Category: Gun Rights

This time at Bearing Arms.

Good thing Japan has strict gun laws or someone might have gotten hurt. My chief argument against people who want to tighten up gun laws because of mass killing is: “OK, then what do we do when that doesn’t work, and we still have mass killings?” Because we will. You don’t need an AR-15 to kill a lot of people quickly. Tactics are a lot more important. Even with a bolt action rifle that only holds 5 rounds, the killer can still succeed if they adjust their tactics to match the capabilities of the weapon. So the idea that you ban this gun or that gun is not borne out by reality. Mass killings have been very successfully pulled off by trucks and explosives and even bladed weapons in countries that have strict gun laws and little cultural history of private gun ownership.

Clayton Cramer is working on a definitive work on the history of mass killing, and from what I’m hearing the history is extensive and pretty interesting. This is not a new phenomena. Mass killing is probably the number one threat to our rights, because it scares the politically powerful in ways that random crime does not. The politically powerful tend to be effectively insulated from random crime, whereas mass killings are more like lightning.

Except lightning kills about 50 people per year versus about 20 for mass shootings. People are generally pretty bad at assessing risk.

The Virginia legislature stuck it to Ralph Northam with his special session on gun control. This is a good outcome, but one that won’t survive if the Dems gain control of the legislature, as they are moving to do unless the Virginia GOP gets its act together. The demographic trends in Virginia are challenging: the federal government doesn’t get smaller, and Virginia has been flooded with new federal workers who will vote for Dems. I understand that the GOP is getting shaky even in the tidewater areas.

Virginia is one of the most important states for us, because NRA’s ability to recruit passionate people depends on there being an active and healthy gun culture in Virginia. Even if you don’t love NRA right now, any effective lobbying organization is either going to locate in DC, Maryland or Virginia. DC and Maryland are already lost.

New Zealanders aren’t turning them in. When Australia did the same thing, estimates of compliance fell way short of expectations. I can tell you from first hand anecdotal experience that non-compliance among New Jersey residents is also very real thing. Irish Democracy in action.

Pretty good decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in regards to whether you can be stopped if the police spot you carrying a gun. I’m hoping this also dissuades the folks who seem to think maybe the Supreme Court is up for revisiting Ortiz. I feel better that they are not after seeing this.

Just pass this and wait. The shooting sports will be gone in a generation. No need to ban firearms at all. Hunting is on the decline anyway. No harm in exempting that, less the Fudds realize what you’re really doing. They aren’t passing it onto their kids anyway, so what do they care?

The goal is not public safety. It’s sticking it to the flyover rubes and showing them who’s boss.

Since sometimes ping backs actually still work, maybe it’s time to get back to blogging’s roots and use it to promote conversation across blogs like we used to. Herschel Smith links to my piece about the Empty Bank.

Sebastian is still arguing, seemingly, that as long as we all retreat in unison, everything will be okay (or at least as good as it can ever be given that we are likely on the losing side anyway).  We just need to avoid division.  If I’ve misinterpreted Sebastian in this admittedly cursory treatment of his latest post, please feel free to correct me.  But on the previous [related] post by Sebastian which I’ve linked (and will do so again), commenter Stephen Wright lays out the following charge.

It’s not really about whether we retreat in unison that’s the issue. The issue is whether the ground is defensible and worth the blood that will have to be shed with a slim chance of even keeping it.

This is, of course, an analogy, but since war is just the continuation of politics by other means, it’s an apt one. Even Sun Tzu recognized there is such a thing as indefensible ground. Let us not forget what bill had been introduced and which I’m told had the votes to pass if something wasn’t done to take the wind out of its sails. This bill would have:

• Banned anything that increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm. Think about what can do that? Almost any part change you can imagine will have a theoretical effect on the rate of fire. This would have put all semi-autos at legal jeopardy.
• Banned a huge number of existing transferrable machine-guns by making drop in auto sears flat out illegal.
• Put crank firearms, which currently includes large number of historical pieces in museums in legal limbo.

The chief argument I’m hearing is that what ATF did was worse. But it’s not. Bump stocks were getting banned one way or another. The question is whether it’s better to have a narrow ruling that stretches ATF’s authority to its or near its breaking point, which can be done with oversight of a somewhat friendly administration, and which is sure to face court challenges later on that could end up prevailing.

But I supposed we could have stood on principle and let Congress give ATF and future hostile Administrations a whole new law with lots of room to create broad new powers to regulate semi-automatic firearms. I’d rather force ATF to go out on a limb with a narrow reinterpretation, buy some time, and hopefully cooler heads prevail.

I’m sorry, but if you think all ground is good to fight on, everywhere, all the time, I will tend to think that’s foolish.

Americans have never historically liked to admit we have class struggles. I guess it sounds a bit too Marxist, even though now we love ourselves some socialism now. Well, at least we love it to the extent the kids these days even know what socialism is. I don’t really hear too many young people singing the praises of Marx. Socialism has come to mean Scandinavian-style welfare states (which are not very socialist anymore). Do young people who dig “socialism” even know who Marx is? I’ve never had a young person tell me they are socialist and want to discuss Marxist theory. Anyway, I digress.

We don’t historically like Marxist-sounding class struggles, so we use proxy issues. Gun control is one of those fights. For the most part, the monied elite of Silicon Valley and New York City don’t like the idea of ordinary people being armed, and don’t much like the kind of people who insist on it. When I started blogging, we were enjoying a lot of cultural success. What were the elements at work then? In no particular order:

• We developed shooting sports that didn’t require large amounts of open space.
• We had found new ways to self-organize on the Internet.
• We were introducing a lot of people to shooting and promoting an evangelistic gun culture.
• Gun control forces were disorganized and out of money.
• The Supreme Court blessed our long-held viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right. This worked! Even the reinvigorated gun control movement isn’t talking handgun bans. They want to ban semi-auto rifles now.

The question that I’ve been mulling around in my head is whether our current predicament is a backlash to our earlier success. Back then we were making a lot of noises about bringing our culture to New York City and preaching to the heathen there. We were optimistic. Then the Supreme Court toppled Chicago’s handgun ban, and further guidance from the 7th Circuit forced the establishment of a shall-issue regime. I think there’s a good argument for the idea that our success put people like Bloomberg, and a lot of his very rich friends, into an utter panic about the idea that they might end up living near those kinds of people. The idea that the courts might start letting the wrong kind of people exercise some semblance of personal dignity and autonomy, why, they might start getting the idea that their opinions ought to matter. We might have to endure *gasp* gun talk in our social circles. Wouldn’t that just be the worst?

I understand that Mike Bloomberg is an aviation enthusiast, and I’ve never understood how enthusiasts in anything don’t instinctively get other enthusiasts, because it’s all the same. But aviation is a good way to signal status, I suppose. Not guns. I know plumbers who have collections that put mine to shame. Can’t use that. In this day in age, there isn’t much to signal status for the wealthy. You basically have what? Houses, cars, yachts, and aircraft? I guess if you’re really wealthy, you can signal with your own space program, but I’d say that’s a subset of aircraft. I don’t think jewelry and furs do it much anymore. The rich have stopped signaling with dress in the 21st century, and signaling being very important, they have to make some distinction, right?

The difficult part for us is a small handful of wealthy people deciding to fund a backlash can accomplish quite a lot. Because there’s a lot of people who want to be upwardly, socially mobile, and will imitate the attitudes and behaviors of the Right Kind of People. The rise of the twin evils of the Google search monopoly and social media has had a powerful effect at amplifying elite opinion. Google has been a search monopoly for a while, but I think only recently they’ve started to understand they can use that monopoly to shape public opinion and started using it to that effect. I would argue the elite have never had such an effective toolbox for manipulating public opinion. William Randolph Hearst could have never dreamed about having the kind of power the Silicon Valley elite now wield.

Glenn Reynolds says about gun control, and I think he’s completely right about this: “It’s meant to humiliate the flyover rubies and show them who’s boss.” We don’t like class struggle in American politics so we couch it in other issues. A lot of people I know have gotten more strident about gun control because they are getting a lot of reinforcing signals on Social Media and the Internet that the Right Kind of People support gun control, and the Wrong Kind of People, a Bad Kind of People who want dead children, oppose it. Also, the Orange Man, who is Very Bad, sides with these warped gun people.

So what do we do? One thing is for sure, we can’t just shut up. We have to keep doing what we were doing that built on our initial success. But I have to admit, I don’t really engage in open political discussion on Facebook, and I deleted my Twitter presence a while ago. I have taken a course of disengagement with Social Media, except for a handful of communities that are carefully cultivated. It’s not that I shy from debate, or want to live in a bubble. I miss intelligent disagreement. I’m happy to advocate for things I believe in. But I can’t tolerate the mindless conformity, self-importance, and virtue signaling social media promotes. I’m always willing to discuss an issue. But I’m not willing to subject myself to being called a monster for disagreeing, or to waste my time watching other people preen for their peers. Social Media is full of that. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by disengaging? What is a winning strategy in today’s world? Is there one? These are things I wrestle with.

Trump has come out and announced he will save us from HR 8 and HR 1112. That is assuming the Senate doesn’t save us, which all indications suggest it will. So we at least know what the Dem priorities are:

1. Ban all gun transfers between non FFLs except with narrow exceptions.
2. End default proceeds, or at least get to as close to ending them as possible. This means they can deny gun rights to people just by refusing to conduct or finish background checks.
3. Restrict magazine capacity.
4. Ban assault weapons. I’m curious to see if Pelosi pushes this.

I keep saying, these people are not strategic dummies, and should not be lightly dismissed. Bloomberg didn’t make his fortune by being a moron. For the first two, I have to do a lot more education to make sure gun owners understand the issues. Most have no idea what a default proceed even is. But PICS outages they are well familiar with. So you have to put it in that context. This is just an example.

The latter two gun owners are already well-educated on. At this point there are more AR-15s out there, I’d wager way more AR-15s out there, than there are Mini-14s and M1 Carbines, two firearms that were exempted in the 90s bans because there were just too many owners out there who would raise hell.

Most gun people, even people who shoot a lot or own a lot, and therefore have something to lose, don’t really follow this stuff or know the ins or outs of the law. They will happily go through life blissfully unaware of the maze of laws that surround them like a pride of lions waiting for them to drift from the herd. Their goal is to “create a culture of compliance” among us. You will bend to their will, or else.

I think a lot of folks are deeply uncomfortable with the notion that a handful of rich guys can essentially buy their preferred policy. Perhaps so uncomfortable that they don’t want to admit it’s the case. But they can. In our type of democratic system, they at least have to convince voters. But unfortunately that’s not all that hard.

Caleb has a great article about the future gun control fight. Also see what Miguel had in reference to my comments from yesterday. I don’t mean to come off as a pessimist. Bloomberg has picked a hell of a fight with us. That money of his would have steamrollered over other issues. But we do have our own advantages. What I would say to our people:

• The time for division is not now. We need a strong NRA. If you quit NRA over bump stocks or red flag laws, you aren’t helping. I’m not saying we can’t have disagreement, but we all need to be rowing in the same direction and understanding what’s important. Miguel notes that activists in Florida are concentrating on Open Carry. I would advise concentrating on stopping the ballot measure Bloomberg is going to foist on you in 2020. NRA has to have money to fight that. We cannot write off the third most populous state. We will never be able to outspend Bloomberg, but we sure as hell can out-organize him. We have a blueprint, and last I heard the dude who pulled off defeating the Massachusetts handgun ban is still alive. The odds were stacked against him too.
• Forget about the fucking bump stocks. It’s not where the fight is. That’s over. The fight is preserving the right to own semi-automatic firearms. That’s ultimately what they want, because they are well aware no state’s gun culture has ever come back from an assault weapons ban. Gun bans are a death blow to the culture. If you want to get the hard-core activists worked up over saving an impractical range toy, or in some misguided effort to (badly) get around the machine gun restrictions, you’re not paying attention to where the actual fight is.
• Be prepared to go to your capitol in protest. Start organizing that with local resources now. It will be needed.
• Set up communication channels that can’t be shut down or censored by Facebook and Google. The achilleas heel of blogs is that they depend on search traffic, and search traffic can be manipulated. The elite basically have the ability to completely screw us if they decide to start shutting down pro-2A groups and pages on social media, and manipulate the search results so that no one ever finds our arguments. As a community, we need to get more sophisticated about manipulating search results. But good old fashioned e-mail lists will end up being valuable. These monstrosities are powerful, but they are still big systems that no human could possibly look after. So we have to get good at getting around the barriers they can throw up.
• Recruit young people. If you’re worried about this issue, you’ve already lost. I’m not as worried we’ve lost the youth, because there are cultural indicators that are quite positive there. We’re becoming the new counter-culture, and I wonder if we should start marketing ourselves that way.