Category: Anti-Gun Nannies

The Usual Suspects

Anti-Gun Nannies, Crime

Probably the only scenes I found objectionable in the classic movie Casablanca  was when Inspector Renault utters the line: “Round up the usual suspects.”

Of course, in the context of the movie, the line is heavily ironic not to say satirical because Renault knows exactly who the criminals are, but he deflects suspicion away from Rick Blaine by saying that.

In reality, however, rounding up the usual suspects is not only sound police procedure, it generally solves about 90% of the crime, as seen here (and read it all because it’s good):

Almost every perpetrator of horrific crimes is a “known wolf.” Most of the violent crime in our society is committed by a very small group of easily identified criminals, and most of them have had many interactions with law enforcement over the years.

Violent crime in U.S. cities is not evenly spread. Not culturally. Not geographically. Not mathematically.

It’s concentrated – absurdly concentrated – in fractions of fractions of the population.  This isn’t ideology. It’s decades of DOJ, PD, and academic data all pointing at the same tiny cluster:

• ~0.5% of residents linked to 50–70% of shootings
• Most homicide suspects have 8–12+ prior arrests
• Victims usually know their attackers
• Violence clusters block-to-block, not citywide

We all know this, but when I say “we”, I’m referring to people who live in the here and now and can read statistics unencumbered by dreamy and mistaken dogma and its mantras, e.g. “Ban guns and violent crime will end” or some such crap.

Honestly?  I’m heartily sick of talking about this because I’ve banged on about it so often in the past that I don’t want to talk about it ever again.

But as long as these assholes keep on with their bullshit, the more I feel I have to rebut it, again and again and again and fucking again.

I think it’s time I let off some steam, so if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.

Roost, Chickens Coming Home To

Anti-Gun Nannies, The Gun Thing

It is, as they say, to LOL:

Gun control politicians, long in control in the Empire State, have passed so many restrictions on law-abiding New Yorkers to exercise their constitutional rights that far too many simply give up out of frustration. Those roadblocks, in essence, deny New Yorkers their ability to keep and bear arms and, at a time when many rush to licensed gun retailers, the backlogs and bottlenecks can be jarring— especially for first-time buyers. Erecting barriers to the exercise of Second Amendment rights to frustrate citizens into just giving up is the intent of this regulatory scheme.

And now?

Gun permit applications are skyrocketing. Prior to the Bruen decision, on average, fewer than 100 law-abiding New York City residents each month applied for a permission slip to carry a firearm in the city for self-protection. There was a surge during the coronavirus pandemic and a post-Bruen surge, with the monthly average reaching 600 before stabilizing at between 400 to 500 for a consistent stretch, according to data from the New York State Police Department. Following the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, the next month permit applications reached an all-time high at more than 1,270 — led by Jewish New Yorkers who decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Since then, an average of 700–800 permit applicants attempt the process each month, all just to exercise a God-given right enshrined in the Constitution.

But New York still has in place restrictions that make it overly burdensome, time-consuming and difficult for law-abiding New Yorkers to purchase a firearm — a process that can take up to a year or longer. That includes a rigorous firearm training and safety course despite the fact that “New York hasn’t standardized the classes beyond outlining a handful of topics to touch on.”

That makes it extremely difficult for would-be firearm purchasers to go to their neighborhood firearm retailer and go home with a safe and reliable self-defense tool.

Extremely difficult?  Try impossible.

I can’t get worked up about this, because the people who are being inconvenienced are for the most part the people who voted for the politicians and bureaucrats who actively built and maintained this situation in the first place.

So fuck off, you New York assholes.  You created this problem;  now you get to live with the consequences.  You don’t need a gun (you told us smugly for decades and decades) because you have the police to protect you.

Well, good luck with that.

Silliness

Anti-Gun Nannies, Psychos

Here’s one that made me send an extra couple mags’ worth of ammo downrange yesterday:

President Trump has again threatened to take away Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, as she has moved to Ireland and is in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship to become a dual citizen.

“As previously mentioned, we are giving serious thought to taking away Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship. She is not a Great American and is, in my opinion, incapable of being so!” Trump posted.

And to think I once ridiculed Jimmeh Carter for getting involved in such minutiae as deciding White House parking privileges…

Dear POTUS:  why the fuck are you bothering with this kind of silliness?  Has the DOGE finished its job?  Have you done with Putin?  Are you going to make the Brits pay dearly for their anti-free speech activities?  Have you even started to address the dire state of the national debt, not to mention next year’s budget?  [200 more Presidential / CEO-type high-level issues deleted, for reasons of space]

Stop pissing around with the small stuff, and get serious about the important stuff.

And speaking of stupid shit… this one’s for AG Pam Blondie.

One of the several things that upsets me about the MAGA-Trump Administration is how they can forget that sometimes governmental action not only doesn’t work, but has been proven not to work in the past.  Take this next bit of foolishness, for example:

The Department of Justice is actively exploring a ban on gun possession for transgender individuals in the wake of a mass shooting at a Catholic school by a transgender gunman, Breitbart News reported, citing “multiple sources familiar with the matter.”

The Office of Legal Council has reportedly organized multiple meetings to explore the possibility of denying transgender people access to firearms on grounds of mental illness.

Sigh.

Just a little reminder:  gun bans don’t fucking work.  (If they did, there would be zero gun-related deaths and crimes in Britishland, to take but one example.)  Not only do they not work, but the cost of policing such bans is astronomical.

And just who, pray tell, is going to be the arbiter of “mental illness”?  You? A panel of “experts”?  The local school’s PTA?

Stop wasting your time with “multiple meetings” (because they too don’t work, and waste time withal).

Here’s something that has a far higher chance of success:

Order that all public schools maintain an armed and trained security force on the premises.

What we know for a fact is that even the psychos shy away from playing their little reindeer games when there’s a good chance they’ll be shot dead right before they take aim at someone, or right after they’ve fired their first shot / stabbed their first victim.  (Feel free to check the stats on this:  it will be a far better use of time than these multiple meetings, for starters.)

And to force the gun-fearing wussy school administrators (e.g. in California, New York and Illinois) to comply, make all federal funding dependent on the installation thereof.  (I mean, the Education Department exists for just such a reason, as opposed to promoting the ghastly LGBTOSTFU agenda in said schools with taxpayer money.)

But no, by all means go with what doesn’t work.  If nothing else, it will prove that government, whether conservative, MAGA or Screaming Commies, doesn’t have a fucking clue.

Not that we ever needed such proof.

Never Justified

Anti-Gun Nannies, Rights, The Gun Thing

I see that someone in the Golden Shower State has come to their senses:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

Here’s the thing about this ridiculous law.

Quite apart from its prima facie  Constitutional illegality, the 30-day restriction just makes absolutely no sense — I mean, what are they trying to achieve (other than a broad restriction, of course)?  Are they trying to stop someone from arming a group or gang? (I know, nonsensical.)

As with all laws like this, it should be looked at as part of a whole.  What is intended is to make a thicket of laws like this so that the breaking thereof becomes an inevitability — and the side-benefit (to the anti-gunners) is that the people most likely to fall foul of this nonsense would be gun owners.  (We always talk about lawful or law-abiding gun owners, but what we sometimes forget is that to the anti-gun set, all gun owners are evil, and not just the criminals.)

Anyway, it’s gone away, and good riddance.  Best of all is that because of this ruling, it’s going to apply to any and all other states who have similar nonsense in their raft of laws;  and all that’s left is for the SAF guys bring suit in each of them.

Go to it, guys.

Side note:  I have more than one friend who won’t give money to any gun lobbying group like the NRA or even GOA.  But they give lots to the Second Amendment Foundation because Alan Gottlieb and his guys are doing the work where it matters most:  in the courts.

Think about it.

Self-Evident

Anti-Gun Nannies, The Gun Thing

From some guy in Arizona who gets the idea (of the Second Amendment):

Arizona state Rep. Quang Nguyen (R) used an X post to warn that an American citizenry devoid of guns would soon be a citizenry without freedom of speech and property rights too.

He noted that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” is the one which upholds and protects all the other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A disarmed citizenry would put in jeopardy the ability to control one’s own property, hedged in by the Third Amendment, as well the freedom to exercise rights to privacy and security, hedged in by the Fourth Amendment.

Nguyen warned that, “A disarmed populace is more vulnerable to censorship, unlawful search and seizure, and political oppression.”

Yup, we all know that, but thankee for re-stating the point, sir.

Now here’s a graphic illustration of a non-Second Amendment society:

Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom.

The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant.

Well, maybe.  Maybe the burglar just wants to get your stuff.  On the other hand, maybe your stuff is not what he’s after;  he’s after your life, your wife’s life (or body), your daughter’s life (or body) or your son’s life (or body).  We can debate the point forever, but the plain fact is that the criminal’s motives are unknown to everyone except him.

We — that is, our politicians as well as the public — are aware of that fact, but it appears the British have willfully chosen to bury their heads in the sand.

And the reason that their law is more on the side of the criminal than the victim is, quite simply, because the people have been systematically disarmed by the government, so the government gets to make the decisions on behalf of the public, with the result that the nation of once-Great Britain has been turned into a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks.  We’ve seen what’s happened Over There, and we want no part of it.

We uncultured rubes on this side of The Pond prefer to turn criminals into victims.  And we have the law on our side.