Fresh off landing an endorsement from an erstwhile liberal holdout and foe, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is scheduled to appear tomorrow with another former House colleague and onetime political opponent, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.
Gillibrand is to join the Long Island congresswoman, Mayor Bloomberg, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Brady Campaign and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence at John Jay College for a so-called “major announcement” (according to a press release) of a “new federal measure to combat gun violence.”
Based on this ad campaign that Bloomberg will be doing with MAIG, I would say it’s legislation designed to deny constitutional rights to Americans based on their presence on a secret government list, otherwise known as denying gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list. I would encourage everyone to make sure their MAIG mayors understand this, and definitely make sure they know it’s unacceptable.
I’ve been asked by a reader to boycott a regular commenter, the infamous anti-gun Mikeb302000. Joining something like this isn’t something I’d take lightly. For those of us who remember the infamous Jadegold, he’s certainly not the first trollish anti-gunner we’ve had around these parts. So I am reluctant to join in such a boycott.
Someone like MikeB won’t change his mind about the issue, but an undecided looking up information on a gun policy they hear about in their own state might come across the very posts where he comments. Refusing to discuss the issues makes him seem like the rational one, regardless of how absurd the comment might be. As an activist, it’s that person I want to truly engage, not MikeB. The chocolate/vanilla argument from Thank You for Smoking at the 6:21 mark is a great example:
“I’m not after you, I’m after them.” Perhaps more importantly to reaching the undecideds both online and in real life is that every once in a while, MikeB does raise a fair concern I’ve heard from those who don’t understand firearms and gun control. It’s always useful to keep your mind sharp for these sometimes unexpected arguments, and if I can learn from him while honing my skills to speak to the middle, then I’ve gained far more than he has by spouting off in his corner of the internet. Even if we all realize we won’t convince MikeB, people who are serious about the issue need to keep their debating skills sharp. Hiding our heads in the sand & living only in an echo chamber is what got us to this place initially. In the past, it was hiding out in the gun clubs and just sitting out of the political game. Nowadays, it is all of that, plus creating new echo chambers online.
So when it is trolling?
I’m not going to argue that MikeB isn’t a troll at all. He does seek attention, particularly to his blog. But what upstart blogger doesn’t want attention? I don’t blame those who simply don’t want to promote him, or acknowledge him. I’m not going to suggest MikeB isn’t trying to play certain angles in hope of comments and links, and it’s up to each blogger whether or not to send him any. But for me, I’ll continue to engage him when he raises useful points. As long as he respects my comment policy, and respects other commenters, he’ll be welcome to post here.
I would suggest that folks consider the anti-gunners here as “useful idiots”. Use their arguments to make sure your skills to engage the undecided are still sharp. Â I worry greatly about our community becoming an echo chamber. There was a time in the blogosphere when we condemned such an attitude. We used to pride ourselves on our openness to debate. I will ignore MikeB when I believe he’s making shoddy arguments, but as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and even MikeB can raise good points that deserve to be addressed from time to time. Anti-gunners aren’t necessarily a waste of time, even if you’ll never convert them. “I’m not after you, I’m after them.”
Surprise, they are claiming their terror watch list legislation would have made a difference, but it wouldn’t have. There is no rule, law, or regulation that is going to stop all tragedy, or even most tragedy. Sometimes bad things just happen. If anything, Ft. Hood is an example of the folly of counting on the government to protect us.
Paul says anyone can go into any gun show and buy a gun no questions asked, despite the fact that their own video repeatedly shows sellers asking questions about residency and age in order to assess whether or not sellers are eligible, which require sales to be to residents of the same state, and be over 18 years old. Private sellers are unable to run background checks on buyers by law.
Josh Sugarmann shows that people with concealed carry permits have murdered 85 people from 2007 to 2009. Source? News accounts, no doubt found through intensive research using Google. But if you look carefully at the actual reports, for the report which shows law enforcement officers killed, only one has actually been convicted, though the circumstances in the other cases, I will agree make a guilty verdict likely. It’s less clear when you look at private citizen incidents, since only 10 of the 42 incidents involved people who were convicted, with a further 10 committing suicide in likely murder suicides. Of the incidents not yet resulting in a conviction, one doesn’t even involve the use of a gun, eight could arguably be self-defense, depending on circumstances (something for a jury to decide).
I’d also point out that by dividing the incidents up like this, it makes it look like we’re dealing with more incidents overall, rather than just 46. So out of the estimated 5 million concealed carry permit holders in the country, Josh Sugarmann managed to dig up 46 people, many of which only might be murderers because of a lack of convictions. Even giving Josh the benefit of doubt, that means that concealed carry permit holders murder at a rate 1/4 1/8 that of the general population. Not surprising for a group of people that have gone through a background check.
UPDATE: I should note that of the 46 incidents listed, there are a number of them which the concealed carry permit was not really material to the crime, because they either happened in or near the home.
UPDATE: Joe informs me I forgot to correct for the fact that Sugarmann’s study is over two years, so the real number is 1/8 not 1/4, and is noted above.
Joe Huffman is reporting that the Brady Center is not filing a brief on either side in the McDonald case. I’m not sure what the Brady folks are thinking here, but I’m wondering if this is a sign of them being resigned to lose, and filing a brief for their own purposes rather than for legal effect.
Thirdpower notes that the Brady’s are scrubbing any reference to their past opposition to the Second Amendment as an individual right. It’s the old narrative. Heller has imposed a new narrative on the gun control movement, which you see over and over, like State Representative Levdansky, “I believe in the Second Amendment. But…” Say what you will about the gun control groups, their message discipline is incredible. “I believe in the Second Amendment, but I believe in gun control too.” is the new “Separate but Equal.”
The good thing for us is that we’ve forced them onto a weaker message.
… they bring dismissive insults and ignorance. Keep it up. We’ll keep winning, and you’ll keep sliding into irrelevance. But hey, I do suppose we should credit him for not resorting to dick jokes.
at the 6:21 mark is a great example: