After reading some of the comments on today’s earlier post and musings at other places, here are a couple more thoughts:

For the record, I don’t disapprove of the tool. As usual with guns and other tools, it’s the person who I’m not entirely certain about.

Here’s how I see it:

Best Case Scenario: A few people get a little educated about a few gun laws and a few voters (and maybe even a couple of politicians) realize that many Americans in general and some gun owners in particular are very serious about today’s issues.

Worst Case Scenario: Some nut job or agent provocateur does something very very bad. It could even be some sort of honest mistake. Very very bad shift in public opinion in the wake of the tragedy is followed by very very bad legislation. You know that a lot of gun grabbers are wild with anticipation over exactly this sort of thing.

The actual result is likely to be somewhere in between, which means that the upside will be barely noticeable.

Sure, points will have been made. Those points will be remembered for about three minutes, unless it’s a point good for the anti-gun crowd, in which case the point will be remembered forever and ever as a basic truth about guns. Like the basic truth about how guns are twice as likely to kill a family member as an intruder in a home defense situation and the basic truth about how no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon for anything except killing people.

The media will decide how the story is told. For those that think the media is dead and a wonderful new age is here, look at who’s in the White House today and look at how he got there. It wasn’t Kos who put him there.

For what it’s worth, I also think it probably wouldn’t be constructive to carry swords, pitchforks, axes, spiked clubs, or baseball bats at these events.

UPDATE: Sebastian has a very good round-up of links on this issue and some good commentary. I weighed in in the comments section and don’t have time to rail on at length here, so go read.

Here’s one snippet:

As often happens in debates of important issues, arguing against one extreme position gives the impression that the arguer holds the other extreme position. That is not the case. If I don’t think it’s GREAT that people are doing this, it doesn’t mean I (or Sebastian, for that matter) think it’s TERRIBLE.

Over the years Murdoc’s been in countless debates like this. For the record, because those who disagree with my opinion on this seem to be insisting otherwise, Murdoc fully supports Open Carry.

I’ve not chimed in about the recent news coverage of folks in crowds at political events who are open carrying, in part because I’m not exactly sure what I think of the issue.

On the one hand, what these folks are doing is legal and I think it’s important that others realize that fact. I also like the idea that a point can be made and the message that gun owners think gun issues matter can be sent.

On the other hand, the message received by 90% of the population will be “these guys are whackos” and will probably do more harm than good to the cause of protecting the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that the message will be that because of the media is not really relevant.

Sighted at Phonix VFW Event (Scott Wong/The Arizona Republic)

And, don’t you know, the militias are gearing up again and everything. Again, this is the media at work, but don’t let hopes for fairness or expectations of accuracy cloud your thinking when it comes to the media.

Here’s the most recent story:

A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at Third and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault weapon) on a strap over his shoulder.

“Because I can do it,” he said when asked why he was armed. “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

Sure, you can. That’s not the same as sure, you should.

I guess I’m giving these folks the benefit of the doubt and taking them at face value. I don’t necessarily agree that what they’re doing is going to help gun owners, but I also don’t think that shutting them down (even if that were possible) is a good idea.

One thing I expect, though, is that this story is going to continue to grow legs. There will be more and more sightings and more and more news reports. Soon, if they haven’t already, activists in the anti-gun camp are going to start showing up with guns for their own purposes.

At some point, there’s going to be a situation of some sort or other.

I just think there’s so little to be gained and so much to be potentially lost here that open carrying at these sorts of things is just probably a bad idea.

I realize that not everyone, and maybe not even most people, will agree with Murdoc on this.

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee brings up a few good points:

I must say that I was impressed with how these open carry advocates conducted themselves. They coordinated their display with the Phoenix Police Department, who provided them with a liaison officer. They were also courteous to those around them, remaining calm and well-behaved (with the exception of the mysterious “other” rifle-carrying man that only one CNN employee seems to have seen)…

The armed protesters at events in Arizona and New Hampshire were never “at” Obama’s meetings. They were never inside of the security perimeter that the Secret Service establishes for Presidential appearances. They weren’t ever close.

The protester in New Hampshire who had a gun in a tactical drop-leg rig was on private property well away from the Obama appearance (I’ve heard estimates of ½ to ¾ mile away) and was never in direct line of sight of either the venue or the motorcade. He never remotely a threat to the President, nor did he intend to be.

Likewise, those open carry advocates at yesterday’s event in Arizona arranged for a police liaison the day before the event, and were constantly afforded security by the Phoenix Police Department and had at least one known Secret Service agent shadowing them to assure they were following the law. These citizens were never anywhere near the President, nor did they attempt to go anywhere near the Secret Service’s security perimeter that cordoned off the event and the building in which it was held.

Go read the whole thing.

Via Instapundit, who has more.

The Defensive Handgun Blog looks at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence claim that the Heller decision calls for gun control via a renewed militia system.

Uncle points out the post Annie, Drop Your Gun which includes this bit of wisdom:

I lost three friends in gun-related accidents in High School and since graduation. Two were accidental. One was suicide. I grew up in upper middle class suburbia where everyone lived gated existences. There was NO REASON for them to have handguns in the house. None. If gun control existed, I would have three friends alive. PERIOD.

Do I carry a gun in my house? Never. Do I believe in the right to bear arms? Yes. But I believe there should be stricter regulations. I believe that fear is the worst possible reason to carry a weapon and therefor will never understand why so many feel the need to “protect their families,” especially when housed in gated communities in middle-class suburbs, alarms activated.

What are you afraid of? [emphasis in original]

Look! A “yes but” moment!

It’s little tough to get past the quote-marked “protect their families” bit, to be honest. What’s that all about? She not only seems to dismiss the idea that people believe they’re protecting their families, but he she goes on to claim that it’s unnecessary.

Which is interesting because, only three paragraphs above the excerpt I posted she wrote this:

We live in one of the largest cities in the world. Where drive-bys occur blocks from us. Where break-ins happen regularly. Where our own things have been stolen, our cars broken into, our things swiped from our porch. Three years ago, a man carjacked my husband at gun-point, stole his car and left him on the side of the road. He had just left the set of his job for his lunch break. There were dozens of witnesses. Everyone watched in shock.

What are you afraid of? indeed.

So she’s more or less established that families either shouldn’t or can’t be protected, and then there’s this in the comments section:

I do think there is a legitimate need for firearms…for SOME people. For example, we used guns on the farm…but is there a need for us to have a gun in our home now? No. We dont have livestock to defend, we dont have wild animals roaming our suburban street. And as far as Im concerned..there is no other reason to have a gun.

Sounds like protecting familes = bad but protecting livestock = good.

And the statement “we dont have wild animals roaming our suburban street” is quite amazing. We’ve got the wildest of the wild animals roaming our suburban streets. Hell of a lot worse than coyotes.

Brian J. Phillips has it all figured out:

One consequence of right-wing paranoia is skyrocketing prices on guns and ammunition, as some shooters stockpile supplies in case of some sort of ban. Anecdotally, I was in a gun shop the other day and noticed the price on an SKS military rifle had almost tripled in about a year. Some gun shops are running out of ammunition. (Ammunition prices and supply are explained in part by the 4-fold increase in copper prices since 2004. But this does not explain the change in prices for firerams and non-copper ammo.)

Another consequence of right-wing paranoia is murder.

He says that right-wing fear of increased gun control is driving these guys over the edge and making them commit murder.

Von Brunn explicitly linked his domestic terrorism to a fear that someone was coming to get his guns.

I’d point out that Von Brunn explicitly linked his “domestic terrorism” to a lot of things. But this guy lays the blame for this and other crimes on literature distributed by the NRA.

I left this on his site:

Obama’s Change.gov and WhiteHouse.gov web sites stated that part of the Obama plan to address crime was to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and to make it permanent. That wasn’t “some strong statements about gun control in the 1990s,” that was part of his official policy statements during and after his election to the White House.

He’s said that he doesn’t have the votes to pass more gun control, not that he doesn’t want to enact more gun control. That’s a big difference, so don’t pretend that because he can’t means he wouldn’t if he could. AG Eric Holder, obviously, is all for drastically increased gun control.

As for “pro-gun-control advocates haven’t murdered anyone in the name of their cause,” I would point out that a lot of people have been murdered (many by killers with guns) because they couldn’t legally defend themselves with guns. That’s part of the equation, you know.

He holds the NRA partially responsible for murder because of their literature.

Let’s say someone reads his blog post, takes it to heart, and decides against buying a firearm because of it. And then gets murdered because he couldn’t defend himself. Will Brian J. Phillips be partly to blame for the crime because the victim was “inspired” to not arm himself?

I wouldn’t think so. Maybe Brian J. Phillips would disagree.

For your enjoyment here are some of the more amusing comments left on the Kalamazoo Gazette article about this past weekend’s Open Carry Picnic in Kalamazoo’s Bronson Park. Offered without comment.

These nut jobs that like to walk around wearing guns to compensate for their lack of abilities elsewhere are to pathetic to even mock. I’m sure you could find a nutty Ron Paul supporter or racist rapture waiting survivalist in the group if you looked a little deeper. Most “2nd amendment advocates” shouldn’t be aloud scissors much less the right to carry their gun around in public.

The 2nd Amendment refers to a “militia,” i.e. military.

There is no need for private citizens to own firearms of anykind. It simply should not be allowed.

Approved hunters can rent rifles from appropriate DNR offices.

I also forgot to mention. If you get a CCW license YOU HAVE TO CARRY IT CONCEALED. With a CCW license you can never carry a gun exposed other than for hunting.

This is just boys wanting to play modern day cowboys.

(more…)

Uncle:

Some people built houses near the range and are surprised that ranges are noisy (note: if sound suppressors weren’t so heavily regulated, this wouldn’t be a problem). So, they try to shut it down. They lose. They do the logical thing and vandalize and destroy property.

Message left by vandals for Creekside Firing Range near Atlanta

“U Will Loose”

What I find amusing is that if a bunch of us were to go and create fake/photoshopped images of vandalism and protesters, we’d make them look a lot more intelligent than they really are. It’s probably hard to effectively imitate this sort of thing.

Apparently the home of the range owner was spray-painted as well.

Background and many more photos at AR15.com.

This is astounding.

Yesterday, SB-1164 in Texas passed:

By a 20-11 vote, a divided Texas Senate gave final approval this morning to a bill that would allow college students with state handgun licenses to carry weapons in dorms and classrooms.

And get a load of the headline and lede at GunFreeKids.org:

Texas Senators Who Voted to Force Hidden and Loaded Guns Onto College Campuses Put Students’ Lives at Greater Risk of Gun Violence

(Austin, TX, May 20, 2009) – Today the Texas state senate passed dangerous legislation that would force the carrying of hidden and concealed guns at public universities and colleges.

Force.

You can’t make this stuff up. (via Uncle)

Southern Beale:

Gun nuts love to say that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I actually don’t see why that’s a problem. It would certainly make it a lot easier to determine who the criminals are. If someone is walking around with a gun, and they aren’t a policeman, then they’re a criminal. Lock ‘em up.

That’s crazytalk enough for a Tuesday, but she doesn’t stop there.

Here’s a comment and her response:

So you are saying that I should not have a right to defend myself.
gunnut | 05.05.09 – 11:08 am | #

…with a gun. Read the second part of the Second Amendment.

Guns make people stupid.
Southern Beale | Homepage | 05.05.09 – 11:09 am | #

I’m not exactly sure what she meant by the “second part of the Second Amendment.” I suspect that she meant the “first part” and hasn’t heard that the Supreme Court ruled on that talking point.

(And it would be bad form for Murdoc to point out that her supporting argument is stupid when she said it’s guns that make people stupid. So he won’t point it out.)

She should at least read other anti-gun outlets so she can get her misdirections and uninformed opinions in line with the rest of the crowd.

Murdoc’s own little comment left on the site:

Only let terrorists have nuclear weapons. It would certainly make it a lot easier to determine who the terrorists are. If you see someone launching a nuclear weapon, lock ‘em up.

It’s nice to see a bunch of the bunbloggers checking in.

Over at Say Uncle: More on the recent mass shootings

He’s got a number of important points. Here’s part of one:

The Brady Bunch wasted little time dancing in the blood of the dead. They were quick to point out that Alabama, with it’s low Brady Grade, was, naturally, a place where such a violent attack could occur. They never point these grades out when mass shooting occur in #1 ranked California, #9 Illinois, or NJ.

Well, did Germany’s lax gun control and culture of gun ownership contribute to the horror in Winnenden?

Uncle also notes that some claim that the gun blogs never talk about crimes committed with firearms. Which is, of course, false.

I will admit that I’m surprised that I haven’t received more flak for always asking “what kind of gun was it?” whenever there’s some major incident. Some have wondered if I’m so detached from reality that I don’t notice the human tragedy in such events and only care about model numbers. Of course that’s not true. But this site covers guns, gun news, and gun politics. I don’t know how much I can really contribute to the outpouring of sympathy and outrage over the incident.

I hope I don’t rub anyone the wrong way with my coverage and commentary on such things, but anyone who takes it badly isn’t likely to really be interested in my point of view anyway. Let’s just say Murdoc’s not losing a lot of sleep over it.

Anyway, go read Uncle’s post.

UPDATE: Sebastian has some thoughts, too.