NBC was showing a program called “America Now: Faces Against Violence” that depicted the people involved with trying to reduce violent crime in Chicago.
I was intrigued that they really focused on “gun violence”, and many of the discussions involved complaints about “easy access to guns” rather than a profusion of violent criminals.
I commented to my wife that we have incredibly easy access to guns in our condo1, yet we’re not even remotely prone to violence2. Clearly, there’s more contributing to violent crime than simple access to firearms.
The parts of Chicago they were discussing had serious issues with gangs, drugs, and economic depression. I suspect these issues are a bit more important than bad guys getting guns. Take the guns away, and the gangs will use knives, rocks, or boards with a nail through it. Get rid of the gangs, and violent crime goes away. Funny how that works. I truly respect and admire those who are willing to guide vulnerable youth on the good path, away from violence and gangs.
I’m also quite happy that the law-abiding people in Chicago have had the most egregious restrictions overturned, and are able to (even though they need to jump through some hoops) own firearms for their own defense. Hopefully the remaining infringements will be overturned shortly, without the need for time-consuming legal battles.
the holstered gun on my waist, two old revolvers in a case on the coffee table, and a pile of long guns in the closet [↩]
Though we do take MarioKart for Wii quite seriously [↩]
That’s right, I believe Drew Douglas Grant, a person responsible for the intentional deaths of 4 children and a teacher, should be granted a permit for a handgun.
Read out-of-context, this line is enough to send reasonable people into a fit of PSH…and rightfully so. Indeed, when I first read it, I was a bit taken aback. Upon reading the whole thing, however, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Robb.
Back when I lived in California, I was always surprised that the state required registration for handguns, but not for rifles and other long guns. Of course, I thought it was ludicrous to have any registration at all, but still, the thought of a partial registry seems particularly dumb.
Of course, the California legislature wasn’t satisfied with their partial registry, and so the creeping hand of government advances a bit with AB1810. The NRA has this to say about it:
AB1810 was passed by a 42-29 vote. In short, this bill would establish a registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired long guns. Under AB1810, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.
If AB1810 were enacted, violent criminals would continue doing what they do now – obtain firearms through illegal means. This bill would not decrease crime but will rather have disastrous effects on the already financially unstable Golden State. AB1810 would impose additional burdens on California’s taxpayers to maintain the registration system as well as on the state’s licensed firearms dealers, small businesses who already deal with extensive business requirements.
One simply needs to look at Canada, a nation with draconian firearms registration, to see the results – billions in cumulative administrative costs, annual cost overruns, no clear substantiation of public safety benefits, unjust prosecution, and a bureaucratic complexity that daunts those willing to comply. Ironically, California is considering a new registration scheme as Canada is considering doing away with its system.
I couldn’t say it any better. Hopefully this gets killed in the state senate and, if not, the governor vetoes it. While Arnold isn’t exactly a staunch ally of gun owners, he’s vetoed dumb anti-gun-rights bills in the past so it’s not unlikely he’ll veto this one.
The Brady Campaign likely has a nice office for their operations. The NRA certainly does.
What does my hidden base look like? Not much, actually:
Why so barren? I’m moving out of my apartment this coming week, and just ended up selling my desk today, so things are a bit spartan. The textbook on my desk, such as it is, is an advanced undergraduate textbook on thermodynamics; I’m studying for my last finals before graduating.
The gun-rights-lobby consists of a whole lot of ordinary people like myself — though perhaps the others wear pants more often — who take a few minutes out of their busy days to write to their congressmen, write something on their blog, send a brief note out on Twitter, go to the range, or take a new person shooting. Why? Because we’re passionate about it. We shoot and talk about shooting because that’s what we love to do.
Love of liberty is a powerful thing, and as well-funded and politically connected as those who oppose the rights of law-abiding, honest people to keep and bear arms are, they have nothing that comes close.
That said, it’s time for me to get back to studying.
Here’s the video from yesterday’s meeting and vote from the ASUA Senate. Many thanks to Richard for being there with his video camera and for allowing me to reproduce and distribute his video.
The ASUA voted 9-0-0 to approve the measure opposing SB1011, according to Richard, who attended the meeting. I was unable to attend due to prior commitments.
According to Richard, it was clear that they had made up their minds prior to voting. When I was at the public forum the night before, I also observed similar behavior: they rolled their eyes, didn’t pay much attention, and generally looked aloof and uninterested. None of this surprises me.
Richard sent me video of the vote, and it’s of higher quality than my previous video, and I’ll get it up here soon. I’m on campus right now and don’t have any audio, so I can’t figure out a good place to split it for YouTube.
Here’s a video of the proceedings from the ASUA meeting tonight.
Sorry for the poor quality video and audio — I recorded it with my cellphone video camera, which is clearly not the best recording tool. Such is life.
I’ll go through the videos and add annotations/captions in the future.
At several points, I wanted to say to the pro-gun people, “Stop it. You’re not helping.” — we’re not talking about the Second Amendment, nor guns in parking lots, nor anything else. We’re talking about whether the ASUA, the University of Arizona student government, should support or oppose a state senate bill that would allow faculty with valid CCW permits to carry concealed firearms on campus. Your efforts basically confirm every negative stereotype, though most of the pro-gun females who spoke were clear, articulate, and made some good points. This is a matter of giving responsible adults — professors, specifically — the choice to carry a firearm on campus if they wish.
The ASUA is holding a voting meeting tomorrow in the Ventana Room at the Student Union at 5:00pm. They’ll allow a brief period of public discussion on the topics (the gun issue is the first thing on the schedule, so show up promptly), but then the ASUA Senate will have their own discussions and vote on the matter. I highly encourage decent public speakers (i.e. not like those who spoke tonight) to attend and speak tomorrow. If we get good public speakers, particularly those who don’t fit into classic stereotypes of gun owners (e.g. women, disabled, professors, etc.), that could go a long way toward getting the ASUA to support this measure.
The University of Arizona’s daily newspaper, The Daily Wildcat, printed an article today regarding a new self-defense club available on campus, primarily for women.
They discuss how this club teaches situational awareness, which I support wholeheartedly, and self-defense “techniques”, which I support somewhat less so. I note a distinct lack of firearms training, possibly due to the fact that it’s against state law and university policy to for CCW holders to possess firearms on campus.
If self-defense gets to the hand-to-hand stage, things have gone Very, Very Wrong. Better to avoid it where possible (hence situational awareness) or, if unavoidable, deal with it decisively.
A 110lb female college student, even with some self-defense training, is likely to be at a considerable physical disadvantage compared to a 180lb male attacker (a majority of attackers are male). A firearm — and the training and will to use it if needed — corrects for that disparity.
But no, they instead put up more “blue light phones” around campus and hand out free cans of pepper spray to female students (with no training on the proper use of it), as well as teaching self-defense “techniques” that are unlikely to work when confronted with a real attacker.
While I’m hardly an expert when it comes to self-defense firearm use, I’d be happy to take any UA student, male or female, at my expense, to the range to learn the basics of shooting. From there, I’ll happily point people toward instructors and programs that teach armed self-defense far better than I could.
