The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]

Wow, I'm impressed.  Three whole recruits.

Three New York City residents -- two with Uzbekistan citizenship, and one a citizen of Kazakhstan -- plotted to travel to Syria to join ISIS militants and 'wage jihad,' the Justice Department announced on Wednesday.

Oh, and how were those fine NYC Residents here in the country, may I ask?  Did they have green cards?  If so, how did they get them?  If not, why and how were they here?

Oh, nobody wants to talk about that, right?  Why the hell not?

Hmmmm....

Oh, and if you want "hot" sauce on that jihadi crap, one of them apparently offered to murder the President, provided ISIS ordered him to do so.  Gee, so you really gotta be ordered to commit murder eh?  Such good little jihadis we have here.

He's not very bright either.  Apparently he said he'd "I will just go and buy a machine gun, AK-47. go out and shoot all police."  He might have had a problem with that considering that machine guns aren't available in the general sense in the US; you certainly aren't just going to walk into your closest gun store and buy one off the shelf!

In other news it appears that the Mall of America, which has been named by ISIS as a target for terrorist action, has doubled down on it's "no gun" policy.  I presume that the owners of said mall have the same idiotic belief as do "women's violence groups" that pieces of paper stop bullets, or perhaps that violent *******s will obey either laws, signs or both.

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way as we see many times over.  The only thing that stops a violent ******* with a weapon is a good person with a weapon.

"Mall Cop on Segway" isn't going to cut it when things get dicey.  Every second or third citizen in the place with a concealed pistol, however, just might.

Note that you're no worse off if you have said gun in any event; if you either can't use it due to circumstances or choose not to the fact that you have it isn't apparent to anyone.  That's the definition of concealed, after all.  On the other hand if Sir Jihadi is standing in the mall court mowing people down with his gun and you're behind him a few feet away well, maybe you have the balls (or simply enough interest in self-preservation) to take a crack at opening Sir Jihadi's watermelon via the fast method.

There's a reason we have a Second Amendment and despite people like the BATFE it's not for "sporting purposes."  It is specifically so you have a fair crack at stopping an ******* who is hellbent on violent, lethal action toward yourself or others.

Those violent *******s come in many forms -- many are street thugs but it appears that a few might be ISIS sympathizers.

The Second Amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for the specific reason that it is impossible, in advance, to delineate exactly who said murderous ******* might be in advance, and by the time they announce their intentions it's almost always too late to decide to get a gun.

The founders had this one right, and our "modern" changes, in the form of "permits" and such, is flat-out wrong and must be changed here and now so you, the common man, have the means and ability to effective defend yourself when, not if, one of these jackasses gets through the FBI's "dragnet."

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

This "story" is one of those that discerning people should return to the Times Editorial board -- wrapping the crap that their dog left while being walked.

In America’s endless debate about gun rights versus public safety, there should be no disputing the hard facts in a new report on gunshot fatalities showing that at least 722 nonself-defense deaths since 2007 were attributable to individuals with legal permits to carry concealed weapons. Concealed carry by citizens has been a soaring phenomenon as states liberalize laws in the name of lowering crime that allow more permits and easier gun access in public places, even schools, churches and restaurants.

So that's 722 deaths in 7 years, or about 100 a year.

Sounds awful, doesn't it?

But is it?

Before I begin I'll "accept", for the sake of argument, the figures cited.  Given the organization involved I have good reason to believe they're literally making things up -- but if this is the best they can do then they're in real trouble, as the facts and figures will show.

First, of those 722 deaths 218 of them were suicides.  In other words the only person dead is the one with the gun, and he or she intentionally killed themself.

It's fundamentally dishonest to argue that these deaths have anything to do with concealed carry permits; one can certainly shoot oneself without a CWP.  Indeed you can purchase a firearm in every state without any sort of concealed permit at all; as such these permits are in no rational way associated with suicide.

Then there's this stunner -- out of the ~700-odd "homicide incidents" that VPC tries to cite only 177 led to criminal charges, or about 24%. In other words the VPC itself admits that only one in four of their claimed "homicides" were in fact criminal acts.

But the bigger issue, beyond the intentional and knowingly-bogus inflation of the figures that "Violence Policy Center", an advocacy organization that has been caught doing this sort of crap repeatedly over the years, is the (intentional) lack of perspective.

First, there are roughly 10,000 gun homicides annually.  That is, while about 500 "non-self-defense deaths", ex-suicide, were recorded over that seven year period by concealed carry permit holders some 70,000 people died due to homicide by non-CWP holders as a consequence of firearms over that same period of time.

Or, if you prefer, 0.7% of all such deaths during that time had a CWP holder involved -- a minuscule percentage of the total that is so small you can only argue for this being a problem by intentionally omitting all the other homicides.  

Now let's put some perspective on this figure.  Florida has approximately 20 million people living here and a million and a half active, valid CWP holders.  In other words about one person in 13, including children under 18 who are, by definition, not legally able to own a firearm.  

Therefore it is quite clear that on a population-adjusted basis the safest person to be around in terms of being unlawfully shot, by a factor of over 10:1is someone with a CWP!

But the real issue isn't the minuscule number, as a percentage, of CWP holders involved in a homicide.

It's simply this: In Florida, for example, the number of permits rose by 90% from 2007-2011.  The number of violent crimes in which a firearm was used dropped by one third during that same period of time.

In point of fact there are plenty of credible studies that as many as one million felonies are interrupted through the presence of a lawfully-owned firearm every year.  We don't read about most of them, although if you're interested in a (short) list you can read the NRA's publication monthly; they have a column printed every month called "The Armed Citizen" detailing some of the most-egregious examples.

Why don't we hear of these incidents every night on the evening news?  That's pretty simple: More than 90% of the time the weapon is not discharged because it doesn't have to be; the perpetrator, upon realizing that if he or she does not cease their unlawful conduct they are likely to assume room temperature, decides to quit whatever he or she is doing.

There is one point on which I will agree with the Violence Policy Center -- it is best if nobody gets shot.  Unfortunately for the VPC the facts related to not getting shot are not in dispute: Roughly a million times a year a violent felony of some sort is stopped by the lawful presence of a firearm and in virtually every case nobody gets shot because it is not necessary to discharge the weapon to convince the felon to cease whatever he or she is doing.

In short, to cite Mr. Lott:  More guns, less crime!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

What do we got here?

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today won a major federal court ruling in a case involving interstate handgun transfers in which the judge applied strict scrutiny to determine whether a ban on such transfers meets constitutional muster.

The case, which was financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, is known as Mance v. Holder. It involves plaintiffs residing in the District of Columbia and Texas, and could have far-reaching ramifications, according to CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

“Our lawsuit strikes at the heart of a debate that has been ongoing for several years, since the creation of the National Instant Check System (NICS),” Gottlieb said. “With the advent of the NICS system, it makes no sense to perpetuate a ban on interstate transfers of handguns.”

That's right -- there's utterly no reason at all for that ban.

For those who are unaware it is perfectly legal for you in many cases to cross a state line and purchase a shotgun or rifle in a state where you do not live from a dealer.  It is not legal to do with a handgun; you must transfer all such weapons at a dealer in your home state.

This is not only a pain in the ass it makes for a less-competitive marketplace, since there is no reason for dealers in one state to compete with those in another.

Indeed, I'm sure this isn't the last you'll hear of this issue, as I'm reasonably sure the government will appeal.  But it's a good start.

On the other hand the BATFE is trying to ban a particular type of common and popular AR-15 ammunition known as "M855", or green tip.

This is a very popular round with sport shooters and some varmint hunters for a number of reasons, chief among them being that it is of higher mass than the more-common 55gr projectile and in many weapons is more accurate.

The argument the BATFE is using is predicated on a long-standing ban for armor-piercing ammunition manufactured for pistols.  The M855 cartridge is made for rifles based on the AR-15/.223 pattern, but there are pistols available that also use the same lower receiver and thus can chamber and fire the same ammunition.

Here's the thing: Those weapons are impractical as they have the same buffer tube extending from them but by law cannot have a stock attached and due to their short barrel the powder does not complete burning in the barrel, resulting in an insanely-loud weapon with a monstrous muzzle flash when fired.  In short while such a gun is legal essentially nobody owns or uses one except as a novelty item, and due to their extreme anti-social character (while being quite expensive) I've yet to see one reported incident of a criminal buying (or stealing) and using one.

Reality is that there is no material difference in terms of soft body armor with 55gr FMJ ammunition and 62gr green tip M855.  Both will go through soft body armor like it's not even there; the ability to do so has nothing to do with the ammunition being "armor piercing" and everything to do with the fact that it's a rifle round that travels at much higher speeds than a pistol bullet.

Note that the law does not ban possession of this ammunition, but as the BATFE is proposing to "re-interpret" it there will be a ban on its manufacture.  So if you own some (or a bunch) there's nothing that says you can't keep it, and in fact if you own a bunch you can make a nice chunk of coin from people who want the additional accuracy and will pay a substantial premium for it -- at least until it's gone.  But if you want the additional accuracy in your rifle because your gun shoots better with it than the 55gr XM193 you may soon not be able to buy any more of this as supplies dry up and prices go to the moon.

And that's the point of the BATFE's action, really -- make ammunition so damned expensive that nobody can shoot any more.  Without practice there is no competence and without competence what's the point of the 2nd Amendment -- and enjoyment of the shooting sports?

This sort of outrageous interference with perfectly-legitimate ammunition used for perfectly-legitimate purposes, when there is utterly no evidence that there are people running around with AR-15 pistols shooting at people in body armor, must not be allowed to stand.

If the BATFE will not cut this crap out, never mind their well-documented trafficking of guns to Mexican Drug Runners who did use them for illegal purpose then it is time that we, the people, demand and enforce the disbandment of this rogue agency.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.