He Went for a Big Gulp; "He Ended up Shooting 2 Robbers, Killing 1"

"'There’s definitely an emotional cost to this,' he said. 'But I didn’t get the choice of leaving. I didn’t know what they were going to do.'"

Check out this news story from Thursday's Virginian-Pilot (Jane Harper); I found it especially interesting because it's unusually rich in personal detail. A brief excerpt:

The officers looked stunned as they surveyed the scene, he said. The man immediately recognized one of them: She'd been among the officers who came to his mother's and stepfather's house for the domestic disturbance hours earlier.

"She was about the third one to come around the corner, and her eyes got so big when she saw me," he said with a laugh. "I was just like, 'Look lady, I don't even know how to explain how I got here.'"

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) for the pointer.

Comments

[santamonica811]

“I found it especially because it’s unusually rich in personal detail. A brief excerpt:”
Missing word(s)??? Did you mean, “I found it especially noteworthy because…”? “I found it especially interesting because…”?

As I read the sentence now, it seems to be saying that you probably could not have located this article if it had not happened to be unusually detailed–I’m pretty sure that is not what you meant.

It is always good to see lawful defense articles. We get thousands of articles about the countless gun suicides and accidental deaths. This is a necessary balance . . . self defense and defense of others do happen, after all.

(I was a bit surprised to read in the article that, while being held up at gun point, this guy kept sipping his drink. I mean; we all deal with stress in different ways. But I imagine that if guns were pointed at me, I would not be thinking about my nice refreshing beverage. Vive la difference.)

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

His drinking might have been because he was on autopilot by that point, explicitly not thinking about it. It would have taken thinking to stop drinking.

[Eugene Volokh]

Whoops, sorry, “especially interesting” — fixing it now.

[BadLib]

What struck me was the firearm the good guy had [emphasis added]:

While the robbers focused on the cash and the clerk, the man touched the 9 mm handgun hidden in a holster under his T-shirt with his pinkie. No one noticed. He knew he had about 10 rounds in the clip.

[gormadoc]

I, too, like to detract from stories about down-on-their-luck good guys who saved lives and property by whining about word choice.

I thought progressives were supposed to be the smug elitists.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

If you’re going to be pedantic, you might as well be correctly pedantic. You said the “firearm” got your attention, yet you bolded “clip”, presumably because it was technically a “magazine”.

[LiborCon]

You dislike pedantry but you’re fine with redundancy.

It wasn’t “technically” a “magazine” it “was” a magazine. Literally.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Some people call it a magazine, some a clip. Usage varies by region and time.

You understood both terms. Both terms are good enough for me. You are a pedant.

[Cory C.]

No, that’s entirely incorrect. Bullet magazines and bullet clips are both things which exist. They represent different types of solutions and are not interchangeable but for the way that ignorant people use them interchangeably. It would be like saying that a tablet and a desktop computer are the same thing. They’re similar but quite distinct.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No, I was entirely correct. Language is what people use daily. The same word can have different meanings in a technical spec, a manufacturing drawing, a contract, or a scientific report.

“Clip” and “magazine” have specific meanings to a lot of pedants, right now. You ought to check out some 100 year old technical specs by gun designers and manufacturers if you want to see how language changes.

[Naaman Brown]

Go correct the Marlin factory which has labelled its detachable box magazines “clips”.

[Naaman Brown]

Went by the gun shop yesterday. For the record. The newer Marlin detachable box magazine packaging is labeled Rifle Magazine .22LR (for Models 80, 780, 20 and 25) but there were on the rack slightly older Marlin packaging for Clip Magazine .22 magnum for a different model. Knuckling under to pedantry, tsk, tsk, whatta world.

[Naaman Brown]

Ammunition may come in clips or magazines (bullet, powder, case, primer).
Bullets come in boxes for reloading ammunition aka handloading from fired casing, powder, and primers.

[Bruce Hayden]

The problem with calling “clips” “magazines” is that they technically identify two different, but closely related, things. “Magazines” contain multiple rounds of ammunition ready for use in a multi shot firearm. Multi shot firearms need some mechanism for this, and the usual dichotomy is belt fed or magazine fed (there are some rare exceptions). Magazines can be internal, like those in a pump shotgun, lever action rifle, M1 Garland, or even a typical revolver. Or, they can be detachable, like those found with M1 Carbines, AR-15s, and almost all modern semiautomatic handguns.

“Clips” on the other hand are used to rapidly load magazines. They contain multiple rounds of ammunition, and typically can load their contents into the magazine in one action. So, instead of inserting rounds one at a time, you can typically push in a clip of rounds in one action. But keep in mind – you are using the clip to load a magazine. Always. Usually clips are used to load fixed magazines, but they exist to load detachable magazines too.

The fact that the purpose of clips is to load magazines is why misusing “clip” to mean “magazine” is confusing. For anyone who has used both of them, or seen both in use, talking about a shooter carrying a bunch of clips of ammunition suggests that either he was stupid, because he could have sped up his reloads by carrying multiple detachable magazines, instead of multiple clips, which would have to be loaded into a detachable magazine to be used. Or the person describing the situation is ignorant, requiring that the shooter would have to insert the clips into a magazine before they could be shot, when he meant to say that the shooter was carrying multiple previously loaded detachable magazines (that were possibly loaded earlier from clips). And, indeed, I think that they found both clips and magazines, in the same calibers, in the hotel room used by the Las Vegas shooter.

For the most part (see comments about Marlin), failure to appreciate this distinction flags ignorance about firearms. Maybe it is tribal. But no matter how often a politician talks about limiting clip sizes, the legislation he proposes will invariably use “magazine” instead of “clip”, because no one really cares about the size of the clips used to load magazines, but just the size of the magazines (and, yes, internal magazine sizes are also, on occasion, regulated).

[TangoDelta]

Revolver with full moon clip? Don’t know of one that holds 10 though.

[Naaman Brown]

My sister bought a used .22 Marlin without the detachable box magazine so, wanting to be a nice brother (or at least appear to be nice), I went to the gun shop and asked for a detachable magazine for a Marlin Model 25. The owner handed me a Marlin factory clamshell package with a printed label “.22 Caliber 7-Shot Clip”. Clip. CLIP!?!? The factory called it a clip. MY GOD WHAT WAS THE WORLD COMING TO?!?!?! I guess I should have stormed out of the shop in huff of pedantry.

Oh, wait a minute. I was born in 1948. All through the 1950s and 1960s, detachable gun magazines were called clips for short and clips were called “stripper clips” if the shells went into the magazine but the clip did not, or “en-bloc clips” if the clip with shells went into the magazine as a unit.

I have an H&K USP with 10 shot clips and a Mauser C96 with 10 shot clips, The USP clip is a detachable box magazine and the Mauser clip is a stripper clip. Since my USP never had stripper clips for loading detachable box magazines and my Mauser as a fixed internal magazine, I’ll call them clipsif I feel like. Galldern kids, keep off my lawn.

[Bruce Hayden]

But clips do exist for loading your USP magazines.

[Naaman Brown]

Link please.

I have found a loading tool to ease loading individual rounds into a magazine.

(I have not seen H&K USP stripper clips advertised. Sounds to me kinda like the stripper clip and magazine loader developed in WWII for the Thompson Type XX and Type XXX box magazines and never deployed: it’s easier to thumb individual rounds into the magazine.)

[gormadoc]

He sounds like a decent man. I hope he gets his life together the way he wants it.

[Smooth Like a Rhapsody]

I guess it’s left to me to say it:

(in a stoner voice): AWESOME…TOTALLY AWESOME !!!

[California Dreamer]

I’m one of those anti-gun people that most of the people on this blog disagree with. My thoughts: The shooter acted completely reasonably in a horrible situation. He should be proud of himself, and I hope he gets his life together. That said, the most common result when one pulls a gun on 2 armed robbers is a shootout in which innocent people are killed. Thank God it didn’t happen here. I would prefer a society in which it was harder for the robbers to get the guns they used to pull the robbery. Well written, thought-provoking story.

[Cory C.]

That’s literally not true, though.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe it’s true if the person pulling the gun on the robbers is a police officer; after all, police officers are often poorly trained and they know they won’t face any repercussions if they hit the wrong person.

(Not even reputational repercussions; the department and the press will cover for the officer by saying that the innocent victim was “caught in the crossfire” (rather than saying that the victim was hit by a police bullet), and then will call it an “officer involved shooting” rather than saying that the police shot him. And if more than one officer was “involved,” they’ll never name the specific officer whose bullet it was.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

That said, the most common result when one pulls a gun on 2 armed robbers is a shootout in which innocent people are killed.

Do you have anything beyond your own intuition to substantiate that?

I would prefer a society in which it was harder for the robbers to get the guns they used to pull the robbery.

How do you propose we do that?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

– “That said, the most common result when one pulls a gun on 2 armed robbers is a shootout in which innocent people are killed.”

Which is, of course, not substantiated by the facts, and is just something that you’ve pulled from your backside because you want to believe it. It’s just like the tired and so-often-proven-wrong bromide that “A bad guy with a gun will always have the advantage because he’s go the jump on you.”

[Naaman Brown]

… the most common result when one pulls a gun on 2 armed robbers is a shootout in which innocent people are killed.

FBI does keep stats on firearms permit holder repsonses in active shooter incidents. Criminal, gang and drug-related shootings are not included and I don’t think anyone keeps stats on citizen responses to armed robberies. But there are 9 incidents where armed citizens engaged active shooters with 6 successful stops and 3 failures.

“The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. … The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.”

2014-2015 and 2016-2017 FBI Active Shooter Incident reports detail 90 active shooter incidents.

“Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives.” – FBI

3 successful stops by unarmed citizens
1 successful stop by a citizen armed with pepper spray
6 successful stops by legally armed citizens with firearms permits

3 failed stops by legally armed citizens.
In the failed stop attempts by legally armed citizens,
one responding citizen was killed by the shooter,
one was wounded by the shooter, and
one drove off the shooter who continued at a different location.

THE FBI DID NOT REPORT ARMED CITIZENS KILLING INNOCENT VICTIMS IN ANY OF THE INCIDENTS WHERE ARMED RESPONSE BY A CITIZEN WAS INVOLVED.

But by all means, continue to use a Media Matters or Bloomberg Everytown talking point to push laws aimed against self defenders and legally armed citizens.

As far as increased restrictions on the law abiding disarming criminals, the percentage of criminal reported acquiring guns from legal “Retail purchase or trade” has declined from 21% in 1991 to less than 12% in recent years. We are almost at a tipping point. More gun laws don’t really burden criminals in proportion to the cost to the non-criminal citizen using guns for traditional lawful purposes including self defense.
US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Firearms Use by Offenders survey
(Sample: nationwide sample of prison inmates who possessed or used a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned)

2004 Source of firearms possessed by state prison inmates at time of offense

11.3% Retail Purchase or trade
7.3 – Retail store
2.6 – Pawnshop
0.6 – Flea market
0.8 – Gun show

37.4% Family or friend
12.2 – Purchased or traded
14.1 – Rented or borrowed
11.1 – Other

40.0% Street/illegal source
7.5 – Theft or burglary
25.2 – Drug dealer/off street
7.4 – Fence/black market

11.2% Other source

Drug dealers are as likely to run universal background checks on illegal gun purchasers as they are to demand Rx scripts fromdrug buyers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

On August 31, 2019, the gun-related story that the Volokh Conspiracy thought most noteworthy was not that day’s mass shooting (25 or so mowed down this time, in Texas, including a toddler shot in the face) but rather a days-old, NRA-embraced story about a customer shooting two robbers in a convenience store. Mass shootings get little to no mention at this movement conservative blog, except perhaps for the occasional objection to gun safety proposals enlivened by the latest bullet-borne tragedy.

The backlash against gun nuttery is predictable and, I believe, is likely to be severe. I hope the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home survives.

The liberal-libertarian mainstream, as is customary, will shape American progress in this context against the efforts and wishes of conservatives in general and gun absolutists in particular. Thank goodness for the culture war and the decades-established trajectory of American progress.

[Cory C.]

Cool story, rev. Are you going to be okay?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You should worry about the clingers getting stomped by better people in the culture war, not the Americans who are winning.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, Arthur, you win. We’ll make the young lady wax your balls.

[DonP]

I really would pay good money to have that Canadian woman actually give that weasel a Brazillian on YouTube. How much fun when it was time to rip off the hot wax?

[lucia_l]

I’d like it if the woman accepted him as a client, made the appointment, and on the day of the appointment, a large burly man who specializes in the procedure appeared to provide the service.

[Robert Beckman]

Even better, a large burly man who doesn’t specialize in the procedure.

If you’ve ever had anything waxed, you know what I’m talking about.

[Naaman Brown]

Waxing the nethers of a man requires different wax and technique than waxing the nethers of woman (which is what a female beautician is trained and buys supplies to do).

“Jessica” insists that a female beautician be required to give “Jessica” a female wax treatment because “Jessica” Janiv self-identifies as a woman and threatens beauticians who won’t wax “Jessica”‘s nethers with that Canadian law.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh’s ostensible campaign to elevate civility among the comments seems to be proceeding precisely as I expected.

Along a neatly partisan line, that is.

Carry on clingers. A bit more faux outrage and low-grade polemics, perhaps.

[DonP]

Don’t be sad and bitter Artie, Mom said some day, when you grow up, you’ll probably have something to wax.

[Naaman Brown]

The move to Reason.com didn’t help. Resembles an urban back alley.

But this subhead had drifted beyond you and was no longer about you. Sorry.

Other places on the internet, off topic drift gets lopped. But, then, that would include a lot of your posts too, Art. So it’s a mixed curse. Certainly not a mixed blessing.

[Mr. Hook]

C’mon, Rev, you know that to 2A absolutists every gun death is part of the acceptable cost of proliferation. Sure, it’s paid by other people, but whatever—thanks for your sacrifice. Those deaths and the trauma to survivors are irrelevant and not worth discussing. Very Bolshevik in its commitment to ideology and disinterest in human cost.

[Robert Beckman]

If you saw statistics that firearms are used to prevent crime at 30 times the rate they’re used to murder someone, would that change your mind about the human cost? Assuming the statistics came from the CDC, of course, rather than the FBI.

[Voize of Reazon]

I would be very interested in that study if it is recent. I thought the CDC was prohibited from studying gun violence since the mid-90’s.

[DonP]

Not prohibited from doing actual gun related research. It stopped their use of public funds for doing advocacy “research”.

In essence, congress directed that “advocacy” is not “study”. Since then, the there have been two blocks, either of which could enable further research. One is that congress has failed to designate any CDC funding specifically for gun violence research and two, no one in the CDC’s leadership has been willing to appropriate money from their general operating budget to fund that research. They have plenty of money and no barrier to doing genuine peer reviewed research. Just no more; “How evil are guns on a scale of 8 to 10?” projects.

But Obama, in 2013, requested a study on Defensive Gun Use to show that guns are not used for defense. Then when the results came in he buried it. Guess why?

Here you go: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#79194ba7299a

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You will be replaced, DonP, with the other clingers, by your betters.

Thank you, in advance, for improving America by leaving its electorate.

[Voize of Reazon]

Thanks Don, but have you followed the links? That CDC report says that research was stopped:

In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.19 The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.

[Naaman Brown]

CDC funding AR12 Additional Requirement 12 concerning the Anti-Lobbying Act:
cdc.gov grants additionalrequirements ar-12.html
“Applicants should be aware that award recipients are prohibited from using CDC/HHS funds to engage in any lobbying activity. “
That does not block pure academic research.

CDC funding AR13 Additional Requirement 13 concerning the Appropriations Act:
cdc.gov grants additionalrequirements ar-13.html
“AR-13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities”
The Anti-Lobbying Act blocks using grant money to lobby for gun control too. Guns are not an exemption to AR12. AR13 does not block pure academic research on guns and violence.

CDC is part of the Executive Branch and cannot use grant money from the Legislative Branch to lobby Congress. It is a division of powers thing. I know, when it is getting what YOU want politically, the Constitution be dammed, until it’s convenient to respect it.

Additional Requirement – 12: Lobbying Restrictions

Applicants should be aware that award recipients are prohibited from using CDC/HHS funds to engage in any lobbying activity. Specifically, no part of the federal award shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant recipient, sub-recipient, or agent acting for such recipient or sub-recipient, related to any activity designed to influence the enactment of legislation, appropriations, regulation, administrative action, or Executive order proposed or pending before the Congress or any state government, state legislature or local legislature or legislative body.

Restrictions on lobbying activities described above also specifically apply to lobbying related to any proposed, pending, or future Federal, state, or local tax increase, or any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

This prohibition includes grass roots lobbying efforts by award recipients that are directed at inducing members of the public to contact their elected representatives to urge support of, or opposition to, proposed or pending legislation, appropriations, regulations, administrative actions, or Executive Orders (hereinafter referred to collectively as “legislation and other orders”). Further prohibited grass roots lobbying communications by award recipients using federal funds could also encompass any effort to influence legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the general public or any segment of the population if the communications refer to specific legislation and/or other orders, directly express a view on such legislation or other orders, and encourage the audience to take action with respect to the matter.

In accordance with applicable law, direct lobbying communications by award recipients are also prohibited. Direct lobbying includes any attempt to influence legislative or other similar deliberations at all levels of government through communications that directly express a view on proposed or pending legislation and other orders and which are directed to members, staff, or other employees of a legislative body or to government officials or employees who participate in the formulation of legislation or other orders.

Lobbying prohibitions also extend to include CDC/HHS grants and cooperative agreements that, in whole or in part, involve conferences. Federal funds cannot be used directly or indirectly to encourage participants in such conferences to impermissibly lobby.

However, these prohibitions are not intended to prohibit all interaction with the legislative or executive branches of governments, or to prohibit educational efforts pertaining to public health that are within the scope of the CDC award. For state, local, and other governmental grantees, certain activities falling within the normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships or participation by an agency or officer of a state, local, or tribal government in policymaking and administrative processes within the executive branch of that government are permissible. There are circumstances for such grantees, in the course of such a normal and recognized executive-legislative relationship, when it is permissible to provide information to the legislative branch in order to foster implementation of prevention strategies to promote public health. However, such communications cannot directly urge the decision makers to act with respect to specific legislation or expressly solicit members of the public to contact the decision makers to urge such action.

Many non-profit grantees, in order to retain their tax-exempt status, have long operated under settled definitions of “lobbying” and “influencing legislation.” These definitions are a useful benchmark for all non-government grantees, regardless of tax status. Under these definitions, grantees are permitted to (1) prepare and disseminate certain nonpartisan analysis, study, or research reports; (2) engage in examinations and discussions of broad social, economic, and similar problems in reports and at conferences; and (3) provide technical advice or assistance upon a written request by a legislative body or committee.

Award recipients should also note that using CDC/HHS funds to develop and/or disseminate materials that exhibit all three of the following characteristics are prohibited: (1) refer to specific legislation or other order; (2) reflect a point of view on that legislation or other order; and (3) contain an overt call to action.

It remains permissible for CDC/HHS grantees to use CDC funds to engage in activities to enhance prevention; collect and analyze data; publish and disseminate results of research and surveillance data; implement prevention strategies; conduct community outreach services; foster coalition building and consensus on public health initiatives; provide leadership and training, and foster safe and healthful environments.

Note also that under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Section 1352, recipients (and their sub-tier contractors and/or funded parties) are prohibited from using appropriated Federal funds to lobby in connection with the award, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of the funding mechanism under which monetary assistance was received. In accordance with applicable regulations and law, certain covered entities must give assurances that they will not engage in prohibited activities.

CDC cautions recipients of CDC funds to be careful not to give the appearance that CDC funds are being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited under Federal law. Recipients of CDC funds should give close attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of CDC funds from non-CDC funds.

Use of federal funds inconsistent with these lobbying restrictions could result in disallowance of the cost of the activity or action found not to be in compliance as well as potentially other enforcement actions as outlined in applicable grants regulations.

Additional Requirement – 13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC’s Appropriations Act to mean that CDC’s funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

[Voize of Reazon]

Naaman, thanks for posting that. I think it is widely recognized that the Dickey Amendment was a reaction to this 1993 Kellerman paper., but I don’t see anything in there that fits the description of prohibited activities you provided. What in that report was improper lobbying?

[arch1]

I doubt it’s recent given NRA’s remarkably effective zealousness in suppressing weapons violence research (esp. at CDC since ’96). But it would be good to see. If it exists.

[Naaman Brown]

Oh, the CDC research under the Obama Administration discovered by Gary Kleck was before 1996- AR-13 Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities in what space-time continuum?

Examples of CDC gun-as-germ and eradication advocacy:

Katherine Christoffel, M.D.: “Guns are a virus that must be eradicated…. Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of the deaths.” in Janice Somerville, “Gun Control as Immunization,” American Medical News, January 3, 1994, p. 9.

Patrick O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control: “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.”

Dr. Mark Rosenberg, CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, 1994: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes…. Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly, and banned.”

This meant collecting data with the view of proving an apriori assumption and using that op-ed advocacy level “research” to lobby Congress to act on that assumption. That is taking a public position before starting the research that is not easy to abandon if the data shows different results. It practically guarantees that the research is biased and the data is slanted. This is not the model for scientific method or pure empirical research: gather the data then draw conclusions and recommend course of action. The conclusion was assumed (guns cause violence), the course of action was assumed (eliminate the cause), all they needed was to build the case by researching data to support their assumptions. the word for that approach is junk science.

[Naaman Brown]

The CDC Defensive Gun Use surveys had large sample sizes (5484 in 1996, 4189 in 1997, 3197 in 1998) selected from 15 states (not nationally randomized like Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey of ~2400 respondents; however, the fifteen state sample results did support and parallel Kleck’s NSDS national sample results. This was not the result that the cliques at CDC wanted to report, and the research was buried during the Clinto Admin and did not come to light until Kleck rummaged through the CDC archives. This was empirical research, some before, some after, AR-13.

[Naaman Brown]

C’mon, Rev, you know that to 2A absolutists every gun death is part of the acceptable cost…. I have heard and read that self-righteous demonizing rhetoric applied to alcohol prohibition
(guns, marihuana, erotica, etc) to where I am immune. When the local option prohibition was repealed in 1968, alcohol problems declined. Bootlegging joints like the Bloody Bucket and Sugar Shack lost money and closed. Legal liquor stores did not run sidelines of pot, pills, pistols, porn, prostitution and gambling like the bootleggers did. But the Dries continued with the self-righteous rhetoric, “bibers” and “toters” supporting repeal were literally Satan,and legalization would lead to utter chaos.

Prohibtionists never consider the human costs, or the simple fact that if you ban something millions of people feel they can use to their benefit with out themselves harming others (alcohol, firearms, marihuana, abortion, Lady Chatterly’s Lover) you just create black markets more likely to appeal to abusers than the “evil demon” legal markets ever did.

[Naaman Brown]

One of RALK’s cut’n’paste talking points is “I hope the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home survives” narrowly construing Heller’08.

D.C. v Heller 2008 was a case on the D.C. handgun ban and the prohibition on keeping an operational firearm in the home for self-defense and whether it impacted the Second Amendment rights of Mr. Heller.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Court did look at how state RKBA provisions reflected the traditional understanding of federal 2A RKBA.

Traditionally lawful purposes under my state’s Article I Section 26 RKBA, by court rulings, attorney general opinions, and statements of legislative intent, include defense of self, defense of others, military marksmanship practice, recreational shooting, hunting, defending livestock from predators, and the collection of guns as curios, heirlooms, keepsakes or ornaments. This includes an absolute right to have a gun in one’s home or place of business for self-defense.

Heller was not limited to the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.
Heller incorporated an individual right to keep and bear arms for all traditionally lawful purposes.
You can credit that decision to the nuttery of anti-gun absolutists defending bans and prohibitions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good luck with your gun absolutism in a nation that is growing increasingly hostile to right-wing causes as its electorate improves.

I expect more liberal-libertarian progress against the works and wishes of Republicans and conservatives. You are welcome to expect a change in the tide of the culture war.

May the better ideas win.

[Naaman Brown]

I do not consider devolving into a mob crowd of twits with 140 or 280 character attention spans to be a sign of cultural progress.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“On August 31, 2019, the gun-related story that the Volokh Conspiracy thought most noteworthy…”

Does the VC purport to select topics based on newsworthiness? I suspect not, Arthur.

“I hope the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home survives.”

Yeah? How are you going to prevent people from using their reasonable firearms for mass shootings?

[Robert Beckman]

Only a single flintlock handgun per household is reasonable for defense of the home, with which it’s nearly impossible to commit a mass shooting.

And we all know that once it’s illegal to possess anything else, bad guys won’t be able to get them either, which is why it’s so terrible that the NRA has so much power that they’re able to prevent passage of laws prohibiting murder or armed robbery. If only we had such laws those bad guys wouldn’t be able to kill anyone, but since the NRA prevents it, limiting guns to only flintlocks is our second best choice.

[Naaman Brown]

Check out the subject of DIY or craft guns.

Criminals and terrorists all over the world build copies of the MAC-10, Carl Gustav M45, or Sten submachine guns, variously called Carlos or Rattlers. Submachine guns scaled down to commonly available .22 long rifle cartridge are street currency in India, Israel, Palestine often cosmetically styled to look like AKs. “Bikie” motorcycle gangs in Australia build MAC-10s in their garage workshops. So much for that Australian ban on SKSs and Ruger 10/22s. Brazil is big on legal gun restrictions and has a thriving underground trade in small workshop built guns.

Africa and the Philippines are awash in craft guns built by village blacksmiths to meet demand. Prohibition = black markets. Must I point out the legendary Khyber Pass gun shops and markets?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Conspiracy chooses contributions based on perception of that which would advance the cause of movement conservatism.

The Conspirators want to make right-wing opinions and positions more palatable among a broader audience than the bigoted, backward, uneducated Republican base. In particular, they want to persuade strong schools to hire more right-wing professors (because strong schools should wish to emulate lousy schools, ostensibly).

It’s partisan polemics with a thin academic veneer. The gays-God-guns platform in fancier, more guarded form.

May the better ideas win. Of course, that’s easy for people like me to say.

[anorlunda]

“The Conspirators want to make right-wing opinions and positions more palatable ”

No no, you got it backwards. I see mostly left-wing opinions here.

[DonP]

Tip ‘o the Hat to the good guy. 2 against 1, yikes! Evaluating the situation and making the call in a split second to draw and shoot is a terrible pressure on anyone. I hope he can get some counseling for handling the aftermath.

I also hope the cops returned his legally owned gun promptly and that it doesn’t “disappear” in the evidence room. If they’re really “good cops” they might even include an extra box of practice ammunition. The criminals have “friends” and it wouldn’t be the first time they tried to “get even”.

[Jerry B.]

“She also sponsored a Facebook fundraiser for him, raising close to $4,000.”

Link, please.

[SykesFive]

I think a lot of the personal detail came from the newspaper’s decision to grant anonymity to pretty much the sole source for the article. As a former journalist of sorts I find that decision questionable.