Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Well I thought that this is interesting thinking!

The recent decision by a Florida judge upholding the power of school districts to impose mask mandates on students is no anomaly. Nor, for that matter, was the decision by Justice Barrett upholding a vaccine mandate at Indiana University, or that by Justice Thomas upholding the federal mask mandate on public transport.

Over the past year and a half, judges of all ideological bents have proven themselves startlingly willing to affirm pandemic-based restrictions on personal liberty. As Jacob Gershman pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, most legal challenges to lockdowns have failed, and even those that have succeeded were decided on relatively narrow grounds.

The justification for all this, cited repeatedly by judges and legal scholars, is the broad power of governmental authorities to implement restrictions in the name of “public health,” a term which, as currently understood, is so vague that it can be used to serve virtually any agenda. This indefiniteness was in evidence when thousands of health professionals deemed “racism” a public health crisis sufficient to loosen social distancing protocol for Black Lives Matter protests in mid-2020, while specifically excluding “protests against stay-home orders” from this exemption.

If the pretense of public health can be used to circumvent the First Amendment guarantee of viewpoint neutrality for public demonstrations, then there is nothing it cannot do. Further demonstrating the elasticity of the public health framework, “misinformation” (that is to say, free speech) has been declared by government officials and experts to be a public health crisis, as has climate change. With this logic, our freedoms are mere putty in the hands of public health bureaucrats.

This very danger was once recognized by the ACLU, when it said in a 2008 policy brief on pandemic preparedness:

The law enforcement approach to public health offers a rationale for the endless suspension of civil liberties…the war on disease will continue until the end of the human race. There will always be a new disease, always the threat of a new pandemic. If that fear justifies the suspension of liberties and the institution of an emergency state, then freedom and the rule of law will be permanently suspended.

Disturbingly, however, there are few actual legal safeguards against the abuse of public health power.

The Framers of the Constitution were not omniscient. They did not know, for instance, that the quartering of troops in private homes, which they considered important enough to place ahead of due process in the Bill of Rights, would quickly become a virtual non-issue. Nor could they have foreseen all the threats to liberty that might eventually emerge.

While measures like quarantines date back to before the founding of the country, our current lockdown regime is historically unprecedented. The Framers took no provisions against public health excess because they simply did not imagine that such a shortcut to tyranny might ever be blazed. That is why there is no anti-lockdown amendment in the Bill of Rights, not because the founding fathers, who fought a revolution over a tea tax, would have approved of our current state of affairs.

Like a vaccine, our Constitution has inoculated Americans against most of the common strains of tyranny. We have, however, little natural immunity to the tyranny of public health, a dangerous new variant of the totalitarian pathogen which has cleverly evolved to bypass our immune defenses, allowing politicians a workaround by which they might violate our civil liberties at will while nominally upholding the Constitution.

Nor do opponents of lockdowns have much in the way of legal precedent to fall back on. The case law on the matter is surprisingly scanty; lockdown supporters tend to rest their arguments primarily on a single 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Supreme Court upheld a state law mandating smallpox vaccinations.

Jacobson was decided at a time before our modern understanding of civil liberties had developed, less than a decade after Plessy v. Ferguson and scarcely a decade before the Court would uphold the imprisonment of an antiwar leafleteer in Schenck v. United States. It has also inspired one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court: the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explicitly cited Jacobson as a direct precedent for forced sterilization, ruling that “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

There are also clear differences between the facts of the Jacobson case and our current situation. Smallpox had a historical fatality rate of around 30 percent. It is simply not reasonable to treat a disease with a fatality rate that is well below 1 percent for most demographics in the same way. Similarly, arguments for lockdowns based on George Washington’s decision to inoculate his soldiers against smallpox, or the response to a yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia in 1793, or cholera, or bubonic plague, or tuberculosis, or polio, completely ignore their relative dangers and the degree to which we have become increasingly risk-averse regarding infectious disease.

Yet this past year, the Jacobson precedent has been exponentially strengthened by the number of judges who have cited it in upholding lockdown orders, cementing it irrevocably into our case law.

Although few explicitly limiting principles on the public health power have been established, it must be remembered that even the Jacobson Court recognized the dangers of unchecked public health authority, writing that it “may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.” It is difficult to imagine a better test of this principle than that which we currently face.

While the failure of many of our era’s most respected jurists to take a stand against this madness will resound to their ignominy for generations to come, any sensible legal scholars remaining should direct their energies to closing this loophole before matters grow worse. To amend the Constitution—as may ultimately be necessary—is a great undertaking. But the costs of not doing so, in this case, may be far greater. Aspiring future tyrants should not rest with the reassurance that they need only stir up fear of a pandemic in order to render null and void the hard-won liberties of the citizenry.

Jason Garshfield is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Townhall, RealClearPolitics, and numerous other publications.

Categories
Fieldcraft

Take the Shot? A World-Class Coues Deer Offers A Challenging, Long-Range Shot In High-Wind Conditions – Presented by Springfield Armory by ARAM VON BENEDIKT

A precision rifle combined with accurate ammo and premium optics make tough shots doable. Even on tiny game like Coues deer.

A World-Class Coues Deer Offers A Challenging, Long-Range Shot In High-Wind Conditions. The Hunter Is Using Cutting-Edge Long-Range Shooting Gear. Should He Take The Shot?

“Oh My Gosh! That’s a huge buck!” My shouted whisper was snatched away by the wind, bouncing off a mountainside in Mexico a few seconds later. My friend and hunting buddy Jordan Voigt had just spotted a Coues buck across the bend of a jagged canyon, and it only took a glance through my binocular to see that it was a really good deer. Even at 514 yards.

We had started the day high on the same ridge, crawling out of our bivy tents at dawn and making our way Ninja-style to a little jutting point. There we settled in to glass miles of classic Coues deer habitat. The wind was strong, battering our backs and shoulders and creeping its cold fingers inside our collars and down our necks.

We spotted a few does, which were holding tight to heavy brush and feeding on dry mesquite beans littering the ground under the older trees. It was the third day of our hunt. I had killed a great old warrior buck the noon before, and our plan called for us to exit the backcountry during this day’s noontime so we could resupply, as well as join some friends for a traditional Argentinian dinner. After a couple days of freeze-dried food, that sounded like heaven in Coues country.

We shivered behind our binoculars and huddled on rocky shelves below the rim of the cliff, trying to escape the brutality of the wind, telling ourselves that if we glassed just a little longer a buck would show itself.

Coues deer country is often rugged and steep. Stalking close can be done, but only rarely. More often long, cross-canyon shots are necessary.

There were three of us on this adventure; myself, Jordan, and another friend and hunting buddy Natalie. This was Jordan and Natalie’s first hunt for the elusive “Grey Ghost”, the diminutive Coues whitetail of the American Southwest. They (the deer, not Jordan and Natalie) have earned their nickname honestly, being some of the most illusive creatures alive to spot and stalk amid the cactus, dense brush, and hip-high grass of their native mountain terrain. They’re tiny things, with a big, old mature buck tipping the scale at just over one hundred pounds. That’s barely bigger than your neighbor’s German Shepherd, and hunting the little deer calls for an accurate rifle and precise shooting. And more often than not, long cross-canyon shots.

The brand-new 6.8 Western cartridge is well designed and built for distance. It’s an ideal all-around cartridge for western big game.

RIFLE, SCOPE, AND AMMO

Jordan was hunting with a bolt-action rifle chambered in the brand-new, cutting-edge 6.8 Western cartridge. It was an accurate setup, turning in an average group size of less than three quarter minutes of angle. Most of the 100-yard groups could hide under a nickel. Lightweight Talley rings mounted a snappy Leupold 2-12X44 VX6 HD riflescope atop the action, and a superb Javelin Pro bipod by Spartan Precision quick-attached to the forend via a rare-earth magnet. The rifle was zeroed at 200 yards, and a drop chart showing ballistic information and “come-ups” for every distance from 200 to 1,000 yards, at average local elevation and temperature, was pasted to the side of the rifle’s forearm. Jordan had used the rifle to ring targets out to six hundred yards and more the day preceding our hunt, and I had no doubt of his ability to place an accurate shot when the moment arrived.

The ammunition nestled in the magazine on Jordan’s rifle came from the Browning factory, loaded with a new 175-grain Sierra Tipped Game King bullet designed specifically for the new 6.8 Western. The diameter of the bullet is .277, exactly the same as a .270 Winchester. Long, sleek, and streamlined, the bullets sport an extraordinarily high G1 Ballistic Coefficient of .617. Starting downrange with a muzzle velocity of 2,834 feet per second, the round packs terminal energy and momentum far beyond any distance a reasonably intelligent person would want to shoot at a little critter like a Coues buck.

Photo 4

The best Coues deer hunting is often found while living from your backpack.

We finally gave up on spotting a buck from our windy point, and slunk back to stuff our bivy tents and sleeping bags into packs and swing them aboard sore shoulders. Determined to hunt along the way we stayed high, finally running out of ridge above a big bend in a canyon. We decided to stop and glass for a while, and I hadn’t even found a comfortable rock to sit upon when Jordan hissed “big buck!” jolting us into full-throttle predator mode. I put glass on the buck, gulped my heart back down where it belonged, and settled my spotting scope onto the deer to verify what a quick glance through my binocular had told me. Sure enough, the buck was a monster. Wide, heavy beams swept out and forward, with long brow tines and G-2s, 3s, and 4s reaching toward the sky. I never could get a perfect look at the buck’s left antler, but if it matched his right side – and every glimpse I got said it would – we were undoubtedly looking at a record book buck.

When we first saw the buck he was standing broadside on a jumbled boulder face that a goat would struggle to maintain its balance on. By the time I set the spotter up and Jordan found a field position to shoot from the deer had walked under the canopy of a giant old oak tree that overhung the cliff side, stopping with only his right antler and shoulder visible through a hole in the tree limbs. He was quartering slightly toward us, but remarkably, we had a good shot at his shoulder and the vitals beyond. Jordan gallantly asked if Natalie wanted to take the opportunity, and once she’d refused settled in behind his rifle. The distance was 514 yards. He checked his chart and adjusted the turret on his scope. His position was steady, but there was a problem:

The wind. The wind was ripping left to right, sweeping in jagged bursts up and across the canyon. I’m fairly confident in estimating wind up to about fifteen miles per hour, and this air was maintaining significantly more velocity that that. The gusts, I surmised, were ripping through at 35 to 40 miles per hour. Depending on what the wind was doing at the buck’s position, and in the 500-yard void between, the Sierra bullet would drift somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 11 minutes of angle. That’s equivalent to between 20 and 55 inches. Jordan would have to make a long range downhill shot with a violently gusting crosswind at one of America’s smallest big game animals. Through a hole in a tree.

But this was no ordinary buck. It was the biggest Coues buck I’d seen in my life; one that would very likely score well into the all-time Boone & Crockett record book. Would it be wise to push our luck? To try to make that shot regardless of the complications? We studied our options.

Could we sneak closer? Coues deer are notorious for seeing any movement and just disappearing. This buck was across a canyon, with no good cover for stalking. Our chances of finding him again later were not good either. The forecast called for continuing wind through the day and following night, so we couldn’t simply wait it out. We were between the proverbial frying pan and fire.

The author with a pack full of Coues meat and topped off with a nice set of antlers.

THE MOMENT OF TRUTH

Place yourself in Jordan’s shoes. You’ve drawn a coveted tag, flown to Arizona, worked your rifle out to long distances, and backpack hunted in the backcountry. You’ve done everything you could to prepare for a tough hunt, and a tough shot, at a hard-to-find animal. You know your rifle, and are confident you can make a good shot at greater distances than you now face. And you’re looking through the crosshairs at the buck of a lifetime.

But it’s impossible to figure the wind. What is it doing at 150 yards? At 250? At 400? Will it remain steady long enough for you to squeeze off a good shot, or will it gust at the last moment, drifting your bullet an additional 25 inches? You just don’t know. YOU DON’T KNOW.

Do you take the shot?

HERE’S WHAT HAPPENED (TRUE STORY)

Jordan and I watched the wind. We tried to watch dust, cobwebs, debris, anything – to get an idea of what the wind was doing in between the deer and our position. We watched for any kind of pattern in the gusts. And then, agonizingly, we decided it would not be wise, or ethical, to take the shot. So we slid through the rocks and the ocotillo cactus and down the steep side of the ridge, trying to close to within 300 yard of the buck. If we could get that close, we could kill him. At 327 yards the buck spooked, bounded up his cliff like a mountain goat, and disappeared. Except from our dreams.

We didn’t get that buck. Nor, I believe, did we ever regret not attempting that shot. Passing was the ethical decision. Jordan did get a good buck a couple days later, with a first-shot kill at nearly the same distance. That day, there was no wind. But that is another story.

Categories
All About Guns

Colt’s Model 1915 Vickers Gun in .30-06

Colt’s Model 1915 Vickers Gun in .30-06

Colt's Model 1915 Vickers Gun in .30-06 - YouTube

Categories
All About Guns

A S&W M&P Shield, chambered in 9mm

Image may contain: text that says 'NSP SHIELD'

Categories
Uncategorized

Stopping Government Abuse During States of Emergency from THE NRA

Stopping Government Abuse During States of Emergency

Most will remember the devastation that hit Louisiana, as well as several neighboring states, when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005. New Orleans was dealt a particularly hard blow, and some may feel it will never completely recover.

Certain losses, especially those who lost their lives, can never be restored, but the region covered by Katrina’s deadly path has spent a decade-and-a-half building back. While that area of the country has always been prone to hurricanes, they hoped they would not soon experience another with the destructive force that 2005 storm brought.

Sixteen years later, to the day, Hurricane Ida made landfall. Thanks to many of the lessons learned from Katrina, the damage appears to have been greatly mitigated. One of those lessons was the importance of protecting civil rights in times of emergency.

After Katrina, NRA and the pro-Second Amendment community became outraged as reports began filtering in that the right to keep and bear arms appeared to have been eradicated in New Orleans. Orders came down to confiscate lawfully-owned firearms from city residents, and countless guns were seized from citizens who were simply concerned for their personal safety, and the safety of their loved-ones.

NRA brought this issue to light to the entire nation, and fought against this unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment. We have covered this issue in detail numerous times, along with NRA’s response, but you can find a good summary of this ordeal here.

The lessons learned from Katrina, as related to the Second Amendment, led to a flurry of new laws at all levels of government to ensure that, during any future catastrophe, our right to keep and bear arms will not be threatened. Today, most states, including Louisiana, have laws prohibiting the seizure or confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms and ammunition during a declared state of emergency. Federal restrictions were also put into place.

But that’s not to say that there continue to be some in positions of power, even in New Orleans, who still have their sights set on diminishing the Second Amendment.

Just last year, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell (D) announced an emergency order, followed by a “proclamation,” indicating she could try to exploit the situation to try to ban the sale and transportation of firearms.

While Cantrell never followed through with any actions that undermined the Second Amendment and right to self-defense, the threat was enough to warrant legislative action. Later in the year, several bills were passed and signed into law to ensure Cantrell, or any other Louisiana politician with the power to invoke an emergency order, could not restrict access to firearms, or their transportation, during chaotic times.

So, thanks to NRA members, there are now plenty of safeguards in place to protect the Second Amendment during a state of emergency. With the lessons of Katrina learned—along with a reminder of the potential for anti-gun politicians to exploit turmoil during the pandemic—16 years later, we have not seen Hurricane Ida bring its destructive force to one of our most fundamental rights. While the storm may have still caused a great deal of destruction, the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense remained unscathed.

IN THIS ARTICLE
Categories
All About Guns

It always amazes me what Money can produce!

image.png

Categories
Cops

San Francisco Launches Program Targeting Violent Criminals with Money, ‘Life Coach’ by JORDAN MICHAELS

Is San Francisco about to pay criminals not to commit crimes? (Photo: San Francisco Police Facebook)

The City of San Francisco announced this week a plan to launch a program that uses cash incentives and mentorship relationships to encourage violent criminals not to commit crimes.

Several other American cities have adopted similar programs, and the results have been mixed. Some cities have seen a marked decline in violent crime while others have experienced little change.

In San Francisco, the program has been dubbed the “San Francisco’s Dream Keeper Fellowship,” and the pilot program will target 10 people who program directors believe are at risk of committing violent crime, according to NBC Bay Area.

Critics of these and similar programs balk at using taxpayer dollars to bribe violent felons, but proponents say the money is part of a much larger system designed to stop violence before it starts.

“Paying criminals to not shoot is an enticing headline, but it is a significantly inaccurate description of the program,” David Muhammad told NBC. “The primary intervention is a positive and trusting relationship with what we call an intensive life coach.”

Muhammad is the Executive Director of the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform, an advocacy organization that seeks to “reduce incarceration and violence.”

Those involved in San Francisco’s program will receive $300 per month for being involved, Muhammad says. They’ll also be eligible to receive an additional $200 per month for achieving certain outcomes.

The Second Amendment community’s response to these programs has varied. The National Rifle Association published an article in 2018 expressing support for programs that intervene in the lives of criminals because they target gun violence without attacking gun owners. The Dream Keeper Fellowship and similar initiatives might waste taxpayer money, but unlike other policies aimed at curbing “gun violence,” they don’t try to restrict lawful gun ownership.

Others argue that despite the short-term success of these programs, they promote the wrong incentive structure and will ultimately fail. Joel Shults, a retired police chief in Colorado, made this argument in a recent dialogue posted on Police1.

“What gets backward in the money-for-not-murdering plan is that the cash reward can only be earned if you are already an offender or associated with a criminal gang,” he said. “Many businesses around the world have been paying people not to smash their windows or burn their buildings or break their kneecaps. Seems to be effective in the short term, while buying trouble in the long term.”

 

Strangely, gun-control groups are often the biggest proponents of “community violence intervention” programs even though these programs, if successful, would undercut their gun control agenda. Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords have published violence intervention pages on their websites, and President Joe Biden included $5 billion for these programs in the American Jobs Plan.

Only time will tell if this latest attempt has success in The City by the Bay.

————————————————————————————-

The Life of a Cop is never an easy one! Grumpy

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Atlantic Writer Promotes Culture War on Gun Ownership

Atlantic Writer Promotes Culture War on Gun Ownership

Canadian-born political commentator and George W. Bush-era speechwriter David Frum has taken a break from promoting actual wars in the Middle East to advocate for a culture war on gun ownership here at home.

Now a staff writer at the stultifyingly establishment Atlantic magazine, Frum authored a piece for the October 2021 issue titled, “How to Persuade Americans to Give Up Their Guns.” Frum’s thesis is that Americans own too many guns and that more guns leads to more death and crime. In order to combat this situation, Frum urges gun control advocates to convince gun owners to forfeit their firearms by making gun ownership socially unacceptable. In the commentator’s mind, there needs to be a “moral reckoning” whereby gun ownership is treated as something akin to drunk driving.

There’s nothing novel about Frum’s approach. As with most of the Atlantic’s content, Frum’s piece is mostly warmed-over regime talking points.

The CDC’s chief anti-gun advocate, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Director Mark Rosenberg, pushed for a cultural anti-gun campaign in the early 1990s. In a 1994 interview with the New York Times, Rosenberg said, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes.” The taxpayer-funded activist added, “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.”

In 1995, then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder gave a speech in which he stated, “What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.” The future Attorney General went on to add, “We have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Likening gun control and the gun control effort to anti-drunk driving policies and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving campaign is a similarly tired bit. Gun control activists from Donna Dees-Thomases of the inaccurately-named Million Mom March to Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts have cited MADD as inspiration. Conversely, the vast majority of Americans seem to intuitively understand that exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms isn’t analogous to recklessly traversing the public roadways.

As noted, Frum’s chief contention is that more guns leads to more death and crime. For instance, Frum attempted to connect the historic gun sales in 2020 with the recent spike in violent crime. The commentator wrote,

When the coronavirus pandemic struck last year, people throughout the developed world raced to buy toilet paper, bottled water, yeast for baking bread, and other basic necessities. Americans also stocked up on guns. They bought more than 23 million firearms in 2020, up 65 percent from 2019. First-time gun purchases were notably high. The surge has not abated in 2021. In January, Americans bought 4.3 million guns, a monthly record.

Last year was also a high-water mark for gun violence—more people were shot dead than at any time since the 1990s—though 2021 is shaping up to be even worse.

This lazy inference, also advanced by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, runs contrary to even anti-gun researchers’ findings.

In July, the journal Injury Epidemiology published “Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study.” The paper concluded, “Nationwide, firearm purchasing and firearm violence increased substantially during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic. At the state level, the magnitude of the increase in purchasing was not associated with the magnitude of the increase in firearm violence.” This acknowledgement is notable, given that paper was funded by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation (which also funds handgun prohibition organization Violence Policy Center) and California’s gun control factoid factory at UC Davis.

While its refreshing for gun control supporters to make such an admission, the UC Davis findings won’t surprise anyone who didn’t sleep through the last three decades.

Since the early 1990s, the number of privately-owned firearms has more than doubled, from about 192 million to more than 405 million – including more than 167 million handguns. Moreover, thanks to the diligent work of gun rights supporters, more Americans than ever before can exercise their Right-to-Carry outside the home for self-defense. Until Florida passed a “shall issue” permitting process in 1987, less than 10 percent of the American public lived in a Right-to-Carry state. Today, 42 states, accounting for 74 percent of the U.S. population, respect the Right-to-Carry – with 21 states respecting the right to do so without a permit.

According to FBI data, the homicide and violent crime rates fell by roughly 50 percent between 1991 and 2019.

Frum also pointed to what he perceives as a problem with unintended shootings. Again, these unfortunate incidents have fallen precipitously as the number of firearms Americans own has increased.

The rate of fatal firearm accidents involving children (ages 0-14) decreased 91 percent from 1975 to 2019. The rate of fatal firearm accidents among all ages has decreased 96 percent from the recorded high in 1904 to 2019.

In another lame throwback, the Bush-era speechwriter rehashed tired arguments about the purported dangers of a firearm in the home. The pundit stated, “In virtually every way that can be measured, owning a firearm makes the owner, the owner’s family, and the people around them less safe,” and that “The gun you trust against your fears is itself the thing you should fear. The gun is a lie.” Further stoking suspicion of everyday gun owners, Frum wrote,

Drawing a bright line between the supposedly vast majority of “responsible,” “law abiding” gun owners and those shadowy others who cause all the trouble is a prudent approach for politicians, but it obscures the true nature of the problem. We need to stop deceiving ourselves about the importance of this distinction.

Frum doesn’t cite an actual study to support his claim, but this anti-gun talking point is often accompanied by a reference to a 1993 study by Arthur Kellerman titled, “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The notorious work is largely responsible for the anti-gun factoid that a person with a gun in the home is supposedly more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal.

As we have repeatedly pointed out, the study was rife with methodological flaws and reached questionable conclusions. An actual examination of the output of Kellerman’s model shows that renting a home or living alone are both higher risk factors than keeping a firearm in the home.

In a detailed critique of the study in his book “Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control,” Florida State Criminology Professor Gary Kleck noted that Kellerman’ work should be “cited in a statistics textbook as a cautionary example of multiple statistical errors.” Challenging the study’s methodology, which involved sampling atypically high-violence geographic areas, Kleck concluded, “there is no formal research basis for applying any conclusions from this study about the effects of gun ownership to the general population.”

To Frum’s point denigrating law-abiding gun owners, after examining the data on violence perpetrated with firearms Kleck concluded,

It simply isn’t true that previously law-abiding citizens commit most murders or many murders or virtually any murders; and so disarming them could not eliminate most or many or virtually any murders. Homicide studies show that murderers are not ordinary citizens, but extreme aberrants of whom it is unrealistic to assume they will have any more compunction about flouting gun laws than about murder.

While exaggerating the risk posed by normal gun owners, Frum was quick to dismiss evidence showing that Americans use firearms to defend themselves at least hundreds of thousands of times each year. According to the writer, the fact that this evidence is procured from survey data means it is biased. The former speechwriter neglected to acknowledge that data from multiple surveys conducted by different entities, including the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, indicate roughly 1 million defensive firearm uses per year.

According to Frum, “American gun buyers are falling victim to bad risk analysis.” Here the writer exposed his belief that ordinary Americans are too stupid to take stock of their own circumstances and determine how to best defend themselves and their families. Presumably, he would outsource Americans’ personal decisions to media and government elites like himself. In an era where trust in media and the federal government are trending to all-time lows, concerns over crime have surged, and parts of the country have been all but forfeited to criminals, Frum’s new war will be a tough sell.

Categories
All About Guns

The Gun that Eats EVERYTHING

Categories
A Victory! Cops

Just another reson I am so glad that I NEVER became a Cop!