Snowflakes in Hell

Even in Alabama:

While Alabamians support gun ownership, they do think there should be some restrictions in certain cases. Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed said felons who have paid their debt to society should not have a right to own a gun while 77 percent said they favor prohibiting ownership of fully automatic weapons.

Speaking as someone who’d love to own a few title II firearms, if you can’t even get 30% of the public in Alabama to support legal machine gun ownership, you’ve got a long way to go on the issue.  Truth be told, I have my doubts it’s even achievable.  NRA has seemingly staked out a position that accepts the NFA and GCA restrictions on machine guns, while hinting at support for the status quo, and perhaps even a position against the 1986 Hughes Amendment.  Just getting the Hughes Amendment repealed would be a miracle.

Yesterday we told of an elderly New Jersey man who shot an intruder in his home, and the County Prosecutor had indicated he might have to seek an indictment.  In Pennsylvania, we had a case of a concealed carry permit holder shooting an attacker.  York County District Attorney says:

Police and the district attorney say Fenitman used justifiable force, but it’s still hard to come to terms with, and he’s gone to a psychiatrist to help him deal with the emotions that come with taking a life.

And this was a case on the streets of the concealed carry permit holder intervening on behalf of a woman who was being beaten.  There’s something in the water in New Jersey, I’m telling you.

I think this statement is mostly true:

I think that US gun ownership supporters are entirely too romantic about what widespread automatic weapons mean in societies where there is either no tradition that teaches about these kinds of weapons, or else in the course of war and disruption, such traditions have eroded.

It is not always the case, contra Heinlein, that an armed society is a polite society.  Sometimes it is simply a brutal and brutalizing society, and part of the enormous responsibility of gun owners is to teach and pass along a culture of responsible, individual gun use.  That is one reason why, paradoxically for the gun-controllers, a culture of responsible gun use requires that they be reasonably and openly widespread, widely and openly accepted but subject to social norms and cultural traditions of use.

Read the whole thing.  It’s well worth your time.  Too often in many of these civil conflicts, there aren’t really any “good guys” that are protecting themselves from “bad guys.”  You merely have two equally bad groups of people brutalizing each other, and the greater society.

While I’m skeptical that any international arms control agreement that the UN proposes can change this fact, it’s hard to deny that the proliferation of small arms into Africa and other areas of conflict has had a stabilizing effect.

I think where “good guys” can be easily identified, responsible nations shouldn’t be prohibited from supplying arms by international treaty.  But it’s simplistic to assume that in many of these third world conflicts, there’s anything to be gained by arming one group or another.  Too many of these societies are simply broken, and while there are, no doubt, good people being brutalized, arming them isn’t going to have much of an impact on the greater conflict.

Hat Tip to Dave Hardy

UPDATE: In the comments over at Dave’s I remembered one important point I wanted to make:

In societies which are completely broken, the strong brutalize the weak, and brutalize each other. Putting a rifle in a man’s hands does nothing if he doesn’t have the skill or motivation to stand up for his own life and liberty. We have a tradition of liberty and individual rights in this country which makes having an armed society work. If your cultural tradition is subservience to the strong, then having a gun accomplishes nothing for you.

I think you see this on a small scale.  I have a friend that lives in high crime area I won’t go to without being armed, but I do not suggest it for her because I do not believe she is capable of taking another life to defend hers.  I don’t understand it, but it’s how she is.  A firearm is merely a tool… the true weapon is your mind.

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog goes offline at midnight tonight.  This is your last chance to see all three acts for free.

It’s a great example of how you don’t need big Hollywood budgets to produce good entertainment. Joss Whedon has an explanation of it on the web site here.

The Unforgiving Minute points out that Michigan has done away with its farcical “safety inspection” system, but did not go so far as it eliminate the requirements that handguns be registered.  Now you can carry out your unconstitutional indignities by mail instead of having to show up in person.  Not perfect, but an improvement, TD points out:

Historically-minded readers might be interested to know that this permit system was originally put in place by the KKK-backed “Public Acts of 1927″, a racist reaction to the case of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black physician who dared to defend his home from a white mob in Detroit.

Not shocking.

No, not by criminals, but by government officials.

I once got a letter from the township stating that, because of sewage system problems in my neighborhood, they were coming around to inspect sump hookups to make sure no one was illegally dumping sump outflow into the sewer system.

My sump hookup was fine, but I rather incredulous that township code enforcement presumed they could demand to enter my home to look for evidence of a crime without a warrant.  They stopped by while I was at work, but left a note stating that I was to call and arrange an appointment.  I tossed it in the trash can and never heard another peep from them.

In the United States, I had the law on my side, and was ready to demand the township get a warrant or go to hell.  The poor Brits are at the mercy of bureaucrats, it seems.  Still, I wonder how many of my neighbors let the inspectors in thinking they had to.

Joe Huffman finds a web site that looks at a possible inverse relationship between the Brady Campaign State Rankings and violent crime.  What happens in the comments isn’t something you’ll see the other side doing.  Ever.  Joe points out he came to the same conclusion with the 2004 Brady rankings.

Having no correlation may not be as good as an inverse relationship, but it’s still pretty damning to the gun control agenda.  If it can’t be shown to affect crime, why bother?  I still say their transition to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Suicide is a strategic move, but at least it’ll make them a bit more honest.