Michael R. Weisser's Blog, page 19

The New Yorker Magazine Talks About Guns.

[image error]

On July
1, 1972 The New Yorker Magazine published a book-length article, ‘Fire in the
Lake,’ by a 32-year old journalist, Frances Fitzgerald, which set a standard
for contemporary reportage, in this case, reportage on Viet Nam. Not only did
this work achieve a degree of importance and influence in the annals of
non-fiction writing, it also solidified The
New Yorker as the prime media venue for content that could define the narrative
on any subject for years to come.

I was reminded of Fitzgerald’s work when  I read The New Yorker piece about the NRA written by  Mike Spies, staff writer for The Trace (where you can also read this piece.) Because it occurs to me that in certain respects, the debate about gun violence bears some resemblance to the disagreements about Viet Nam; i.e., neither side in either argument was able to produce a narrative which was sufficiently cogent enough to convince the other side. In the case of Viet Nam, Fitzgerald’s writing ended that debate. So the question now is: could The Trace produce a narrative that would do the same for the gun violence debate?

It’s one
thing to write a kiss-and-tell story about how the NRA is flimflamming money.
Big deal. If anyone on the gun-control side thinks that such an article will
make gun owners rethink their love of guns, think again. Going after the NRA is a simple and easy way to attract
some readership from the gun-control gang, but it won’t do anything to change
how gun owners and even non-gun owners think about guns.

When it comes to gun violence, we have a simple problem. It’s not that we have 300 million guns floating around, because at least two hundred million or more of those guns never figure in gun violence events at all. The reason we have gun violence is because Americans have free access to those small, high-powered handguns which are purchased by people who believe that having a Glock on your night table or in your pocket will keep you safe.

And despite incontrovertible evidence proving that guns are more of a risk than a benefit no matter how they are stored, a solid majority of Americans believe the reverse. And since less than 40% of Americans are legal gun owners, obviously there are many non-gun owners who also believe in what scholars like Alan Fiske and Tage Rai call ‘virtuous violence;’ namely, that using a gun to protect yourself is a good thing.

My
friends who conduct public health research into gun violence can publish as
many articles as they like showing that this reasonable law or that reasonable
law may, if enacted, result in fewer gun injuries and gun deaths. But the truth
is that the only way to really reduce or eliminate gun violence is to restrict
ownership of certain types of extremely-lethal guns. But the more we try to
regulate gun ownership, the more we will need buy-in from the folks who own the
guns. And the only way that will happen is if someone explains why so many
Americans believe that nothing will keep them as safe and secure as owning a
gun.

I am
still waiting for the first researcher to figure this one out. Because until and
unless this issue is explored and understood, the community which wants to
reduce gun violence is going to go nowhere fast. Yea, maybe red flag laws will
bite off a bit of risk and injury here and there. But in case you didn’t know
it, after Colorado passed a comprehensive background check law in 2015, gun
violence in that state increased by fifty percent. 

So here’s my challenge to Mike Spies and his colleagues at The Trace. Why don’t you sit down and instead of covering yet another case of mismanagement at Fairfax, think about writing a definitive study on the realities of gun ownership which will do for the gun debate what Frances Fitzgerald did for the debate about Viet Nam. You obviously have the talent and The New Yorker has the space.

America’s Sovereign States: The Obscure History of How 10 Independent States Joined the U.S.

From Ammo.com.

It is often said that before the Civil War, the United States “are,” but after the War, the United States “is.” This is a reference to the formerly theoretically sovereign nature of each state as compared to “one nation, indivisible.”

More than just the theoretic sovereignty of the individual states, the territory now comprising the U.S. has a rich history of sovereign states outside the control of the federal government. Some of these you’ve almost certainly heard of, but a lot of them are quite obscure. Each points toward a potential American secession of the future.Table of Contents

Republic of Vermont (1777-1791)Kingdom of Hawaii (1795-1898)Republic of West Florida (1810)Republic of Texas (1836-1846)Republic of Rio Grande (1840)Provisional Government of Oregon (1843-1849)Republic of California (1846)State of Deseret (1849-1850)Republic of Sonora (1853-1854)Republic of Baja California (1853-1854)Modern Secessionist Movements in the United States



Vermont Republic (January 15, 1777 – March 4, 1791)

Current Territory: The State of Vermont

The earliest sovereign state in North America after the Revolution was the Vermont Republic, also known as the Green Mountain Republic or the Republic of New Connecticut. The Republic was known by the United States as “the New Hampshire Grants” and was not recognized by the Continental Congress. The people of the Vermont Republic contacted the British government about union with Quebec, which was accepted on generous terms. They ultimately declined union with Quebec after the end of the Revolutionary War, during which they were involved in the Battle of Bennington, and the territory was accepted into the Union as the 14th state – the first after the original 13.

The country had its own postal system and coinage, known as Vermont coppers. These bore the inscription “Stella quarta decima,” meaning “the 14th star” in Latin. They were originally known as “New Connecticut” because Connecticut’s Continental representative also represented Vermont Republic’s interests at Congress. However, the name was changed to Vermont, meaning “Green Mountains” in French.

Their constitution was primarily concerned with securing independence from the State of New York. Indeed, the state was known as “the Reluctant Republic” because they wanted admission to the Union separate from New York, Connecticut and New Hampshire – not a republic fully independent of the new United States. The genesis of the issue lay with the Crown deciding that New Hampshire could not grant land in Vermont, declaring that it belonged to New York. New York maintained this position into the early years of the United States, putting Vermont in the position of trying to chart a course of independence between two major powers.

The Green Mountain Boys was the name of the militia defending the Republic against the United States, the British and Mohawk Indians. They later became the Green Mountain Continental Rangers, the official military of the Republic. The “Green Mountain Boys” is an informal name for the National Guard regiment from the state.

In 1791, the Republic was admitted to the Union as the 14th state, in part as a counterweight to the slave state Kentucky. The 1793 state constitution differs little from the constitution of the Republic. The gun laws of Vermont, including what is now known as “Constitutional Carry,” are in fact laws (or lack thereof) dating back to the days of the Green Mountain Republic. The constitution likewise included provisions outlawing adult slavery and enfranchising all adult men.

Kingdom of Hawaiʻi / Republic of Hawaii (May 1795 – August 12, 1898)

Current Territory: The State of Hawaii and the Johnston Atoll

Hawai’i as a sovereign state is almost as old as the United States itself. Its origins were in the conquest of the Hawai’ian island. Western advisors (and weaponry) played a role in the consolidation of several islands into a single kingdom under Kamehameha the Great, who conquered the islands over a period of 15 years. This marked the end of ancient Hawai’i and traditional Hawai’an government. Hawai’i was now a monarchy in the style of its European counterparts. It was also subject to the meddling of great powers France and Britain, in the same manner of smaller European states.

The Kingdom was overthrown on January 17, 1893, starting with a coup d’état against Queen Liliʻuokalani. The rebellion started on Oahu, was comprised entirely of non-Hawai’ians, and resulted in the Provisional Government of Hawaii. The goal was, in the manner of other states on our list, quick annexation by the United States. President Benjamin Harrison negotiated a treaty to this end, but anti-imperialist President Grover Cleveland withdrew from it. The failure of annexation led to the establishment of the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894.

In 1895, the Wilcox rebellion, led by native Hawai’ian Robert William Wilcox, attempted to restore the Kingdom of Hawai’i. The rebellion was unsuccessful and the last queen, Liliuokalani, was put on trial for misprision of treason. While convicted, her prison term was nominal. She was sentenced to “hard labor,” but served it in her own bedroom and was eventually granted a passport to travel to the United States, which she used to extensively lobby against annexation.

When pro-imperialist President William McKinley won election in 1896, the writing was on the wall. The Spanish-American War began in April 1898, with the Republic of Hawaii declaring neutrality, but weighing in heavily on the side of the United States in practice. Both houses of Congress approved annexation on July 4, 1898, and William McKinley signed the bill on July 7th. The stars and stripes were raised over the island on August 12, 1898. And by April 30, 1900, it was incorporated as the Territory of Hawaii.

Republic of West Florida (September 23, 1810 – December 10, 1810)

Current Territory: The Florida Parishes of Louisiana

The Republic of West Florida, now a part of Eastern Louisiana, was a short-lived republic resulting from the complicated and competing claims as to where the boundary between the French-controlled area of Louisiana and the Spanish-controlled territory of Florida actually sat. Great Britain also had a competing claim, which it ceded to Spain at the end of the Revolutionary War.

The overlapping claims are so complicated, that repeating them does little save for muddying the waters. The important fact is that there was an influx of Americans into the region in the early years of the 19th Century. Some of these were Loyalists fleeing the United States, but for the most part it was just Americans seeking what most Americans were at that time – land. This, plus the imprecise nature of international boundaries, led to an escalating series of military engagements between the United States on the one hand, and Britain and Spain on the other.

Everything ultimately came to a head in 1810. Secret meetings conspired against Spanish authorities. Three conventions for an independent republic were held in the open. Independence was declared and a capital organized at St. Francisville. On September 23, 1810, armed independence forces stormed Fort Carlos in Baton Rouge, killing two Spanish soldiers. There was a single battle, but it was decisive – The Republic of West Florida was a reality. The flag, on which the later Bonnie Blue Flag of Southern Secessionists was based, was flying freely.

President James Madison saw this as an opportunity: He could annex the district, securing territory the United States had its eyes on for years. Technically, Madison was not authorized to use American military forces in the region without Congressional approval. What’s more, Congress was not in session to provide such approval. But Madison acted anyway, and while there were certainly complaints, none of them amounted to much.

On October 27, 1810, President Madison stated that “possession should be taken” and dispatched Orleans Territory Governor William C. C. Claiborneto do so. The capital city of St. Francisville surrendered to the United States Army on December 6th, while Baton Rouge fell four days later. The primary objection to annexation from West Floridians is that they sought admission as a separate state, or at least wanted to see their elected officials incorporated into the power structure. This led to rebels once again raising the Republic’s flag on March 11, 1811, with Governor Claiborne dispatching troops. Spain did not drop their claim until American annexation of Florida in 1819.

The Republic of West Florida Constitution closely resembled that of the United States, with a bicameral legislature and three branches of government. The head of state was the governor, who was chosen by the legislature as a whole. “Republic of West Florida” is a historiological name – the official name of the country was the Republic of Florida. Today the region is known as the Florida Parishes of Louisiana.

Republic of Texas (March 2, 1836 – February 19, 1846)

Current Territory: The State of Texas and parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Utah

The Republic of Texas is perhaps the most famous and historically significant sovereign state incorporated in the territory of the United States. The existence of the Republic of Texas was the driving force of a nearly two-year war between the United States and Mexico – and the near doubling of American territory all the way out to the Pacific Ocean, as well as the creation of a second republic on American territory.

The Republic of Texas was also the longest-lived of the American sovereign republics, lasting just two weeks shy of 12 years. Annexation as a state was by no means a foregone conclusion for the outset. The State of Texas still retains the prerogative to separate into five states without the consent of the federal government – an increase of eight Senators for the region.

We have covered the Texas Revolution extensively in our guide on the history of the Gonzales Flag. However, some background about how the Texians (as they were known) arrived in Texas is worth getting into. There is, much as the case with Florida, an extensive history of competing claims in the region. The important thing is that during the Mexican War of Independence, many Americans fought on the side of Spain as filibusters. 130 Americans of the Republican Army of the North became disillusioned with the Spanish government and attempted to form an abortive Republic of Texas in 1813, but were summarily crushed. Many of the veterans of the Battle of Medina became leaders in the Texas Revolution to come, and indeed signatories of the Texas Declaration of Independence.

The Republic of Texas is distinguished not only by being the longest-lasting state on our list, but also the most widely recognized. Andrew Jackson was the first United States President to recognize the breakaway nation, appointing a chargè d’affairs in March 1837. The French Legation was built in 1841, and is still the oldest frame structure in the state capital of Austin. Other countries to officially recognize Texas in an official, diplomatic manner include Belgium (freshly independent in its own right), the Federated Republic of Central America, France, the Hanseatic Cities of the Holy Roman Empire, the Netherlands, the Russian Empire and the Republic of the Yucatan, itself a breakaway republic from Mexico. The Republic likewise enjoyed strong trade relations with Denmark and the United Kingdom. Mexico never recognized Texas independence, considering it a renegade province that would eventually be reintegrated into Mexican territory.

Annexation by the United States was always a topic looming large in both Texas and United States politics. The overwhelming majority of Texianssaw themselves as Americans, seeking union with the mother country. In the United States, the issue was politically thorny both because of the legality of slavery in the Republic (America at that time was unofficially governed by the Missouri Compromise, which sought to maintain a delicate balance between free and slave states) and relations south of the border. Indeed, the national leadership of both the Democrats and the Whigs opposed the annexation of Texas on some combination of each of these grounds.

The first administration to pursue the matter seriously was President John Tyler, who had been expelled from his political party and was an independent. He secured an annexation treaty in April 1844. The treaty was then sent to the Senate, where the terms were made public. Texas Annexation became one of – if not the – defining issue of the 1844 election. Southern delegates were able to deny popular former President Martin Van Buren the nomination on the grounds that he opposed annexation. This was, strictly speaking, not true. Van Buren simply opposed annexation without due care for Mexican and free state sensibilities. Indeed, Van Buren did not even fully oppose a military option to take control of Texas. James K. Polk won the Democratic nomination with the explicit backing of former President Jackson on a platform of Manifest Destiny in Texas.

In June 1844, the Whig-majority Senate voted down the annexation treaty. And by December of that year, after an anemic re-election bid (he dropped out of the race in August), Tyler obtained approval of the treaty by simple majority of both houses of Congress. He signed this bill in March 1845, as one of the final acts of “His Accidency” as president – and Texas ratified their side of the agreement, with new President Polk signing the bill in December 1845.

The Republic of Texas became the 28th state on February 19, 1846. A dispute over the full extent of the Republic ultimately led to the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848.

Republic of the Rio Grande (January 17, 1840 – November 6, 1840)

Current Territory:  Part of the State of Texas and the Mexican states of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipa

While the majority of the ephemeral Republic of the Rio Grande was not on what is now American territory, it’s worth discussing as a sister republic of the Republic of Texas.

Texas was conflicted about how to relate to the Republic of the Rio Grande. Its benefit was to create a buffer state between the Republic of Texas and Mexico. On the other hand, Texas often took pains to not antagonize its neighbor to the south. While Texas pursued an official policy of neutrality, it unofficially encouraged men to enroll in the volunteer military of the Republic of the Rio Grande, and to send military aid where possible.

After a single battle in Saltillo, the territory was peacefully reintegrated into Mexico (who assumed the country’s debts), with no reprisals against the leadership of the Republic. The Republic of the Rio Grande Museum currently sits in Laredo, while the Laredo Morning Times includes the flag of the Republic on its masthead, alongside the traditional six flags over Texas.

Provisional Government of Oregon (May 2, 1843 – March 3, 1849)

Current Territory: The States of Oregon and Washington and parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming

The Provisional Government of Oregon was organized explicitly as a placeholder for a government until the United States would come in and take over. Its government was noteworthy for first having a Supreme Judge as the chief executive, Chairman of the Committee at Champoeg Meetings, then an executive committee, before finally settling on a governor. This was all set out in the Provisional Government’s constitution, the Organic Laws of Oregon. The loose government also acknowledged wheat, beaver skins, Mexican pesos and Peruvian reals alongside the United States dollar.

A private mint also minted so-called “Beaver Dollars” after the California Gold Rush kicked off in earnest. Some were concerned about the illegality of private mints under U.S. law, so the legislature appointed some of the board members, including the governor. When Oregon joined the Union, the San Francisco mint purchased Beaver Dollars at a premium and melted them down to make their own gold coins.

The Provisional Government’s laws were few, but they outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, the taking of property without compensation, unreasonable bail and distilled liquor. Somewhat famously, the law likewise barred entry to blacks, though the law against this was never actually enforced. Approximately 30 black settlers were counted by the captain of the USS Shark in 1846. In addition to being a “placeholder” for the United States, the Provisional Government also acted as a common defense system against natives.

The Oregon Treaty of June 15, 1846, ended the dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over where the boundary between the United States and Canada lie. Two years later, the United States government created the Oregon Territory – where the entire legal code, save for Beaver Coins, was kept intact.

Republic of California (June 14, 1846 – July 9, 1846)

Current Territory:  The State of California

While California is one of the biggest states in the Union, its history as an independent republic is rather brief and fleeting – all told, the Bear Flag Republic lasted 25 days. While it claimed virtually all of the Mexican territory later incorporated into the United States outside of Texas, it realistically only exercised military control of an area around San Francisco. Still, while the history of the Republic proper is brief, the background leading to an independent (albeit, unrecognized) republic, is fascinating.

Alta California, as it was then known, was far from the population centers and centers of power in Mexico, and was widely neglected by the Mexican government. Leaders of the community openly discussed the option of independence or annexation by the United States, the United Kingdom or France. In practice, the region enjoyed broad autonomy. In 1845, the regional governor was rejected by an open revolt of the Californios. Political control of the region was further eroded by a feud between political Governor Pío Pico and Comandante José Castro.

Another complicating factor was the Mexican government’s policy of granting land to naturalized citizens. The process for naturalization was rather easy. In fact, Mexico encouraged the process. So large areas of land in California were held by citizens who were effectively Mexican in name only. In response, the Mexican government attempted to clamp down on the ability of foreigners to purchase land within Mexico without first obtaining naturalization.

Captain John C. Frémont, the first Republican nominee for president, was at that time a Brevet Captain in the Army. He has been variously accused of inciting the revolt, however, one thing is clear: the presence of a pro-expansion military officer certainly put wind in the sails of those wishing to officially throw off the Mexican yoke. Upon departing from a camp meeting with Frémont, Californian insurgency forces captured a herd of 170 Mexican military forces. They traveled from there to Sonoma, where they sought to capture the pueblo, which was the center of government power in Alta California. They found no resistance and quickly agreed to terms with the Comandante.

Unbeknownst to Los Osos (“The Bears,” so named both for their flag and their scruffy appearance), the United States and Mexico had been in a state of war for about a month. On July 7th, the United States Navy and Marine Corps arrived, raising the 27-star flag over Sonoma and the 28-star flag over Monterey. On August 17th, General Robert F. Stockton, head of the American forces in the Mexican-American War, announced a proclamation that Alta California was now part of the United States.

The original Bear Flag lasted until 1906, when it was destroyed in one of the fires resulting from the 1906 earthquake.

State of Deseret (1849 – 1850)

Current Territory: Almost all of the States of Utah, Arizona and Nevada and parts of Oregon, California, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming

This one is slightly different than the rest on our list, but bears inclusion. It’s not an attempt at a separate country, but an unrecognized state organized by followers of the Latter-Day Saint Movement (Mormons) after their flight from Missouri. Initially, Church President Brigham Young planned to apply for status as a territory. However, upon hearing of California and New Mexico’s petitions for statehood, he instead changed his own petition for the same. They copied Iowa’s state constitution and sent it off to D.C.

Young and the Church mostly established their boundaries by wisely not asking for the already prime real estate. This meant Northern California’s Gold Rush country was out, as were the fertile farmlands of Northern Oregon. President Zachary Taylor, for his part, preferred the admission of the entire area of Deseret and California as a single state, which would also solve the problem of not admitting too many free states.

The Compromise of 1850 admitted the State of California and the Territory of Utah. The latter took up much of the northern half of the proposed State of Deseret. The demand for a “Mormon state” largely disappeared once the railroads brought an influx of non-Mormon residents to the region.

Republic of Sonora (October 15, 1853 – May 8, 1854)

Current Territory: The Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur and Sonora

The annexation of Texas and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo put wind in the sails of those who sought to expand United States territory (and slave power) southward. The most radical of these movements were the Golden Circle, which sought for a breakaway Southern confederacy to control the entirety of the Caribbean through an invasion of Mexico, Central America and Spanish possessions. The slightly less radical All of Mexico Movementsaw the entirety of Mexico as properly American soil.

This was the political climate that lead to the creation of the Republic of Sonora. American filibuster William Walker was the driving force behind the movement, which enjoyed its greatest popularity in San Francisco. He successfully sold “bonds” for the nation, which was anything but sovereign. He invaded Baja California and Sonora with 45 men, where he conquered La Paz, a sparsely populated area acting as the capital of Baja California. He then declared the Republic of Baja California, but later specified that this was simply one part of a larger Republic of Sonora.

Republic of Baja California (October 15, 1853 – January 1854)

Current Territory: The Mexican state of Baja California

Our story of William Walker picks up here. Neither the Mexican military nor the population were terribly keen on another Yanqui republic in their midst, so the opposition to Walker was stiff. On the other side of the border, while he found favor among a small number of committed radicals, this movement did not enjoy a wide base of popularity. Walker’s forces never controlled much territory outside of La Paz.

After continuous military defeat and defection by demoralized troops, Walker surrendered to the United States military in San Diego. He was put on trial for violating the Neutrality Act, which was part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The jury, operating at the peak of Manifest Destiny sentiment in the United States, took all of eight minutes to acquit him.

Modern Secessionist Movements in the United States

The separatist craze sweeping other parts of the Western world is not entirely absent from the United States. All told, there are 22 states with active movements to secede from that state to form a 51st. This is not without precedent: West Virginia was created out of Virginia largely due to political differences. Four of the above polities (California, Hawaii, Texas and Vermont) have active secessionist movements seeking to reestablish these defunct states.

As the United States becomes increasingly politically balkanized, don’t be surprised if it becomes geographically balkanized as well. You now know that there’s a long history of attempts to avoid central power in the United States.

How Deep Is The Hole That The NRA Has Dug?

[image error]

              This week’s New
Yorker magazine includes a major article
by one of my favorite gun journalists, Mike Spies, about the financial mess at
America’s ‘first civil rights organization,’ otherwise known as the NRA. Since
I happen to be a Patriot Life Member Benefactor of the NRA (I actually have a plaque signed by Ollie North) and have been
a member since 1955, obviously I have more than a passing interest in the
goings on at the home office in Fairfax, and according to Mike, the goings on
ain’t  very good.

              According to Mike, in a detailed and lengthy report,
the NRA’s leadership has not only been hiding the extent to which serious
amounts of organizational money have been flowing into the coffers of various
PR companies, but it appears that these companies may be nothing more than
business entities founded and run by Board and staff members of the NRA itself. Worse, the payments to these
outfits have been so large that the NRA is
facing a financial squeeze that could ultimately jeopardize the existence of the
gun-rights organization itself.

              This is hardly the first time that mainstream media has
carried articles on financial undoings within the NRA. Spies quotes  Brian
Mittendorf, a Professor at Ohio State, who says that the organization has been
spending money it really doesn’t have for seven of the past eleven years. In
fact, Mittendorf published
these details last year, and other media venues have carried
the same news. What these stories all miss, however, is the fact that the NRA’s
current financial problems aren’t basically caused by having given too much
money to Schmuck-o in 2016 or investing heavily in video programming with costs
running far ahead of returns. The serious financial issues facing the boys in
Fairfax has much more to do with a fundamental shift in the behavior of gun
owners and the inability of the NRA to adjust to this new view.

              In 1978, Florida passed its concealed-carry (CCW) law, which basically gave every
resident of the Gunshine state who could pass a background check the right to
walk around with a gun. Over the past 40 years, what is called ‘shall-issue’ CCW has become law in 43 of the 50
states. But the licensing difference between just buying a gun as opposed to
carrying one around, is that in the latter case, most ‘shall-issue’ states
require some kind of training before the CCW
is approved.  And here is where the
rubber has now met the road.

              Because in the olden days, the NRA held a monopoly on gun-training,
and the NRA certified trainers, of
whom there used to be more than 100,000 around the country, were the
organization’s shock troops when it came to recruiting new members, as well as
responding in force whenever a political situation, such as a debate over a gun
law, required that gun owners show up and make some noise.

              Given the appearance of the internet, the emphasis on
face-to-face gun training, indeed face-to-face training for any skill or work
requirement has gone down the tubes. Instead, everyone now goes to a website,
pays a fee, watches a video and then takes an online test. In that respect, the
NRA is hardly the only training organization
which fell behind the curve. Take a look at the online training offerings
of Butler Community College in Kansas. The school has six campuses throughout
the state, but you don’t have to ever show up at any physical location in order
to qualify for hundreds of job-related certifications. Now take a look at the NRA‘s online training website.
It’s a joke.

              The article by Mike Spies gives lots of details about how the NRA invested enormous financial resources in the internet, but what it fails to point out is that by promoting personalities (Dana Loesch, Colion Noir) instead of training, they went the wrong way. Judging from the emails I receive every day, I’m still not sure that the boys in Fairfax recognize their mistake.

Try A New Book On Gun Violence.

[image error]

             Igor Volsky is a nice young man who is trying to move the argument about gun violence in a new direction, and he has just published a book, Guns Down – How To Defeat the NRA and Build a Safer Future with Fewer Guns, in which he both explains how he came to be a player in the gun debate, as well as explaining what he believes needs to be done.  The book, well written and easily read, is available on (where else?) Amazon.

              Igor also happens to run a , Guns Down, which has made some
interesting efforts to “weaken the gun industry, the gun lobby and the
lawmakers who support them.” Most recently, they have published a list of
banks who are actively financing the gun industry, with 6 national banks,
including Chase and TD Bank, receiving the grade of ‘F.” They graded the
15 largest consumer banks in the United States, and only one bank, Citibank,
received the grade of ‘B.’ In other words, most banks treat gun companies and
gun advocacy organizations the same way they treat all their other customers.
Gee, what a surprise.

              Behind this campaign and the other initiatives
undertaken by Volsky and his group is a basic idea, namely, that in order to
reduce gun violence we need, first and foremost, to reduce the number of guns.
And in focusing most of his efforts on ‘defeating’ the NRA, Volsky is hopeful
that without the money and communication strength of America’s ‘first civil
rights organization,’ that many politicians will retreat from their pro-gun
stance and vote for “bold reforms” that comprise what Volsky calls a
‘New Second Amendment Compact” that will “build a future with
significantly fewer guns.”

              Volsky’s book is chock-full of data and he uses his
evidence to  make a convincing case for the
reforms which he would like to see enacted, although many of the 10 planks
which comprise his 2nd-Amdenement Compact (end PLCAA, regulate dealers, assault-weapon ban, fund gun research) are
part and parcel of the agenda of every gun-control group. One idea, however,
caught my eye, which is to ‘provide incentives for people to give up their
existing firearms.” Which basically means that the government should fund
ongoing buyback programs. Considering the fact that I happen to run an organization which conducts buybacks in multiple
states, this idea gets no argument from me.

              Asking gun owners to get rid of their guns, however,
brings up a problem that Gun-control Nation has yet to confront, and while I
was hoping that perhaps we would get an answer from Volsky, I’m afraid the jury
in this regard is still out. On the one hand, as he notes, the percentage of
American homes containing guns continues to go down. But what he needs to
acknowledge is that the percentage of Americans who believe a gun to be more of
a self-defense benefit than a risk keeps going up. Indeed, more than 60% in the
latest surveys feel
that a gun in the home makes that home a safer place, which means that many
Americans who don’t own guns also agree that owning a gun is a good thing.

              One other point of concern with this well-done book,
which is that Volsky’s attempt to present the NRA as the ‘black knight’ in the gun debate is simply not the case.
For example, he talks about how the NRA
was weakened when the company that was underwriting their insurance scam pulled
out of the deal. But in fact, there are other pro-gun insurance plans that have
been extremely successful (example: USCCA) and took away much of the NRA’s insurance business before
Volsky and Guns Down got involved. As
for the vaunted financial power that the NRA
wields over pro-gun officeholders, on average, members of Congress get 3% of
the campaign funds they spend from the NRA
– big deal.

              That being said, I think that Guns Down is an important addition to the organizational network working
to reduce gun violence and I know that Igor Volsky will, in that respect, be an
important voice. So read his book, okay?

Khal Spencer: How To Pass A Gun Law That Nobody Likes.

[image error]

Laws work best when we believe in their fairness. It is advisable to build consensus when crafting legislation. In the case of New Mexico’s new universal background check (UBC) law, the opposite of consensus building occurred.  In an act that has been repeated elsewhere in the U.S., urban and rural constituencies have rejected each other’s thinking with polarizing results.

This latest round of discord has been covered in the Santa Fe New Mexican’s editorial page, to wit, the Attorney General’s admonishment to Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties to enforce the law. But I doubt more political posturing will bring people together. What, may I ask, could have? Here are several suggestions our legislators ignored.

Not all guns or gun transactions represent a credible threat. A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows most guns recovered from criminals are handguns.  But the new law treats the exchange of a 22 rimfire rifle between country neighbors with the same gravity as selling a concealable Glock pistol to a perfect stranger in Albuquerque’s “War Zone”.

Its not clear that we even know how prohibited persons in New Mexico get their guns. National and state studies give us hints. In that same BJS report, and similar studies carried out by Prof. Phillip Cook and colleagues in Illinois, we see that the lion’s share of criminals obtain their guns from a combination of acquaintances, the underground market, or less likely, theft. The BJS report breaks it down into about a quarter from family or friends and almost half from the underground criminal market. Less than 1% get them from “gun shows” and a few from dealers.  The new law would work on that part of the market where law abiding citizens are exchanging guns only if we obtain buy in from the gun owning public. Instead, our legislative gun control advocates treated gun owners with disdain.

The bill was oversold.  Gun deaths often rise and fall independently of gun laws, most dramatically shown with century-long data in New York City, or when comparing recent trends in gun violence in New York City and Chicago, where enforcement and social networking differences far more than laws contribute to different trends in violence rates. Gun violence student Dr. Michael Weisser says that in Colorado, gun homicides rose after its 2013 UBC law went into effect. Judicial and sociological issues strongly influence violence rates.

Finally, one would hope your legislators care about your opinion. In 2017, I worked closely with my representative, Stephanie Garcia-Richards, trying to craft a background check bill with gun owner buy-in. I offered to do the same with my Santa Fe representatives this time and was met with studied silence or for the most part, cursory replies. I heard from a leader of the NM Shooting Sports Assn. that other gun owners met studied silence. Its not hard to figure out why. Although the NRA is the left’s boogeyman, Everytown for Gun Safety lavished almost $400,000 in campaign cash on our Legislature, dwarfing the NRA’s efforts, to ensure their voice drowned out everyone else’s.

A carefully written background check bill that hits the target of our violence problems while obtaining maximum buy-in from New Mexico’s gun owning public would be a great idea and could only help. What the bill’s supporters did instead was broaden the abyss between gun rights and gun control. The present political standoff was predictable and perhaps preventable.

Kamala Harris Knows How To Reduce Gun Violence – Carry A Gun.

[image error]

              Our friends at the Violence Policy Center (VPC) have just updated their Concealed Carry Killers report which now shows that at least 1,313 people have been killed by shooters
with concealed-carry (CCW) licenses
since May, 2007. Of these events, more than 500 were suicides, which is far
below what must be the real gun-suicide number because rarely do suicides,
regardless of how they occur, make the news. And since the VPC report is based on open (mostly media) sources, by definition
the numbers must be read and treated with care.

              But that’s not the point of this column. The point of
this column is to address a statement made last week in Iowa by Kamala Harris,
who told reporters that she not only is a gun owner,
but owns her gun for personal defense. Now she didn’t say what kind of gun she
owns, and she also made it clear that she supports ‘smart’ gun-safety laws; I
assume she means gun-safety laws that work. 
And with all due respect to my friends in Gun-control Nation who keep touting the idea that ‘reasonable’ gun
owners support ‘reasonable’ gun laws, my response is this: So what?  Know what happened to the gun homicide rate in Colorado after comprehensive
background checks went into effect in 2013? 
It went up by fifty percent.

              When
Harris announced she was going to run against Schumck-o Don in 2020, she became
an immediate darling for the gun-control crowd, in part because as California Attorney
General she incurred the wrath of Gun-nut Nation by arguing against
unrestricted CCW in the Peruta case. This case was a test of
this stupidism known as ‘Constitutional carry,’ which Gun-nut Nation considers
to be one of the hundred-million Constitutional ‘rights’ given by God and
protected by the revered 2nd Amendment.

              I’m
not sure that gun control issues will be as important in 2020 as they might
have been in 2018, but what I do know is that once again, the arguments on both
sides are being fashioned and pronounced with little, if any relationship to the
truth. Last week, Kirsten Gillibrand went on CNN and made a bunch of statements
about the NRA which simply fly in the
face of reality, chief among them a statement that the NRA is ‘largely’ supported by the gun manufacturers, which happens
not to be true.

It’s not even close to being true.
It’s simply false. The ‘truth’ was then immediately offered up by home-school queen
Dana Loesch, who delivered
one of her brain-dead video spiels for the ‘losing’ NRA-TV where she starts off
in typical Dana Loesch fashion, which means throwing a series of personal
insults at the person speaking for the other side.

Now let’s get back to Kamala and her
attempt to stick herself into the middle of the gun debate. I don’t know
whether she actually walks around with a gun or not, but her statement that she
‘needs’ to carry a gun as a protective device also happens not to be true.
There isn’t a single study which even remotely proves that carrying a gun keeps
you safe, there happens to be substantive research
which shows exactly the reverse. To which my friends in Gun-nut Nation will
immediately ask: So how come more than 15 million Americans now have the legal
right to walk around with a gun? To which my answer is very simple: More than
30 million American adults smoke every day. Does that mean that those 30
million are healthier than people who don’t smoke?

Once again, my friends in Gun-control
Nation are backing themselves into a corner by pushing the idea that we can
reduce gun violence by the development and application of ‘reasonable’ laws. Obviously
Kamala Harris considers CCW to be a reasonable
gun law, at least when the cops have discretion to decide who can and who can’t
walk around armed.

If that’s Kamala’s idea of how to
reduce gun violence, welcome to another political campaign where the truth
about guns and gun violence will take a whack.

Josh Montgomery: Buying Weapons – Crucial Advice for the First-Time Buyer.

[image error]

BAt the moment, many people in the US are allowed to carry weapons. With a variety of stores that sell them, all you need to do is obtain your permit, after which you’re set. However, many newcomers are unaware of how to choose the right gun and might end up spending money on something that they don’t know how to handle.

If you’ve never been in a gun
shop before or never bought a firearm, having some basic knowledge is crucial
and will help you
choose a suitable weapon. That being said, if you want to spend your
money on a gun that’s able to meet your needs, here
are some tips.

Choose a
Reliable Store

You will notice that there is a
wide range of gun shops to choose from – and if you aren’t accustomed to
visiting such places, knowing which ones are reliable is quite difficult.
Anyone can sell weapons, but how many of these people have lived around them in
order to have the proper knowledge?

Unless you personally know a
reliable store or a guy that knows what he’s talking about in terms of weapons,
it’s hard to rely on chain stores. You might end up being convinced to buy a
gun by someone who doesn’t even know how to hold it, and that’s a no-no.

This is why you don’t have to
feel compelled to buy a gun from the first gun store in your way. Moreover,
don’t feel ashamed to ask the person behind the counter about their experience
with guns. It’s all in your benefit, after all, because spending your
hard-earned cash on something that doesn’t suit you is not the ideal thing to
do.

Think
About Why You Need a Gun

Why do you need a firearm? Is it
for self-defense in case a thief decides to force his entrance in your home, or
just to feel cool in your group of friends and assert dominance? Keep in mind
that guns are not toys that you can flaunt around at your will – not unless you
want those around you to form a bad impression and keep the distance.

Before you apply for your permit,
you need to have a purpose. It could be for hunting, self-defense,
target-shooting or anything else that has a deep meaning.

In addition, thinking about the
reason why you are purchasing a gun in the first place will make it easier for
you to choose the right type of gun for you.

Consider
Whether You Are Able to Shoot

Before you go on with your
decision and spend money on your
first firearm, you need to ask yourself: “Am I able to pull the
trigger and watch what’s in front of me get destroyed?”. For instance, if your
intention is to buy a gun for self-defense, you need to be mentally ready to
shoot and defend yourself without questioning your morality.

It’s hard to tell what you would
actually do until you find yourself in that situation. Still, thinking about it
might let you see whether you have doubts or not. So, imagine yourself in that
scenario and figure out what would you do once the fight or flight state gets
control of your body and mind.

Find a
Proper Gun

Whenever you imagine yourself
holding a gun, it is probably a particular type. In other words, the firearm
might either be a revolver, semi auto,
etc. Even so, you don’t know what’s right for you until you try them on spot.

Some guns have more power than
others, requiring you to have more strength, whereas others are nice to feel
and conceal. If you find a retailer that allows you to safely try the guns,
you’ll be lucky enough to find a model that suits you. It’s important to find a
gun that meets your needs and doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable while pulling
the trigger.

Spend
Your Money Wisely

Just like it happens with any
product, you will notice that firearms, even if they’re from the same category,
have a wide variety of prices. This can make it harder for you to know which
one offers a better quality.

Think about it this way: if you
are going to own a gun, your life will depend on whether this item is good
enough. Considering the importance of quality in this matter, you can’t
overlook the cost of a gun. That doesn’t mean you have to spend all of your life savings on this firearm, but don’t settle
for something as cheap as dirt.

If the price is too low, that
should make you question the quality, because the last thing you want is your
gun failing you in a dangerous situation. Make sure the one you will end up
with has at least a decent price, so you won’t have to fear that the frame will
crack after a few rounds.

Choose a
New Gun

Sure, purchasing a second-hand
weapon might seem more convenient given the lower price. Even so, you should
know that a used firearm might have issues you aren’t aware of. Moreover,
unlike a new one, it doesn’t come with a warranty.

If you purchase a fresh gun from
a shop and, for some reason, it malfunctions, you can always bring it back for
replacement or reparations. On the other hand, a second-hand one might have
been modified so that the warranty is invalid. At the same time, its warranty
might have already expired.

Even if it means you have to wait
for longer and save money, stick with a new and
unused gun, as you will have more benefits.

Final
Thoughts

It might be hard to choose
a proper gun if you’re new to this field, which is why it’s even more
important to get some guidance, so you end up with a firearm you can be happy
with. Try to follow the steps in this article, and you can be sure you’ll spend
your money wisely.

A New Report On Workplace Shootings.

[image error]

              Sometimes when you do research, you have to chase the
data. Other times, the data chases you. And a new piece of research coming out
of the Johns Hopkins research group seems to be more of the second than the
first. The paper
covers gun homicides that occurred in the workplace from 2011 to 2015. It is
drawn from data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which tracks
workplace injuries,
of which there were 18,327 fatal injuries over this same five-year period. How
many of these deaths were due to guns discharged in a workplace? 1,553, or eight
percent.

              This happens to be half the percentage of gun injury
deaths that are counted in all injury deaths for the same five years. Of
984,554 deaths from injuries listed by the CDC, 169,396 were caused by guns, or 17
percent.  The gun mortality number
includes 105,235 self-inflected injuries – suicides – which aren’t covered by
the workplace data at all. Pull gun suicides out of the overall gun numbers and
we have 64,161 gun deaths where someone shot someone else, and the workplace percentage
of all gun deaths drops to 2 percent.

              On average, there were slightly more than 300 workplace
fatal shootings each year. The total daily workforce is roughly 150 million, of
which some 7 million work at home. Which means that on the average workday,
more than 140 million Americans are in a workplace of some kind.  In other words, on average, one out of
466,666 people at work might be killed with a gun. Know what the odds are for
getting shot outside of the workplace if you are between the age of 19 and 34?
Try one out of 8,570, a figure which would probably be one out of 4,000 if we
just counted males. What would the odds look like if we calculated the
gun-homicide rate for males, ages 19 to 34 in inner-city neighborhoods where
the overall gun-violence rate is four, five or ten times higher than the national
rate?

              What is missing from this paper is context, and what
the context shows is that compared to other environments, when it comes to gun
violence, the workplace environment is a pretty safe place. In a way, this
paper reminds me of all the talk about arming teachers in schools, when what is
overlooked again and again is that schools are much safer environments
than the streets around the schools, particularly for the age-group that’s
supposed to be attending school.

              On the other hand, using the data from the Census of
Fatal Occupational Injuries does allow this research team to grab details about
gun homicides that provide a more nuanced assessment of why some conflicts
between individuals in the workplace end up with one of them pulling out a gun.
The researchers found that it’s not just an argument escalating into violence
which brought about the appearance and use of a gun. The shooting might have
been precipitated by a long-standing conflict between co-workers rather than resulting
from a specific, observable event.

              If there is one data gap which I would hope can some
day be filled, it is that the definition of a ‘workplace’ should include the size
of the workforce and/or the number of workers in the workplace when the
shooting occurred. More than half of the 250,000 firms classified
as manufacturing companies have 9 employees or less, yet there are also nearly
15,000 companies that employ between 100 and 500 or more. How do you set up a
program that could spot troublesome employee relationships in plants that vary so
much in size? You probably don’t.

              Of course the simple answer is to prohibit guns in the
workplace, right? Not so simple because as this study points out, nearly half
the shooters who killed co-workers first had to go to some place other than
where they were working in order to get their hands on a gun.

              Does access to guns in the workplace increase the risks of gun violence? Gee, what a surprise.

How Come All Those Guns Are In The South?

[image error]

              I know it’s probably too early to start handicapping
the 2020 Presidential race, but if any of my Gun-control Nation friends are
thinking about which Democratic candidate might be the best bet for enacting a
serious gun law, they might start paying attention to Beto O’Rourke. Why?
Because if Beto grabs the brass ring and the Democrats shove Mitch McConnell
and his Trump stooges out of the way, the political alignment will be exactly what
worked to produce gun laws in 1968 and again in 1993-94, namely, a Democratic-controlled
Congress at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue and a liberal Southerner in the Oval
Office at the other end.

              What this little bit of history
points up is the degree to which gun violence may be a national problem, but
opposition to gun control is a regional problem because ever since Richard
Nixon came up with a brilliant ‘Southern strategy’ and moved the South’s
political coloration from blue to red, the self-appointed protectors of our
beloved 2nd-Amendment ‘rights’ can always find fertile grazing
ground in states and regions where the phrase ‘federal government’ is a
not-very-disguised code for ‘civil rights.’

              But don’t make the mistake of
thinking that the argument against gun control that pop out of the moths of
every GOP politician from below the
Mason-Dixon line is just a cynical attempt to ‘hold the line’ against the
encroachments against personal liberties by big-government in Washington, D.C.
If one out of every three homes in America contains at least one gun, I can guarantee
you that in the 13 Confederate states, the 3 border states and some rural
swatches of the Midwest, the ratio is one-to-one.

              What the GOP is taking advantage of is not some special affinity that
Southerners have towards guns. It’s the legacy of history and of historical
conflicts that are still being played out. In this respect, the NRA and other Gun-nut Nation noisemakers
(e.g., Sleazy Don) are playing to an audience which is large enough to maintain
a critical political edge.

              In 1865, when the War of the
Rebellion came to an end, the South was gun-rein.  Or at least the guns had to be kept hidden,
because all small arms were confiscated by the Union Army which also enforced
martial law. Beginning in 1866, however, with the emergence of white supremacy
groups (Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Camellia) in response to
Reconstruction and the ratification of the 13th Amendment which
ended slavery, Southern whites began to rearm.

              When Southern states started
imposing laws to undo Reconstruction by limiting Black suffrage, segregating
public facilities and schools, these Jim Crow measures were often enforced by
armed ‘militias,’ such as the South Carolina Red Shirts, who called themselves the ‘military
arm’ of the Democratic Party and were particularly active in the election of
1876. Politically-speaking, this was the election that, de facto,  returned the South
to the racialist divisions which had existed prior to the Civil War. I find the
color of the MAGA hats to be very instructive in that respect.

              For all the nonsense about how
today’s African-American community should arm itself because this would
maintain a long tradition of Blacks defending themselves in the
post-Reconstruction South, the threat to the Black community didn’t come from
the federal government, it came from the armed hooligans and thugs who
constituted a real-life form of domestic terrorism. Unless, of course, you
would prefer to believe that the burning
and bombing of more than 100 Black churches since the 1950’s was nothing more
than an expression of religious freedom on the part of some misunderstood
Southern Whites.

              There are plenty of legal gun
owners in the South who keep guns around because they either hunt or enjoy
sport shooting, or in some cases have simply decided that they feel better
knowing they can grab the old six-shooter just in case. But what makes the South
so gung-ho about guns is the degree of violence which this region has suffered
for the last 150 years. And remember that guns and violence go hand in hand.

              Thanks to Eric Foner for pointing
me towards certain key sources.

A Thought About Nipsey Hussle.

[image error]

           Last week Nipsey Hussle was down in front of his Los Angeles clothing store and an avalanche of praise and loving memorials poured forth. Before the body was even cold, he was being described as a ‘visionary’ and a ‘forward-thinking, inspirational entrepreneur,’ who used the money from his hip-hop empire to improve the lives of the less-fortunate members of Crenshaw and other minority neighborhoods in LA. Here’s what was said about him in The Washington Post, less than four hours after he died:  “He made us believe that we could make it out of low-income housing and succeed in an unfair capitalistic economy that far too often rewards privilege over work ethic.”

              Not
to be left behind, Gun-control Nation launched its own series of plaudits for
Hussle. I received emails from several organizations, along with a comment from
The Trace, which echoed what was
being said about Hussle from one end of the politically-correct spectrum to the
other, namely, that the gun-control community had lost a good friend.

              The
way Hussle has been lionized, you would think he was the Mother Theresa of South
Central LA. And I don’t really care if everyone in Gun-control Nation finds
what I am about to say both insulting and offensive to the memory of this fine
young man, but it needs to be said.

              As
far as I am concerned, people who want to do something to reduce gun violence
are engaged in what I consider to be a sacred task. Why? Because violence
happens to be the only threat to the human community for which we still haven’t
come up with a solution that really works.  And it doesn’t matter whether the violence
consists of dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima or putting a bullet into
Nipsey Hussle while he’s standing in front of his store. We don’t and we shouldn’t
condone any act of violence, no matter where or when it takes place.

             Think about it. We know how to erase poverty, even though the will to do so often isn’t there.  We know how to reduce global warming, again it’s a question of desire, not a lack of knowing what needs to be done. We have conquered just about every illness which used to reduce the average life-span by more than half. But we haven’t made a dent when it comes to the degree to which human beings are still threatened by violence, whether it’s one-on-one assaults or armies deployed by nation-states.

              What
does all this have to do with Nipsey Hussle? 
The answer is right
here, and I note that in all the effusive accolades that he has been receiving,
nobody has mentioned the artistic moment that launched him on his way. This
video, Bullets Ain’t Got No Names, may
be the single most offensive, disgusting and downright repulsive celebration of
violence that I have ever seen.

             The reason we suffer from this particular kind of violence – gun violence – is because a lot of young men walk around with guns. Guns are cool, guns are hip, guns are where it’s at. How do you think this embrace of gun violence occurs?  Do you think it’s because these young people read the latest public health gun research? Do you think it’s because they just can’t wait to put on the red t-shirt given out by Shannon Watts and her MOMS?  Did Nipsey Hussle ever make a video in which he talked about sending a donation to Brady or Everytown and asked his fans to do the same?

             By the way, I happen to be a hip-hop fan; I started listening to Tupac in the early 90’s because his late mother was an early Black Panther activist, and in that respect, she and I had some mutual friends. But listening to any kind of music is one thing, promoting gun violence is something else. So when it comes to anything having to do with gun violence, the last thing my friends in Gun-control Nation should be doing is avoiding what needs to be said.