Gun control advocates, like gun rights advocates, come from all walks of life and have all kinds of reasons for supporting gun control. Today we’re going to take a look at five common archetypes of gun control supporters; broadly dividing them into categories. These are the 5 types of gun control supporters.
As we get started, it’s important to note that this isn’t a comprehensive list, and it also doesn’t mean that a person only has their category as their sole motivation for supporting gun control. Many people will combine two or even three of these categories into some kind of gun control hydra, which makes trying to have an adult conversation about the root causes of violence difficult. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the first category.
5. The Well-Intentioned
Probably the least harmful of gun control advocates is the well-intentioned. This person’s primary motivation for supporting gun control is that they believe the lines how “fewer guns = less crime” or that taking guns “off the streets” will reduce violent crime. They’re not deep on the issue or particularly well-informed, but they (like any rational person) are concerned about public violence. Because they’re not well-informed on the issue, the surface appeal of gun control makes “sense” to them. People like this can often have their minds changed, the most effective way is to just…be a good person and show them through your actions that gun ownership is fun and safe. Eventually you can talk about how gun control doesn’t address the root causes of violence.
4. The Party Line
This person supports gun control not because they feel strongly about it, but because it’s a party piece for the political team they picked. “Well the guy I vote for supports gun control, even though that’s not really why I’m voting for him, so I guess I support it to.” This is pretty common across a lot of political issues – people will casually support an issue because they broadly identify with a party or candidate’s positions, and gun control gets added on the wagon along with everything else.
3. Guns are scary
As we get into these next three, you start to run into problems with irrationality and emotional decisions. As I’m fond of saying, you can’t reason someone out of a position they arrived at irrationally, and that especially applies to the person who thinks that guns are scary. Whether it’s because their only exposure to guns is from media, or because they had a traumatic event involving a gun, this person is genuinely afraid of guns. The idea or physical presence of “gun” is scary, so their emotional response to this is to say that guns should be banned. Interestingly, the best way to engage with someone like this is to acknowledge the validity of their emotion and start from there. If you can get to a point where you accept their feelings are real and valid, they’ll automatically be more open to having a real conversation.
2. The Projector
These are honestly some of the worst people. They’re almost always white males with absolutely zero experience with real violence, and they always pop up on twitter or FB saying “well if I had a gun in situation X I might have shot someone.” Basically, because they have anger management issues, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun. They’re a product of a society that enables people to live to physical adulthood without experiencing an ounce of real hardship, and deep down inside they’re mad at the world for that. They can’t have their mind changed until they fix the root cause of their emotional problem.
1. The Statist
This brings us to the worst people on the list. The true believers. The people who believe that the State, in whatever form, should have a total monopoly on the use of force. These are the people who believe that communism would work if “the right” people were in charge. They believe that the State should take care of everything, despite the fact that the “State” is the all time #1 champion of genocide, murder, and massacre by a massive margin. But none of that matters, because those were the wrong people that did that. They want to take your guns because your guns are a problem, because a gun gives you a certain amount of agency that the state cannot take from you…without killing you.
Again, these aren’t all the types of gun control advocates – they’re a sample, meant to represent broad categories. But it is important to note that 2/5ths of these categories are “reachable” – they might be someone who can be brought around to being, if not pro-gun, at least neutral on the issue.
I acknowledge that AIWB is the ideal way to carry a gun. I get it, I do, but I still love OWB, aka outside the waistband. A little while back, I got my hands on a Phlster Floodlight AIWB rig and found it to be the best AIWB carry option I’ve ever gotten my hands on. I followed that line of logic, and it was easy to see why the Phlster Floodlight OWB was my next purchase.
Admittedly concealing the Phlster Floodlight OWB would be a challenge. It’s a big holster made for big guns. For cold winter carry with a coat, you’d be fine, but I’m not summer slumming it with a t-shirt and board shorts. It’s more appropriate on a battle belt or war rig than under a T-Shirt. So I did precisely that. I’ve been working on a PCC/Subgun belt from Sentry, and the Floodlight OWB will carry my sidearm.
Setting up the Floodlight OWB
Like the AIWB variant, you can choose between a TLR 1 or Surefire X300, and it will work with the vast majority of compact and full-sized pistols. Instead of a shock cable to adjust retention, you have good ole fashion Chicago screws. The kit comes with three color-coded hardware sets that allow you to customize the portion of the holster that contacts the slide. The three hardware sets are sized differently to accommodate everything from tiny CZ slides to bulbous Glock slides.
Setup is easy and has a little trial and error to it. It’s good to take your time and make sure the gun sits safely in the holster with the right amount of retention for your needs. I made mine snug since it’s on a battle belt and would be ‘exposed.’ Active retention doesn’t live here folks, so some may prefer an alternative for duty use. As a regular dude who isn’t walking a beat or patrolling, it’s not an issue for me.
Enter Blade Tek, Safariland, and G-Code
A Tek Lok mount is included, but the Floodlight OWB works with mounts from Blade-Tech, Safariland, and G-Code. The Tek Lok is okay, but I’m looking to upgrade to a low Safariland mount shortly. I want the gun a little lower on the belt. The Tek Lok surprisingly fit around the entire belt and locked the holster into place without complaint. The Floodlight has numerous mounting slots that allow for cant adjustment too.
Picky shooters can configure the Floodlight OWB to sit however they desire. It just takes moving the mount around, experimenting, and finding what works for your setup. It works with lights, and Phlster cuts, and forms the holster to function with suppressor height sights and red dots as well. The bottom is opened to allow for the use of most compensators. My KE Arms Carry Comp has zero issues with the holster. Go full Gucci if you want.
Don’t forget that Phlster is even kind enough to accommodate those wrong-handed left-handed shooters. Even better, you can rig a belt with two guns and dual wield with identical holsters.
Bang Bang With the Phlster Floodlight OWB
When it comes time to turn lead into noise, the Floodlight performs admirably. The passive retention provides tension, and while it doesn’t just give the gun away. Users get a smooth draw. Nothing hangs on or creates a grinding type of friction on my gun.
Be aware there is no loud click as you reholster, and be assured it’s not needed. The sound is admittedly comforting, but it’s more of a psychological need than an actual one with many.
I’ve been trying to refine my offhand draw, and I’ve found the Phlster Floodlight OWB to be a great way to practice for OWB carry. The passive retention squares retention right in the middle, so drawing with either hand feels no different. I plan to build the technique here and refine it for concealed carry.
Since ammo is also scant, I’m getting way more dry fire in than anything else, and the Floodlight OWB has been a relatively constant companion. It allows for a safe and consistent draw every time. It’s also rugged and robust and can deal with the repetitive nature of dry fire drills. In all my hundreds of draws, nothing has loosened up or failed.
My range days are fewer and far between, but I find myself spending more time at the range when I do go. A good hot slide combined with repetitive draws has also yet to damage or deteriorate the holster by any means.
The Basics of Being a Holster
Outside the durability and design of the holster, it checks all the boxes I need it to.
Safety – The gun’s trigger is completely covered, and nothing inside the holster interacts with the trigger. The durability also means it doesn’t break and presents a dangerous issue down the road. Multiple guns fit in the holster without any fit issues. Except for Steyr pistols, so stay away from those.
I can also safely reholster over and over again without issue.
Access – An open-top holster makes access immediate. The ability to change cant around also ensures you can quickly draw the gun when worn in various positions.
Security – For its design, passive retention works completely fine. I dived into box jumps, sprints, and burpees, and my set retention was enough to keep the gun in the holster.
The Floodlight OWB checks my boxes, and I’ve found it to be a worthwhile investment. Not only as a holster but as a gun writer, I like having holsters I can use with multiple guns. It allows for consistent training and allows for consistent information when reviewing a new handgun. Beyond that, the Floodlight OWB works for training, competition, range use, and even outdoor exploring. Can it be concealed? Sure, but if you want concealment go with the AIWB variant of the Floodlight.
Phlster’s a small shop but has a seemingly spotless reputation, and I’m beginning to see why. Now I need an Enigma rig.
One of my favorite movies of all time is the 1985 Lawrence Kasdan western drama Silverado. If the name Lawrence Kasdan rings a bell, it’s because if you’re like me, he also wrote a couple of movies that may have been important to your childhood. Perhaps you’ve heard of a small film called Raiders of the Lost Ark or a different movie called The Empire Strikes Back? That’s right, he wrote the best installments in both the Indiana Jones franchise and the Star Wars franchise. But what does that have to do with this rifle? In Silverado, Danny Glover’s character (Malachi Johnson) carries a Henry rifle, and delivers a fantastic line: “Mister, you ever see what a Henry rifle can do in the hands of someone who knows how to use it?”
The gleaming, brass framed Henry rifles in Silverado always struck a chord with me. I’m not saying that a movie is what motivated me to write the Henry Big Boy 45 Colt Review, but I’m not saying it didn’t either. They were beautiful but functional – the heavy brass frame could contain the pressures of the .44 Henry rimfire round, and the heavy octagonal barrel provided all the stability and accuracy a frontier rifleman could hope for. But it’s 2021 now, and we have no need of such rifles, right?
The Future is the Past
Wrong. Some time ago, a little up-start company in New Jersey took on the name Henry Repeating rifles, and began producing brass framed lever action rimfire repeaters. There were some changes from the original Henry design in order to simplify production and cost. The rimfires were a hit. As it turns out, there is a market for an affordable, American made lever action. It only made sense then for Henry to branch out and start creating guns chambered in the classic centerfire cartridges. That resulted in the Henry Big Boy, which uses a hardened brass receiver and is chambered in .45 Colt, .44 Magnum, or .357 Magnum. Both of the magnum chamberings can accept their respective Special-length cartridges as well.
The Henry Big Boy 45 Colt has been around for almost two decades now, and it’s a popular, successful rifle for Henry. Which makes sense, because it’s a ton of fun to shoot. I purchased this rifle pretty much because “lever guns are cool,” and I have zero regrets about that purchase.
Henry Big Boy 45 Colt Specifications
The technical specifications are pretty straight forward on the Henry Big Boy 45 Colt. This is a lever action, .45 Colt rifle with Henry’s hardened brass receiver. It holds 10 rounds, has a barrel length of 20 inches, weighs 8.75 pounds, and the trigger breaks right around 4 pounds. The sights are the traditional buckhorn type, which aren’t the fastest in the world, but actually allow for a ton of precision when you need to make an accurate shot. Finally, the magazine is a simple tube under the barrel that’s loaded by removing the spring loaded rod, and then dropping the cartridges directly down the tube. The spring in the rod forces the cartridges towards the action, where they’re eventually picked up by the lifter during the loading process.
Shooting the Henry
It shoots exactly like you’d expect, which is “great.” A 9 pound rifle with a 20 inch barrel firing .45 Colt feels like shooting a gallery rifle, even when I’m shooting stout Winchester PDX 225 grain JHP out of it. Follow up shots are a joke, because at 25 yards even with the buckhorn sights the rifle will park bullets in the head of a B27 target all day long.
I think I got him
This “group” is a great example of the practical accuracy capability in the Henry Big Boy 45 Colt. Ran the target out to 25 yards, started from the low ready, and just worked the lever as quick as I could putting Hornady 250 grain cowboy action bullets into the head box. It was great. One of the things I noticed about the gun is that you have to operate the lever with authority, which after a few hundred rounds wears a bit on the backs of your knuckles. If you look at the rifles that top Cowboy Action Shooters use, the levers are almost always wrapped with leather or another material, this makes continuous rapid operation a lot easier on the shooter’s hand.
I tested the Henry Big Boy 45 Colt with three brands of ammunition. The first was Winchester 225 grain PDX, which is Winchester’s self-defense load in .45 Colt. These fed well, were extremely accurate, and again were just a joy to shoot out of the Henry. My plan is to use this load for South Dakota’s deer season come November. The next round I tested was Hornady’s 255 grain Cowboy Action load, which, just like the Winchester ran through the gun like crap through a goose. The last cartridge I tested was Fiocchi’s cowboy load, and there I ran into problems. For whatever reason with the Fiocchi, and only the Fiocchi, I experienced multiple bolt-over-base malfunctions. An examination of a box of unfired Fiocchi rounds revealed that the case rims were not all the same diameter, an issue that wasn’t present with Hornady or Winchester rounds. I guess my American made rifle prefers American made ammunition.
The Bottom Line
This rifle is a great example of a gun that is a nice thing to look at, a wonderful thing to have, and yet something that is still 100% functional. If you’re buying it just to have something to punch big, .45 Colt holes in paper it’s a great choice. If you want a relatively fast handling rifle for deer, I’m sure it’ll do excellent at that. If you want it to simply scratch that nostalgia itch from growing up watching westerns and you want something made in America? Here’s your choice. It really is the rifle that the western cowboy would have carried in his saddle. It’s affordable, reliable (with correctly made ammo), and would be perfectly at home in a truck’s gun rack, a leather saddle scabbard, or carefully preserved for in your safe. It’s the kind of gun, worn from years of use but still functional, that you give to your firstborn child when they come of age.
As of late, there has been a good bit of talk about Dragunovs, and from this talk, I can decipher a few things. Gun drama is the worst, and a lot of people don’t seem to know the difference between the famed Dragunov and the PSL. I prefer to comment on the latter, so let’s dive into the differences between the two rifles. Without further ado, here is our Dragunov vs. PSL grudge match.
Dragunov History
Designed in 1963 by Yevgeny Fyodorovich Dragunov, a name I most certainly copy and pasted. Mr. Dragunov was a relatively successful arms designer, and his many designs included a gold medal-winning biathlon rifle. The SVD was submitted to military trials in 1959 and was accepted in 1963.
The Dragunov originally served as a sniper rifle with conventional forces. Since then, it’s served with the Russian military in various incarnations, including a bullpup variant.
PSL History
The Romanians and the Soviets weren’t getting along very well back in the day. This spurred the Russians to be shy in sharing their weapons, so Romania spun up its own production.
They wanted a Dragunov, but Russia wasn’t keen to share the details. So they built their own sniper rifle. The PSL was designed to be a designated marksman’s rifle and to extend the effective range of the squad.
PSL VS. Dragunov – Why the Confusion.
Whenever you start talking about Soviet-era sniper rifles, Dragunov vs. PSL will inevitably come up. The main confusion comes from the fact they are both ‘sniper’ rifles, and they look similar. They could be spiteful brothers.
On the outside, you have an identical thin barrel, wood furniture including a thumbhole stock, as well as AK-like controls. From the AK, we have the charging handle, the sights, the safety, magazine release, and side scope mount.
Both guns have also been copied and are relatively widespread. When it comes to countries doing their own Dragunov vs. PSL battles, we see countries like China, Bolivia, and Iran choose the Dragunov. Romania, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a half dozen other middle east countries have selected the PSL.
The Differences
What makes the most significant difference in a Dragunov vs. PSL debate is the gas system. The PSL uses a long-stroke gas system, and the Dragunov uses a short-stroke gas system. Not to be rude to the PSL, but it’s basically a big heckin AK. A short-stroke gas piston system lives in the Dragunov and helps with accuracy.
A long-stroke gas system means a more significant mass is moving forward and rearward with every shot, and this causes more significant recoil and forward shift. A short-stroke gas system is more refined and creates less recoil and movement throughout the gun.
Snipers use the rim of a cartridge to adjust the Dragunov’s gas block. The two-position gas block allows the user to swap between standard and adverse modes. Adverse cycles more gas and creates more recoil but enable the weapon to work when heavily fouled or when shooting in cold weather conditions.
The PSL models have no such design feature. In fact, when used with a suppressor or heavy ammunition, the bolts have been known to crack due to the pressure. 147-grain ammo is a good go-to but anything heavier is risky and suppressor use is not advised.
Dragunov vs. PSL – Differences Down to the Receiver
Russia machined the Dragunov’s receiver. This method improved the strength of the receiver and provided greater accuracy. The downside is the cost and time it takes to make the receiver versus a stamped PSL.
The PSL has no such luxury. Remember, it’s a big heckin AK. Romanian arms designers took some cues from the RPK in the form of a heavy stamped receiver and a much stronger front trunnion.
One interesting feat of the Dragunov is the installation of a last round bolt hold-open device. This isn’t a Yugo-style device that sends the bolt forward when you remove the magazine, either. During reloads, the shooters remove the magazine, pop a new one in, and give a tug on the charging handle to send it home.
In terms of weight and length, the differences are few. The PSL is often a little shorter and maybe a little lighter depending on optics. Romania copied Dragunov features down to an identical barrel length.
Here is a fun fact, not a simple part interchanges between the Dragunov and PSL. This includes the magazines!
Which is The Better Rifle?
This is the big question in a Dragunov vs. PSL debate. I’d like to say the answer is complicated with varying factors, but it’s not. The Dragunov is better. It’s more accurate, lower recoiling, and more refined overall. There isn’t a whole lot to debate. The advantages of the PSL are its ease of production, low price, and the fact it’s somewhat easy to get a PSL in the states. Dragunov’s are a bit tougher to acquire. Either way, both guns are interesting pieces of Soviet small arms, and I hope you’ve left here knowing the difference between the two.
The answer varies year to year, but if we are talking about 2019 it is unequivocally California.
Yes, the Gun Control Golden State lead the US in mass shootings (the loose media quoted definition) in 2019. They had five more than Illinois (another gun control haven) and a nearly 30% greater number than the firearm infested Texas. California sat with a nation leading 43 mass shootings for the year.
24 of those shootings remain unsolved, Nobody who is suspected of, was arrested and charged with, or was dead at the scene and was known to be wanted for the shooting.
California also had 5 of the 34 total MAPS qualifying attacks, those that the public thinks of as “mass shootings” when they involve a firearm. Of the 34 total, 10 of them were non-firearm attacks.
So? How is that gun control working out?
Of course, California will blame the violence on the “lax” gun laws of their neighbors… but those three neighbors combined, one of which is Oregon who also has substantial gun control regulation, had only 9 shootings to California’s 43.
Combine that with the fact the handguns, by far more popular as a method for all shootings compared to rifles, cannot be legally sold across state lines. That is federal law, handguns are intrastate only. If I found a pistol I wanted, prior to my days as an FFL, I had to send it home to a local FFL to 4473 it out to me. Only long guns, and only those legal in the purchasers state, can be purchased out of state. Given California’s restrictions it would be ludicrous for most stores to stock CA compliant units in any bulk.
So the, “It’s other states’ fault!” really lacks depth when you think about it. Either their laws are all terrible attempts to control their actual problem zones or their laws are terrible attempts to control their problem zones, just for different reasons. The laws are either ignored or are complied with and still ineffective.
“But, Keith! What about 2020!?”
Sure, what about 2020? The MAPS report likely won’t be ready until August, but we know who won by the media definition.
Illinois took the top spot by a massive margin. In a year where we were all stuck inside.
That unsolved number though…
The City of Chicago alone beat California’s 2019 total by 10 with 53 mass shootings, every state that neighbors Illinois totaled only 58 in 2020. California dropped to 2nd place with only 40 and New York (yet another gun control golden child) tied with Texas for 3rd, with 36 each.
2020 was a more violent year, there is no doubt. There were only 10 more listed deaths from so titled “mass shootings” from 2019 to 2020, 508 compared to 518. There were a far greater number of injuries though, 1687 jumped to 2525 injured.
Truly of note, we have fewer known suspects for the 2020 shootings, both as percentages and as absolute numbers. This certainly supports the notion that law enforcement was in much greater absence during the pandemic, unable to respond and unable to solve the crimes perpetrated during the locked down year of COVID-19 and riots. A year to arm up in your own defense indeed.
Less than 25% of the shootings had a suspect (or suspects) in 2020 compared to 41% for 2019…
So, why do gun control heavy states beat out pro-gun states in mass shootings? Shouldn’t all that gun control be producing better results? If the proposed rules would produce results, why aren’t they?
Perhaps criminal motivations for violence are little more complex than, “Ahhhh, AR-15’s!”
Choose Your Own Crime Stats is a video that went viral back at the end 2012. It is a no nonsense look at the fact that media and political sources willfully obfuscate and oversimplify crime stats to serve their end goal. In this instance, gun control.
The video is over 8 years old but the information is still valid, more valid now than even then perhaps.
Violent crime is staying down from where it was, from the early 90’s peak, even prior to the peak. And comparatively, its similar today as when the video emerged.
Homicide specifically is trending the same way.
All of this violent decline continued after 2004, when the assault weapon ban was removed. The trend is still declining. But you wouldn’t believe it to listen to the gun control proponents.
Let’s take a look at those post AWB statistics. The one Biden so proudly implemented. Shouldn’t there have been a spike? A return to blood in the streets with the flood of ‘assault weapons’ coming forth?
Nope, violent crime still in decline…
In fact, only one violent category increased. Sadly, that category is rape. But that is a category outside traditional ‘gun violence’ parameters. A firearm may be used in the commission of the rape, but it then also becomes either an aggravated assault or homicide.
NOTE: The criminal definition of rape underwent a change in 2013, which does account for the spike. However, we do see nearly parallel increases in the overlapping four years and we can infer from that the likely rates under the expanded definition for the other years. Roughly 35% above the old definition to meet the new one.
“Mass Shootings”
The tweety politicos and media aren’t talking about rape, nor about violent crime as a whole. They are talking about “Mass Shootings” and that is a term they choose specifically for its imagery. However, the crime space they are covering with the definition is borrowing heavily from inner city crime, domestic violence, escalated fights, and other offenses to pad their numbers.
34 Mass Attacks does not sound as terrifying as 424 “Mass Shootings” and gun controllers know it. This is why, like Assault Weapon, they use a vaguely defined term.
in 2019, the working definition of a Mass Attack covers: 34 incidents of mass attacks – in which three or more people, not including the attacker(s), were harmed – that were carried out by 37 attackers in public spaces across the United States between January and December 2019. In total, 108 people were killed and an additional 178 people were injured. -MAPS 2019
Mass Shooting covers roughly any incident in which 4 or more people where shot and has no specific definition.
Gun controllers are inferring Mass Attacks in Public Spaces, which are attacks like Boulder, Parkland, Fort Hood, Las Vegas, etc. These attacks shock the moral conscious of the public, they are brutal and nonsensical from any rational view point.
But in 2019 there were only 34 such attacks, and only 24 involved firearms. Only 6 of those involved a long gun, one involved handgun and long gun. One was confirmed a shotgun meaning a rifle of any type was present at only 6 of the 34 total mass attacks. Of those 24 firearm attacks, at least 10 of the attacks were known prohibited persons or in illegal possession. Of those, 2 were minors in possession, the remaining were prohibited adults who could not legally purchase or possess a firearm. Meaning gun laws failed to apprehend/intercept 10 illegal persons and they failed to stop 14 people who had no record to be suspicious of in the first place. No law would have or did prevent these attacks despite multitudes in place.
Of the 24 attacks involving firearms, 17 involved only handguns. And yet we are after the AR-15, why? Also why is there such disparity between the 24 mass attacks involving firearms and the 424 (or 434 via Wikipedia, may be a typo) “Mass Shootings?” Why lie about them? Why obfuscate the number so radically? Why pretend there are so many more “mass shootings” than there when the implication you are going putting forward is a mass attack?
For the same reasons any problem gets blown out of proportion, money. Attention equals money, it equals funding both directly and indirectly. It means policy ‘wins’ and ‘doing something’ to combat gun violence and all that buzzword jazz. It means money in reelection war chests and self congratulations.
It means control, and of course they will lie to get it.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit covers the western end of the country, including Alaska and Hawaii.
The court has just ruled in a pending case out of Hawaii, and the result is less than stellar. The court, not unexpectedly given their coverage area, has ruled the following:
Hawaii is an outsider within American political norms, being well outside the continental United States and only becoming a state in 1959. They have their own attitudes and culture, and their own opinion on the islands about the carrying of arms. The case here involves George Young applying for a license to carry in Hawaii in 2011, Hawaii is a ‘May Issue’ state and requires applicants to show an urgency or need to carry a weapon. This requirement has been dropped from nearly every carry application within the United States because it is generally seen as an infringement and a ridiculous requirement that provides no benefit for the community, but Hawaii is one of the few who retains the requirement.
Appellant George Young applied for a firearm-carry license twice in 2011, but failed to identify “the urgency or the need” to openly carry a firearm in public. Instead, Young relied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for self defense. Both of Young’s applications were denied. Young brought a challenge to Hawai‘i’s firearm-licensing law under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai‘i’s statute.
This likely means a Supreme Court challenge. Remember, this started in 2011 so we have a case that has been fermenting for a decade and still is not done.
There is good news in the text though, the dissent:
Dissenting, Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Callahan, Ikuta, and R. Nelson, would hold that both HRS § 134-9 and the 1997 County regulation destroy the core right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home and are unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny. Judge O’Scannlain stated that the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place. In his view, the majority’s decision undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself.
Dissenting, Judge R. Nelson, joined by Judges Callahan and Ikuta, concurred with Judge O’Scannlain’s dissent concluding that Hawaii Revised Statute 134-9 violates the Second Amendment. Judge R. Nelson wrote that the majority erred not only in holding the statute facially constitutional, but also in rejecting Young’s as-applied challenge. He also wrote separately to highlight the brazenly unconstitutional County of Hawaii Regulations applying HRS § 134-9, stating that there should be no dispute that any law or regulation that restricts gun ownership only to security guards violates the Second Amendment.
So there are empaneled judges the do recognize the Second Amendment as written and understood and will not let the prevailing local attitude pass unremarked upon. The did not win this opinion but they clearly recognize that Hawaii’s attitude on this is in opposition to the national prevailing attitude of shall issue. With the Supreme Court sitting at a theoretically pro-2A majority of 6 to 3, or 5 to 4 depending upon Chief Justice Robert’s moderate attitudes, we could see a positive resolution on this… eventually.
Until then Hawaii will be allowed to continue curtailing their citizen’s and resident’s carry rights with ‘may issue’ procedures in place. They are also likely to keep patting themselves on the back for their lower than national average homicide rate being based upon their gun policy, and not their geographic isolation, culture, or differing criminal economy.
Lonoke, Arkansas – March 24, 2021 – Remington Ammunition has launched a new website at www.remington.com to make it faster and easier than ever before to find the quality ammunition known by all hunters and shooters. For generations, Remington has been combining the finest components with cutting-edge innovation to deliver top-notch performance in every round of the company’s American-loaded ammunition.
“Our redesigned site with new content, detailed product information, and easy shop-ability will allow Big Green fans to see Remington ammo in a new light,” said Joel Hodgdon, Remington Ammunition’s Marketing Director. “We want everyone who pulls a trigger to learn about our products and find out everything they need to know about Remington ammo.”
Visitors to www.remington.com can easily access detailed product information and load selection advice as well as purchase Remington accessories and merchandise and have it shipped directly to their door. Learn more about Remington’s iconic ammunition for whitetails, waterfowl, wild turkeys, personal defense, target shooting and much more on the brand’s comprehensive line up of ammunition.
“The new website is only the beginning of what Big Green ammo wants to offer hunters and shooters,” said Hodgdon. “The new site is the tip of the iceberg…it shows our renewed commitment to quality, education and innovation in all things ammo.”
To be the first to hear about product availability, exciting new products and everything Remington ammo, visitors to www.remington.com are encouraged to sign up for Remington’s e-newsletter or follow Remington on social media.
Remington ammunition and firearms are now separate companies. Information on Remington firearms can be found at www.remarms.com
Find legendary Remington ammunition at dealers nationwide and online. For more information on Remington ammunition and accessories, visit www.remington.com
Did anyone else notice how quickly certain tweets and comments vanished after the name of the Boulder Colorado shooter was released?
Ones blaming a certain racial demographic for the attack? Ones perhaps implying that the reason the shooter in Colorado, and in Atlanta too, are alive are because they are a certain racial demographic? Also implying that if they were an alternative racial demographic that law enforcement would surely have killed them on the spot?
These denizens of ‘internet justice’ were almost gleefully expecting another Robert Aaron Long, another man of certain ‘privileges’ that are extended to not being shot on sight by police, even after committing a massacre. So they claim.
Image via CNN
The footage of the unclothed wounded man being taken into custody kicked off a firestorm of declarations, like the one below. Until…
Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa. Syrian. Immigrated as a child. Grew up here. Experienced a Post-9/11 United States. Not exactly who the earlier #StopWhiteTerrorism tweeters were hoping it was.
After a week of the media, both professional and social, whipping us into a frenzy over the fact that Long had attacked Asian massage parlors. Compounded by the fact that six of the victims were women of Asian decent, the only conclusion that was possible was that the attack in Atlanta was racially motivated. Right? So they hungrily speculated on this next atrocity at the hands of a certain racial demographic… oops.
Back to Atlanta for a moment.
Completely disregarded was the stated motive from the killer himself, a completely plausible one, that Long was grappling with a sexual desire he was mentally unprepared for due to, in part at least, his religious background. Certainly race had a tangential influence in that the parlors were attacked because of a sexual stereotype, however the primary motivation (if we believe Long and don’t assign a motive for him) was that of sexual and religious conflict. Those are very old reasons to kill in humanity’s history. But that wasn’t narratively satisfactory apparently.
So, after Long was taken into custody and charged, a long (no pun intended) litany of abuse was laid out on the societal scale of just how oppressed the Asian community is in America. The Asian community themselves have had a mixed reaction. On the one hand, some are thankful the problems are being highlighted. On the other, they recognize all the signs that they are a currently convenient social pawn and that the narrative being parroted is a far cry from the dirty reality of the situation.
Among those dirty realities is the reality of unsanctioned sex work out of ‘massage parlors’ being a real and driving underground economic item. They are especially prevalent in larger urban areas, cities like Atlanta. You can argue about consensual sexual massages being grey market or black market items until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is these places exist.
So given that the motivation Long stated is entirely plausible, why change it?
It doesn’t fit the narrative that tweety politico types wanted to drive, so they altered it. That alteration makes Long’s actions no less abhorrent, but it furthers their baseline racial bias narrative instead of the more complex one of a religiously motivated killing spree with undertones of mental anguish and sexual trauma or frustration. The racism card is easier, its also lazy. It doesn’t humanize Long at all and provide the murderer with possibly sympathetic qualities, and doesn’t suggest that any of the murder victims were perhaps part of something they should not be, which would make them lesssympathetic. Doing either of those robs the narrative of its pure moral punch and instead seeds it as one more tragic tale of the seedier side of city enterprises.
It shouldn’t rob the narrative of anything. Those eight people, regardless of if they were engaging in consensual sex work, didn’t deserve a bullet any more than your neighbor might. Barring some radical finding like the parlors were trafficking women, the murders were as cold blooded as can be imagined. Even then, and that is a mighty hypothetical then, the murders were still driven by a religious and sexual motive, not some altruism of preventing exploitative practices.
But if we ever really want to look at preventing attacks, motive is everything. Stating that motive wrongly, on purpose, to push a political agenda is abhorrent too. Even the police are now saying that there is not enough evidence to suggest this was a hate crime, a crime driven by an ethnic or religious background, but that Long’s motive may in fact be exactly what he stated.
So that brings us back to Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.
A young man the same age as Long, who killed 10 people a week after Long killed 8 for an as yet unknown motive. More poignantly, how once we knew that his name was Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa… all comparative speculation about his motive ceased immediately.
The tweety masses were happy to assign Long the motive (even though he had given his already) of racial hatred. But they are very very silent on Alissa, the Syrian immigrant.
Speculation around Alissa is suggesting his personal history included aggression, paranoia, and an assault conviction from high school. Wrestling peers stated he was removed from the team after a violent verbal outburst from losing a match in which he threatened to kill his team mates. Family, including his older brother seem to indicate he suffered mental illness. Some sources are saying his social media was rapidly anti-American, perhaps self-radicalized?
My question in this instance is, why wasn’t he ‘Red Flagged’? Why wasn’t Alissa prohibited, even temporarily due to his alleged paranoid state? What are the circumstances that led to Alissa being able to buy the Ruger AR pistol if all of this was known abouthim? “We” knew, combined, all of these things about Alissa ahead of time and yet NICS didn’t?
Does that perhaps mean, background checks don’t work? That someone as apparently paranoid and aggressive as Alissa is, exactly who NICS is supposed to screen, didn’t get screened? Perhaps, because they can’t?
The mass shooting suspect has made statements to investigators, Dougherty said.
“We’re collecting those statements now and we’ll be providing those in the weeks ahead,” Dougherty said. – CNN
What will those statements be? But more importantly will we (meaning the loud social voices) assign a motive to Alissa as rapidly and defiantly as we did Long?
Or does the fact it turns out it was a Syrian change the convenience of that narrative too much?
I mean.. we know that answer. But I will still ask the question.
The short video from Bloke on the Range gives voice to an interesting phenomenon.
There are certain parts that a semi-automatic firearm are omitted from it’s fully automatic consorts. Most of these parts have to do with a safe firing cycle. Normally, these have to do with with the auto-sear parts. These parts assure that the firing mechanism is safely held until the chamber safely locked. Certain firearms retain these parts, even in the semi-automatic variants.
But while those parts enforce the safe discharge of the firearm from a locked breach, that is not the only concern when it comes to automatic fire.
Automatic weapons have a tremendous amount of energy going in different directions, and all the various stresses need to release that energy in some manner or another. That combined with the fact the energy will be renewed again very rapidly and repeatedly. That has the propensity to literally rattle the gun apart if not accounted for. But it is also an event that does not and cannot happen, at least to that degree, in semi-automatic firearms because the delay and rate of fire decrease allow the energy to dissipate.
So semi-auto firearms often omit parts, and the space for those parts, because they are unnecessary. However when that omission changes the firearm’s form, it tends to detract from one of the sellable points of the firearm itself.
Firearm purchases have an aesthetic value. In fact, aesthetics are held in very high value which is why we spend so much on them. I am a perpetual fan of FDE shades for example, and will often pay more for the finish. I have an entire rifle done up in a Mandalorian color, motif, and engravings. There is no functional reason for them, but I want them so there is value.
So when something like the FAMAS has an exterior aesthetic based on the location of a part that it does not need, the designer is benefitted from keeping the aesthetic, even it is functionally null. A more extreme example is the H&K SL8, it came in an absurd format when purchasers really wanted a G36. So they spend money on making it into the G36, the firearm itself doesn’t really change much in function but the buyer wants the aesthetic.
In this video, its the FAMAS military buffer. But examples can be found all across the industry, especially among ‘cloners’ who want specific SKUs.
Just an interesting break from some of the bleakness in the world at the moment.
They are the ultimate expression of throwing away money at a problem, compounded with a fiscal stinginess. It has gotten so bad at this point that I actively encourage profiteering at the expense of the buyback in order to discourage the otherwise total waste of the efforts. Someone should benefit from it, the community certainly doesn’t.
I have heard rumors that the site will no longer be accepting magazines since they would be overpaying for them and sellers would be using the money to go buy more, something I advocated for myself on social media.
But that admission, the unwillingness to pay above competitive market values for firearms, is the ultimate evidence that these gestures are nonsense incarnate. $350 for an AR type firearm is somewhere between 5% and 50% of its open market value. It’s legal open market value, we aren’t touching upon what someone will pay to illegally acquire something. The buyback is unwilling to go 1:1 value on even the lowest end rifles, who on earth do they believe is turning these firearms in? What do they feel they are accomplishing?
“The time is always right to do what is right.”– MLK. The poster quotes.
But apparently only if it is shallow, easy, and cheap. This is the weakest of the ‘do somethings’ that could be organized. There is nothing in this ‘Day of Peace’ that speaks about outreach to the most disaffected community members, nor about amnesty for criminal offenses other than firearm possession at the event itself, nor of almost any other community building and engagement activity.
So what possible engagement can they expect? Are they seriously looking to tackle disarming organized crime with a couple hundred bucks? Are they hoping that someone who may hypothetically become violent in the future will disarm now and not possess another method at the future hypothetical time of violence?
Gun buybacks operate on the “any engagement is good engagement” principle, and that is naïve. The belief that any gun that is taken “off the street” is good, is asinine. It also not so subtly implies guns are bad in and of themselves, a projectionist attitude of no value. These aren’t guns taken “off the streets” anyway, they were rotting in basements or attics somewhere, forgotten by their current stewards until they became of modest perceived value. Or they are profiteered by enterprising individuals who took advantage of the payout rules. Or perhaps they were stolen from a lawful owner and ‘bought back,’ making the buyback complicit an illegal arms fence scheme with built in amnesty.
These are not the armature of the criminal class, not unless such an item has outlived its usefulness anyway. They are not the armature of the distrustful and suspicious ‘prepper,’ who the media loves to demonize as all being one step shy of a mass shooting. For that matter, they are not the armature of the motivated, unhinged, or both mass killer because either meticulously planning and forethought went into the attack or spontaneity invited use of a weapon of convenience, too include an accessible firearm.
Legality is hardly a factor, as misuse of a firearm to further a crime and mass murder are both illegal and carry strong penalties.
Gun control, gun buybacks, and all the ineffectual efforts short of a totalitarian and devastating campaign against private arms will all fall short and ultimately do little of value and much to harm. They will not influence the homicide rate the way the national quality of life, of satisfaction and stress levels, and the stability both social and fiscal will.
A gun buyback would never stand a snowball’s chance in hell of disarming the shooter in Colorado, Christchurch, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Orlando, Fort Hood, or anywhere else where the abhorrent display of the human capacity for violence attacked our “safe” first world sensibilities.
That won’t stop the efforts to feel safe though. Because feelings trump reality, right? My truth instead of the truth. Not that we should discard perspective simply because it is perspective, that would be just as silly, but we must temper perspective with fact if we want to continue to make progress. In order to make the 21st Century more peaceable than the 20th, to make the 2020’s more peaceable than the 2010’s, and the 2030’s more peaceable still, we need to place perspectives and objective truths into their proper places.
If we do not, we just keep pissing into the wind and wondering why we’re wet. Burning money for the shallow optics of ‘progress’ while ignoring the inconvenient realities that this is hard. That people are complex. That respecting human rights is dangerous, but that limiting them is even more so.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin.
Here are the days of looking at our law enforcement and military less like robots and more like individual people. Policing outreach events within the communities, wearing soft t-shirts to appear less intimidating, removing the militaristic green uniform from some departments all together. Many citizens within our cities want to look at our first responders as people just doing another job. Agree or disagree with those ideals, it is a true change of the times. With all of these changes within policies, why the fight against officers with facial hair?
Turns out beards within Law Enforcement (LE) are more prevalent than we think.
After reaching out to some agencies across the country it was shocking to see many are starting to allow beards. Of those agencies that now allow facial hair to be grown the same thing was heard, “we have a new boss” or “there was a lot of push from officers and other departments”. Individual law enforcement agencies have a special opportunity, the opportunity to write their own rules and not follow a much larger entity such as the United States Army does with their policies. The change is seeming to be allowed due to open minded individuals within leadership and push from other departments that are steps ahead.
An officer from Department of Corrections (DOC) stated that they are “now allowed to have groomed facial hair that can pass a respirator test to show a proper seal when dawning a protective mask.”
Another agency within Utah stated that they recently had a policy change to allow beards with length no longer than one inch. When asked about why the policy change and the ratio of agencies that allow facial hair and agencies that don’t the LEO stated this, “I think it was pressure from officers and surrounding agencies were allowing for beards. It seems in Utah the trend is growing and those agencies that don’t allow beards are outnumbered.” -LEO
An officer that works for a county within Minnesota stated this when asked about facial hair policies.
“I work for “””. It wasn’t until our new sheriff was elected in 2019 that we got that (facial hair policy) change. Our new sheriff was from an outside agency. Our previous policy didn’t allow any facial hair and also didn’t allow any tattoos that couldn’t be covered by a short sleeve uniform shirt. So now we allow sleeve tattoos as long as they are appropriate. And facial hair.”
What is the new Sherriff like?
“But he’s so chill. He’s gay, drives a motorcycle, and has tattoos. He’s a great guy. Our agency has almost done a complete 180. Unfortunately certain higher ups are protected by their union so we haven’t quite purged the old school mentality. In my professional opinion, there’s no reason limit facial hair as long as it is neatly trimmed and doesn’t interfere with a gas mask.”
What is the facial hair policy now?
“No beards. Mustaches and goatees allowed. Must be neatly trimmed. “No handlebar, fu Manchu, walrus, or other such mustaches are not allowed.”- LEO
Below is the Saint Paul Police Department policy on facial hair. The SPPD is a very large department within Minnesota.
Law enforcement is moving in the right direction when it comes to facial hair and tattoos. Policies are changing completely and not just allowing exemptions for things such as religious freedoms or for a benefit.
So, when is it the Militarys turn? The Military is a different animal. It is a large entity that has one individual on top making these decisions. Recently the United States Army held a board for changes within womens grooming standards. It is foreseen, more so hoped for, that a similar board will be held for men. That we will start listening to ALL of those within the service and make changes that do not directly affect the equipment performance, but directly affect our Servicemens performance.
There is much confusion among shooters concerning the difference between ocular lens focus and parallax adjustment. “Focus” implies focusing your eye to the reticle and should be adjusted once and left set; parallax focuses the reticle on the target and must be adjusted accordingly for accurate long-range shooting. Here JJ shows the difference and tells how to set up your new scope.
[Ed: Stephen D’Andrilli & Roger Katz are pro-2A Constitutionalist polemicists whom we enjoy reading. In this piece, first published February 6 at The Arbalest Quarrel, they raise important questions about the language and semantics of those who would cancel much of our freedom. Edited (and retitled) for space and clarity. Parts 1 & 2 were on Tuesday.]
PART THREE
RENEWED USE OF THE EXPRESSION ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ TO UNDERMINE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ON THE WAY
As with the odd use of the word, ‘equity,’ the . . . forces that intend to undermine a free Constitutional Republic utilized another expression to launch a concerted attack on the Nation’s cherished institutions and fundamental rights, and Americans will soon see it utilized actively once again.
Recall . . . how anti-gun political strategists decades ago coined the phrase ‘assault weapon.’ Politicians and lawmakers utilized the expression as a propaganda tool to constrain, not preserve and strengthen, exercise of the fundamental, natural right codified in the Second Amendment.
The expression ‘assault weapon,’ a fictional phrase that is not used or referenced by the military or by the gun industry. It is also a vague expression, deliberately kept vague in meaning, and for good reason. Were the expression well defined, the public would know exactly what firearms fall within the meaning of ‘assault weapon,’ namely the many they own, and they would be perturbed.
By keeping the expression vague, State and Federal governments can place into the category of banned firearms, i.e., ‘assault weapons,’ any firearm they wish to prohibit the public from owning and possessing. And the result is that the domain of ‘assault weapon’ constantly expands under Federal and State law and with alacrity.
Each State has its own legal definition for ‘assault weapon.’ In some States those definitions are more expansive than as displayed in gun Statutes of other States. And, so the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ remains deliberately amorphous.
Had the propagandists began their attack on the Second Amendment by using the expression, ‘semiautomatic weapon,’—an expression that has unambiguous meaning in the gun industry—that would immediately raise alarm bells among American gun owners.
Most firearms owned by the American public today are semiautomatic weapons. By deliberately refraining from the use of the expression, ‘semiautomatic weapon,’ the political strategists and the propagandists had hoped to disguise the full depth and breadth of their aims, and they have met with a measure of success.
Many Americans have gone along, unaware of the deception. They see “ASSAULT WEAPONS” as a danger to public safety and order. They don’t see “SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS” as a danger to public safety and order. That is to say, they don’t see THEIR firearms as a danger to public safety and order and, so, they don’t see THEIR firearms as being targeted. So they don’t have a problem with laws that restrict access to such things as “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”
Reference to assault weapons rather than to semiautomatic weapons by antigun zealots and proponents leaves Federal and State legislators free to fashion their gun bans in whatever manner they wish.
They are free to give specific legal meaning to the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ in whatever way they want, targeting the very firearms and thecomponent parts of those weapons that Americans own and possess and have wish to keep.
These Americans, who deem the assault weapon as a type of firearm that no civilian needs and that no civilian should be permitted to own, learn too late they have been hoodwinked and that what they had supposed to be a free exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms has, indeed, been unlawfully, unconstitutionally infringed, after all.
. . .
The problem that had once faced Congress never impacted the States. The Radical Left States created their own oppressive gun laws, severely restricting possession or banning altogether many semiautomatic firearms under the category “assault weapons.” Broadly construing ‘assault weapon,’ a legal fiction, States are free to ban many different firearms with a broad stroke.
If the expression ‘assault weapon’ were an industry term of art, as, for example, the expression ‘assault rifle’ is, legislatures would struggle to lawfully ban large categories of firearms under the rubric of ‘assault weapon.’ But the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is not an industry or military term of art. So the drafters of legislation can include single-action or double-action revolvers, or any other kind of firearm under the rubric of ‘assault weapon’ if they wish. And, at some point, they may very well do so. There is nothing to constrain them.
Look at the New York Safe Act of 2013. Under the list of banned “assault weapons” is included revolving shotguns. Revolving shotguns aren’t semiautomatic weapons. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ need not be confined to semiautomatic weapons.
Now that Democrats control both Houses of Congress along with the Executive Branch of the Federal government, we will soon see executive orders and legislative bills flying willy-nilly off the desks of antigun . . . zealots. There is nothing to stop them.
_____________________________________
PART FOUR
THE WAR ON AMERICA’S BASIC FREEDOMS, THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IS UNDER GREATER ASSAULT TODAY THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME IN OUR NATION’S PAST
. . .
Will Biden sign an executive order banning “assault weapons” and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?
Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter about gun-toting “white supremacists” and right-wing “domestic terrorists” and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the . . . propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, The New York Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on “guns.”
Proclaiming with majestic fanfare a massive threat to “democracy” posed by purported well-armed right-wing extremist groups, or so the public is told—and never mind the threat posed by truly dangerous Radical Left Anarchist and Marxist extremist groups that routinely get a pass despite having engaged in an unmistakable reign of terror against the public . . . —the vast propaganda machine of the “free” Press is setting the stage for a nation-wide gun confiscation program targeting average citizens, similar to the one instituted in Australia some time back that Hillary Clinton championed.
The propagandists have conjured up a new pretext for further undermining the Second Amendment: the threat of “domestic terrorism.” And, these expressions, “white supremacist,” “white extremist,” “domestic terrorist” and “equity” . . . are undefined and kept deliberately vague, but the public is getting a ferocious blast of “news” reports meant to keep these words and phrases constantly in the public psyche. This isn’t an accident. . . .
The Radical Left propaganda machine is softening up the public, conditioning the public to accept the need to curtail its fundamental rights, and is constantly twisting the import of the U.S. Constitution beyond all recognition to its original meaning and intent of its framers. . .
. . .
Such is the power of propaganda to bend, shape, and warp the public psyche. The use of words and phrases can have and do have a tangible, debilitating effect.
By keeping expressions deliberately vague and ambiguous, the propagandists can lump whatever they want into the expressions. They have laid the groundwork for new bogeymen, and they are using these bogeymen to undermine the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of our Government, while blithely attacking our Nation’s fundamental rights.
The forces that dare crush our Nation into submission have taken over the reins of Government. With the ouster of Trump and control of two of three Branches of Government, and with that of the Judiciary on the radar, the forces that intend to destroy a free Constitutional Republic have attained much of their first goal. The second goal is now to rein in the sovereign American people themselves.
How do you destroy the sovereignty of the American people? Get them to accept the false belief that their fundamental, natural, unalienable, immutable rights are no longer necessary; that . . . the “Progressive” agenda, once effectuated, can better “serve” the American people once the old, archaic, anachronistic Bill of Rights is erased and once the plain import of the Articles of the U.S. Constitution is modified or simply ignored.
.
.
—NYPD veteran Stephen D’Andrilli is President & CMO of Arbalest Group, with masters degrees in Criminal Justice and Public Administration. He is an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor & Training Counselor, and is passionate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
–Roger Katz is CEO of Arbalest Quarrel, and an attorney licensed in Ohio & Arizona (formerly New York) focusing on federal and state firearms issues. He has worked in patent, intellectual property, criminal and securities law and has degrees in English, Philosophy, Public Administration & Education. He believes in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.
Since the spree killing in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday, night the nation has once again thrust race to the forefront of discussion?
Why?
The obvious answer is that all the victims were of Asian heritage. So the motive must have been race, yes? The liberal side of the media establishment, and those in political circles who enjoy using racial tension as a moral bludgeon, certainly believe so.
But the perpetrator has stated for the record that the motive was not race, it was “sexual addition” in his own words. The scraggly bearded 21 year old did not target Asians for being of Asian descent, he targeted the Asian massage parlors because of the stereotype associated with those establishments. Establishments that he was apparently a patron of at one point, at least two of them according to police reports.
So, was race the motive?
More accurate to say that racial association was a motivating factor. This does not feel like the racially/ethnically/demographically motivated killing of Christchurch or Charleston, where the targeted victims were absolutely chosen around the racial or religious demographic. Instead it was the association of the ‘Asian Massage Parlor’ with sexual favors and innuendo. Everyone knows the association that the ‘Asian Massage Parlor’ is just a *wink wink nudge nudge* brothel. “Me love you long time,” is a pop culture reference for crying out loud…
It isn’t know whether anything untowardly sexual happened between the perpetrator and any employee of any of the establishments, but that is the implication. It is entirely possible this is a delusion born of stereotyping and false expectations. Other evidence suggests there was a religious motivation, an extreme aversion to what he thought of as sexual sin.
Considering that, this killing feels more like the Uber Killer in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Someone who is or became what would once have been called, and perhaps still is, ‘unhinged’ from reality. There is a tremendous amount going on in this specific case, so to boil it down to a racial ‘hate crime’ is entirely disingenuous. We do nobody any benefit by watering down motives, especially for ‘woke’ points. And even more so if we cannot be honest about statistics.
Asian Americans have also noted the disparity between the response to this incident, mass liberal moral outrage, and the deliberate slaying of an innocent elderly man only a few weeks ago. They have noted particularly that the perpetrators were of different ethnicities, neither were Asian. The white perpetrator is getting the moral outrage by the barge load, justifiably, and it is getting checked with every social outrage box it can manage, predictably. White Supremacy, Racism/Asian Hate, Misogyny/Sexual Assault, Gun Violence, and every other hashtag that can be tagged.
But the Black perpetrator in San Francisco? The man of roughly the same age (19 instead of 21) who shoved an 84 year old man to the ground, killing him, for apparently no reason at all. No reason beyond the fact that he was elderly, Asian, and perhaps vaguely in the way of the younger man. That murder was described by the San Francisco District Attorney as a “temper tantrum” and not a hate crime.
Are the two killings different? Yes, they are. One appears to be a violent act of convenience against an elderly Asian, perhaps because he is Asian, and the other appears to be a deliberate attack against massage parlor employees, also Asians, because of the sexual stereotype.
Under a slight change in legal code, one of these crimes would likely also have changed. The white 21 year old man could have attacked a legal brothel, or a legal escort, or another accessible sex worker if law codes in the United States allowed for those forms of work openly. The other crime would remain unchanged, an unprovoked killing of a senior Asian citizen.
Which was more targeted by race?
Which should generate the moral outrage?
Both should, but they didn’t.
Anti-Asian sentiment has been running especially high since 2020. The American Islamic community, and Sikh by visual association, experienced a more potent form of the attitude shift in 2001, but the Asian community was blamed for COVID-19 while Islamic practicing Americans were blamed for the attack by Al-Qaeda.
Both attitudes are patently stupid. But when has that stopped anyone.
“China Virus” and usually, as such prejudicial idiocy goes, not one of the more aggressive lukewarm IQ types ever bothered to see if anyone they were casually dehumanizing, or actively assailing, was even a Chinese viral lab researcher, or even from Wuhan, or even from China. Nope, being vaguely oriental is generally enough for the angry mongoloid crowd, which is just a mirror of the low-information “blue checkmark” commentators who spew their particular brand of biased braindead bullshit. Just because someone is your political opposite doesn’t make you smarter than them.
So why are Asian Americans ‘a little peeved,’ shall we say, about liberal white folk being liberal white woke?
Let’s take a look at that chart again.
As we have consistently reported, violence is generally skewed intraracially. But looking at the Asian community, that doesn’t hold nearly as true. Oh they are certainly violent to themselves more than they are to others, that holds true, but others are much more violent to them in comparative amounts. Asians are the only ethnicity where they are assaulted more by other ethnicities than their own by a significant margin, 3 to 1. Violence against Hispanics is a bare majority interracial, effectively 1.2 to 1 or 6 to 5, but the largest single portion of it is still intraracial, Hispanics against other Hispanics.
Asians are the only racial demographic where intraracial violence isn’t the largest recorded portion. And white perpetrated violence against them, being the largest demographic, isn’t the largest portion either. It is roughly equivalent in instances to Asian on Asian violence. Hispanic on Asian violence, the next largest demographic, is not the largest either, it is the lowest.
Black on Asian violence is the largest percentage of incidents, but you would be hard pressed to know that from anyone other than the Asians themselves, who an agenda driven media is unlikely to listen to. When adjusted for population percentages the Black on Asian violence becomes even more stark, Asian on Asian takes second, and white on Asian violence drifts to third.
Prejudicial attitudes towards Asians spiked in conjunction with COVID, but it wasn’t white supremacy… just tired old human tribalism lashing out at the ‘threat’ without reason in general, something the woke folk pretend they do not participate in.
The response to this particular killing in parts of the Asian community has amounted to, “Oh, now you’re paying attention? Since it was a white guy with a gun?”
That response is disappointingly unsurprising, it conveniently shills for the anti-gun narrative without having to actually listen to the aggrieved minority and what they are saying. Asian Americans were often conveniently rolled into the ‘white’ demographic if it would advance political capital or an agenda enough. Now they are a persecuted minority of the ‘white’ demographic and their gun crazy tyranny, because that advances political capital and an agenda.
Already the headlines are boldly wondering if this will finally advance gun control or if the ‘no-wait’ gun laws allowed this man to buy a gun. The FBI clearly cleared him if he was run through NICS. So waiting period gun laws wouldn’t have cleared him? As if, since he was that aggrieved for this long over the situation of his supposed sexual sins, he wouldn’t have waited out and passed a background check?
Are we really going to posit that he wouldn’t have done this if he had just been made to wait until Friday? That is the theory we are going with? Not that the anguish and personal stress he was under, due allegedly to the constraints he felt that his faith imposed, would push him to this or a similarly twisted “atonement” of some sort, even if he had to wait? Are we so arrogant as to believe that we could have prevented this through an inconvenient hindrance of time, when the young man claims to have believed his immortal soul was on the line?
If so, I have no words… nothing could further astonish me than the honest belief that a waiting period would have caught this… That if we just let the mental anguish time breathe a little longer, waiting for the infallible FBI to clear the sale, we will somehow do far more good than harm.
Screw folks in possible imminent danger and their natural right to defense of themselves, we have to wait upwards of a month to let you cool off just in case you might’ve been thinking about spree killing.
But nobody will be knocking on his pastor’s door, I’ll bet. Asking if the tenants of faith are really so stringent as to drive a young man to mass murder in order to preserve his soul. That would be a serious first amendment violation. Can’t have that, go after the 2nd instead. Faith, of course, has never been used as a motive to kill others. Not ever. Not even one time in September about 20 years ago. Or each and every time prior or since. No, it must be that gosh durned white supremacy and gun violence.
God forbid we look at motive driven criminal analysis instead of demographic constrained woke brackets where we perpetually strive to out victim each other… wouldn’t that be something.
