Greg asked me why Handguns should be legal.

Right-to-Carry 2007

Only two states—Wisconsin and Illinois—prohibit carrying firearms for protection • Nebraska is the most recent RTC state. In 2006, Nebraska’s RTC law was signed by Gov. Dave Heineman (R), Kansas’ Senate and House overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ (D) veto of an RTC bill by votes of 30-10 and 91-33, respectively, and the Ohio Senate and House overrode then-Gov. Bob Taft’s (R) veto of a bill that improves the state’s 2004 RTC law, by votes of 21-12 and 71-21, respectively. • Other recent RTC initiatives. In January 2006, Wisconsin’s Senate voted 23-10 to override Gov. Jim Doyle’s (D) veto of RTC; the Assembly fell two votes short, voting 64-34. In Jan. 2004, Ohio then-Gov. Bob Taft (R) signed RTC into law and New Mexico’s Supreme Court upheld a 2003 RTC law. Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri adopted RTC in 2003, the latter by overriding Gov. Bob Holden’s (D) veto. • Types of RTC laws. There are 40 RTC states: 36 have “shall issue” laws, which require that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa have fairly-administered “discretionary-issue” carry permit systems. Vermont respects the right to carry without a permit. (Alaska, which has a shall-issue provision for purposes of permit-reciprocity with other states, adopted a no-permit-required law in 2003.) Of the 10 non-RTC states, eight have restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems; two prohibit carrying altogether. Click on map for larger graphic. • The right to self-defense is a fundamental right. The U.S. constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. RTC laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individual citizens to carry firearms for protection. • More RTC, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976.1 (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.2) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,3 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.4 • RTC and crime trends. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”5 • False predictions. Dave Kopel has written, “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”6 A article related to Michigan’s RTC law said, “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”7 • RTC permit-holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, but revoked only 157 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.8 Background. Before 1987, there were 10 RTC states. Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington had “shall issue” permit laws. Alabama and Connecticut had fairly-administered discretionary-issue systems. Georgia’s “shall issue” law was interpreted as discretionary in some jurisdictions. Vermont allowed carrying without a permit. Other states had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems or prohibited carrying altogether. These laws remain in effect. In 1987, Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has since become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and news media interests predicted vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner. The predictions proved false. Through 1992, Florida’s murder rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 9%; thereafter, murder decreased both nationally and in Florida.9 Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted that “Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.”10 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.” • 29 new RTC states since 1987. Of these, 21 previously prohibited carrying; nine (indicated with an asterisk, below) had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems. 1989: Oregon, Penna. (Phila. included in 1995), and West Virginia (in Georgia a judicial ruling enforced “shall issue” statewide); 1990: Idaho and Mississippi; 1991: Montana; 1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming; 1995: Arkansas, Nevada*, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah* and Virginia*; 1996: Kentucky, Louisiana* and South Carolina*; 2001: Michigan*; 2003: Colorado*; Iowa* (by fairly administering its discretionary-issue system), New Mexico, Minnesota* and Missouri; 2004: Ohio; 2006: Kansas, Nebraska. Click To Play Right to Carry, 2005 Citizens can defend themselves. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck found, “robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.”11 In the 1990s, Kleck and Marc Gertz found that guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually.12 The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country,” who wanted to “eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police,” said, “The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology.”13 A study for the Dept. of Justice found that 34% of felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and 40% of felons have not committed crimes, fearing potential victims were armed.14 The right to self-defense has been recognized for centuries. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right;” English jurist Sir William Blackstone observed that the English Bill of Rights recognized “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” as intended “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights,” the first of which is “personal security.”15 Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King’s Bench, wrote in the 18th century, “The right of self-defense. . . is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society.”16 The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” In Beard v. U.S. (1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and concluded that when attacked a person “was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” The laws of all states and the constitutions of 44 states recognize the right to armed self-defense. In the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (1986), Congress stated that it did not intend to “place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to . . . personal protection, or any other lawful activity.” Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” National RTC reciprocity. H.R. 4547, by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), proposes a federal law stating that any person with a valid state-issued carry permit may carry in any other state, as follows: In a state that issues carry permits, its laws would apply. In a state that does not issue permits, a federal standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. Nonsense from Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.). Sarah Brady: “the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes;” former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields: “[If attacked] put up no defense - give them what they want;” Brady Center’s Dennis Henigan: self-defense is “not a federally guaranteed constitutional right.”17 In Jan. 1999, HCI claimed that between 1992-1997 violent crime rates declined less in RTC states than in other states.18 (HCI previously claimed RTC caused crime to rise.) HCI erred in categorizing states as RTC states based upon their having RTC laws in 1997, since only 17 of those 31 states had RTC in 1992. HCI calculated crime trends from 1992 to underrepresent the impact of RTC laws; by 1992 many states had RTC for many years and already experienced decreases in crime. HCI misclassified Alabama and Connecticut as “restrictive” states, doing so presumably because both states had decreases in crime. HCI also credited restrictive laws for crime decreasing in some states. But states that have restrictive carry laws have had them for many years, and crime did not begin declining in those states until the 1990s, and did so due to factors unrelated to guns. Nonsense from Violence Policy Center: In 1995, VPC claimed Florida’s RTC law “puts guns into the hands of criminals.”19 The claim was false, since the law permits a person to carry, not acquire, a firearm. VPC claimed “criminals do apply for concealed carry licenses,” without noting that such applications are rejected. Contradicting itself, VPC noted that criminals had requested that their rejected applications be reconsidered. “To set the record straight,” Florida Secy. of State, Sandra B. Mortham, said, “As of November 30, 1995, the Department had denied 723 applications due to criminal history. The fact that these 723 individuals did not receive a license clearly indicates that the process is working.” She added, “the majority of concealed weapon or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self-defense.”20 In 2001, VPC claimed there are more women murdered with handguns than criminals killed by in self-defense.21 The value of handguns for self-defense is not measured by how many criminals are killed, however. More important is how often people use handguns to prevent crimes and how often criminals do not attack for fear the potential victim is armed. Also, VPC undercounted the number of criminals killed in self-defense by counting only those noted in police reports, thus excluding defensive homicides later determined to have been appropriate. McDowell math: In March 1995, anti-gun researcher David McDowell claimed that gun homicide rates increased in Miami, Jacksonville and Tampa after Florida’s 1987 RTC law.22 But homicide rates fell 10%, 18% and 20%, respectively, in those metro areas from 1987 until 1993, the most recent data at the time.23 To show an increase, McDowell calculated Jacksonville and Tampa trends from the early 1970s, when rates were lower than in 1993, but calculated Miami’s from 1983, since rates before 1983 were higher and their inclusion would show that the rate had decreased. None of McDowell’s homicides was committed by a license holder, and he did not indicate which homicides had occurred in situations where a permit would have been required to carry a gun. McDowell has also claimed that D.C.’s murder rate decreased after its 1977 handgun ban. In fact, the rate tripled after the ban.24 The 43:1 claim: Based upon a small study of King’s County (Seattle), Washington, gun control supporters claim a gun in the home is “43 times more likely” to be used to kill a family member than a criminal.25 To reach that ratio, self-defense firearms uses are grossly undercounted by counting only cases in which criminals were killed. Most often, when guns are used to defend against criminals, the criminals are only scared off, captured or wounded. Kleck has called the 43:1 ratio and its variants “the most nonsensical statistic in the gun control debate.”26

So why should people be allowed guns?

This is a wild pig in the U.S.

Minority Report Technology

From Fiction to Reality:

The Garden of Eden and Foreign Policy

I read an interesting analysis once, that compared how the west perceives itself to the Garden of Eden myth. Nature is in balance, until Adam takes the forbidden fruit (insert Adam joke here) and then things get all screwed up. Well in Foreign Policy we tend to have an assumption that other cultures are natural and Imperialism and Colonialism screwed things up. In reality all these other cultures are products of practicing Imperialism or having it practiced on them (by Non-Westerners). For example Saudi Arabia has run one of the most successful Imperialism campaigns in recent history. Their Wahhabism strain of Islam which was confined to Saudi Arabia and considered radical and fringe fifty years ago, is now mainstream and dominant within Islam in most countries. They've done this through pure Imperialism, training Imams, building Mosques, setting up Institutes, giving scholarships etc. A campaign of Imperialism not for money or land but religious thought. Perhaps since many people in the west think they are the Imperialists (even though the West is the first in history to essentially bring an end to it) it goes against their narrative of history to recognize others as Imperialists.

Victim Politics and Foreign Policy

If you're walking by a park, and you see two dogs fighting, are you concerned? A certain level of such fighting is probably expected, so probably not. Even if you're concerned you're probably not outraged. On the other hand, if you see a man kicking a dog, you're probably concerned and almost certainly outraged.

Unfortunately this analogy can be applied to how the West reacts to fighting in the non-Western world. Just substitute dogs for non-western people. For example each time Israel kills a Hamas operative and accidentally takes the life of a civilian, it draws massive media and human rights groups outrage. When Palestinian on Palestinian violence kills 200 in a single month, the same people and organization that routinely criticize Israel are largely silent. Thats just the most obvious example.

When Syria killed 20,000 of their own citizens, when Iran and Iraq spent 8 years at war with each other left somewhere around 500,000 dead, when North Korea killed 2,000,000 of their own people through a state-created famine, was Western outrage a 10th of what it is against Israel for its fighting with Arabs, or America for fighting in Iraq?

It might be understandable for Americans to be more concerned about what their country is involved in then what other countries are doing, but what excuse does Europe have? Do the lives of Arabs or North Koreans not matter when a westerner isn't doing the killing? Or do we expect such behavior from Non-Westerners? Or is it becuase the West is strong, that automatically makes any opponent a victim who its morally right to side with?

Blog transition...

This got started as a trip blog for a 3 day Montreal trip in May. Now it'll be my politics and foreign policy blog. I know many of my friends don't share my conservative views, but this blog isn't targeted at them. If my friends end up reading it, maybe they'll learn something, more likely they won't read it. Either way I won't censor myself.

Pictures

Top picture is the view from the hotel room.

Day 2

Drove up to Mount Royal for some excellent city views and then to ye Old City.

Day 1 of the trip! We left at 1:10 which is fantastically early for those involved. Even after taking a detour onto the 1000 Islands Parkway for a more Scenic route we arrived in Montreal just after 7:30. Passed two speed traps/police cars waiting at the side of the road without getting a ticket. David was driving as we were entering Montreal, and got us a little lost, but we found our hotel fairly quickly regardless.

1000 Islands Parkway had great views of the Saint Lawrence river, however the camera battery ran out before some of the best views came into site. It would probably also look a lot better once the trees have leaves. Dinner was at Reuben's, an upscale restaurant on Rue Ste-Catherine. Great Food, portions were huge, very filling. Our waitress recommended the Gogo Lounge Club.

I never want to fly to Hong Kong

Yes, a little off topic, but if you watch this, you'll see why:

Fuel

The last place to fill up before heading into Quebec is at the Sunoco in Cornwall. The exit to take is onto Brookdale Ave in Cornwall.

Hotel

1005 Rue Guy Montreal is the address of the Hotel

Google Maps

Confusing my Friends

Okay, for anyone that doesn't know (probably Debs and Jacquie), David and I are going up to Montreal this Sunday-Wednesday, as David was going anyway, and I have never been. I decided to start a trip-blog and invite my friends to view/post any comments or suggestions.

Again, sorry for any confusion!

Huh?

Can someone tell me what's going on? Are we going to Montreal or something?

A Montreal Thing To Do

Montreal is known for its 'just for laughs' comedy festival. Therefore it seems only appropriate to go to a comedy club while in Montreal.

link:

http://www.comedyworksmontreal.com/

http://www.thecomedynest.com/

Another Scenic Route

The 1000 Islands Parkway is apparently one of the most scenic drives in all of Ontario, and only adds 3/4 of an hour to a trip along the 401.

Links:
http://realtravel.com/ivy_lea_ontario-reviews-a2220620.html

http://www.ontournet.com/area_pages/area7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Islands_Parkway

This Blog

As the blog is not public, I have sent invites to Jaquie, Adam, Debbie & Greg.

Sunday

I have now arranged to take sunday off as well for the Montreal trip. Therefore, I'd like to plan the drive over there so that we arrive early enough to have dinner in Montreal, while leaving time for some scenic route detours.

Scenic Drive Detour

I think the best 'scenic drive' I have found so far is the loyalist parkway which starts right before Trenton and goes to Kingston, where the 401 could be rejoined

wiki on loyalist parkway

Sunday

Currently waiting for one of my employee's to call me back about whether they can work Sunday.

May not find out until Saturday morning.

CAA

I'd like to pick up guidebooks and maps from CAA for the trip. Even thought we probably don't need them, I travel so infrequently, I want to get the most out of my membership.

Update: Have now been to CAA this morning, and picked up maps for Montreal and from here to there, and also a tourist type guidebook.

Blog update

The blog is now set to be read and posted too by only Joseph or David

Best Irish Pub

Hurley's, 1225 rue Crescent (metro Lucien-L'allier or Guy-Concordia), ☎ 514-861-4111, [71]. Probably the best Irish pub in Montreal, with live traditional music every night and excellent food at fair prices. There's an upstairs as well for the busy nights, and a part of the pub is non-smoking, in addition to outdoor patios in the front and back. Very cozy with a highly authentic feel, and friendly professional staff... unless you ask them for a glass of water (because you're pregnant)

I'm definitely of two minds about going to French-Canada but then going to an Irish pub. On the other hand I can't say I'm a fan of French cuisine apart from poutine.

Bar Scene

Montreal has three main strips for bar-hopping. rue Crescent, in the western part of downtown, caters mostly to Anglophones and tourists. It tends to be trendy and expensive. Extremely busy when McGill and Concordia students are back in town for a new session. boulevard Saint-Laurent, especially between rue Sherbrooke and avenue des Pins, has trendy clubs and bars with more of a Francophone clientele. Farther up St-Laurent it's relatively downscale and linguistically mixed. rue St-Denis between Sherbrooke and de Maisonneuve is the strip with the strongest Francophone feel. There are also many good bars away from the main strips — you should never have to line up to go have a drink, because there's virtually unlimited choice.

Poutine

Which poutine is best?

Maamm Bolduc!, 4351 de Lorimier, (514) 527-3884. Quebecois food include what just may be the best poutine in town, served in a dozen different varieties ranging from traditional to bourguignonne (with mince, mushrooms and red wine sauce). The portions are huge and the misnamed $7.50 petit is plenty for most ordinary mortals.

I'll have to find out.

Montreal Trip

The following is a must-see place in Montreal:

La Banquise, 994 rue Rachel Est (metro Mont-Royal), ☎ 514-525-2415. Open 24 hours. La Banquise consistently tops locals' lists for best poutine in town (perhaps because it's open for post-bar-hopping munchfests when judgment is slightly impaired). The clientele is hip and clubworn, and the staff is friendly. Poutine makes up most of the menu, but if you insist there are hamburgers and other fast-food fare, as well as a bar. $6-10.