CVS pharmacy clerk suggests I'm a murderer

I went to pick up my wife's prescription at the CVS in West Roxbury tonight. As I'm paying the pharmacy clerk, I also hand her the new Combat Handguns magazine to ring up for me. She holds it up, looks at me and deadpans "Gee, I hope you're not mad at anyone today." I shot her a dirty look and shook my head in disgust. "Well at least I hope it's not me you're mad at," she continued. At that point I was so pissed I didn't even bother say anything. I just grabbed my receipt and walked away.

The encounter was very awkward for me in two ways. First, a pharmacy worker should never make a comment about what the customer is buying, no matter if it's shampoo, condoms, or anything else the store sells. Second, she was expressing her view that people with an interest in guns have violent, angry tendencies - and implying that her view is so unquestionable that she can unabashedly say it to my face. I felt like a black guy being told a racist joke.

I think attitudes like this are a predictable result of policies that have destroyed gun culture in my state.

Microstamping in Massachusetts - it was only a matter of time

Just got word from the NRA, Representative Linsky of Natick is introducing a microstamping bill, as follows:

(B) All semiautomatic firearms as defined in Chapter 140 Section 21 manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer within the commonwealth shall be capable of microstamping ammunition.

(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), a firearm is capable of microstamping ammunition if –

(i) a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the of the firearm is etched into the breech face and firing pin of the firearm; and

(ii) when ammunition is fired from the firearm, the characters are copied from the breech face and firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.

It's not surprising.  It's just the latest attempt to reduce supply.  They know many manufacturers won't bother with such a stupid requirement, so they won't ship to MA anymore.  That's what the politicians want. 


It looks like the law is impossible to comply with as written, since the firing pin would have to imprint markings on the case.  I would like to invite Rep. Linsky to my basic pistol class where he will learn that this is not physically possible in a centerfire gun. 

Looks like we may be up for a big political fight.  Stay alert, guys. 

NY Times reporter taking liberties with an anecdote?

 Here's a colorful anecdote that I find highly implausible.  Jo Craven McGinty last week in the NYT...

Most gun owners interviewed said they had never drawn their weapons in self-defense. But John A. Catsimatidis, the owner of the Red Apple Group and Gristedes supermarket chain, recalled a chilling episode from the mid-1980s, when he intercepted a robber fleeing one of his stores in the Bronx.

“The first guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes right by me and says, ‘Be cool, man,’ ” said Mr. Catsimatidis, who has owned a gun for at least 35 years. “The second guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes by me and says, ‘Be cool, man.’ The third guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, and I intertwine my arm into his arm, and I put my gun to his head, and I say, ‘Drop your gun, or I’ll blow your head off.’ ”

When the police arrived, they arrested the man, and examined Mr. Catsimatidis’s weapon — a Walther PPK/S 9-millimeter pistol.

“The sergeant says to me, ‘You couldn’t have shot the guy anyway: your safety is still on,’ ” Mr. Catsimatidis recalled. “The sweat started dripping off my head.
“I’m not going to do anything stupid like that again."

She's using the story to demonstrate that defensive gun use by civilians is, well, stupid.  It's the Times and we expect that bias.  But does the story make sense as told?

The setup sounds like a movie.  He lets the first shotgun-wielding robber flee, then lets the second one (carrying the same gun and uttering the same line... hmmmm) flee, then he finally summons the courage to pull out his little PPK, does some ninja arm interlock, and holds the shotgun-wielding third robber at bay until the police come?  Where were the other two robbers at this point?  Why didn't they help their buddy?  Did the third robber really just give up and stand there, waiting to be arrested?  I don't buy it. 

That's the least of it.  The cops finally show up, and examine the pistol.  How did the cop know if he had the thumb safety engaged or disengaged during the encounter?  Did Catsimatidis just hand the cop the gun, action closed, safety disengaged?  Had he reholstered it and re-engaged the safety?  How did he know the owner didn't engage the safety when when the police arrived?

We don't get those answers in the article.  Instead we get Sean Connery as the grizzled old British Special Forces agent New York cop, and Nicholas Cage as the naive, bumbling science nerd grocery store owner.  "You won't shoot me.  Besides, your safety's on."  It sounds made up.

Let's dig deeper.  Who is this John Catsimatidis? Some humble small business owner?  Nope, turns out he's a big-shot billionaire in NYC.  Not only that, but also a buddy of... wait for it... Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  From his Wikipedia page: He has made donations to Democratic Party and Republican Party campaigns,^[16] and helped run a fund-raiser in 2006 with New York City Mayor Bloomberg for Joseph Lieberman.

To sum it up, we have a virulently anti-gun newspaper using an old, hard to substantiate anectode told by a billionaire friend of the most rabid anti-gun mayor in the country, to make the point that "Yeah, only the elite in NYC get gun permits, but it's for their own good."

This whole thing stinks.

What if they got everything they wanted, and nothing changed?

Bob S. posted a question to the gun control crowd, asking if the background check and registration laws on their agenda were enacted, would they be in favor of lifting restrictions on CCW in the currently prohibited places? 

I'd take that one step further:
If all these laws were enacted, and firearms-related violence steadily increased or remained the same, what new laws, if any, would you then push in an attempt to drastically reduce gun violence? 
 
I don't think any of them would say they'd drop their advocacy in the face of its failure - their only option would be to escalate.  That's why the slippery slope argument from the gun guys is valid.  We don't see a plausible mechanism by which gun control can affect the actions of those in the tail of the lawfulness curve (or the carefulness curve either).  So while one gun a month might seem superficially reasonable, when it fails to decrease crime, it'll turn into one gun a year, then one gun a decade, one gun per person, then England. 


A Brady Campaign board member said it herself - they won't stop until there are zero gun deaths in the US.  When they fail to reach their impossible goals, and they will fail, they'll just keep pushing more restrictions until there's nowhere left to push - until civilian gun ownership is completely prohibited.

Why we need normal capacity magazines

Is this video a good enough reason?  If a group of men violently attacks me, should I really be restricted to 11 rounds of ammo in a gun that fits 16? 

I live a quarter of a mile from a housing project in Boston.  There are gangs around, they have guns, and they do stuff like this.  What happened in this video is what I fear when I'm out walking my dog at 11PM.  This is why I carry. 

How gun control disarms domestic violence victims in Boston

Our favorite Brady board member Joan Peterson wrote in her usual smug tone today:

Has any victim of domestic abuse been disarmed by my group? No. If they want guns, they can have them.

I argue that in my home state of Massachusetts, and especially in Boston, the gun control laws pushed by her group do indeed make it extremely time consuming and expensive for a woman at risk of domestic violence to have a handgun for self defense.

Here's how the process would work for a woman in fear of her life... 

She goes to the local gun shop and is turned away because she doesn't have a valid Class A License to Carry.

She takes time off from work to apply for her license to carry at Boston Police headquarters in Roxbury.  After driving around the block for an hour, she finally finds a parking space.  She's immediately turned away, not knowing she must take an 8-hour state police approved gun safety course.

She signs up for the safety course, which will be held in two weeks.  She pays between $100 and $175 for the course, then waits another week for her certificate. She has to pay for extra day care, because it's Saturday 8AM to 4PM. 

During the course, she finds out she must pass a 30-round qualification test with a double-action Ruger revolver firing .38 Special ammunition at the Boston Police range at Moon Island.  Massachusetts General Laws prohibit her from currently owning the gun she is expected to be proficient with, so she goes to the local range twice a week for a month to take a lesson with the instructor.  Each lesson is $20 to the instructor, and $35 for two boxes of ammo.  Oh, and her arthritis - she just has to deal with the excruciating pain in her hands from the 14 lb. double-action trigger (yes, 18 rounds of the test are mandatory DA one-handed).  There are no exceptions for disabilities.

After she's practiced enough to be able to pass the test, it occurs to her that it's January, and that she'll be firing a gun one handed, no gloves allowed, in 15 degree weather with a 30 MPH wind spraying salty water in her eyes, literally in the middle of Boston freakin' Harbor.  These conditions being insurmountable for her, she postpones the test until April, when the weather becomes reasonable.

A few months roll around, and she takes another day off to go to police headquarters to apply for the LTC and schedule the range test.  She pays her $100 (cash only), presents proof of safety course completion, citizenship and residency, is photographed and fingerprinted, and submits to a background check.  She is forced to sign extra statements containing legalese about acknowledgment of the use of deadly force. 

Two days later, she makes special arrangements for her kids' day care and takes another day off to show up at the range at 7AM.  The police officers are professional and polite, she handles the gun safely, and most of her bullets hit the target.  The range officer looks at the target for two seconds and mutters, "Eh, 275, you passed.  You'll get your license in 6 weeks."

Ten weeks later, her license shows up in the mail.  She heads out to the nearest gun shop, which is 20 miles away (HA! No, Mayor Menino doesn't allow gun shops in Boston!).

"Hello, my good man.  My ex-husband's been threatening to kill me quite a lot, so I'd like to get a new Glock 22, .40 caliber.  It makes sense to me to buy the same durable, safe, simple gun that my city's police use."

"Sorry, ma'am, we can't sell you a new Glock 22."

"Why not?"

"Because they're not on the list."

"What list?"

"The state's list of guns we're allowed to sell."

"This is the same gun that most of our state's police carry every day!  I saw that it's on the Approved Handgun Roster from the state's Executive Office of Public Safety."

"Well, yeah, it's on that list, but not the Attorney General's list."

"There are two lists?"

"Well, the EOPS list is the only actual list.  The AG's list is secret..."

"Fuck it, I can't understand this nonsense. How can I get my Glock 22?"

"You can either buy it from a private buyer who already has one in-state, or you can buy a scarce pre-1998 Glock from us for 50% over retail.  They were grandfathered in."

"Just ring me up for that Ruger over there, I don't care anymore.  I've spent $800 and five months of my time just just to get the government's permission to buy a gun."

[END SCENARIO]


And that, Joan Petersons of the world, is the typical time and expense women in Boston have to put up with to get their best means of self defense - you have been educated.

Victims of domestic violence most certainly have been discouraged and disarmed by your groups.

If Joan were honest, she would have said something like:

Has any victim of domestic abuse been disarmed by my group? No. If they want guns, they can have them.  All they have to do is wait a few months, pay several hundred dollars, endure pain if they're disabled or elderly, and take several days off from work.  It's common sense!

Why modify the phrase "gun control?"

The gun control crowd doesn't often advocate for "gun control" anymore.  Instead they attach adjectives like "reasonable" or "common sense" before it.  Why is that? 

My guess is that when people hear "gun control" by itself, they imagine a Massachusetts-like scheme that makes it as costly and inconvenient as possible to be a gun owner, and gives local cops the ability to seize your guns on a whim.  An authoritarian system. 

But reasonable gun control, or common sense gun control - what is it exactly?  It sounds to me like "gun control, but don't worry we're not taking away your deer rifle."  It's a slightly less insidious marketing term for the layperson.

So my question to the anti-gun bloggers is: at what point does reasonable gun control become unreasonable gun control, and when does common sense gun control become retarded gun control? 

I'd like to hear from you. 

-Bill

Defensive gun use in Mattapan

A store owner successfully stopped an armed robber in Mattapan today.  Well done, sir. 

An interesting point here is that business owners are one of the privileged few in Boston who are granted an unrestricted license to carry (in other words, a license to carry).  Any regular citizen who isn't politically connected, doesn't own a business, or is not a doctor or lawyer gets a restricted LTC, which prohibits concealed carry. 

Therefore most of us here are prevented from having the means to defend ourselves against armed attackers.  Why do Mayor Menino and Commissioner Davis think businessmens' lives are more valuable than everyone else's? 

Legal exposure for children in gun owning households

From today's Globe:

A 10-year-old boy is facing gun-related charges after he allegedly fired his father’s rifle into a neighbor’s Halifax home Tuesday night, police said.... Halifax police Sergeant Ted Broderick said the son will face charges of discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, possession of a firearm without proper license, possession of ammunition without a proper license, and destruction of property.

Enough has been said about how ridiculous it is to charge the child with a crime here.  Most licensed firearms instructors in Massachusetts don't understand the basics of the state's convoluted ammunition and gun laws, let alone a ten year old, so it's pretty far-fetched that the boy intended to commit a crime.

Could the boy have really possessed ammunition that was bought by the father and stored in the father's home?  This is worrisome - children cannot hold a license to carry, and if they live in a household where an adult legally possesses gun and ammo, the children may have legal exposure.  What if a dad leaves his 17-year old at home with properly stored ammo?  Can the minor be charged with possession without a license?  What about when my unlicensed wife is at home without me, and my guns are stored in the closet with trigger locks in accordance with MGL?  Is she in possession? 

I believe she would be committing a felony by the letter of the law.  In practice it doesn't keep me up at night, because we're not exactly on the police radar.  But it does show how Massachusetts' bizarre gun laws can trap honest people who have done nothing wrong. 

In the Halifax case, I suspect the DA is trumping up a charge for the sole purpose of making this boy a prohibited person, "getting something on his record," to prevent him from owning a gun when he becomes an adult.  I don't know the local politics in that town, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was pressure from some liberal mayor or city council wanting to appear "tough on guns."

The purpose of a gun is to kill?

If so, can I sue Smith & Wesson?  In the past two years I've fired 20,000 rounds from my SW1911 .45.  Amazingly, not a single one of those rounds has killed someone.  If the only purpose of a gun is to kill, and my gun has not killed after such extensive use, then my gun must be defective. 

Joan Peterson, rhetorical genius

From her blog post today:

So let's listen to what folks who have some reason and common sense have to say, like Vincent D'Onofrio of T.V's Law and Order in the You Tube video linked above. Wow- a guy who uses a gun on T.V. thinks that maybe some restrictions should happen in real life where real people get shot to death every day.

She's gone.  Totally bat-shit crazy.

Although we should give her credit for inventing the argumentum ad potentiam donofrii.