Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Background checks

I have been asked in e-mail by someone who is actually interested in a debate, rather than trolling, about my stance on background checks for gun purchases.

On the one paw, I realize that there are some people in our society who -- for whatever reason, and like it or not -- have no business being allowed to buy, or possess guns. That is a simple fact of modern life.

On the other, the current NICS system is rife with fail. Until I got my CHL every single gun purchase of mine that went through NICS was delayed. Why? They couldn't tell me.

A friend of mine, currently a serving officer in the United States Army, was unfortunate enough to have his name used as an alias by a school-mate who happens to be a felon. The result? Denied.

How many people does this happen to every year? Enough that NICS has started maintaining a Voluntary Appeals File.

In addition, NICS is one stroke of a pen away from being a National Gun Registry. The Brady Bunch, by way of Frank Lautenberg, have attempted legislation to do this very thing several times already, and will -- no doubt -- continue their efforts to do so.

NICS was presented to the American people as only affecting those who should not buy firearms, and was hailed as actually being good for lawful gun ownership.

However, NICS has been altogether too free and easy with its data to people like Mayor Bloomberg, who then take that information and use that information freely and happily provided by NICS to try to cram more gun control down the throats of lawful gun owners.

NICS is, at best, ambivalent towards gun owners and gun ownership; and as the Brady Bunch, Frank Lautenberg, Mayor Bloomberg and others continually attempt to add caveats, addenda, amendments, expansions and more to the NICS system ... it's only going to get worse.

So, the question is: How to prevent the purchase of firearms by those society deems forbidden to do so, while preserving the privacy of lawful gun owners and preventing any sort of listing activity?

I propose a battery-powered scanner containing an algorithm and capable of reading bar-coded and encrypted digits. This scanner would decrypt and read the bar-code, use the contained data to work the algorithm and -- depending on what the result was -- illuminate one of three lights.

If the result is one of a series of numbers -- for fun, let's say it's a Fibonacci number -- then a red light is displayed on the reader.

Any other number, and the green light comes on.

If the encryption is bad, the encrypted numbers are wrong, or the bar-code is simply not capable of being read, then a yellow light.

When you apply for your drivers license or State identification card, you are checked for a criminal history or psychiatric adjudications. If you have one, your DL or ID gets the code for a red light.

Everyone else -- and I mean EVERYONE else -- gets the code for a green light.

Since these battery-operated card readers will have only the tech necessary to read, decrypt, and compare numbers -- no antennae, no data ports, no memory, no means whatsoever of storing or transmitting information -- you should be able to sell them for ten dollars at Wal-Mart and make enough of a profit to defray the costs of adding the bar-codes IDs.

You want to buy a gun, you walk into a gun-store, swipe your card, green light means you buy what you want and carry it whenever and however you want.

That means open carry, concealed carry, SBR's, NFA's, AOW's, in-State, out-of-State, whatever you want, wherever you want, however you want.

Red light means that you don't.

Simple as that.

You wind up convicted of a crime of violence by a jury of your peers, when the judges sentences you, he takes your DL or ID, drops it into a shredder and you get a paper licence from your local DMV -- which gives the conviction information time to enter the system, and your local DMV time to find it.

Same if you get adjudicated as being mentally incompetent by a jury of your peers.

If the card-readers are inexpensive enough, and are guaranteed not to store or share any information, then a good percentage of private citizens will buy them and use them in their personal gun sales -- a fact which should let the gun-grabbers un-kink their sphincters regarding the so-called "Gun Show Loophole".

Hah! I made a funny!

Anyhoo, you asked, there it is.

LawDog

Larry Correia's new book

If you liked Monster Hunter International, you'll be pleased to hear that Larry Correia's new book, Monster Hunter Vendetta, is now out.

The addy for Barnes and Noble, and one for Amazon.

If you've already read it, be sure to post a review on one (or both) of those sites.

I've not yet read this one, but I know that I'll enjoy it.

LawDog

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Goodness.

In comments to my post about the 20 questions, JadeGold decides to weigh in. Goodness.

To begin with, I'd like to thank JadeGold for making my point concerning question number eight, in which Janet Peterson of the Brady Group asks:

"Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?"

Notice, do, that JadeGold -- who apparently vehemently disagrees with me -- asserts that I "want criminals and other violent types to have access to firearms". I am also "profoundly ignorant" and obviously have "the need to fondle a firearm daily".

There you go, Ms. Peterson, the answer to your question # 8.

So, without further ado, let us take a whack at this one.

Jeebus. There are so many contradictions, misrepresentations and lies in your responses that it's hard to list 'em all.

Goodness.

First, you can't even answer the first question. Why is that? I think it's because you want criminals and other violent types to have access to firearms.

I did answer the question. Just because you lack the critical thinking skills to process my answer -- or, as is more likely, you lack the desire to process my answer -- doesn't negate the fact that it was answered.

As for the rest of your statement: of course I, as a seventeen-year law enforcement type, profoundly wish to make my job harder than it already is.

And since it is I -- not you -- who has made it my life's purpose to deal with criminals and other violent types every time I sign in on shift, I can see why you would think I would wish to endanger my life that much more.

The above was sarcasm, by-the-by. Just in case you do lack the ability to think critically, I thought I should make that point clear.

Second, your comment about statistics is profoundly ignorant. Whenever you see a doctor, ride on an airliner, etc.--your very life depends on those statistics you claim are all hogwash.

Nope. When I ride in an aeroliner, my life depends upon the ability of the wings to provide lift, and the ability of the pilot to keep the number of landings equal to the number of take-offs. Neither the presence, nor lack of, statistics has the slightest effect upon the physics of flight.

Trust me when I say that we could take every statistic concerning flight in the world, burn them, and aeroplanes will not fall out of the sky.

May I take this moment to say that your touching faith in statistics as a means of flight ... concerns me?

Third, gun deaths are not "miniscule" when compared to traffic fatalities. Unless you seriously believe 30,000 gun deaths is miniscule compared to 34,000 traffic deaths. And when one considers the fact that almost all of us ride in a car almost every day as compared to the small number of folks who feel the need to fondle a firearm daily--your 'miniscule' claim kind of implodes.

Actually, you have a point. As I was typing that part of my answer, I was looking at accidental traffic fatalities (~46,000) compared to accidental gun fatalities (~600)-- CDC data from 2007 -- which is miniscule. However, I understand that the comparison is supposed to be motor vehicle accidents versus all firearms deaths (accidental, justified -- law enforcement, justified -- citizen, suicides and homicides).

In which case, all gun deaths still rank below 1)traffic accidents, 2)poisonings, 3)falls, 4)drownings, 5)fires/burns/smoke, 6)medical/surgical complications and 7)forces of nature.

The number of gun deaths are bad, but there's about 7 other things which kill more people than guns every year. If you're basing your "guns are BAD!" argument on body-count -- and you are -- you've got about seven other things far worse than guns out there.

Fourth, guns were never banned in Chicago, DC or NYC. The gun laws may not have been to your liking but guns were never banned.

Snerk. That's cute.

However, the United States Supreme Court disagreed with you in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, striking down the handgun bans in both cities.

As far as I know, Evil Black Rifles are still banned in all three cities.

LawDog

Friday, September 24, 2010

Ok, I'll play

20 questions from here.

  1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
No background check ever stopped a criminal from getting his hands on a gun. When they steal them out of cop cars and FBI vans, they don't leave a 4473 on the seat, and the ATF has never received a 4473 from the local dope house. And given the ever-loosening definition of "domestic abuser", I've got reservations there, too.
  1. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
Since domestic abuse is a crime, and since terrorism is a crime, let me tighten that up for you: "What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals and dangerously mentally ill people?

Easy. When they are convicted of a crime, stick their arses in prison.

  1. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Yes.
  1. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
Yes.
  1. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
The same way you banned guns in New York. The same way you banned guns in Chicago. The same way you banned guns in Washington DC. Duh.
  1. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
I don't have a clue. Ask her.
  1. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
Since I don't like being robbed, and I don't like being assaulted, yes, I do. As for speaking, that's what the Amendment next to the Second is for.
  1. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
If they're lying, it's fairly appropriate. And since folks from your side have called me everything from crazy to redneck to inbred, I'd have to ask your stance on that one.
  1. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
Oh, yes.
  1. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
Yes.
  1. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
Damn skippy they're being enforced. That's why it takes me, a peace officer and an honourably-discharged member of the United States military, five days for your so-called "Instant Check" to clear me; it's why West Point graduates are being gunned down in a Las Vegas Costco parking lot for legally carrying their pistol, so on and so forth.
  1. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
You mean never shooting anybody, or never shooting anybody who needs it? I believe that all law-abiding citizens are human, and thus, not perfect. That's not a reason to ban their guns, though.
  1. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
I don't think there should be gun statistics. Statistics are only there to be massaged into giving the person with the statistics the answer they want to see.
  1. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
See above.
  1. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
No. Modern gun design prevents the discharge of the gun without the trigger being pulled.
  1. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
Compared to what? Compared to the number of traffic fatalities, it's minuscule. Compared to the number of swimming pool fatalities, it's still a small number. Compared to the number of people killed each year by medical malpractice it's tiny. Compared to the number of people beaten to death each year by a pyromaniac midget with an ivory elephant goad, it's a large number.
  1. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
The same thing I've been doing every day since I turned twenty-one. Donate my time to educate and teach.
  1. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
  1. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
Personally? No. Doesn't mean that they aren't an impersonal pain in my arse, though.
  1. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Saw this one coming ...

... And so did everyone else with two functional brain cells to rub together.

Big Health Insurance Companies To Stop Selling New 'Child-Only' Policies.

On Thursday, some parts of ObamaCare go into effect, including the section that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to any children under the age of 19 regardless of that child's health history.

In response, some of the largest health insurance companies in the United States have announced that -- starting Thursday -- they will stop offering 'child-only' new insurance policies for sprogs.

Well. No [deleted].

Anyone in government surprised by this has obviously not been listening to market professionals with experience who predicted this very thing.

Wonder how many voters are going to remember this Democrat-driven abortion of a Healthcare Bill come November? Lot of them with bairns, I'd bet.

Barack, Nancy and the rest: y'all made this bed -- enjoy your lay in it. Hope it's a short one.

LawDog

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Meditations on book burning

Whole lot of kerfuffle in the Mainstream Media and upon the Internet concerning some folks off to burn some copies of the Qur'an.

I'm not going to get into the military/political/sociological/diplomatic ramifications of this issue -- countless others (more qualified than Your Humble Scribe) have opined at length on this subject -- but I will offer my general Thoughts Upon The Subject.

As usual, I'm of multiple minds concerning this.

On one hand, the idea of burning a book -- any book -- leaves me cold. A book is knowledge made tangible; it is far more than just ink, paper, glue and leather: it is ideas, dreams, hopes, fantasies ... it is all those things that make us human -- those that separate us from animals -- distilled into an object one can touch.

To burn a book is to spurn those ideas, those hopes; to reject those things that do separate us from animals, and to symbolically reject at least a small part of our humanity.

Christian Johann Heinrich Heine, in his 1821 play,
Almansor, uttered a stark, uncomfortable truth:

"
Das war Vorspiel nur. Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen."

(Loosely) translated thus: "That was merely a prelude. For where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people."

It is a small, small step to go from destroying the ideas of people, to destroying the people who have ideas.

Are there books that inflame the passions, and may influence the small-minded into criminal actions? Hell, yes, but so do many other things: Speech inflames and influences the small of mind far more than any book -- but we do not condone gunning down a man in the street for a hateful speech.

On the other hand, a book is nothing more than ink, paper and glue. Burning one book is not going to remove the knowledge contained there-in from history. Especially a book as widely-printed as the Qur'an. You could -- if you so chose -- burn every Qur'an in the Western Hemisphere, and you would make less than the tiniest dent in the numbers of that book.

To burn a book -- or a pile of them -- is, quite literally, useless for any purpose other than symbolism or to ensure the livelihood of those who will -- inevitably -- print more books to replace those you have incinerated.

As long as the books you are burning are yours to burn, have at it. For all the fire, and all the rhetoric, you will have accomplished ... what? A pile of ashes you now have to dispose of? A symbolic gesture that you can hope someone else actually gives two hoots in hell about?

The publishing companies, however, will thank you -- there is that.

On the gripping hand ...

... I wasn't born in Texas; sometimes I don't sound like I'm from Texas, but I am Texan.

There is a short list of people who can tell me to do any-sodding-thing with my own property, and Abdul the Moderately Rabid isn't on it.

You can ask me to do (or not to do) something with my property, or you can explain why it's necessary to do (or not to do) something with my property, but you gods-damned well don't order me to do it (or not).

And, son, if you threaten me about anything -- and you're within bad-breath distance -- you'd better be on Good Terms with your Dear and Fluffy Lord ... because I'll strike the bloody match on your snaggle teeth if I have to, and I'll gladly slide into Sessrúmnir with you in a choke-hold if that's what it takes to make sure you don't ever pull that sort of crap again.

LawDog

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Hot tea through the sinuses hurts!

Chris briefly details the business applications of mimes.

There is a Level Two Beverage Alert in effect for that post. You have been warned.

Snerk!

LawDog

Monday, September 06, 2010

Heard at Rancho LawDog

Upon receiving a call that one of Tole's offspring has a loose fang what needs pulling.

Herself: "Do I have any Tooth Ferret money?"

Me: (Blinking) "Tooth Ferret?"

Herself: "Like the Tooth Fairy, only pays better. Probably meaner, too."

Snerk. Am I lucky, or what?

LawDog