to shoot him in what only seemed like an act of self-​defense. That’s the only way it could be “murder.” Which, given the facts that have been reported, makes no sense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment defense & war Second Amendment rights

Brace Yourself & Your Gun

gun, gun brace, 2nd Amendment, gun rights, gun control

Many foes of Second Amendment rights want to outlaw guns for everybody except military, police, Secret Service, sundry federal agencies, and bodyguards for left-​leaning celebrities.

Since this isn’t politically feasible given at least intermittent legislative and judicial support for the right to bear arms, anti-​gunners often pursue various piecemeal bans. The hope is that these will add up to an overall prohibition. Or at least provide an excuse to go after any particular gun owner for neglecting to comply with some subsidiary prohibition.

The anti-​gun forces seemed to have been having some success with an outlawing of “stabilizing braces” on short-​barreled rifles. A voluminous ATF rule sought to partially or wholly ban these braces — basically an added pistol grip —  even though the same agency had earlier said such braces were okay. 

And why wouldn’t it be okay to have a pistol brace if it’s okay to have a thing that shoots bullets?

Maybe the idea is that if you’re in a situation where you have to fight for your life using a gun, and a brace would help, trying to survive is okay, sure, but you shouldn’t have too much of a chance to survive. A stabilizing brace might give you an unfair edge? I’m guessing.

In mid-​June, the Northern District of Texas tossed this ATF gun-​brace-​ban rule. Which, according to Judge Reed O’Connor’s decision in the case, Mock v. Garland, is “arbitrary and capricious.” As Shooting News Weekly puts it, “Oof.”

Unlike the similar looking (at least to me) “bump stock,” braces do not change the mechanism of firing. And bump stocks were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court about the same time. While stabilizing braces seem here to stay, a decision by the Supreme Court may still be required.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment insider corruption international affairs

Hunter’s Pseudo-​Crime

Hunter Biden has been found guilty of buying a gun while being a crack addict.

Yes, that’s a federal crime.

The jury “heard testimony from Hunter Biden’s ex-​wife and former girlfriends,” UK’s Mirror explained yesterday, “and were shown photos of him with drug paraphernalia and other salacious evidence to make the case that he had lied when he checked ‘no’ on the form at a gun shop asking whether he was ‘an unlawful user of, or addicted to’ drugs.”

While the U.S. President’s son is guilty as charged, the prosecution was almost as bogus as Trump’s.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R‑Ky.) put it best, on X: “Hunter might deserve to be in jail for something, but purchasing a gun is not it. There are millions of marijuana users who own guns in this country, and none of them should be in jail for purchasing or possessing a firearm against current laws.”

Elon Musk, who owns X (ex-​Twitter), concurred: “I agree. He (and others) should be in jail for impugning the integrity of the United States by taking bribes for political favors, but not for this pseudo-crime.”

But pseudo-​crimes are what the Department of Justice, and your local lawfare Democratic prosecutors, specialize in. 

“They picked the gun charge because it was the only one not attached to Joe Biden,” explained Natalie F. Danelishen. “They also convicted Hunter Biden because they needed a fall guy so that Trump’s 34 felonies look less like political prosecution. Now ‘Justice’ seems fair. It’s a chess game.”

Exactly. No matter what the president says, or Merrick Garland says, or the talking heads on cable news say, it’s a scam.

Set Hunter free — and prosecute him, his uncle and his father for their evident corruption.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies Second Amendment rights

The CDC on Self-Defense

CDC, gun control

This April, a Nashville homeowner shot an intruder intent on burglary.

Also this month, a St. Louis apartment dweller shot an intruder who threatened to kill his family.

A Newport Beach homeowner recently shot an intruder as well.

Aside from the obvious, what do such incidents, often in newspapers, have in common? The government is hiding research about them.

In December 2022, Fox News reported that to appease gun control activists, the Centers for Disease Control had deleted reference to a study on how often guns are used in self-​defense from its published research.

The CDC-​commissioned study by Gary Kleck showed that “instances of defensive gun use occur between 60,000 and 2.5 million times” annually. But in 2021, after being lobbied by the gun control activists, the CDC pretended that Kleck’s study didn’t exist.

Kleck said: “CDC is just aligning itself with the gun-​control advocacy groups.… ‘We are their tool, and we will do their bidding.’ And that’s not what a government agency should do.”

CDC’s conduct was not new. In 2018, Capital Research had asked why the agency was “Hiding Its Defensive Gun Use Statistics.”

For decades, we’ve had abundant data on how gun owners defend themselves from violent bad guys. CDC, which investigates something or other related to this subject, won’t share all that it knows.

We can’t legally require the media to stop hiding critical information. But we should be able to require our government to stop doing so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment Second Amendment rights social media

A Gun with His Name On It

Trump, Glock, self defense, 2nd Amendment

An “X” post by a Trump spokesperson implicated the former president in a crime.

What followed implicates the U.S. Government in something far worse.

But first, to clarify:

  1. By “X” I mean “Twitter.” Remember, Elon Musk changed the name of his social media company.
  2. By “Trump” I mean, of course, Donald John Trump, former president of the United States running the same office, a man surrounded by armed guards at all times.
  3. By “crime” I mean an infraction of federal law, not a willful abuse of someone’s rights at common law. 
  4. The crime in question is the act of receiving “any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce” by a person “under indictment … a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Trump’s been indicted quite a number of times, recently, and therefore isn’t legally allowed to buy a gun.

The initial tweet said Trump admired a Glock that had his name stamped on it. It was the “Donald Trump edition,” gold-​colored, retailing for under a thousand bucks. Trump’s on video saying he wants one of these handguns.

When X went all a‑twitter with the implications, spokesman Steven Cheung took down his post and the campaign issued a corrective: “President Trump did not purchase or take possession of the firearm. He simply indicated that he wanted one.” 

This is all explained by Jacob Sullum at Reason, who goes on to indicate that the law makes no real sense. The obvious absurdity of not allowing a well-​guarded presidential candidate to guard himself with gun of any kind, that’s one thing. Flouting the Second Amendment by prohibiting the innocent, i.e. not yet proven guilty, from bearing arms, looks far worse — a policy of rights suppression.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

Corrigendum notice: a correction was made late on the date of publication [Trump is not a “Jr.,” as originally stated].

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Second Amendment rights

Tulsa Shooter Stopped Dead

handgun, gun, gun control,

Some killers are easier to stop than others. 

The coronavirus pandemic is proving very hard to stop.

But one good guy with a gun and presence of mind can stop a different kind of would-​be killer — an active shooter — instantly. This is what happened last week outside of a Tulsa marijuana dispensary.

Apparently angered by some earlier altercation with somebody, a woman started shooting at customers. By the time the Tulsa Police arrived, she was dead. A bystander with a concealed carry permit had returned fire, stopping her before she could hurt anyone. He was questioned and released by police, who reviewed video of the scene.

At BearingArms​.com, Cam Edwards decries the under-​reporting of the story. One local news station even “completely miss[ed] the fact that an armed citizen saved lives,” instead making it sound as if the guy just walked up to the woman at random and shot her.

“Journalistic malpractice,” Edwards calls it.

It’s easy to see why a story like this might get lost in the shuffle given everything else that’s going on now. But even in (relatively) normal times, many in the media tend to strenuously ignore — sometimes even willfully distort — the facts about how persons bearing arms have used deadly force to stop others wielding deadly force from killing innocent people.

What we always hear is true: guns are not independent agents. 

Persons wield weapons for good or ill. 

And it is decidedly good when an armed civilian draws and fires a weapon to stop an evil shooter from doing criminal harm.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

handgun, gun, gun control,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Common Sense First Amendment rights national politics & policies Second Amendment rights

Free Designs

3d printing, gun, gun rights, Second Amendment, First Amendment, gun control

The relationship between the First and Second Amendments is closer than commonly believed.

This is especially clear in the 3D gun printing story, the subject of yesterday’s Common Sense, “Progressive Designs.” As I finished the copy, a news story broke: U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik “muzzled Defense Distributed with a court order,” as Declan McCullagh puts it. 

And then, as McCullagh goes on, a mirror site appeared. Though Cody Wilson, the man behind Defense Distributed, immediately took his plans offline, “the Calguns Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and other civil rights groups” published plans for “AR-​15, AR-​10, Ruger 10 – 22, Beretta 92FS, and other firearms” on their sites.

This made my footnote especially relevant, for it was there that I noted that “plans like this have been available on the not-​exactly-​easy-​to-​access Dark Web for some time.” And now Cody Wilson’s precise “freely downloadable computer-​aided design (CAD) files,” though “dark” on his site, are bright elsewhere.

McCullagh admits that though it is certainly “possible that Defense Distributed may lose this legal skirmish and be prevented from returning its instructions to the DEFCAD site,” since such plans are now everywhere, and not easily stoppable, constitutionally, the “Second Amendment, it turns out, is protected by the First.”

Which is, of course, natural enough — for the Second Amendment’s protections of self-​defense has held power-​lusting politicians at bay, keeping Americans freer than citizens anywhere else. What other country has better free speech protections?

All freedoms help each other, reinforce each other.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment education and schooling general freedom media and media people national politics & policies responsibility Second Amendment rights

Good Guy With Gun

Blaine Gaskill, school shooting, gun, gun control, Maryland, defense, 2nd Amendment

Short version of the story: a good guy with a gun at a Maryland high school stopped a bad guy with a gun. In less than a minute. How? Because the good guy had a gun and was inside the school with the gun.

The bad guy was able to shoot a 16-​year-​old female student, apparently someone with whom he had a previous relationship, as well as a 14-​year-​old male before an officer on site responded. This officer, Blaine Gaskill, was on the spot in less than a minute. Gaskill and the assailant fired simultaneously. The assailant fell dead. What exactly happened is still unclear; there has been some media speculation that the bad guy may have shot himself. 

But the 17-​year-​old shooter is dead. The female victim, though still alive, is unfortunately in critical condition. The male victim is in stable condition.

The good guy was armed — with a gun. And he was on site. If you’re learning about the incident here first, it’s because the story isn’t being plastered all over the place 24 – 7 as it would have been had the shooter been able to wreak much more havoc because nobody could quickly counter him.

So, is it okay to let responsible, well-​trained administrators, teachers and others in schools be armed? 

Well, ask the question a different way. If you happened to be inside the school at the time, would it be okay to survive when some maniac with a gun starts shooting at you and others inside that school? 

Let’s defend our loved ones.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment education and schooling folly general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Insufferable Common Sense

Timothy Locke, Cherry Hill High School East in New Jersey, gun, gun control, 2nd Amendment, hysteria

Sometimes common sense and open discourse can’t be suffered — or won’t be, anyway.

So discovered Timothy Locke, a popular teacher at Cherry Hill High School East in New Jersey, after discussing the possibility of arming teachers to help protect adults and kids from would-​be mass-​murderers. Locke also suggested that he’d be among those bearing arms if allowed.

Most of Locke’s students were okay with his opining. But one student was bothered enough by the viewpoint to complain to administrators. 

Without further ado, the school — the “Home of the Cougars,” which proudly proclaims its promotion of “a welcoming environment, community, diversity … participation … growth mindset, grit… ‚” so forth — searched Locke’s belongings, subjected him to mental and physical evaluations, and suspended him.

Mental evaluation? Wasn’t that a ploy in the old Soviet Union: dissenters must be crazy, hence ought to be carted off to the loony bin? Let’s go nowhere near such sanctions against independent thinking here.

“The bottom line,” Locke summaraized, “is that I was very concerned about security at my school.”

Through an online petition and otherwise, hundreds of students have protested the shabby way that a teacher who inspires them has been treated. 

Students less enthusiastic about Locke lament the teacher’s tendency to digress — still legal in all 50 states.

So what now? After a futile school board meeting deflecting questions on Locke’s fate, a second, special meeting is scheduled for tonight, March 6, at 7 pm in the Cherry Hill High School West Auditorium. 

Let’s hope sanity prevails.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies responsibility Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Self-​Defense, Implausible?

gun, gun free, school zone, control, schools, teachers, Israel, defense, gun control

Don’t take a GUN-​FREE ZONE sign to a gun fight. 

Whenever there’s a horrific incident of mass murder, advocates of citizen disarmament blame the right to protect oneself against armed attackers. The thinking seems to be that if we make it illegal for all civilians to have guns, bad guys willing to kill people will also refrain from using guns as they try to kill people.

This is implausible.

And if you do not see its implausibility immediately regarding firearms, consider drugs. Not taking them, but the war on same. Drugs didn’t vanish upon prohibition. Neither would guns if prohibited.

President Trump argues that students would be safer were schools a harder target. Why not arm well-​trained teachers? “If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly.” He’s right.

Not a new idea, of course. It’s been argued, for example, by the NRA, whose chairman says that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. 

This idea is being practiced right now — in Israel.

As Tzvi Lev argues at the Arutz Sheva 7 site, Israel proves the NRA’s point. 

Even Israel — where Arab communities are “rife with illegal weapons” despite their illegality — has not always been quick to recognize that it’s better to have lots of armed civilians when terrorists start shooting at civilians. But after terrorists attacked a school in 1974, the government began arming and training teachers — somehow failing to defer to the terrorists’ preference for gun-​free zones. 

In both of the only-​two school shootings in Israel since then, teachers killed the attackers. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing