Study Finds Canadian Gun Laws Can’t Stop Majority Of Gun Deaths

H/T Bearing Arms.

The Canadian government sees their gun control laws are a failure.

Here in the United States, anti-gunners routinely use suicides by firearm in their numbers for “gun deaths” as a way to push for more gun control. Never anyone mind that unless someone is a convicted felon or adjudicated as “mentally defective,” they can still buy a firearm despite any gun control law you care to put on the books. No, none of that matters to them.

In their mind, the only potential solution to suicides by firearm is more gun control.

 

However, even in (at least)parts of Canada, most firearm-related fatalities are suicides.

Over a 15 year period, more than two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in Ontario were suicides that impacted mostly older men living in rural areas, according to a new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday.

Doctors from the Unity Health Toronto network of hospitals examined health administrative data held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences on firearm-related deaths and injuries in Ontario from 2002 to 2016.

They found that 67.6 per cent of deaths linked to guns in the province — a total of 1,842 — during that period were suicides, and mostly impacted older men living in rural areas.

The researchers also discovered that the majority of gun-related injuries in Ontario are due to self-harm, making up 68 per cent of those injuries and again impacting mostly men over 45, living in rural communities.

Huh. Sounds about like our numbers, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, Canada has all kinds of gun laws. For example, you’re required to have a license to buy any kind of a firearm. Getting one of those requires one to undergo a training course prior to obtaining said license. Honestly, it’s worse than buying a gun in Illinois or California.

And yet, two-thirds of all people killed with a firearm in Ontario are killed in suicides.

For the record, Ontario has a population of about 14.5 million. I mention that to put the total number of suicides in a little perspective. That’s less than twice the population of New York City.

Anyway, despite the myriad of gun laws on the books in Canada, these people still took their own life. It seems the Canadian healthcare system managed to fail them as well. So much for that idea, eh universal healthcare advocates?

This shouldn’t be particularly surprising, though. Suicide, despite what many anti-gunners claim, isn’t something you can pass a law and eliminate. Hell, on the world state, the United States is ranked 27th in suicide rate while literally every nation higher up the chart. In fact, it’s less than half of that of Lithuania and Russia, which are numbers one and two respectively.

Yet both nations have more restrictive gun laws than the United States, though Lithuania’s aren’t particularly awful as European nations go.

If gun laws had an appreciable impact on suicide, countries like 14th ranked Japan would have non-existent suicide rates. Yet, they do.

That’s because suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. This focus some anti-gunners have with suicide only goes so far as gun control, which mean’s it’s nothing more than a cynical attempt at a power grab.

Then again, what else is new?

Why MI Push To Disarm Voters Is Misguided

H/T Bearing Arms.

This has the potential to become a major court case.

Michigan isn’t someplace I thought we’d see at the forefront of an anti-gun push, but Governor Gretchen Whitmer and her cronies have apparently never met an authoritarian measure they didn’t like.

The most recent push is to bar firearms in polling places.

 

Now, there’s a lot of reasons why someone might want to carry a firearm on their person when they go vote.

However, while this push is going on, it’s important to remember that there are a lot of places where this has never been an issue.

Growing activity from armed far-right groups and President Trump’s calls for his supporters to watch polling places “very carefully” have raised concerns of possible disruptions or voter intimidation ahead of the Nov. 3 election. States will also have to prepare for the prospect of guns being brought into voting sites — legally.

So can voters bring guns into polling places? In most states, the answer is: It depends.

Only about a dozen states — including California, Arizona, Florida and Georgia — explicitly ban open and/or concealed carry in voting sites.

In much of the country, voters may bring firearms into polling places, as long as the buildings being used for voting don’t generally ban them — as many schools, government buildings and churches do. Those rules vary at the state and local level.

It should be noted, though, that in these many states, you know what’s largely absent in states where people can carry firearms into polling places?

Problems.

That’s right. All this wailing and gnashing of teeth over armed voters is Whitmer and company’s response to what a handful of idiots were planning with regard to the kidnapping plot.

Look, I’ve smacked those morons around plenty, so I’m not going to do it here.

However, armed voters don’t represent anything other than people exercising two rights at once. That’s it. They’re voting and exercising their Second Amendment rights. In a time when we’re seeing more and more political violence, if I didn’t live in Georgia, I’d probably be carrying to vote as well. Of course, my polling place is a school, so I’d still be barred, but my point remains.

We’re living in an uncertain time. Even without the pandemic, we’re seeing more and more people ready to resort to violence. They’ve burned entire neighborhoods in numerous cities. They’ve destroyed property and injured countless folks. There have even been murders.

Does anyone really believe there’s zero chance of that happening on election day?

In the end, people have carried while voting for years and years, and what we don’t see are problems resulting from that. There aren’t mass shootings at polling places–so far, anyway–and there aren’t cases of armed citizens trying to intimidate other voters. Anyone intimidated by a holstered weapon on the hip of someone who isn’t threatening you in any way or even necessarily acknowledging your existence needs to toughen the hell up.

Sure, Michigan is going to do what it’s going to do, but it helps to understand that what is being decried isn’t particularly new, nor is it particularly dangerous.

Americans Brace For Inevitable Post-Election Violence

H/T Bearing Arms.

I have a feeling that things will get ugly for a while after President Trump gets reelected.

In a little less than two weeks, we’ll be done voting. At least for president, anyway. Sure, there are going to be some run-offs here and there, but the lion’s share of the election will be over and we’ll have to deal with the aftermath.

Unfortunately, there’s ample reason to believe that aftermath won’t be particularly peaceful, either.

 

Across the nation, many are bracing for what may well be inevitable post-election violence.

More than one-third of the nation is expecting the election in two weeks to create “anarchy and chaos” resulting in potentially lethal violence.

Unprovoked, several of those quizzed about the election by the group conducting regular “barometer” readings of America’s readiness to return to normal after the COVID-19 crisis mentioned concerns about gun violence, attacks by batons, and fire bombings.

“We have not seen this alarming level of concern since we began surveying consumers at the beginning of April. People are preparing themselves for the worst possible post-election outcomes with the ongoing pandemic in the background adding to their anxiety,” said Ron Bonjean, a partner at ROKK Solutions, one of three firms conducting the “Back-to-Normal Barometer” Secrets regularly tracks.

“These results are chilling and indicate an America profoundly on-edge,” said Rich Thau, president of Engagious, who with Sports and Leisure Research Group and ROKK has conducted the survey for months.

It found that 37% are anxious over the possibility of chaos. And the survey follows other recent findings that 61% are worried about a second civil war, and some 58% are stockpiling necessities just in case.

Honestly, I think those 37 percent are pretty damn smart. Then again, I’m part of that percentage, so of course I do.

At this point, we need to brace ourselves for the reality that violence may well be the response to the election results. After all, while the polls appear to put Biden firmly in control of the election, this is what we saw four years ago and we all remember how that turned out.

Further, there are other metrics we’re seeing showing little actual support for Biden. In particular, the turnout for campaign events suggests widespread and vehement support for the president and little for his challenger. Anecdotally, I’ve heard from people all over the nation about how they’re not seeing yard signs for Biden but plenty of signs for Trump.

Of course, as a friend and state representative once reminded me, yard signs don’t vote.

As I see it, if Trump wins, there will be riots. I know this because we saw riots four years ago and people are even more pissed that Trump is able to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide now than they were then. So yeah, riots.

If Biden wins, though, I suspect we’ll still see riots. I don’t necessarily think the right will riot, but instead I see it like the riots that follow a sports team winning a championship. Some people will be so smug and self-righteous that they’ll take things too far and then you end up with a riot.

So yeah, I see riots as coming and as inevitable, and that’s before anyone tries to pass any legislation.

I don’t see it getting much better from there.

 

Law Professors Make Case for 2A Rights in Uncertain Times

H/T AmmoLand.

A case well made for the Second Amendment.

 

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Americans have made clear that they value their Second Amendment rights, especially during uncertain times. Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic and then widespread civil unrest, Americans have bought firearms in record numbers. Through September, the FBI had processed a record-setting 28,826,449 total National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks for 2020. With three months of the year still left, 2020 has seen 456,699 more checks than any previous year. In August, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated that roughly 5 million Americans purchased a firearm for the first time in 2020.

Now a trio of law professors from the George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law have released articles that highlight the importance of the right to armed self-defense during tumultuous periods and explain how the history of the Second Amendment makes clear that it was intended to preserve this right under the present conditions.

 

Professor and Executive Director of Scalia Law’s Liberty & Law Center David E. Bernstein wrote an article titled “The Right to Self-Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication.” As the name suggests, Bernstein Examines the critical role Second Amendment rights play when, as has been seen throughout the country, local authorities are unable or unwilling to uphold the law and maintain order.

Bernstein presents a direct challenge to those who have argued that modern policing has made the Second Amendment obsolete. Some of the many examples of this argument that Bernstein cites are laughable in light of what occurred this summer.

For instance, the professor points out that an amicus brief filed on behalf of ten major cities in the U.S. Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago contended, “In more urban areas that have the benefit of a concentrated and highly trained police force …, the need for individuals to arm themselves for self-defense is less compelling.”

Another example Bernstein uses is a passage from a book by NYU Law School Brennan Center for Justice President Michael Waldman. Waldman argued against respect for the individual right to keep and bear arms by claiming, “twenty-first-century America differs profoundly from the time of the Framers Today, we rely on professionalized police departments to protect us from crime and unrest.”

Bernstein counters, “the looting, rioting, and general mayhem on display in the Summer of 2020 in cities throughout the United States, often unimpeded by law enforcement, buttresses the argument that a proper right to armed self-defense must include provision for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves outside their homes.”

Following this thesis, Bernstein meticulously documents local officials’ abdication of their law enforcement responsibility in localities throughout the country. The well-cited tract should serve as an indispensable compilation of official inadequacy and neglect in the wake of 2020’s civil unrest.

In his conclusion, Bernstein explains that “Mainstream liberals, who had previously been strongly on the ‘rely exclusively on police and not on a personal firearm for protection’ bandwagon, seem unwilling or unable to defend the importance, competence, and efficacy of the police” and that therefore, “there does not seem to be much of a constituency left for the argument that the right to armed self-defense has been rendered anachronistic by the development of professional law enforcement.”

Professor Nelson Lund authored an item titled, “The Future of the Second Amendment in a Time of Lawless Violence.” In this article, the professor takes on what he views as some courts’ exceedingly narrow cost-benefit analysis when judging the constitutionality of a gun control measure. Lund contends, “A constitutionally proper understanding of the public interest should make courts especially skeptical of gun regulations.” In Lund’s view, preservation of the liberal order is the properly understood benefit of a well-armed populace and that the Second Amendment is an integral part of the U.S. founders’ design.

Elaborating on this point, the professor notes,

“The right to keep and bear arms, and to use them when appropriate, is a vital element of the liberal order that our Founders handed down to us. They understood that those who hold political power will always be tempted to reduce the freedom of those they rule, and that many of the ruled will be tempted to trade their liberty for promises of security. Those temptations are apt to be especially alluring when widespread criminal violence threatens both liberty and security. They may be even more alluring when such violence takes the form of sustained and repeated riots that reflect a serious breakdown of the social fabric.”

To bolster his argument, Lund draws upon the sources that were familiar to the founders, including the work of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and William Blackstone. Bringing these sources to bear on his thesis, Lund finds,

“Even when there is good reason to think that a regulation would cause a net reduction in deaths and injuries, such calculations are not a sufficient basis on which to create even a presumption of constitutionality. The principles of our regime, articulated in Locke and Blackstone and confirmed in the Second Amendment, have two related implications. First, I do not lose my right to the means of protecting myself merely because others are vulnerable to violent attacks, whether through their own choices or through bad luck. Beyond that, however, the rejection of Hobbesian absolutism in favor of political self-government depends for its ultimate success on citizens who possess the moral temper befitting a free people. Citizens who arm themselves are recognizing and insisting that their lives and safety are not a gift from the government, and that they claim responsibility for their own freedom and security”

In closing, Lund addresses the topic of civil unrest and how it relates to his argument. The professor states,

The single most foundational principle on which our liberal regime was founded is the inherent right of self-defense against violent assaults. The Second Amendment’s core purpose is to insulate that right from improper government interference. But protecting that right also serves a broader political purpose. An armed citizenry displays the spirit of courage and self-reliance on which genuine self-government depends. That spirit should be encouraged more than ever in times of civil unrest, and especially when governments have responded passively to mob violence.

Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote a piece titled, “Self Defense, an Unalienable Right in a Time of Peril: Protected and Preserved by the Second Amendment.” As with the Lund paper, Malcolm draws upon the philosophical influences of the founding fathers to explain that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right to armed self-defense. The professor then explains how this right should be understood given the reality of official inability or unwillingness to control violent crime.

Key to the understanding the Second Amendment, Malcolm notes, is understanding how our founding fathers’ English forebears understood the right to self-defense. The professor quotes Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” at length. Blackstone’s famous treatise explained

“the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defense, therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society.”

Malcolm points out that this same understanding of self-defense can be found in Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government.” In it, Locke explained,

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; his preference be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

Malcolm notes that the right to self-defense in scenarios where one cannot rely on official protection or adequate remedy following an attack, as outlined by both Blackstone and Locke, is part of what informed the founders’ in drafting the Second Amendment.

Bringing the topic to modern-day, Malcolm points to the inefficacy of protective orders. In explaining the inadequacy of official remedies to prevent immediate violence, the professor cites that a,

“study posted in the Journal of American Psychiatry and the Law found 18% of protection orders had been violated and 50% of those with a temporary restraining order reported unwanted contact in that time frame while 75% of women reported.”

Several other studies have shown a similar inadequacy of protective orders to prevent the type of violence contemplated by Blackstone and Locke.

Malcolm also examines the case law that makes clear an individual has no right to police protection from third party violence. Summarizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Malcolm explains that the Court found the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause “did not impose a special duty on the State to provide services for public protection against private actors.”

Rather, as the Court explained, “The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.” Given that an individual has no right state protection, such protection may not be used as justification to curtail the individual right to armed self-defense.

Professors Bernstein, Lund, and Malcolm’s scholarly contributions are worthwhile reading for all those interested in the history of the Second Amendment and how it relates to our current moment. NRA members and other gun rights supporters should read and share the important work of these respected scholars.

 

 

Jim Jordan Confirms Biden Laptop Discovery: ‘These Emails Are Real, They’re Authentic’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

It is time for Rep.Jim Jordan(R-OH)to make these emails public.

Despite efforts to undermine the credibility of a treasure trove of damning documents discovered on a laptop allegedly owned by Hunter Biden, mounting evidence points to the discovery as a genuine political bombshell.

Now, a member of Congress claims to have confirmed that emails found on the laptop are not fakes.

According to Breitbart, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio made the announcement on a Tuesday conference call to listening reporters.

“Our staff has had numerous conversations … which have independently confirmed for us that in fact these emails are real, they’re authentic,” Jordan said.

Jordan said he was “confident” that his facts are correct and the damning emails are accurate.

One round of released emails supposedly from Biden reveals that the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden attempted to cut deals with companies in China.

Along with payment and equity shares going to Hunter Biden, the documents reveal that a percentage of the proceeds would be held back for “the big guy.”

It’s unclear who “the big guy” is referring to, but Jordan thinks he has the answer.

“Our staff has had conversations that authenticate that the fact that these emails are real, and that as reported I believe by [Fox News correspondent] Mike Emanuel as well, that ‘the big guy’ is a reference [to] the former vice president,” Jordan told reporters.

The congressman also said it seemed as though Joe Biden is now “compromised to the Communists in China.”

This isn’t too far fetched; Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Biden several times, and refers to the politician as an “old friend.”

If the elder Biden were found to have financial interests in the international business deals of his son, it would obviously be in direct opposition to his claim that he was uninvolved in such schemes.

As evidence continues to grow hinting the laptop is a genuine discovery, the potential fallout for the Bidens grows ever larger.

On Wednesday, Jordan took to Twitter to lay out five “facts” about the controversial laptop.

With less than two weeks before Election Day, it’s likely that information released from the laptop will have an impact on voters’ perception of Joe Biden.

While it’s unclear how much of an impact the emails and other documents will have, it’s undeniable that the American people deserve to know who they will be voting for in November.

Dem Rep Refuses to Support Court-Packing: ‘I’m a Traditionalist’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

How long before the DemocRat party takes Rep.Debbie Dingell(Delusional-MI) to the proverbial woodshed.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D., Mich.) on Wednesday refused to support Senate Democrats’ renewed push to pack the Supreme Court.

“I’m a traditionalist,” Dingell said after a long pause and some prodding from Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto to give an answer.

“That’s a very fundamental change in our third branch of government,” she added. “Both parties need to understand what the implications would be.”

Senate Democrats have implied or stated openness to adding seats to the Supreme Court after Republicans moved ahead with confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before Election Day. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said last week his decision on court packing hinges on how Senate Republicans “handle” Barrett’s confirmation. And two potential members of his administration also approved of the controversial tactic in comments on Sunday.

Dingell added that she wasn’t “happy” with the speed of Barrett’s confirmation in the Senate.

Many Senate Democrats have also tried to bolster their court-packing effort by redefining the term, claiming Republicans have already been engaged in the practice for years. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) argued last week that Republicans engaged in court packing by filling vacancies on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

Did Kentucky AG Really Present “Everything” To Breonna Taylor Grand Jury?

H/T Bearing Arms.

What information did the Kentucky Attorney General with hold?

The short answer, for me anyway, is “no.” Daniel Cameron, in his first public statement after a grand jury in Kentucky handed down an indictment on three charges of wanton endangerment for a Louisville police officer who fired blindly during the raid on Breonna Taylor’s apartment, said that his office presented “everything” to the jurors before they made their decision.

As it turns out, Cameron not only never brought up the possibility of charges against the officers who shot and killed Taylor when they returned fire after Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker fired a single round as officers came through the door, believing they were home invaders; according to one grand juror when jurors asked about the possibility of charges for Taylor’s death, they were told the case wasn’t strong enough to pursue.

 

“The grand jury didn’t agree that certain actions were justified, nor did it decide the indictment should be the only charges in the Breonna Taylor case,” the statement said.

A second grand juror who has sought to speak is considering their next steps after the judges, according to the statement.

An attorney representing Taylor’s family had harsh words for Cameron after the grand juror’s statement was released.

“@kyoag you lied to Tamika Palmer (Taylor’s mother). You lied to this country. And you chose a political agenda over the law,” Sam Aguiar tweeted Tuesday. “Get this case to someone willing to do the job.”

I happen to agree with Cameron that the possibility of successfully prosecuting officers for Taylor’s death is remote, largely because Kenneth Walker has already stated that he was the first one to fire. At that point, officers had the right to stop what they believed to be an attack on them, just as Walker had the right to stop what he perceived to be a home invasion.

I’ve said all along that the death of Breonna Taylor is a tragedy, but I don’t think that it was a crime. The problem is that Daniel Cameron’s original statement after the grand jury indictment sure made it sound like his office had presented the evidence involving all of the officers who were involved in the Taylor shooting, not just Brett Hankison, who is accused of firing multiple shots into an adjacent apartment as police returned fire after Taylor’s single shot.

By the time Cameron’s office presented their case to the grand jury, there had been months of public calls for the officers involved in Taylor’s death to be charged with murder. Presenting the evidence (or lack thereof) on murder or manslaughter charges would have resulted in one of two things; indictment on those charges by a grand jury or those same jurors clearing officers of criminal wrongdoing.

Either option would be better than the one that Cameron is facing now; grand jurors who are speaking out because they disagreed with the process, Taylor’s family excoriating you in the press, and questions about why you weren’t forthcoming with the charges that were presented to the grand jury in the first place.

Even if prosecutors had to try a weak case against the Louisville police officers, that would have been a better outcome than the situation we have now, where Cameron’s critics will maintain that the criminal justice system once again failed to find justice and protected police instead, which is why we need to scrap the whole system and build something grand and glorious on its ashes.

The odds are, though, that the grand jury would ultimately have reached the same conclusion as Cameron; the case against the officers who killed Breonna Taylor isn’t prosecutable because they could all reasonably claim that they were acting in defense of their lives. Since one of them was actually shot by Kenneth Walker before they returned fire, they had a solid defense.

Yes, people would have been angry over the decision. There may even have been protests and riots in Louisville as a result. Still, it would have been the decision of a grand jury, not Cameron’s alone, and that would have made a big difference in the long term. Cameron almost certainly acted within his authority as Attorney General in only presenting wanton endangerment charges against Brett Hankinson, but it was still a mistake to not let grand jurors come to their own conclusions about the culpability of the other officers who returned fire and killed Breonna Taylor during their raid on her home.

Georgia Arrest Shows Why Gun Control Fails

H/T Bearing Arms.

There is not one gun control law will never stop criminals from getting a gun.

Gun control is often the fallacy of believing that additional laws will somehow stop criminal from breaking other laws. The belief that if we somehow pass a couple more rules, suddenly bad guys will start walking the straight and narrow is absolutely deluded.

The truth is, we have more than enough gun laws on the books. Especially since it’s clear that the ones we have aren’t really stopping criminals from getting guns.

 

Here’s an example from Macon, Georgia.

A total of six people were arrested Monday afternoon after a wanted man was found with stolen guns at a Macon apartment complex.

According to a news release, it happened at the Majestic Gardens Apartments on Rocky Creek Road around 12:30 p.m.

It says investigators received a tip that 18-year-old Rashid Ivey, who was wanted on aggravated assault warrants, was at an apartment in the complex. They went to the apartment and found Ivey inside the apartment along with five other people.

The release says a search warrant was executed at the apartment and eight guns were found – four had been reported stolen in Bibb County and Florida.

The five other people in the apartment included 23-year-old Sefon Dennard, 17-year-old Phaizon Pollard and three juveniles.

They were all arrested.

Now, police found eight guns. Four had been reported stolen. There’s a pretty high likelihood that the other four were stolen but the serial numbers weren’t reported. Of the six people arrested, only one was old enough to lawfully purchase a handgun.

So, how many laws were allegedly violated here?

Now, with that in mind, just how many gun laws could be concocted to address this? Zero, that’s how many.

There were at least four stolen guns in the apartment. That tells us that they weren’t lawfully purchasing guns. They were going outside the law, for crying out loud.

And these weren’t master criminals with deep underworld contacts to shady arms dealers from exotic locations. They’re a handful of street punks who managed to pick up some firearms from someone they knew who either stole them or bought them from the thief. Yeah, it’s that easy for criminals to get guns illegally.

What you’re not going to see is a law that can actually prevent this kind of thing, either. It’s not physically possible.

Yet anti-gunners will continue to push for laws that restrict the rights of the law-abiding because of the already illegal acts of people who obtained their guns illegally. It’s absolutely insane.

These six people stand accused of possessing guns they couldn’t legally own, but there are legions more out there right now with illicit firearms stolen from law-abiding citizens.

Here’s a though for the lawmakers. Instead of going after gun owners, why don’t you focus on cracking down on people who sell stolen good and engage in other actually illegal activities. You know, just to shake stuff up a bit?

I know, it sounds crazy, but it’s something that might actually work for a change. You should give it a try.

 
 
 

Post-it Notes

H/T MNopedia

A history of the Post-it- Notes.

ntroduced to the public in 1980, the Post-it Note has become one of the Minnesota-based 3M Company’s most successful products.

In 1968, Spencer Silver, a scientist at 3M’s headquarters in Maplewood, was working to create a strong adhesive. Accidentally, he developed a new material that was light enough to easily remove and peel apart. Silver felt that he had invented something unique and useful but struggled to find what that use could be. He spent five years meeting with others at 3M, trying to find someone who could recognize the unique capabilities of his invention and create a new product with it.

At this time, Art Fry, another 3M employee, was frustrated when his scrap-paper bookmarks fell out of the hymnal he used while singing in his church choir. As he was thinking of ways to make a better bookmark, Silver’s “not-so-sticky” adhesive came to mind as a way to make pieces of paper slightly sticky without adhering permanently.

Fry realized that the sticky papers would work better as notes, and the product idea was solidified. Henry Courtney and Roger Merrill—two other members of the research team—found a way to make the adhesive attach to one piece of paper. Their changes allowed the note to stick to, and be removed from, other paper and objects. The product was originally called Press n’ Peel.

After mixed success in market tests in several major cities, 3M almost decided to stop producing the Post-it Note. In a final effort to test the product’s potential, marketers decided to give it directly to consumers in Boise, Idaho. They wanted to see if giving consumers free samples would increase sales. This marketing test became known as the Boise Blitz and was wildly successful. About 90 percent of people who tried the product said they would buy it.

In 1980, the Post-it Note was made available to customers in U.S. stores. It became hugely popular. The Post-it Note team was awarded the internal 3M Golden Step Award in 1981 and 1982 for their development of a profitable product that generated significant new sales. In 1981, they were also awarded 3M’s Outstanding New Product Award.

Since their debut in 1980, Post-it Notes have become an office staple and entered pop culture. In 2000, they were available in twenty-seven sizes, eighteen colors, and twenty fragrances, and could be used in a variety of dispensers. In 1991, Minnesota Twins fans wrote Post-it notes of encouragement that contributed to a large mural in support of the team in the World Series. Post-its have also been used to create works of art, and have been featured in museums like the Museum of Modern Art in New York City (MoMA). MoMA’s 2004 exhibit “Humble Masterpieces” displayed an example of the product from the museum’s permanent collection.

Turning Point

In 1973, Art Fry has an idea to use Spencer Silver’s unique adhesive to create a sticky scrap paper.

Chronology

1968

Spencer Silver develops an adhesive that is removable and re-attachable but struggles to find an immediate use for it.

1973

Art Fry, another 3M employee, thinks of a use for the adhesive after frustration with his scrap-paper bookmarks falling out of his hymnal while singing in church choir.

1977

3M starts preliminary market tests of Post-its in several major cities.

1978

3M conducts a large scale marketing test of Post-its in Boise, Idaho, known now as the Boise Blitz.

1980

Post-its are introduced on the national consumer market.

1981

3M presents the Post-it Note design and the team behind it with the Golden Step Award and the Outstanding New Product Award.

2000

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registers a trademark for Post-its.

Why Destroying Guns Is Bad For Cities

H/T Bearing Arms.

I could never understand the mentality of destroying perfectly good firearms.

Lately, there’s been something of a push for communities to destroy confiscated firearms. The argument is that by selling those firearms to dealers, you’re simply funneling guns right back into criminal hands. No community leader wants to do that, so they’ve taken to destroying the firearms instead.

However, there’s a cost involved in doing that.

Now, it’s unclear who foots the cost of destroying firearms. If the cities themselves do, they have to pay out money. If not, then the scrap companies do, which means cities aren’t getting nearly as much money.

Yet there’s a much better way.

The Aiken Department of Public Safety is looking to offload dozens of surplus guns to the highest bidder.

Up for grabs are Smith & Wessons, Berettas, Rugers, Colts, a Glock and more, ranging from good to poor condition, documents posted to the city’s website show.

A request for proposals was published earlier this month. Bids are due in November. Picking and choosing from the lot is not allowed.

The batch of guns for sale stems from confiscations and adjudicated cases, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh said Monday. The city, he added, has for years conducted these sort of bulk sales; the revenue helps fund city operations, of which Public Safety is a significant part.

That’s right, by selling these firearms–assuming there’s no lawful owner to be found–can actually help fund city operations. While I’m not a fan of civil asset forfeiture, this is a different animal entirely. These are guns that are taken from people who can’t lawfully have a gun. They’re then sold back to the community, raising money to continue fighting crime.

Further, these guns can then be sold to people who might not otherwise be able to afford a firearm.

“But then criminals will get them all over again.”

Yeah, it seems that happens in some places. However, let’s also be clear that if the crooks aren’t getting these guns, they’re getting different guns. There’s no reason to believe criminals will be disarmed if these firearms are destroyed.

See, these guns aren’t just handed out on street corners. They’re sold to licensed dealers who then conduct NICS background checks for each sale. While a criminal may straw buy a gun somehow or eventually steal the firearm from a lawful buyer, they’re not just walking back into the store and getting their gun handed back to them.

Again, though, if they want a gun, they’re going to get a gun.

Meanwhile, because of the relatively low cost for these firearms, dealers can offer these guns at pretty low prices. This means a new gun buyer, particular someone of limited financial means, can actually afford a quality firearm rather than the low-cost junk they’re usually stuck with.

More people armed helps police as well, which means the benefits for law enforcement becomes something of a double-whammy. Not only do they get the money from selling the weapons, but more armed citizens means more trouble for criminals. That’s a win-win if ever I saw one.