Fear the Stupid

[unixronin]

radarrider pointed out this sadly-misguided LA Times editorial on the proposed California microstamping law.

Dear Editor,

Your "Bullet bill right on target" editorial is so badly incorrect as to be laughable.  Small lasers inside the gun micro-engraving the gun's make, model and serial number on each bullet as it is fired?  This is the stuff of Hollywood action/sci-fi movies such as Total Recall or The Minority Report.  No such technology exists, is even under development, or is likely to exist in this century.

Here's how microstamping REALLY works:  When the gun is manufactured, the gun's serial number (and ONLY the serial number) is micro-engraved into the tip of the firing pin.  When the gun is fired, the firing pin stamps the serial number into the primer of the empty case.  IF, and ONLY IF, a criminal leaves fired cases at the crime scene, police could read the stamped serial number off the primers.  They would then have the serial number of the gun ... but not the make or model.  IF they capture the correct suspect, and find the gun, they then have evidence to link the suspect to the crime.

On the other hand, here's a short list of just a few ways a criminal can defeat microstamping:

1. Pick up his fired cases off the ground.
2. Use a revolver, which doesn't eject fired cases in the first place.
3. Take a small file or whetstone and lightly file the tip of the firing pin, removing the micro-engraved number.
4. Take a soldering iron and apply a tiny smear of solder to the tip of the firing pin, filling in the micro-engraved number.
5. Purchase and install a replacement firing pin.

And so on.  I could go on ... but by now, you should be getting the point.  Defeating microstamping isn't rocket science.

The truth is, this measure isn't being put forward because it would have any effect on crime.  It's being put forward because its originator hopes it would make it uneconomic for firearms makers to sell guns in California.  His original proposal was even more unrealistic, calling for every round of ammunition manufactured to be individually serial numbered and registered to its buyer -- which, in the best tradition of the law of unintended consequences, would have created a whole new criminal market overnight for stolen or smuggled (and therefore unregistered) ammunition.

Gun control advocates say bills like this one are "only reasonable".  The trouble with this is that to gun control advocates, ALL gun laws, no matter how extreme or pointless, are "reasonable" until no guns are left in private hands, because gun control advocates will not rest until there is no legal gun ownership in the US.  Unfortunately, criminals don't obey gun controls any more than they obey any of the other laws whose violation makes them criminals in the first place.  This is the crucial failing of gun control logic:  All gun control laws are based on the absurdly naïve premise that criminals, whose way of life centers around not obeying laws, will obey gun control laws.

It may be a cliché, but there's more truth in it than gun control advocates like to admit:  "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  What on earth is the point of handing criminals the advantage for free?

I left California for a reason.  (Well, several reasons, actually.)  I live in New Hampshire now, and no longer have to suffer the raving idiocy that is California politics.  But that doesn't mean I have to sit idly by.

---

Update:  Thanks to sierra_nevada pointing out what I should have remembered myself, I now have a "Fear the Stupid" userpic.  Dogbert to the rescue!

Comments

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

You could grab this icon ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That will do nicely. Thanks for the suggestion. :)

[jilara.livejournal.com]

You know, I always am awed by the extreme of moronical behavior exhibited by so many of our chosen (I didn't choose them!) representatives. When the lunatics are running the asylum, I guess the inmates will always think their proposals are reasonable.

I'm getting pretty fed up with a lot of things about this place. Unfortunately, things I am fed up with are starting to trickle out to America at large...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

"Pinky! Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
"Gee, I think so, Brain, but where will we get six thousand pairs of rubber underpants and twenty tons of grape jelly at this time of night?"

New Hampshire: It's the anti-California.

[tabbifli.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, I advocate gun control - the same way I advocate car control.

If you want a gun, fine. Cool. Have at. I really have no problem with it. I have no problem with people having cars, either, even though I think more people get killed with cars than with guns, even when you get into percentages than real numbers.

The thing is, for both - I want people to get trained on them. Sure, we've got learner's permits for cars, but you can get a learner's permit and then get taught by your cousin Bubba and his wife Bunny on their back 40 (and then go out and t-bone a motorcycle after you get the license). I don't think it takes any training at all in most states to get a gun, and that bugs me. In both cases, we're letting untrained idiots out with deadly weapons. :P

I'm not the one to do this. Maybe you are, maybe you know who is. I bet you'd have some things to say on a driving course, at least! But design a good, solid safety and use course. People want to drive a car? They have to pass the course and the test. People want to buy a gun? They have to pass the course and the test. Class them, if you want - motorcycle, combo rig, handgun, rifle... whatever.

That's the kind of "gun control" that will do what many of the people who spout off about safety and whatnot say they really want - fewer accidents, safer storage (hello gun safe, goodbye nightstand drawer!), more responsible usage. Will it keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Nope. But neither will the garbage that they're spewing (as you point out).

Then again, I also happen to believe that even the most stringent pacifists should know how to safely pick up and disarm a weapon. I respect the belief that people shouldn't be harming one another, but leaving loaded weapons around for other people to shoot you with is just plain stupid.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with people having cars, either, even though I think more people get killed with cars than with guns, even when you get into percentages than real numbers.

You're correct in that, and even more so if you subtract lawful shootings by police and armed citizens, and suicides, most of whom are going to find another way to kill themselves anyway, if they're determined enough to use a gun. (Suicides actually account for around two thirds of firearms-related deaths in the US annually.)

The thing is, for both - I want people to get trained on them.

I can get behind that.  Someone I know who lives in LA has seriously advocated giving the gangbangers free shooting classes, on the grounds that maybe they'd kill off more of each other and mow down less unfortunate bystanders.

I don't think it takes any training at all in most states to get a gun, and that bugs me. In both cases, we're letting untrained idiots out with deadly weapons.

You're correct, in most (but not all) states, it does not require any training to buy a gun. In most (but again not all) states, though, training is required in order to obtain a permit to carry in public. (However, motomuffin posted recently about her experience in a Massachusetts firearms safety class, and -- even with no advance knowledge -- she wasn't impressed.) Most of us used to teach our kids to shoot safely, responsibly and accurately, back before the idea that Guns Are Bad became prevalent in the media.

But yeah. Real gun control is hitting what you aim at... preferably with your first shot.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

The fundamental problem with this idea is this: Travel by car is nice, but the use of a car on public roads is a priviledge. Self-defence is an inherent human right. That means no-one else gets to determine whether or not I'm allowed to have the most effective tool for defending myself. Period, end of story.

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Nothing says you have to restrict the training. Teach EVERYONE. Teach kids to shoot in school, at the same time you teach'em to do math. Make it a required course, like Drivers' Ed. If there were less people completely ignorant about firearms, there might be less people irrationally afraid of them and of other people having them.

And then we'd be back to pre-WW2 America, of which Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade the American mainland. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

No, but if you make receiving training a pre-requisite to being allowed to own a firearm, you have reduced it from a right to a priviledge.

Rights are those things for which you must ask no one's permission.

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

OK, I see where you're coming from there.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I'm not, in any way, disparaging firearms training. Which is why I provide it, free of charge, to anyone who asks me. Hell, I've gone out and bought firearms specifically for the purpose of having guns to train people on.

I object fiercely to the idea that anyone may tell anyone else that they don't have the unimpeachable and absolute right to own any weapon of self-defence they so desire.

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I concur with that. I also think we should train everyone, even people who are convinced they never want to own one. Just because, well, you never know, the day may come when we literally need every pair of hands in, say, Los Angeles that can hold a gun.

I bought my Ruger Mark 1 as a training gun.

[tabbifli.livejournal.com]

Travel: People come pre-equipped with feet. This is how travel is done in the most basic way. Having a car is more efficient, and thus being able to travel in a car is very nice. It's a priviledge, yes.

Self-defense: People come pre-equipped with hands, which make fists. This is how self-defense is done in the most basic way, along with feet (kicking) and teeth (biting). Having a knife, gun, and any other weapon is more efficient, yes, and thus more effective. It's also a priviledge.

Yes, you have the right to travel and self-defense, simply because you come pre-equipped with a basic means of both. Nothing natively says you have the right to the most efficient mode of either. Man-made laws say that you are GRANTED the "right" to bear arms, just as you are GRANTED the "right" of unimpeded interstate commerce (ie, travel). Having those "rights" granted means that they can be taken away at any time by the same granting authority.

Now, when rights are granted, they aren't rights, they are long-standing permissions. It's really easy to forget that, but in this day and socio-political climate, forgetting that is not the wisest thing to do. After all, we had a "right" to privacy, too, and look how well that turned out.

Believe it or not, I'm actually on the side of the people trying to get rid of the stupid gun laws which do nothing but outlaw half of everything and put in weird restrictions. But having gun training and licensing is as useful as having car training and licensing, simply because there is ample opportunity for accident. This is one of the many reasons car licensing came about as well (not the only one, I know).

a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

People come equipped with brains, hands, eyes — all things necessary to act in a manner that might eventually lead to the creation and manufacture of firearms. We all have a right to use these tools and faculties toward whatever end to which we choose to direct them, all else being equal. Those materials to which we have access (all else being equal) we may shape to our liking, as the object of those actions. The end result is a firearm, or a car, or a beanie baby, or a glass of orange juice. We may trade these creations with others, or the raw materials we have labored to acquire, for whatever value we deem sufficient motivation to part with them. That's proprietary right: it's a right derived from the right to act via our natural, integral tools and faculties, but it is intrinsic, and not granted by collective whim of sociopolitical organization.

We do not specifically have a right to guns or cars. We have a right to proprietary interest in the inanimate, which just happens to include guns and cars (and beanie babies and glasses of OJ).

A privilege is something granted by the power of another to choose the dispensation of the object of his or her rights. I have a right to my Glock 22. I may grant you the privilege of its use. My ownership of that Glock 22 is my right, however, by virtue of the proprietary right that is derived from my rights to action via my natural, intrinsic, integral tools and faculties. In other words, proprietary right is derived from, and an inevitable consequence of, my right to self-determination.

Check the phrasing of the Constitution at some point. It doesn't "grant" rights at all. It recognizes and enumerates them, and provides governmental mandate for the protection of them. Rights are not granted by government: rather, they are protected or violated by government. To the extent that government pretends to "grant" rights, it violates them, at least in concept (if not in act).

You say these rights are only permissions. Who grants them? What entity has the power to dispense with these permissions? Government cannot: it is not, in fact, a true entity. It is a set of social scaffolding for interaction by the individuals who comprise it. Those individuals, then, grant permissions. Permissions are grantable only by the entity that holds the right to them. The individuals of the United States (as of every nation) holds those rights within themselves as sovereign entities, and grant them or not to others only as relates to their own individual rights. Any pretense of authority over those rights in some central body such as a government, whereby it claims implicitly or explicitly to have the right to dispense with such permissions aside from the individual rights of the individuals, is just that: pretense. It is, to the extent that it coerces behavior in accordance with that assumption of authority by violence, threat of violence, or fraud, violating the rights of those individuals.

Re: a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Here's the difference as I see it:

Traveling via car is more efficient than walking but I can still travel without a car. I'm not being opposed either way. In order for me to exercise my right to travel, I never need anothing other than my body.

Self-defense, on the other hand, may not be possible without effective tools because it involves opposition to another person attempting to violate my rights who may have tools of his or her own. Or, in the case of defense against animals, a creature who probably has superior natural weapons to my own. In order to exercise my right to self-defense, I may need tools to do so and thus require access to them in case I do.

Re: a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

I don't really see how that bears on it one way or another, much as I like the fact that you're apparently defending (my/our) right to keep and bear arms as more than a mere privilege. Rights aren't based on efficiency and effectiveness of one's actions, but on intrinsic qualities that are inherent in the individual. Rights are inherent, not based on one's ability to perform some valued task.

Re: a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

No argument from me. I was just addressing the analogy presented by the previous poster and showing why it wasn't accurate. As you say, our rights derive from our very existence.

Re: a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Excellently put, sir. [golf clap]

Re: a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I am too lazy to look it up right now, but doesn't the constitution state something to the effect that all rights not enumerated explicitly are held by the people?

Re: a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Re: a brief lesson in the relationship of rights to permissions and privileges

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

That's the one!

I knew it was in the constitution somewhere. (My inkling was even right.) Thanks!

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

They wanted to microdot powders as well. Next step is registering who bought what where. Then you go to jail. Excuses like it was stolen won't stop 'neglegent loss of a controlled item' for getting you a felony 5.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup, and they only relented when it was demonstrated to them that the taggants created a significant risk of spontaneous ignition of the powder, thus creating a more serious problem than the legislation was supposed to solve in the first place. (The whole pretext, if I recall correctly, was the implausible idea that handloaders were responsible for a detectible fraction of gun crime.)

[databeast.livejournal.com]

heh, irony - when you asked for a new icon, I immediately brought to mind this dogbert, but figured it was a bit ....tired.... but now its up there, I realize it's been so damn long since the last time I saw it, it's almost - new-retro..heh

leftovers from the golden age of IT eh..

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

My grandfather taught me to shoot his WWI carbine when I was 10 or 11. A handgun came a bit after that. It was bbwoof that defined gun control, for me, as the ability to hit what you are aiming at.

A historical note: Jonathon Browning in the mid 1800's developed a repeating rifle. He sold it with a five shot magazine. He said that he could make a magazine that could hold 25 shots. He went on to say that anyone that could not hit what they were aiming at in five shots had no business owning a gun.

_quietude_ will not permit a firearm in the house. The is too much depression in her family and too much autism in mine. I still feel that it is my duty, as a citizen, to be able to use a firearm.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Jonathon Browning in the mid 1800's developed a repeating rifle. He sold it with a five shot magazine. He said that he could make a magazine that could hold 25 shots. He went on to say that anyone that could not hit what they were aiming at in five shots had no business owning a gun.

I think he had a point. I've never been a believer in spray-and-pray. It's one reason I've never owned an AR. If I have to shoot somebody with a rifle someday, I want to be able to shoot him once and confidently expect him to go down. None of this crap of sending ten or fifteen rounds downrange and hoping for two or three hits.

Two hundred misses per minute isn't firepower. One hit is firepower.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

We just had a conversation about TV and Movie bad guy school. That is where you have to become expert with a gun. Only and expert can shoot twenty to thirty rounds at a target and miss completely with every round.

I saw a statistic several years back comparing WWI, WWII and Viet Nam for rounds to casualties. WWI = 3, WWII = 5 Viet Nam = 20. I know which group of vet I want on my side, if only because they less expensive.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Twenty rounds per hit in Vietnam? The number I've heard is at least one full order of magnitude higher.