Category: Anti-Gun Folks

I might actually be able to say I agree with The Brady Campaign that the parking lot laws that are being passed in various states are wrong, but this is just so much PSH that it almost makes me want to support them.

A May 2005 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns were prohibited.

Reading over the study, it suffers from many of the same flaws the infamous Kellerman study it cites suffers from, namely it allows the reader to jump to a conclusion that because workplace homicide correlates with gun policy, that it must be gun policy that causes workplace homicide.  If allowing concealed weapons license holders to carry at work caused homicide in the workplace, then the Brady’s would have us believe that this demographic, which has shown itself to be exceptionally law abiding everywhere else, will suddenly start murdering people when it comes to workplace disagreements.

The study also doesn’t pass the smell test, in that it seems rather absurd to believe that a workplace policy on guns would actually prevent someone intent on mowing down his coworkers.  Do derranged and disgruntled sociopaths wake up in the morning, load up the AK-47, and then think “Oh, but damn, the employee handbook says I can’t.”  I don’t think even the Brady’s are warped enough to believe that.

I’m late linking to this post by Dr. Helen, since I tend to keep things open in tabs that I mean to blog about, and sometimes I don’t.  But I wanted to get back to this one:

I think the point about gun owners being less outraged than non gun owners is an important one. If you listen to many people who are adamant gun control supporters, they often (mistakenly) believe that people simply shoot others because they are impulsive and angry, and a gun is nearby. My guess is that this is projection. This is what they feel they would do because they do not know how to modulate their own anger. They do not trust their own instincts (maybe with good reason!) and project their anger and inability to control themselves onto others.

A question in my mind is whether these people avoid weapons specifically because they consciously believe they could not handle them?  Or do their anger issues unconsciously create an aversion toward weapons?  Its difficult for me to understand the mindset.  Why don’t such angry people fear people with baseballs bats, kitchen knives, or golf clubs?  All are pretty deadly weapons in the hands of someone who can’t control their anger.  The other curious thing is whether these people, given access to firearms, would actually fly off the handle and kill someone.  I suspect they probably would not.  I’d imagine these people are probably more frightened of their own temper than anything, which is difficult to understand given that to not be in jail, that person would have had to exercise a considerable degree of self-control if they did have a temper.

David has uncovered some useful information about our friends at AHSA.  Bitter actually has a lot of expeirence professionally in this area of non-profit, so we’ll have to dig too.  Typically, it’s not unusual for a group like AHSA, which I’m guessing is organized as a 501(c)(4), to have a 501(c)(3) foundation to cover activities which 501(c)(3)s can do.  NRA also does this.

A (c)(3) can advocate for a political position, such as gun control, but it’s more limited in terms of lobbying for legislation.  Generally only about 15% of its activities can be used for this purpose.  However, a (c)(3) can’t make an endorsement.  I suspect what’s happening is that AHSA is not receiving more than $25k annually for its 501(c)(4) because it has no members, and its donors are giving to the foundation, which is tax deductible, and can fund most of the activities that AHSA is undertaking.  Their web site, newsletters, etc, so long as they don’t mention candidates or legislation, can be funded through the (c)(3).  Any activity associated with, say, endorsing Barack Obama would have to be funded by the (c)(4), though I doubt AHSA actually put anything other than a press release into that endorsement.

That’s not to say these boundaries don’t often get crossed in non-profit, so it’s important to keep an eye on our opponents.  The penalty for making a mistake here can include losing your status as a non-profit.

They don’t seem surprised at the idea of the state funding gun control groups.

VPC tries to argue that we can’t hunt with black powder cannons.  Pretty clearly, this is a bald faced lie.  They also work for cutting down the feral cat population.

They really must be pretty bad, because I can’t believe they don’t know this looks really bad.

So says the Brady Campaign:

In remembrance events across the country, groups of at least 32 people lay silently on the ground (following the example of Abby Spangler, founder of ProtestEasyGuns.com), rang bells, read names, or said prayers to remember the victims and to demonstrate their outrage at weak gun laws in America. Virginia Tech family members and survivors like the Samaha family, the Read family, the Goddard family, the Habtu family, the Pohle family, and others were an integral part of these events.

Remembrance events? Pardon me, but isn’t remembering a tragedy like Virginia Tech by having 32 people lying down and pretending to be dead kind of — stop me if I’m crazy here — tasteless?

It was not a remembrance event, it was a political protest.  They are called “lie-ins” which is a variation of the 60s protest called “sit-ins.”  These were political statements, not solemn acts of reflection.  I won’t get on The Brady Campaign about using the Virginia Tech tragedy as an example of why we need stronger gun laws. Both sides use events, and sometimes tragedies, to advocate our positions. It’s how debate on a topic moves forward.

But I’ll fault them for using the tragedy to fundraise, for such a macabre and tasteless displays of “remembrance” as the “lie-in,” and for generally tying the entire remembrance theme in with their political issues.

I think Virginia Tech deserved the anniversary to be an actual day of remembrance and reflection, not a day of political statements. We have 364 other days of the year to argue the politics.

According to Jay, who says:

Calling the AHSA a “moderate gun rights organization” is like characterizing the Son of Sam as a “two bit criminal.” The AHSA is an anti-gun front group. Nothing more.

Yep, absolutely.  People who are moderately pro gun, and claim to represent the interests of hunters and shooters, don’t donate $5000 to a group called Handgun Control Inc. Ten grand if you count his wife.

I’m hoping this is a mistatement:

Thanks, Mr Horwitz, for your well-spoken(written) words. We have work to do to build a more wholesome and safe society. There was some debate about this “protest” on a day of “remembrance.” Yet it felt so appropriate. When the focus is on the anniversary of the tragic events, it seems pertinent to give attention to better ways forward.

Emphasis mine, but the quotes aren’t.  This is in regards to the “lie-in” held at Virginia Tech.  Is the Reverend doubting this is a day of remembrance for a lot of the families and victims?  That seems hard to believe, for a man who was a pillar of the community in the aftermath of the tragedy.

Sorry Reverend, I can’t agree with you on this.  The lie-in was a protest, meant to advance a political position.  Thirty-two people laying down and playing dead is a macabre way to remember such a tragedy, don’t you think?  Is it really “so appropriate?”  I have little problem with people using the example of tragedy as a justification for advocating certain political positions, but this was a day of remembrance for a lot of people. Virginia Tech deserved to have a quiet and reflective day.  We have 364 other days of the year to argue about the politics.

Obama has been embraced by American Hunters and Shooters Association, a group that claims to stand up for hunting, but who’s actual purposes is to provide cover for anti-gun politicians who want to give the appearance of being pro-sportsmen when they have never been any such thing:

“Sen. Obama will be a strong voice an unabashed voice for America’s hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy,” President of the Association Ray Schoenke said, citing Obama’s commitment to the traditions of gun ownership.

Let’s remember how Obama supports the shooting community again:

• Advocating that handguns be banned
• Advocating a comprehensive ban on all semi-automatic firearms
• Sponsoring legislation that makes it harder to get a license to possess a firearm, which is required under Illinois law.
• Voting against a measure as US Senator that prevents firearms manufacturers being sued out of existence because their products can be used by criminals.
• Banning any ammunition that could be used in an “assault weapon” which would include many sporting cartridges.
• Banning all firearms sale within five miles of a school or park, meaning there would be very few places in the United States where guns could be sold.

I could keep going on, but this list is getting awful long.  This is a group that claims to support shooters.  Anyone who believes that isn’t paying attention.