Blood in the streets

You might think that the gun bigots would learn from experience, since in other ways they resemble thinking human beings. But there's ample evidence to the contrary. What sort of evidence? Well, there was a report released recently by a major scientific organization on gun control. The report conceded that there was absolutely no evidence that any gun control law they studied had any beneficial effect whatsoever. (They did not bother to analyze the evidence for detrimental effects). The conclusion of the report was the "more study is needed".

Another good example is the arguments raised by gun bigots against various aspects of concealed carry. The arguments are almost always centered around the idea that ordinary people carrying firearms will result in "blood in the streets". That's shorthard for the idea that whatever new area being opened up will turn into a parody of the old west, with people having shootouts at the drop of a hat and so-called "impulse killings" driving crime rates through the roof.

They make this argument, and every single time they are proven wrong. If you take data points from, for example, every single police chief or sheriff in a state both before and after shall-issue concealed-carry laws are put into effect, you'll almost invariably get warnings and concerns beforehand -- and then, in the followup, no one had any problems.

You would think these people would look into what happened in other states before answering that sort of question, to avoid looking stupid. But I guess not.

This piece is a extreme example of exactly that problem. Two bills in the Virginia legislature would have allowed localities to ban possession of firearms in public libraries (even by concealed-carry permit holders). This isn't something done in response to a problem. It's just an attempt to create a mini-zone where gun control is allowed. As public buildings, libraries are not allowed to prohibit concealed carry under Virginia law.

And in response to this defeat, we get a dire warning of blood in the streets in the form of satirical humor. Here's a representative excerpt:

BALLYHACK, Va. - The Librarians Protective Association today announced that it was sponsoring an amendment to the Virginia budget pending in the General Assembly for $750,000 to arm the state's public librarians.

"We believe that an armed librarian at the reference desk would tend to reduce or even eliminate annoying and repetitive requests for information," said Annie Duckworth, a spokesperson for the LPA. "A Glock, properly exhibited, tends to curtail superfluous inquiry."

"The weapon can be mounted to fire through the book return portal, thereby obviating the need to exhibit the weapon and unnecessarily concern other patrons. Besides, we'll also be able to get the drop on almost everyone."

If that seems insane to you, well, you're right. It's insane. If concealed carry in libraries was presenting a problem, it would already be happening. This is not a new problem. This is established law. Libraries have not been turned into shooting galleries.

But somehow, the gun bigots can't process that. They keep coming up with the same arguments, and those arguments keep losing.

I'm beginning to think that the only way a new gun control proposal can be taken seriously is ignorance. That's why the gun bigots are constantly bringing up new ideas. As soon as one of their arguments is tested against reality, it fails. And so we had the assault weapons ban, which was going to save us from criminals, drug dealers, and the "scary militia groups". Except those groups either weren't shooting people, or used different guns to shoot people, or didn't mind giving up their bayonet lug when shooting people. The law had no effect. It is now discredited.

So the gun bigots come up with a new one. (Their choice seems to be the .50 rifle this time). This idea will fail as soon as someone, somewhere, implements it (California already has a ban) and measures the results. It's self-discreditting. And yet, some people just don't get it.

In Virginia, it's libraries. In Utah, it's cars:

My car is my castle. Isn't yours?

And because I have my own rolling castle, I should have every right to defend it - with a .357 Magnum if I want, and with no concealed weapon permit to pack it. I mean, who wouldn't want to abscond with my vehicle, this 6-year-old Honda Accord with door dings, a monstrous 4-cylinder engine and purring automatic transmission? As wheeled castles go, it's not exactly the Palace at Versailles, I'll grant you. It's more like a listing A-frame, a fishing cabin, its paint peeling and with no indoor plumbing.

Who cares? It's my castle, and I'm in charge.

In my rolling castle, I often have a set of loyal subjects, also known as my children, along for the ride. If I had the right to pack heat without a permit, I could enlist these serfs in protecting our dominion. If a fellow driver cast me a menacing look at a stoplight, I could order one of the kids to reach into the glove compartment and whip out our "protection." Just to show 'em who's boss, you know. This would be our right. Our principle.

Oh, horror of horrors! To think that someone in Utah might be carrying a firearm in their car for personal defense without a permit! There will be blood in the streets!

Well, I've got news for you.

There's no blood in Vermont. There's no blood in Alaska. Both states have permitless concealed carry. Not just in vehicles. Everywhere. Go ahead. Pull up the crime rate in Vermont. Pull it up in Alaska. Search for newspaper articles describing illegal shootings by non-felons outside their homes.

There is no blood in the streets.