Thursday, January 26, 2006

Poe Gun Myth Number 6 Licensing Guns

Licensing of guns has proven to be a boondogle in many locales especially NYC. The process can take many months and has a very low aproval rate unless one's last name is Trump. There are plenty of gun crimes in NYC yet the number of crimes involving licensed guns is minimal. Criminals do not apply for gun permits and attend safety classes. Thus the procedures only apply to the law abiding who need the guns to protect themselves from the urban predator. Blacks are more likely to be crime victims then whites so there is a racial element as well.

There are plenty of other examples of unsafe activities we do not license. There are plenty of deaths in the USA attributable to sex. Pehaps we should require a saftey
course and licensing of sex. This is an insane idea but when one adds up victims and the cost of veneral disease this starts to make sense. However the reason we as a society do not do this is that this would restrict a fundamental Liberty. The notion of going to a singles bar and seeing two potential partners exchange sex licenses is comedic. However in many countries prostitutes are licensed and regularly tested, for disease not vocational knowledge.

There are several cases of religious cults causing death. The more famous are the Branch Davidians and Heavens Gate. We also have a rash of Muslim terror in the USA .
Should we license religion and regulate its expression. Of course not as this also would restrict liberty. There are plenty of examples of far left types being prone to terrorism . Should Ducky have to report to his local police station as a menace to society ? In a sane country Communists like the Duck would be required to report to the local authorities. However, the notion of reasonable scrutiny should place the Duck under watch as a safety hazzard. Similarly, people who communicate with terrorists or advocate Jihad should also be placed under watch.

The argument might turn on ( psycho leftist speech impediment ) "W-ww--ell Beakerkin
those are human activities and not an object. Any object used incorrectly can cause death or bodily harm. People get electrocuted from small apliances but we do not license toasters. People die by the score in biking, boating and cooking accidents but we do not license those activities.

Licensing itself is not a terrible idea if the process does not turn out to be thinly disguised elitism as in NYC or absurd as the locales who only grant a license
to one gun that one took a safety class with. Poe correctly points out there are some people who passed their road tests in a Dodge Dart. Following this absurd logic
one should only be allowed to drive the same Dodge Dart for the next fourty years.

Beamish in 08, Ducky to good use at the Chinese resturant and 167 back in the coffin.

On Deck the Last Poe Gun Myth Reasonable laws do not restrict the rights of Gun owners. Then on Friday to be followed by Poe's conclusions.

Personal note I have decided against the creation of seperate posts for a larger site. The reason I blog is that I am having fun and I enjoy the small community of posters that are like family. I prefer to do book reviews with breaks into current events and an occasional comedy bit. We have not done a comedy post in quite a while and with Mr Beamish inactive we may have to pick up the slack. I have a few drafts Joooodoooo beats Voodoo and a couple of potential classics on the back burner.


samwich said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
beakerkin said...


Guns are a part of life in many parts of America. Not even insane Dr Deanmento tried it in Vermont.
In NY State there is little support outside NYC.

In a National emergency I would be handed a gun as a DHS officer. Oh wait I can't leave the office because I haven't got SEEENSSSSITIVITYYYYY training. Yes
unless one takes an absurd course
one is restricted to office work , leftist lawyers at work.

In a genuine National emergency my coworkers are sent to aid in the recovery and assist FEMA. Confiscation of guns is not even on the agenda.

samwich said...

Beaker you did not go look up the laws and rulings. Your post is only your opinion. What is DHS?
Department of Homeland Security?
You will do what your boss tells you when he does or not have a job.


samwich said...

Duck, open interst in T-bills has shot up. SOmebody is shorting them en mass in anticipation of lower prices.


samwich said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Always On Watch said...

The following is a recent editorial in the WaPo. You might want to make use of it--or not. Anyway, I'm providing it here, although I'm not sure it pertains to this particular blog article:

Boy Shoots Girl
Wednesday, January 25, 2006; A18

AT A DAY-CARE center in Germantown, an 8-year-old boy shot a 7-year-old girl with a handgun yesterday, hitting her in the arm but not killing her. The boy, whose father is a convicted felon with a long rap sheet, had bragged that he had access to guns. But why is it that after years of similar incidents and anguish and debate, the country has yet to enact laws to prevent such tragedies?

In the late 1990s, then-Gov. Parris N. Glendening's task force on gun violence in Maryland pushed for tougher rules mandating safety devices on handguns. In the following years, the state adopted a number of laws -- stronger than most in the nation -- including a requirement that handguns sold in Maryland be equipped with a childproof locking device, and another forbidding people from leaving loaded firearms within reach of unsupervised children. But other regulations -- potentially more effective ones in preventing accidents such as yesterday's -- went nowhere. Most notable was a proposal that guns be "personalized" by incorporating technology restricting a gun's use to its owner, for instance by using fingerprint recognition. In a study published in 2003, researchers led by Jon S. Vernick of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health examined 117 unintentional homicide deaths in Maryland from 1991 to 1998, four-fifths of them involving handguns. The conclusion: 37 percent of the deaths could have been prevented by a "personalized" gun.

A third or more U.S. households keep a gun at home, often a loaded one, in the belief that it will protect them from intruders who would do them harm. These guns may furnish some people with a sense of personal security, and at times they do safeguard the lives of innocent homeowners. But the pervasive presence of guns in homes comes with a cost; a substantial body of research suggests that households with guns are more likely to be the scenes of suicides and homicides than those without.

More gun safety laws will prevent many incidents, but they won't protect everyone from lawbreakers such as the father of the Germantown boy. Without stricter federal laws on access to handguns, more of these tragedies will occur.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...


This may come as a shock to some inbred moron too stupid to keep from giving 10% of his income to a cult founded by a racist con artist, but a road is not a pipeline.

beakerkin said...


There is no plan in DHS to confiscate guns in an emergency. The agency does deal with disaster relief . However the agency did not disarm people in NO.

Believe it or not I can never be sent into the field as I have not taken sensitivity training.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Samwich lives in a bunker made out of old paint buckets waiting for the feddle gubmint to come take his Daisy Red Rider BB gun from his cold, dead hands.

beakerkin said...

Sam was a sniper in Nam . He is many things but not a couch verteran. We need him to take out as many of the Communo Ducks as possible.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I thought everyone on the internet was a sniper in Nam.

samwich said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MissingLink said...

The worst mass murder in Australian history (by Bryant Nartin in 1996 - 36 killed) was commited with a stolen weapon (semi automatic carbine).
The murderer was a retarded (pardon me - intellectually challenged) gentleman who visited his elderly neighbours, killed them and took their weapon to Port Arthur for further fun.

As far as I remember we always had licencing of short firearms in Australia.
Most crimes here are commited with short firearms (semi-auto pistols and revolvers) even though it is virtually impossible to own them.

Warren said...

Licensing and registration of guns are always the first step toward confiscation.

You might want to take a look at This and see who is behind the UN effort to eliminate guns from all civilians.

drummaster2001 said...

the UN is worthless.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself."

--Thomas Paine (1737-1809), conclusion, _Dissertation on First Principles of Government,_1795


Robert Bayn said...

there is much truth in that most crimes are commited by illegal guns, but that don't mean guns should not be registered. Should there be qualifications for having sex? Sure, like no ugly people breeding, i think is a good rule. Religious qualifications? Sure, if you think god is coming to take you to mars if you kill yourself, you really should not be out in public, another good rule. As far as guns go, i have no problem with people owning guns, for hunting and protection, i do however have a problem with people thinking they need to own semi-automatic weapons, that should be reserved for the military, not for a average citizen. I believe registering guns serves a important role in soceity.

In my final thought, as a person who does not own a gun and has no intrest in owning one.

"he who lives by sword, shall die by the sword"

It's a choice to be made for each individual, i stand by the right to bare arms, but there are some restirctions that must be in place to protect soceity from it's own violent self.

Storm said...

"I believe registering guns serves a important role in soceity."

And that role is exactly what?

I will agree to some of this only when liberal decide to punish illegal people for carrying guns and /or using them to commit crimes. Until that day, we need guns to not only protect ourselves from our government but for self preservation.

Storm said...

"No one bothered to look up page 340 to State Department Document 7277 or Public Law 87-297."

I did and you are wrong.

The act merely formed ACDA

which was actually later consolidated under Clinton into the State Department.

But after reviewing the website it's mission and actions have nothing do with DHS. The website talks about WMDS. The only reference to small arms deals with bulk transfers.

I may feel this department is a waste of tax payer money as the same tasks can be handled by someone else but of course we want our President to have the advice of a group like this.

There is no mention anywhere in 87-297 about taking an individuals weapons. The site does talk about arms control without adequately defining arms control. Remember this was enacted 1961 everyone understood what an arm was back then. It is only by visiting the department site that one can see their mission is wmd's.

Storm said...

I fianlly located State Department 7277.

This is a position paper from the State Department and not an enacted law.

However, the concepts are troubling but it was written in 1961.

We have witnessed no significant progress towards these goals in fact the section about the UN getting stronger is laughable.

Storm said...

Public Law 101-216 all this did was authorize money for the aforementioned department.

This is starting to look light a whole lot of chicken little.

216. H.R.1495 : To amend the Arms Control and Disarmament Act to authorize appropriations for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] (introduced 3/20/1989) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs; House Armed Services; Senate Foreign Relations
House Reports: 101-72 Part 1, 101-72 Part 2
Latest Major Action: 12/11/1989 Became Public Law No: 101-216.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...



A little know how and simple shopping trips to Radio Shack, Home Depot, Sam's Club, and Walgreens can turn any garage in America into a fucking bomb factory and Samwich is worried someone's gonna yank his slingshot.

samwich said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Samwich, you dull tool. Anybody's car can take out a city block with a full tank of gas, a few select household chemicals, some creative wiring, and about 2 hours of work.

Any real attempt to physically disarm Americans would end in hellfire.

If your combat experience and historical knowledge exceeded wacking off to Rambo movies, you'd know that.