The real reason drug dealers open fired into a crowded playground

In today's Boston Globe, City Councilor Charles Yancey explains the motivation of gang members firing into a crowded playground, hitting a 4 year-old in the back.  

“We have so many people who are leading very desperate lives in our society, and some are resorting to taking out their frustrations by opening fire on a local playground,’’ Councilor Charles C. Yancey.

Yes, that's what they're doing when they fire guns into a crowded playground.  Taking out frustration.  You can't make this shit up, folks.  These are the people running my city.

Getting to the root cause of "gun violence"

Animals fired into a Roxbury playground last night, hitting a four-year old boy.  From today's Boston Globe:

Mayor Tom Menino said "Any gun violence in our city is unacceptable, but when it involves a young child, you can only feel sadness and anger. With the public’s help, we will stop those who seek to bring violence to our neighborhoods.’’

What he means by "those who seek to bring violence" is Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Four Seasons and Collector's Gallery, not the project rats who attempted the murder. 

City councilor Chuck Yancey at least had the courage to blame the inanimate objects that are the root cause of violence: dirtbikes. 

Yancey, who represents parts of Dorchester, called on Boston police to enforce traffic laws aggressively and be more aggressive with young people speeding and driving recklessly on dirt bikes and scooters.  An hour before the shooting, police investigated reports of motorbikes speeding through the area. Generally, police say, they hesitate to chase or pull over youths on motorized bikes because of the danger of the pursuit.

“If they are breaking the law, they should be pulled over,’’ said Yancey. “If it is not tolerated in Back Bay or Beacon Hill, it shouldn’t be tolerated here.’’

Well said, Councilor Yancey.  Well said.

Japete's uplifting thought of the day

Gun ban advocate and Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson begins her most recent post with:

Today is the summer solstice. We should be celebrating the longest day of the year. Some people, unfortunately, will not be able to celebrate because of a bullet. Such is a typical day in America.

Could you imagine getting stuck talking to this woman at a cocktail party?  

Boston gun licensing discriminates against disabled

A Boston resident applying for a Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC-A) faces a big commitment of time and money.  But there's one obstacle that at worst discourages some law-abiding, qualified people like my wife from even trying, and at best makes them beg the state for special favors. 

Boston is the only licensing authority in the Commonwealth that requires every new applicant to pass a qualification course, which they hold at the Moon Island police range in the middle of Boston Harbor.  Worse yet, anyone wanting to renew the LTC every six years must pass the test again before it expires. 

The course of fire is twelve rounds one-handed, double action from seven yards onto a 12x16" target with 10/9/8 scoring rings. This is followed by eighteen rounds freestyle, single or double action from fifteen yards.  A passing score is 210 out of 300. 

Passing the test isn't especially difficult - that is, if you're already proficient with the old, heavy, double action Ruger Service Six .357 Magnum revolver you're prohibited from owning.  To have a decent chance of passing, a new shooter needs at least five lessons, each lesson costing $20 for instruction and $32 for ammo. That's $260 to practice to qualify for your $100 license.  Did I mention you need to have also taken the $175 basic pistol course already?  And that they only offer the test at 7AM, so you should plan on taking the morning off from work?  

Beside the New York City-style financial burden placed on the new licensee, the range qualification is a particularly insidious barrier to the elderly and disabled.  These Ruger revolvers have a fifteen pound double action trigger, making it all but impossible for people with arthritis to use.  Most applicants delay taking the test until late spring, since the wind whipping off the Harbor waters can numb your hands quickly.  It's an outside range with no protection from the elements.

My wife was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis two years ago when she was twenty-eight years old.  After we got the initial flare up under control with drugs and three months of bed rest, her quality of life is just as great as it was before, but the joints of her hands are weak and frail.  She has zero chance of practicing for, and passing, the Moon Island test without excruciating pain.  No pass, no license. 

At some point after she has the baby this fall, I'm going to encourage her to try for it.  Maybe if we show up at the licensing counter with our attorney, it'll persuade them to waive the test for her.  I'm not optimistic.  More wealthy and powerful people than us have sued over this and lost in court. 

The Boston Police Department licensing division, under Mayor Menino's orders, actively discriminates against the elderly and disabled with this range test.  Their policy makes no exemption for anyone.  It is the reason my wife is unable to exercise her Second Amendment rights, and there are thousands of more people out there in the city, just like her. 

Massachusetts' licensing scheme is sometimes shall-issue, usually may-issue, occasionally no-issue. There is a list of dozens of dubious reasons that make you a prohibited person in the eyes of the politician who decides local gun rights. 

In Boston, you can add arthritis to that list. 

Anti-concealed carry arguments ignore history

Leon D. Young writes a pretty typical opinion piece about the Wisconsin legislation. 

But, in my view, it creates a “potential minefield” where tragic gun scenarios are just waiting to happen....It is beyond belief (and logic) that increasing the number of hand guns in our midst makes us safer ... Not to mention, the potential carnage that will ensue as a result of individuals carrying handguns without any formal training.

It's fair enough to make an argument like this.  Whether liberal concealed carry laws correlate with more or less crime is an empirical matter (one that time-series econometrics shows is settled, in my view). 

But if Young fails to acknowledge that 48 other states have removed prohibitions on concealed carry in the past 25 years, during which violent crime has trended downwards, and that no state has reverted back to prohibition, he is omitting a pretty important part of the story. 

Lawful concealed carry isn't a scary hypothetical experiment, it's the norm in most of the country, even - gasp - in my home town of Boston. And it hasn't made any place a "battlefield" that wasn't already. 

I challenge Leon D. Young to give an example where concealed carry has caused a place to be a battlefield.  Though I think that if he coulda, he woulda. 

Invisible forcefields of protection

When I got my NRA instructor credentials, I understood what it meant.  My certificate and $3 would get me a cup of coffee, but also authorize me to teach and sign off on Massachusetts residents applying for a license to carry. 

There is no forcefield of protection for NRA instructors that protects against bad judgement or accidental discharges.  We're just as imperfect as everyone else.  We are 70,000 strong, and any group of 70,000 will have a few dumbasses.

If an anti-gun troll is searching for certain anecdotes among a population of 300 million, he'd find them daily.  There are plenty of morons out there.  Among a population of 70k, he'd find them occasionally.  And if the best the troll can do is re-post anecdotes, all we need to do is nod our head, smile and ignore it.

Ohio bartenders oppose new concealed carry law

Bartenders in Ohio just strike me as a little hypocritical with these outrageous arguments.

Highlights from today's Columbus Dispatch article:

Bartenders likely won't have time to determine whether a customer who is ordering alcohol is packing a gun.  That's the sentiment of some central Ohio bartenders after the Senate and House recently approved versions of a bill allowing concealed-carry permit holders to take guns into bars...

"How do you find out if a person is carrying?" said Berlin Slonner, a bartender at Crank's Bier Garten, as he served customers ethanol, a toxic byproduct of the fermentation process blamed for over 80,000 deaths per year.  The powerful psychoactive drug is a volatile, highly flammable, colorless solvent, that is banned for use by anyone under 21. 

Tami Wadkins, longtime owner of Slop 401 in Whitewall, said, "What are we supposed to do, frisk them?"  Wadkins serves her ethanol watered down or mixed with sugary juices in order to mask the objectionable taste of the liquid and cause patrons to drink more, increasing the drug's effects.  "Listen," she continued, "my customers face enough risks from alcoholic lung disease, kidney stones, sexual dysfunction, hormonal imbalance, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and dementia.  Things will get dangerous if we introduce guns into the equation."  


...that's what worries Don Cromper, a bartender at Sisters.  He said bartenders don't have enough time to detect whether their patrons are carrying a gun before serving them ethanol.  "Once my customers take even a small amount of ethanol, they have increased aggression, dehydration, insomnia, euphoria, stupor, coma, dehydration, hangovers, unconsciousness, asphyxiation on vomit, blurred vision, respiratory depression, analgesia, decreased heart rate, dizziness, profound confusion, shortened attention span, loss of motor function.  I care about my customers' well-being and can't fathom how risky guns will be in here."  

"No concealed bars in carries," opined frequent patron Jack Swallow, as he settled the day's tab and grabbed his keys.  Cromper added, "That man drank ten beers this afternoon.  And because of the current gun laws, no one's gotten hurt, and no innocent kids will get shot during the drive home."