I have three things that bother me about the KateSteinle decision.
Attorneys Gloating Over The Decision Made The Attorneys And San Francisco Look Bad
This was a sad day for the relatives of #KateSteinle family and San Francisco as both attorneys gloated over the decision. They seemed to be making the case that the decision was primarily about President Trump. There was a high road to discussing the jury’s decision and the attorneys did not take it. Ironically the attorneys took a divisive issue made the San Francisco justice system look cheap and arbitrary.
A SIG Sauer P239 Is A Modern, Reliable Gun. So How Does It Go Off Accidentally?
The gun used in the Kate Steinle murder was a SIG Sauer P239. This is a modern, reliable gun that is popular with law enforcement agencies. The handguns produced by SIG Sauer have a well-deserved reputation for reliability. As an example, the P226 is the official sidearm of the U.S. Navy SEALs. On 19 January 2017, SIG Sauer was awarded the contract to supply handguns to the US military. SIG Sauer does not make guns that go off “accidentally”. The only way a modern gun goes off “accidentally” is if someone accidentally puts their finger on the trigger and pulls. If your finger is on the trigger and you have not confirmed that the gun is empty, it is not an accident. Mr. Zarate had his finger on the trigger of a loaded gun and it went off. This is negligence. The lack of a conviction for involuntary manslaughter brings into question whether a sanctuary city is capable of justice for all. We signed up for blind justice not blind and stupid justice.
Does California Care About Gun Safety?
The only #KateSteinle conviction was for a felon possessing a firearm. Considering that the case for involuntary manslaughter was stronger, why did they convict him for accidentally picking up a firearm? The conviction reeks of tokenism and undermines the justice system. If something good is to come from Kate Steinle’s death, the conviction has to be more than a good scolding. An involuntary manslaughter conviction would have sent a strong message about gun safety. This was the message I got in my concealed carry class. My instructor was pretty adamant that if my gun was involved in an accidental discharge and someone died, I was going to jail. That is a good lesson I remember every time I handle a gun. If California cared about gun safety they should have taken the opportunity to emphasize what a person should do if they find a gun. A child or a person not familiar with guns should contact the police and let them handle it. A person more experienced with guns may want to safely secure the weapon before contacting the police. The gun may be lost or involved in a crime. An illegal immigrant high on sleeping pills he found in a trash can should walk away. Illegal immigrants with guns is a situation even sanctuary cities have to realize is a bad idea.
Late last year I noticed that Buckeye Firearms Association was publishing concealed carry statistics for Ohio. As an example here is a recent post about the 2016 statistics, Annual Attorney General Summary on Concealed Carry: 2016 marks busiest year on record. Although my calculations of the total number of valid licenses did not match up as closely as I would like, I will gladly defer to their report. There are a lot of people with concealed carry licenses. My favorite quote from their report is:
For the person without a CHL, what this means is that anytime they look around and see 14 other people, odds are that one of them has a CHL. Concealed carry is mainstream, common sense and is close to most people on a daily basis. It works so well that most people are blissfully unaware that anyone else is carrying a gun.
Ohio continued to show strong concealed carry growth in 2016 with 32,259 new licenses in the second quarter. Even though the number of new licenses dropped from the first quarter of 2016, it is still 58% higher than the fourth quarter of 2015. By my calculations, the renewal rate increased to 73% while the year over year growth of total licenses increased to 19%. Here is my updated table and graph. To see my last report and the explanation of how I calculate the total number of licenses, click here.
||License YoY Growth Rate
On Sunday my wife and I were shopping for a new lawn mower and decided to check the lawn mower prices at our local hardware store. I thought this store was out of business since it has had such a difficult time competing with the nearby Home Depot and Lowes stores. We did not find a lawn mower but I was intrigued that out of the three store employees, two were working at the gun counter. Of the the seven customers in the store five customers were at the gun counter. A couple of years ago this store did not sell guns and now they have more guns and ammo customers than hardware customers.
In the comments for the post, 5 Questions Women Should Ask Before They Get a Gun, JayWye asked the question, “are you capable of using a weapon to shoot or kill an attacker?” Most of the comments focused on guns but the interesting question is how comfortable are women with using self-defense weapons other than guns? Europe provides us with a few alternatives with mixed results. Recently a Danish teenager who said she was sexually assaulted now faces a fine for using pepper spray against her attacker. Over in Sweden Stieg Larsson in the book, The Girl Who Played with Fire, has Lisbeth Salander saying,
There were not so many physical threats that could not be countered with a decent hammer.
I carried pepper spray in the past and when I decided to test it, it would not spray. Oops! Tasers have a similar problem. What happens if you forget to check the battery? Hammers are reliable but down right brutal. In my humble opinion when it comes to a choice between pepper spray, tasers, hammers, or guns, I think most woman would be more comfortable carrying a gun. It is simple, reliable, and effective with a minimum of maintenance. Since art frequently imitates life I will leave it to Leigh Anne Touhy to have the final word. Here is one of the best quotes from the movie, The Blind Side.
Alton: You hear me, bitch?
Leigh Anne Touhy: No, you hear me, BITCH!. You threaten my son, you threaten me. You so much as cross into downtown, you will be sorry. I’m in a prayer group with the D.A., I’m a member of the N.R.A. and I’m always packing.
Alton: Whatchu packin? .22? A little Saturday night special?
Leigh Anne Touhy: Yep. And it shoots just fine every other day of the week too.
Senator Sherrod Brown caught my attention with a recent comment about Rep. Ron Maag’s concealed carry bill that would allow individuals with concealed handgun licenses to carry guns in day care facilities, private planes, police departments and airport terminals before the metal detectors. It passed the Ohio House and is pending in the state Senate legislation. Here is what he said according to the Cincinnati.com:
“The Ohio Legislature’s passed a law to allow concealed weapons in day care centers, but interesting, this same Legislature, in its wisdom, doesn’t allow concealed weapons in the statehouse,” Brown said.
“When I say they’re lunatics, that’s what I’m talking about,” Brown continued. “People that think you should allow guns in day care centers but they’re protecting themselves by not allowing guns in their workplace, that would be in that category of lunatics.”
So is he upset that the law allows concealed carry in day care centers or that it continues to prohibit concealed carry in the legislature?
Last Sunday I was in a concealed carry class with three women. One of the women is both a veteran and a new mom. Although she was experienced with a rifle, a pistol is a better choice if you plan to carry a weapon while traveling around town. Unlike Israel we have panic attacks when people walk around with assault rifles. Since she is both comfortable and experienced with guns, I think it would be pretty normal for her to want to carry a concealed handgun into a day care center. If she is comfortable carrying a concealed handgun into a grocery store then carrying a concealed handgun into a day care center should not be any different. The only time anyone would know she was “carrying” is if a crazy person showed up and opened fire. The rules for engagement with lethal force are pretty similar to those used by soldiers and the police. Then every mom and dad would know and be grateful.
That leads me to the conclusion that Senator Brown was upset that legislators did not allow concealed carry in the legislature. Since most government buildings prohibit concealed weapons including handguns, continuing to prohibit concealed weapons in the legislature sounds pretty normal and makes the Senator sound like the lunatic. As a person who will try to “carry” most of the time when I get my license and gun, Rep. Maag’s bill is a common sense step forward at eliminating some of the gotcha’s of concealed carry. Like most concealed carry people I will try and follow the laws. Common sense makes the laws more effective. Just imagine that young mom dropping her kid off at day care. Do you really want her to take her gun out of her holster and lock it up every time she goes into the day care? She is not a terrorist or a crazy person. She is a veteran. She is one of the good gals. Remember, Senator Brown, as my Senator I expect you to know the difference between a veteran and a terrorist. If you had done your job with terrorists and crazy people we would not buying guns.
Since concealed-carry permits for women are up 270% since 2007 and we have not had a major gun safety mishap, what do women know about gun safety that the National Guard does not? 🙄
I am surprised that Greg Gutfeld has not created a special category for banned studies. The Washington Post Fact Checker looked at the background check issue and found that the numbers that the President and many others are using come from data collected in 1994 and published in a 1977 study. The problem is that the study had two estimates for the number of people who have purchased guns without a background check, a 40% number that includes gifts and family transfers and a 14 to 22% number which does not. Since the universal background legislation does not require background checks for gun transactions between family members, the Post argues that it is misleading to use the 40% number in the debate. Here are some of the quotes from President Obama that earned him three Pinocchios.
“Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check?”
–President Obama, remarks on gun safety, March 28, 2013
“FACT: Nearly 40% of all gun sales don’t require a background check under current law. #DemandAction”
–tweet from @BarackObama, March 28
So here is my problem with universal background checks. It is a pretty ineffective tool at controlling guns going criminals and the criminally insane. I assume we can all agree that we are not going to get background checks on gun sales to criminals. Criminals are dumb but most are not dumb enough to complete a background check that will fail. From our recent mass murders we can see that criminally insane people are functional enough to acquire weapons without raising alarms during background checks. Even if we happen to create the perfect gun control legislation for the criminally insane, the criminally insane people can easily choose other weapons of terror such as fire, poisons, and bombs to express themselves. Unless we are willing to deal with the mental health issue, it is just a matter of time until we have our next mass murder. This time it is assault weapons. Next time it might be a bomb. Universal background checks are just another burden heaped upon honest, sane people. Once again we are reminded that no good deed goes unpunished!
With all of this discussion about gun laws my wife decided it was time to go to the gun range. Shooting is a skill you maintain by practice. The problem was that she was almost out of bullets and she was concerned that her favorite ammo stores, Walmart and Target, would be out. Our farrier said the only ammo available at Walmart was the 9mm. On Friday she went to Walmart and there were no bullets on the shelves. Hmm
I wonder if we can get Yahoo Finance to post the current prices and availability for common bullets like they do for pork bellies, CDs, and insurance.
I really, really wanted to shoot today, but wasn’t able to. Why, you might ask? Was I backed up with work? Nope. Did I have a long list of chores to do, to stay in my wife’s good graces? Nope. I was free as a bird. But I couldn’t shoot because, with the exception of 100 rounds of 22LR and the loaded 9 mm magazines that I keep at home for purposes of self-defense, I was out out of ammo.
Nor was I alone. The shelves here in Minnesota are empty. You can still find a few rounds of .380, .40 and even .45 caliber bullets, along with more exotic varieties, but the most popular ammunition”“22LR and 9 mm”“is sold out everywhere. The shelves are literally bare. Every now and then someone gets in a small shipment; a friend told me that a local Dick’s Sporting Goods got some 9 mm bullets in yesterday. They were gone almost instantly.
9 mm bullets
I figured if anyplace wouldn’t run out of ammo, it is South Dakota, so I checked with my brother. Sure enough, ammunition is gone there, too. A local store that does a major firearms business ordered a semi truck load of ammo; what got delivered was three pallets. They were told they could expect another delivery in 2014.
So what is going on? In part, certainly, the perception of a potential shortage due to the policies of the Obama administration has led to the reality of a shortage, as everyone started to stock up. I can understand the mentality: if I wandered into a gun store and found that they had just put 1,000 9 mm rounds on the shelf, I would buy them all. But does that fully explain what is happening? How about the fact that government agencies are buying up billions of rounds? There have been lots of news reports and lots of rumors, but no clear explanation of why the federal government has invested so massively in ammunition”“including the most popular civilian calibers”“over the last year. One way or another, it seems that there is a story here. But for it to be pursued, we would need “reporters.” Remember them? Nah, that was a bygone era: you probably don’t.
Images courtesy of Shutterstock.
Out of Ammo
Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:07:45 GMT
I don’t know what it is about hearing the President and Vice President talk about gun control that stirs my animal spirit and make me want to go out and buy a gun. I am far more interested in cooking and brewing beer but I find myself distracted by this passion of owning an assault weapon. Obviously I don’t need an assault weapon. My wife owns a pistol and she is a pretty good shot. She has a concealed carry permit and I don’t think she would flinch about shooting someone in self defense. The problem is that the President and Vice President are such good gun salesmen.
The political rhetoric has been pretty fierce over gun deaths. The piece below has links to both the FBI and CDC estimates. At least we have one person in the debate who does their research.
That 30,000 number stood out to me because it seemed very high. According to the FBI, in 2011, there was a total of 8,583 firearm homicides in the U.S. That may well be 8,583 gun murders too many, but it’s nowhere near 30,000 (the total number of murders by all methods came to 12,664). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) uses a different method and found about 11,000 gun-related murders in 2011 and the total number of homicides to be around 16,000 (see table 2). So How did Stewart get to 30,000? By adding the number of gun-related suicides to the number of homicides. When you add those figures in, you get up toward the 30,000 figure.
Barack Obama, Jon Stewart, Sandy Hook, and "Common Sense" Gun Control – Reason.com