Divemedic

The Boston Globe recently wrote an anti-gun screed, disguised as news. I wanted to take a minute to examine the article and its claims.

It uses Australia as an example:

Some feared resistance. Howard, at one point, wore a bulletproof vest during a speech to a group of gun rights supporters. But the buyback went forward peacefully, and it claimed an estimated one-fifth of Australia’s gun stock — one of the largest gun confiscations in modern history.

One fifth? So the confiscation was ineffective more than 80% of the time? What now?

Since passage of the law, the country hasn’t seen a single mass shooting — defined as a killing of five or more people, not including the gunman.

In order to make that claim work, they have to do a bit of gymnastics. First, they exclude all killings not committed with a gun. Next, they exclude all killings where less than 5 people, exclusive of the killer himself, were killed. Then, they exclude all cases where no one was arrested (usually because the killer himself was killed.)

A study by researchers at Australian National University and Wilfrid Laurier University found a 59 percent drop in the firearm homicide rate and a 65 percent decline in the firearm suicide rate in the decade after the law was introduced. And while critics have noted the firearm death rate was already declining before passage of the legislation, the data show it dropped twice as fast afterward.

Another lie. The murder rate actually went UP after the confiscation, and then went down, and back up again, with the homicide rate in Australia only being down 5% overall. So where do the anti gun folks get their “fact” about a 50% reduction? From 1915 to 1996, about 30% of homicides in Australia were committed by people wielding firearms. From 1996 onwards, that has fallen to about 15%. So what we have seen is a 50% reduction in percentage of homicides that were committed by FIREARMS, but overall rate of all homicides has remained unchanged.

Then the paper goes on to suggest that it is time for a mandatory buyback confiscation, where the police collect the firearms in US circulation in exchange for $500 or so.

Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the enterprise. An operation on par with the Australian buyback — claiming one-fifth of American guns — would mean tens of thousands of police officers collecting some 60 million guns. It is, on some level, simply unimaginable.

That presumes that there are only 310 million firearms in private hands, according to the article. I think this number if FAR, FAR too low. There have been almost 275 million NICS checks in the past 20 years alone. Are we to believe that the number of firearms sold in the US from 1900 to 1998 is only 35 million, when Americans are busy buying 27 million firearms and 10-12 BILLION rounds of ammunition a year. That is more ammunition than  was used by the entire US military during each year of World War 2, when the average was just over 10 billion rounds a year. Some bloggers think that the true number of firearms in private hands is over 600 million.

The second presumption is that Americans will give up these guns without a single fight. While it is true that many will, others will simply ignore such an order, and will soon be selling firearms for many times the $500 fee paid by the government for turning in their guns. Even the threat of a new assault weapons ban several years ago saw people paying $900 for stripped AR-15 lower. Do you think that all of those people would pay that kind of money, simply to turn them in a couple of months later for a fraction of that amount in return?

When it doesn’t work, what then? How many cops will want to go door to door in order to take them? How many cops and citizens will die as a result? Even if only 1 in 10,000 gun owners are willing to shoot it out, that means there could potentially be 60,000 active shootouts during this door kicking. Are you willing to see hundreds of thousands of dead cops and citizens, all for little gain?

So, to answer the overall question of The Boston Globe’s article:

Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?

I don’t think so. Such a law would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Americans possess FAR more than the 310 million firearms that the left wants you to think are out there. Should such a law come to pass anyway, it would look like the second American Civil War.

Last July, Florida had one CCW permit holder for every 10.1 adults, which was, at the time, an all time high.
It’s time to take a look at this again. As of October 31, 2017, there were 15,022,247 adults residing in the state of Florida. Those 15 million adults hold 1,812,542 concealed weapons permits. That is one permit for every 8.2 adults, another all time high.
The MSM still claims that gun ownership rates are declining.

A Janesville man accused of selling hundreds of firearms, at least one of which was later seized from a felon, was indicted this week in federal court on charges of selling firearms without a license.
Gary Schroeder, 65, sold firearms at gun shows in Janesville, Delavan, Fort Atkinson and other area cities from at least April 2014 to at least January 2017, recording sales exceeding $200,000, according to court documents.

The UK has made it a crime for a person to use force in defense of themselves. This is the end result: the criminals are running the country.

A 17-year-old girl was sexually assaulted three times in the span of an hour as she walked home from a night out in London, police said. 

The leftist groups claiming to be against fascism have been committing violent acts for over a year. One sect of this movement has declared today, November 4th, 2017 to be the day that the revolution begins. Their stated goal is the overthrow of the legitimately elected President of the US and the disenfranchisement of half of the nation.

Popular press is claiming that this is all a hoax, because the group making the threat is “Refuse Fascism” and the main group that has been protesting is “Antifa.”

Call it what you want- I have been watching the violence for over a year. These nutbags on the left are getting out of hand. It is long past time for the police to rein in these domestic terrorists.

We are frequently told that we should let the justice system work, and since we each are entitled to due process, things will work out for the best. What about times when the process itself IS the punishment?

A woman in Lakeland, Florida was recently arrested for driving under the influence. The thing is, she was riding a horse. What will happen to her over the next few months is the process that we are told to allow to take its course:

Her drivers license will be immediately suspended upon her arrest, and the police will physically confiscate her license. She will be allowed to drive for 10 days, using her DUI citation as a license. After that, she will have to get a lawyer to appeal the suspension. This will mean that, since she cannot drive to work, she will either have to get a ride to work, or will lose her job.
Her auto insurance will immediately be canceled.
Since she no longer has car insurance, her tags will be cancelled.
She will have to bond out. This will mean paying a bondsman $500 or more for a bail bond.
30 days after her arrest, she will be arraigned, and will likely plead not guilty.
60 days after her arrest, her lawyer will receive all of the information on her charges: police reports, witness statements, etc.) from the state of Florida.  The case is reset for a hearing to take place in another 30-60 days.
Day 90-120, calendar call is when you let the judge know how the case will resolve.  It may be set for trial, a pretrial motion to suppress or motion in limine, or for a plea agreement.
Day 120-180, Preparing for a trial and/or motion hearings takes substantially more time for the lawyer to prepare.  A motion to suppress the stop, motion in limine or other motion will be held before the trial.  A DUI jury trial will be in front of 6 jurors and possibly 2 alternates.  A negotiated plea agreement (or if an agreement cannot be reached with the state) or a plea straight up to the judge will be held.

After all of this, the charges will likely be unsuccessful. You see, the state of Florida defines DUI as operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. A vehicle is defined as a device that can be used or be drawn to transport persons (or property) on a highway. A horse is not a device. Here is what a Florida attorney has to say on the matter.

In this case, the woman has a lengthy criminal history. That, however does not mean that she is not entitled to justice. She will likely have to pay thousands in legal fees, which she likely cannot afford. She will have to pay a sizable bond amount. Months from her life will be lost.

All because she was arrested by police officers who were misapplying the law. Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.

Orlando Police said an attempted robber approached a Loomis armored van driver from behind as he was servicing the gas station’s ATM and sprayed him in the face with pepper spray. Despite feeling the effects of the pepper spray, the driver was able to draw his weapon and fire a shot, hitting the armed robber in the chest. The suspect is in critical but stable condition and will be charged with robbery with a weapon once he’s released from the hospital.

Spending the day taking some courses. Two of them: The first being Basic Life Support, which is a CPR class for healthcare providers. I am also taking Advanced Cardiac Life Support, which is (as the name implies) the more advanced version. I offer this video as a primer on how to perform CPR:

Even though it isn’t as technically accurate as the film for the course, it is certainly not as dry.

A Palm Beach cop is caught burglarizing a home. Evidence found in his possession indicates that this was not his first burglary. Florida has a castle law. What happens when you shoot a burglar who is armed with at least one handgun, but turns out to be a cop? 

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (emphasis added)