A blog about firearms, self-defense, politics, hunting, personal responsibility and other topics that catch our interest by a couple from the frozen north, temporarily displaced to "Outside."
Palmer woman uses gun to kill herself I wonder what other path she could have chosen. I imagine her family would have preferred counseling for her, instead of using her gun against her face. Cops probably would have preferred that as well. But I’m confident that over the years, she used that gun in self defense. SURE of it. Yup. This entry was posted on Sunday, February 28th, 2010 at 10:35 am and is filed under Guns. Tagged: Alaska, Guns, Firearms, Republican, NRA, Death, Pistol, Palin, Hunter, RickRydell, Handguns, Palmer, Suicide.
Again, the tags make no sense to me. Did Sarah Palin hand this troubled woman a gun? Did the Republicans do it? Did a Talk Show host drive her to suicide?
This is the actual blotter information:
Location: Palmer
Case number: 10-16528
Type: Death Investigation
Text: On 2/27/10 at 1509 hours, Alaska State Troopers responded to the Knik River Access area in Palmer for a death investigation. Investigation revealed Ann Miley, age 59 of Soldotna was found deceased inside her vehicle with a self inflicted gun shot wound. State Medical Examiner's Office responded to the scene and took possession of the body. No foul play is suspected. Next of Kin has been notified.
Author: NEM0
Received Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:27 PM and posted Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:41 PM
First, suicide is tragic. I'm not sure that talking about it with sarcasm is respectful to the deceased or the grieving family. I've known people who are emotionally troubled or dealing with depression and PTSD and its not an easy or trivial struggle. Gwen suggests that the easy access to a firearm allowed the woman to avoid counseling. However, I do not think that there is a strong, proven, causal relationship between guns and suicide.
Here's some more facts from Gun Facts:
Fact: The rate of suicide is not affected by the presence of a firearm. This is true in either a time-series analysis,388 or through crossnational analysis. For example, Japan has no private handgun ownership (aside from an extremely limited number of licensed Olympic sport shooters), and yet had a suicide rate more than twice that of the United States in 2002.389
Source & References: Smith, Guy. 2009. Gun Facts 5.1. Available Online: www.GunFacts.info. Used IAW free usage license terms. 388 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online, BATFE Firearm Commerce Report for 2002. 389 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, World Health Organization Suicide Prevention country reports (online).
One common argument is that mentally ill people should not be allowed to own firearms. This was a common outcry after the VA Tech attack, and whenever someone commits suicide with a firearm its often hinted at. I think there are some problems with that, however. Denying someone of a Constitutional Right by means of a health provider's diagnosis -- for which there is no clear appeal, unlike the judicial system -- does not seem to be "due process." Additionally, these diagnoses are often subjective.
Finally, there are already many barriers for troubled people seeking mental health treatment. If an avid sportsman, collector, shooter, or hunter knows that seeking help for their depression will result in their firearms being confiscated by the state they may be less likely to seek help. I think a choice to temporarily hand over one's firearms during a tough time is better made by the individual with the help of their family. Just like a recovering alcoholic shouldn't have booze in the cupboard (and their family needs to help them stick to this!), a suicidal depressed person should carefully consider whether its wise to keep potentially hazardous objects like guns, lengths of stout rope, large quantities of dangerous medication, etc around the house. But, that's a choice best made by the individual with the support of the family, not by the state.
If someone is so dangerously unstable that they have committed or are extremely likely to commit a violent crime, then there is already a process for that: either felony convictions or involuntary commitment. If someone is really a great danger to themselves and others then they should be locked up. While this has been abused in the past, at the judicial system's protections for habeaus corpus, due process, etc. start to come into play in these scenarios.
Here's the first in a series of rebuttals for Gwen's arguments over at Guns are Soooo Great!
I can't promise that I'll rebut every post. But we will have some second opinion here.
The story actually made Drudge, which is kind of surprising. So I'm not surprised that there's lots of traffic. Basically, someone was killed in a shooting at Dimond mall, which is one of our mid-level malls (its not Northway Mall, at least). The initial report showed that an off-duty trooper captured the shooter, but follow-on reporting from ADN shows that the real shooter probably got away and the cop just nabbed a friend.
Gwen's post has a few elements:
2/27/2010: Death at the Dimond Center. Gun owners avoid the facts. Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people. Quite successfully, actually! Alaska, Anchorage, Crime, Death, Firearms, Guns, Handguns, NRA, Palin, Pistol, Republican, RickRydell
First, I don't see how "Gun Owners Avoid the Facts." The fact is that someone got shot and died. No other information is provided for this broad attack. The sarcastic byline turns an NRA slogan on its head. Ok, fair enough, I agree with her: people with guns do kill people. But so do people without guns.
The tags don't all make sense to me. How are the NRA, Sarah Palin, republicans, or Rick Rydell involved in this crime? Is Gwen not aware that even Democrats have learned their lesson from the failed 1994 AWB where they got hammered in the elections following? We've had some good progress in the last few years even with a democratic-dominated congress and despite a Democratic president with an anti-gun cabinet.
Now I want to turn to the event itself. One thing that remains unknown is whether it was gang related. The initial report claimed this:
Rowher said officer "believe that this was a gang-related issue. We believe that some of the people involved in this are confirmed gang members."
This is not surprising. While Dimond Mall is not as sketchy as Northway, violence has been on the rise in the area, most of it fueled by gang activity. However, the ADN later reports:
Contrary to initial police statements that the shooting appeared to be gang- related, police said today that the investigation found no indication that was the case. A sergeant at the scene of the shooting Saturday night had said one or more of the people involved were believed to be gang members.
Gang violence is a serious problem, one that is a much bigger problem than gun violence. So is drug-fueled violence. Even if guns were not available, gangs and drug lords in turf wars will attack each other whether they have to use knives, clubs, or whatever. So, I wouldn't be surprised if this ultimately is found out to involve gangs or drugs, despite the later reporting.
I believe that Gwen is referring to a common myth: the availability of guns causes crimes. I want to include a few quotes from GunFacts, a handy resource full of well cited research, to rebut this argument.
Fact: Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.132 As the chart shows, there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America.
Fact: Internationally speaking “There’s no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence.”133
Fact: “... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”134
Fact: Handgun ownership among groups normally associated with higher violent crime (young males, blacks, low income, inner city, etc.) is at or below national averages.135
Fact: The most significant correlation between the use of guns in the commission of crimes occur when parents (27.5% of inmates) abuse drugs or have friends engaged in illegal activities (32.5% with robberies and 24.3% for drug trafficking).136
Fact: Most violent crime is caused by a small minority of repeat offenders. One California study found that 3.8% of a group of males born in 1956 were responsible for 55.5% of all serious felonies.141 75-80% of murder arrestees have prior arrests for a violent (including non-fatal) felony or burglary. On average they have about four felony arrests and one felony conviction.
Fact: Half of all murders are committed by people on “conditional release” (i.e., parole or probation).142 81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction.143
Fact: Per capita firearm ownership rates have risen steadily since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and “get tough” legislation.144
Source & References Smith, Guy. 2009. Gun Facts 5.1. Available Online: www.GunFacts.info. Used IAW free usage license terms.
132, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997. (With supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1972 to 1995.) 133 Small Arms Survey Project, Keith Krause, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 2007 134 Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003 135 Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997. (Ownership tables derived from the annual “General Social Survey.”) 136 Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 137 The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons , James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, National Institute of Justice (U.S.), 1985 138 Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997. 139 A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics since 1900, Hicks, Joe; Allen, Grahame (SGS), Social and General Statistics Section, House of Commons 140 Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007 141 The Prevalence and Incidence of Arrest Among Adult Males in California, Robert Tillman, prepared for California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Special Services, Sacramento, California, 1987 142,Probation and Parole Violators in State Prison, 1991: Survey of State Prison Inmates, Robyn Cohen, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995 143 Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1998, Brian Reaves, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 144 Ibid. (Based on a compilation of 85 separate surveys from 1959 through 1996.)
Its tax time so I wanted to point out an interesting fact: If you pay taxes, you are wealthy (so get ready to pay more). You may not be aware that most people don't pay any taxes. Most people think they pay taxes even if they don't. This is because they see those deductions out of their paychecks every month then conveniently forget where that big fat refund check from Uncle Sam comes from every April.
Some aspects of the tax code became clear to me this year because I was deployed. In a combat zone your income is tax free. So this, plus some smart deductions and credits, let me avoid all income taxes this year. I even got an $800 refundable credit. Although, I did have to pay payroll taxes.
So, how many people are outside the income tax system? The short answer is about 1/3.
During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.
Another interesting statistic is that the tax burden of the top 1% exceeds taxes paid by the bottom 95% of earners. Some analysis for 2007 (the latest numbers the IRS has made available, apparently) shows that the top 25% of earners paid over 80% of taxes despite only earning 68.7% of national income. The bottom 50% of earners pay almost no tax, <3% of revenues collected.
So, bottom line: many -- perhaps most -- people pay almost no income tax. But, they can still vote, and they can still demand free handouts from their congress critters. Now admittedly, most do pay payroll taxes, although those can be mitigated by refundable tax credits such as the EITC, and there is talk about making those more progressive as well. I think its pretty safe to say that as Congress faces mounting deficits, taxes will go up. They will not go up on the majority of voters, i.e., the broad working class and lower-middle-class (that's not a good recipe for reelection). The super-wealthy will be able to put more effort into tax shelters and avoid paying more. Hrm, I wonder who that leaves...
So, the other day I carried concealed for the first time.
I know, I know. But really, 8 months ago was the first time I'd touched a gun in my life. I was raised in the north east and if I wasn't actively hoplophobic, I was passively hoplophobic. The class I took was eye opening to say the least. But it was still five or six months after my first gun experience that I had acquired both my carry gun and my holster. Two months later I finally settled on a carry position.
Two months, you say? That's a long time. It is. But I both live and work in "gun-free zones" (super lame, but I don't want to become a felon), so two months it took before I had a string of errands that did not involve any gun-free zones.
I'm looking to get some more firearms training, specifically for Handgun. I want some shotgun training at some point as I know very little about them but that can wait. I've got some basic military training, I've got some informal but very good pistol/carbine combo training, and I've done some reading but good gear is worth nothing without good training to back it up.
These are the options I could find in AK:
NRA BASIC PISTOL Reference:http://www.mvsrange.com/classes.htm Reference: http://pun.org/courses.html#BP Cost: $40 + Ammo Duration: 10 hours Thoughts: I think I've covered a lot of the ground in this class already. However, it is really cheap and might be worth "checking the container." This course is offered at the Mat Su indoor range but I'm sure there are other instructors in the State (none listed on the NRA page though).
DEFENSIVE HANDGUN SKILLS IMPROVER Reference:http://www.mvsrange.com/classes.htm Cost: $50 + Ammo Duration: Unknown Duration (probably an afternoon) Thoughts: I need to learn more about this. If custom tailored to skill level, this could be a good way to go for a cheaper option.
AK TACTICAL DEFENSIVE HANDGUN I Reference:http://www.alaskatactical.com/Defensive-Handgun-Training-1-2010a.htm Cost: $475 + 600 Rounds Ammo Duration: 3 Days Thoughts: DW took the Lady's Handgun class and really enjoyed it. So we know that the instruction is going to be pretty good quality. However, it is expensive.
FRONT SIGHT ALASKA Reference: http://www.frontsight.com/alaska/Training/ Cost: A lot of the courses are pricey; $1000 for a two-day course seems standard. However, Front Sight has two other ways to get training cheap. One is via "Grey Certificates." These can be bought for about $150 and are good for first time customers only. You get 1 x 4 day course (up to $2K normal price) or a 2 day course for you and a friend. The other way is with the "Rapid Response" offer. This costs $1200 and gets you a Springfield XD (worth about $550), a four-day pistol class, and a one-day Concealed Carry course that gets you permits from several states. And a few other goodies (T-shirt, knife, etc). Duration: 2-4 days Thoughts: I don't like some things about Front Sight. There are rumors on the internet about the founder's relationship with Scientology, for example, and the training may be somewhat basic. However, many reviews agree that Front Sight provides solid instruction, builds good fundamentals, and reports that the instructors know what they are doing.
The way to maximize training via Front Sight would be to use a grey certificate as a first time student for the shotgun course, with a cheap cost of ~$200 for four days of training. Then, if we enjoyed that, go for the Rapid Response offer. The "free" Springfield XD can be kept or sold, making the cost ~$650 for five days of training.
COMPARISON
Just for comparison, GunSite in Arizona (a top known school) charges $933 for a 3 day course. Thunder Ranch in Oregon, another top school, charges $880 for a 3 day course.
Looks like Canada's top court just decided a case, Montague. The highlight:
[21] Finally, we note that the trial judge considered in detail the Montagues’ constitutional challenge to the impugned firearms provisions of the Code, the Firearms Act and associated regulations enacted under the latter statute. His reasons in support of his ruling dismissing that challenge are thoughtful and comprehensive. He essentially held that there is no protected constitutional right in Canada to possess or use firearms. We agree with this conclusion and see no basis on which to interfere with his ruling.
I don't know the details of the case, and I'm not sure that Montague was a perfect defendant for a trial case, but it sure makes me glad that the SCOTUS basically affirmed the opposite in the recent Heller decision.
Quick backstory: Recently the Brady Bunch pressured Star Bucks to change their weapons policy and prohibit firearms in their stores (Side bar: Although in many states, such as AK, that would be pointless -- you don't have to respect signage in many places unless you are asked to leave, and if you're carrying concealed... You won't be asked to leave. Yet another useless gesture that won't affect crime).
Starbucks refused and responded that their chain will "continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws" on the issue.
Some in the Blogosphere suggested a Starbucks appreciation day. Snowflakes has good coverage of the saga, listed below from most recent to oldest:
I don't love Starbucks but I do drink there occasionally (probably less now that I have my own espresso machine at home...). I did make a point of getting a frappacino (my PT test is over, so I can spluge) and dropped them a quick comment to thank them for resisting the Brady nonsense, though.
I find it interesting that over at HuffPo, only one of the Brady's 27,000 alleged supporters actually showed up in the comments:
No, it's mouthbreathers swaggering around with their guns prominently on display that disturb us.
Bottom line, to Starbucks, et. al.: If I enter an business establishment and see a Yosemite Sam like OCerInTN in there, totin' his gun in full view, I'm turning right around and walking out to spend my money elsewhere, at a business that respects my safety. And I'm never coming back.
How do I know you aren't a complete incompetent, and a danger to yourself and everyone around you? Better safe than sorry.
Thank you, Pete's.
Now, I generally don't open carry unless I'm out hunting or hiking. But I'm not really opposed to the practice, although I agree with Sebastian over at Snowflakes that it may not always be the most effective advocacy technique. I know several stores in the Anchorage area where the owners open carry, I wouldn't be surprised to see people open carry, and its just not a big deal to me. If someone is displaying their weapon openly, they probably don't intend to commit a crime with it (although, it might be a different story if they are an obvious gang-banger or something).
The comment above is kind of funny:
"Mouth breathing?" Well, I do have trouble with my nose getting stuffed up with seasonal allergies... But I think he's implying that all people who carry are retarded, so I guess he doesn't realize that some of us have some edumication.
As for taking his business elsewhere -- good! He has that right, and when he does that enough Starbucks won't care about retaining him. Coffee shops make money wtih repeat customers who want good, consistent brew, not through making political statements (except perhaps with occasional feel-good "fair trade" coffee -- but if that tasted like shit I bet people would go somewhere else for some good old fashioned unfair trade coffee that tasted good...).
Additionally, perhaps the commenter would prefer to go to an establishment like Luby's Cafeteria that respects his safety. I imagine with 27,000 supporters, the Brady bunch could open 2-4 coffee shops of their own!
Finally, how do I know that other drivers on the road aren't incompetent? Many, many more people die every year in traffic accidents than to firearms. Perhaps to be better safe than sorry, we should not allow people to take their cars out in public either! Just because some people are criminally stupid doesn't mean you can revoke a right for others. It means that one individual has been criminally negligent, and if you are a felon, you can't own a gun. You can't punish people for ThoughtCrime in the US; you have to wait for them to do something criminal (or be on the cusp of doing something criminal) before you remove their rights.
Anyways, an interesting saga. I figured it was worth giving Starbucks $5 to show my appreciation.
Edit: Its also worth noting that comments were allowed at all only because the latest article came out on HuffPo. If you go to the Brady site you'll notice that no comments are allowed on their articles and press releases. I cannot think of many anti-gun sites, blogs, or groups that allow free discussion or argument.
I don't want to argue with Gwen over at her own blog. However, she was kind enough to explain her position.
Thanks for writing Chris. I advocate getting rid of guns and melting them down. I think that reasonable people who own guns need to come to terms with the monster they’ve helped create. Reasonable people, when shown facts, react reasonably. For example, when Sarah Palin was exposed by the national press, her numbers plummeted. I think we need a movement to enforce the 2nd Amendment whereby the well-regulated militia can have firearms, but not every American as is currently practiced. The Supreme Court has ruled that the “well regulated militia” specifically applies to the National Guard, but by the time they did so, it was too late. It’s time to make use of the Constitution’s “living/breathing” capability, and update it for life in America in 2010. The military, guard, and cops can have ‘em, but not everyone. That’s what I advocate. Enjoy…
I don't often dive into the RKBA issue because honestly, its tiring and many people discuss it more articulately than I do. I do want to give a brief response however. Rather than arguing with Gwen on her blog, I'd prefer to respond here. I have two reasons. First, it is impolite to pick an argument with a host in their own house. Second, many anti-gun people and organizations cannot put up with discussion and comments have a tendency to be deleted or banned. So I don't want to waste my time writing thoughtful comments that are likely to be deleted.
I do want to address a few points however. In the future when I tackle her posts I'll use the GASG tag for easy reference.
1) Why do anti-gunners want to melt guns down?
It seems that many gun control organizations want to physically destroy firearms. This is certainly their right: if they buy firearms with their own money and destroy them, that's fine. Its a free country and people can spend money however they want, whether that be literally burning money, or by buying a gas guzzling hummer, or whatever.
What I don't understand is the insistence on spending tax payer money to do this. I want the government to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and resources. I think most people would be upset if the government bought cars and rendered them inoperable, bought books and burned them, destroyed government reserves of bullion rather than selling them to interested buyers, burned trees on forest service land instead of selling the lumber, etc. Wanton destruction or limited resources is an irresponsible use of taxpayer funds.
The money that went towards buying firearms and melting them down could have been used for constructive purposes such as feeding the hungry, paying down the deficit, or lowering taxes. Its not magically free money -- it comes from taxpayers.
Additionally, I doubt that these gun buybacks have much impact on crime. Many of them are "no questions asked," which means that criminals who have "hot" guns can turn them in and get paid for their criminal activity to boot. Others turn in guns who just don't know what their firearms are actually worth and get paid pennies on the dollar for the value.
On a more sentimental note, the historian in me is upset at the loss of historical arms. For example, the Clinton administration melted down many M1 Garand WW2-pattern rifles. These were serviceable weapons that could have been sold to law abiding collectors and enthusiasts in shooting clubs via the Civilian Marksmanship Program. This would have generated revenue and preserved many historical items. Instead, the items were lost forever.
Finally, I don't understand the irrational "hoplophobia," or fear of weapons. When someone drowns in a swimming pool, we don't fill in the pool (or all pools). When someone gets hit by a drunk driver, we don't scrap the vehicle (unless its totaled). If someone slips and falls off a roof, we don't burn the house down. So why do so many treat firearms -- which are just tools, like any other inanimate object -- as pseudo-sentient icons that are worthy of special treatment?
2. Myth: A disarmed world is a world without violence
Let's imagine that somehow all guns were magically removed from the world, as many suggest. Even in that scenario, I would suggest that violence is still going to happen, and may be even worse. In a world without firearms, the many can prey on the few or the one: how can one person defend themselves from three muggers with their bare hands? Additionally, the strong will prey on the weak. How is a 110 lb woman supposed to defend herself from a 200 lb rapist? How is a wheelchair bound handicapped person or elderly individual supposed to defend themselves from a pair of drugged up home invaders?
Remember, the aggressor picks the time and place of an engagement. The criminal can wait until he has favorable numbers, circumstances, or a disparity of force before striking.
Compounding this problem is the fact that in the real world, no gun control scheme will ever be perfect. Where there's sufficient demand, there will be a supply. For example, smuggled and homemade weapons will still be available. This makes the previously described problem even worse -- the law abiding will be disarmed, while the lawless will have the force of numbers, disparity of force, and illegal weapons to help them out. We've got to remember that the criminals are criminal because they don't follow laws.
If you don't buy the thought experiment above, then there are numerous statistics and anecdotes available to suggest that banning guns does not ban crime. An obvious example is Chicago; despite a near-total ban on private gun ownership, gun crime still occurs and so does unarmed violence.
3. MYTH: The Second Amendment is intended to apply only to the National Guard and military, also known as the "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court has confirmed this interpretation of a collective -- but not individual -- right to keep and bear arms.
There are multiple myths here. First, the framers did not intend the Second Amendment to apply only to the state or federal army. In the vernacular of the time, "well regulated" meant a properly functioning device or organization (think of a well tuned watch; or, to be more vulgar, the old meaning of the word is still alluded to when we speak of being "regular" in one's toilet habits). The militia was widely acknowledged to be all of the free citizens, a holdover from the tradition we inherited from Britain.
The Supreme Court of the US has recently reaffirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. In DC vs. Heller, the majority ruled that the "people" referenced in the Second Amendment are the same "people" referenced elsewhere in the Constitution, including the First and Fourth Amendments.
Additionally, current US Code (Federal Law) defines the militia as all military-aged males. However, if someone tried to restrict the firearms ownership of the elderly or of women based on this interpretation of US Code, I'd think that a 14th Amendment case could be made quite handily.
Finally, common sense dictates that the "Army and National Guard only" cannot be the interpretation of the Amendment. In their private and public correspondence, many of the founding fathers made it clear that one intent of the Second Amendment was as a check against a tyrannical government. After all, the widespread ownership of private firearms was one factor that contributed to the success of the American revolution in the first place! If only the British Army and British Loyalist Militias had owned firearms, how far do you think the Minutemen would have gotten at Lexington and Concord?
4. The military, national guard, and police are the only people qualified to have firearms.
Many anti-gunners might be surprised to find out just how unqualified many military members are at operating their weapons. Many civilians can easily surpass military standards for marksmanship and safe weapons handling. The same is true for police. There are statistics available to back up the accuracy and efficacy of civilian marksmen, as well. Many people might also be surprised to find how often the police lose firearms! Additionally, these "chosen ones" are not exempt from criminal violence either. The murder of Melonie Hain is a good example of this.
I could rehash the importance of privately owned firearms as a check on tyrannical government, but I think that point has been made already.
One important question that I think it would be interesting to ask anti-gunners is, "Is there any situation in which a person has the right to employ force -- including lethal force -- in self defense?" You can't always count on the police to defend you, after all. It is important to realize that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police are under no obligation to assist you. Additionally, legal matters aside, the police may not respond in a practical time ("When seconds count... The police are only minutes away!"). This is especially true in Alaska, where many places are geographically remote. It may take a state trooper hours or days to reach some places in the state, and often calling 911 is just not an option at all.
If a person has a right to defend themselves, and they cannot rely on police protection, what are they to do? To use an analogy, while I hope the fire department will come to my rescue if my house catches on fire, I still keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen... Often times you hear, "Oh, well, defenders should learn a martial art" or something like that. However, a martial art is not going to be effective for many people due to physical requirements and training required. Likewise, less-lethal technologies like pepper spray and tasers are great, but they also have limited efficacy in some situations (after all, if they worked perfectly, why would cops need to carry guns?). A firearm is just the simplest most effective defensive weapon out there.
5. "It’s time to make use of the Constitution’s “living/breathing” capability, and update it for life in America in 2010."
This is one argument that I can agree with. The Constitution has an amendment process and the people can change it any time in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The Second Amendment could be erased tomorrow and there would be no argument for a broad based right to firearms ownership. However, many states have a similar provision in their state constitutions so those would also have to be removed.
Unfortunately for my opposition, the Second Amendment still stands in 2010. And, to make matters worse for the opposition, there is a good chance that like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is going to be incorporated under the 14th Amendment in the near future -- which would allow individuals in states like Illinois which lack state-level protections to own firearms.
There are other arguments that can be made but at this point I just wanted to address to those that had been raised. I agree with Gwen that reasonable people adjust their opinions based on facts. I feel pretty comfortable that the facts are on my side in this instance. I am happy to provide supporting statistics, links to legal experts, or other supporting information, and if I have erred, I will gladly acknowledge and correct any errors.
Lest Gwen or her supporters think I have been unkind, I do want to point out that I appreciate her candor and fervor. Many anti-gunnies cloak their agenda in incremental language; they really want a total ban on private firearms ownership but instead argue for "common sense" legislation to protect the children, impose a minor scheme that the law abiding certainly won't mind, and so on. At least Gwen is upfront and says that she wants all the guns in private hands destroyed. Additionally, she does a stand-up job of researching people being dumb and unsafe, which provides valuable lessons about safety to readers.
As many of you are aware, the right to carry in National Parks just kicked in after a frivolous environmental delay. Heather did some reading and found out some interesting caveats. If you travel over to Denali National Park's website, you'll find the following information:
"As of February 22, 2010, a new federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal and Alaska state law, to legally possess firearms within Denali National Park and Preserve.
Under federal law, the use or discharge of a firearm is still prohibited by applicable provisions of 36 CFR Section 2.4(a)(2)(ii) and 36 CFR Section 13.30. "
When you travel over to their FAQ about bears, you find this information:
11. Can I carry a gun or firearm to protect myself from bears? If you are entitled under applicable federal and State of Alaska laws to possess a firearm, recent changes in federal law make it legal to carry firearms in most outdoor areas of Denali National Park and Preserve.
However, hunting and the use or discharge of a firearm is still generally prohibited by federal law within the national park. Limited exceptions exist for qualified local rural residents engaged in subsistence hunting on lands added to the original Mount McKinley National Park in 1980 by ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act). Contrary to the belief of some, firearms are not needed for protection from bears, and studies have shown that pepper spray may actually be more effective in preventing a bear attack than firearms. Any shooting of an animal by non-subsistence users of the park must be immediately reported to park rangers who will conduct a thorough criminal investigation. The State of Alaska’s Defense of Life and Property (DLP) regulation does not apply within Denali National Park and there is no DLP regulation in federal law.
DW points out, "So... I can carry a gun. But I can't use it. And if I have to kill a grizzly, it's illegal, even if it's gnawing on me at the time..."
My thought is that, as the NPS points out, avoidance is the best strategy. I've done a fair amount of hiking and camping in bear country and only had one run in with bears. If you are smart and utilize good practices like avoiding smellables in camp and making noise while walking you will avoid almost all problems. And, like the NPS points out, bear spray is a good choice. But, if avoidance and bear spray don't work, then its nice to have a backup plan before you get to "pretend to be dead and hope that the bear spray didn't just add some nice seasoning to Yogi's meal."
I haven't reviewed the federal statutes on poaching, but I'd like to think that you could make a self-defense argument if criminal charges are made. And in any event, I'd prefer to be alive and well in federal court facing poaching charges than to be eaten by a bear.
You may have noticed that we recently went on hiatus. This was for several reasons, namely the risk/reward ratio.
However, I recently stumbled across a site that I think deserves to be responded to. Gwendolyn Blanston writes a blog about gun violence in Alaska. Its a very negative perspective, and while I appreciate the news feed, I think there are positive uses of firearms that are being overlooked. On one hand, arguing with these people is not very effective. However, on the other hand, if you cede the floor to your opponent you will lose by default.
Additionally, DW and I have had some firsts. We attended our first gun show and purchased our first firearms and went on our first hunt. We've got some more hard info to pass along.
I have taken some measures to enhance our OPSEC. Some posts have been edited or removed altogether.
Two young adults talking about personal responsibility, public service, civic preparedness, and whatever else crosses our minds.
Like This Article?
Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Clicking on an AdSense link is like dropping some coins in a tip jar. Using an affiliate link -- such as our Amazon links -- will also give us modest compensation at no cost to you, even if you end up buying something totally different.
If you are interested in advertising or donating to the blog, please email me.
