At least it’s a hint

Joseph Farah on World Net Daily touches on something I have been wanting to address in depth for quite a while.  He doesn’t go into the depth I want to but he does give people a hint:

Banning guns in workplace

I marvel at the ability of people who don’t like America – at least the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers – to open up new fronts in their war on what makes our country uniquely free.

I had this thought again when I heard former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich say it’s time to ban guns in the workplace.

 “Listen to the evening news and you’re likely to hear a grisly story about a disaffected worker or estranged spouse or dissatisfied client arriving at a workplace and going ballistic,” said the diminutive Reich. “It’s all too common.”

Anytime someone says, “It’s all too common” I go on full alert.  What it means is they don’t have the numbers to back them up and they are appealing to some sort of subjective standard–their personal standard.

Reich cites as evidence for this crisis, a pseudo-scientific study conducted by Dana Loomis of the University of North Carolina and published in the American Journal of Public Health. Let me dissect, for those who care, the extremely questionable methodology of this study, which purports to show conclusively that homicide is five times more likely at a workplace where guns are permitted than in those where guns are banned.

The study compared 87 cases where employees were killed at work sites in North Carolina between 1994 and 1998 and 177 comparable work sites where there were no murders.

Now think for a moment about the kinds of places – the kinds of businesses that ban firearms. Do you think of them as high-risk businesses? Do you think of them as convenience stores open late at night in urban areas? Or do you think of them as big corporations based in suburban settings where crime is low?

So, can we assume that the places where guns are permitted are already much higher-risk settings than where they are banned? Of course.

And Loomis makes no distinction about the kind of homicides that take place in these working environments. In other words, in his study, a high-risk, late-night convenience store held up by an armed intruder is no different than an office setting in which an armed worker draws a gun and shoots a co-worker.

Drawing on this flimsy, shoddy and politically driven research, people like Reich would presumably ban firearms in all businesses – banks, all-night 7-Elevens, maybe even gun stores, though my assumption is that they would eventually be banned altogether by the people promoting such ideas.

I have said this before and I will say it again: The only people safe in these so-called “gun-free zones,” whether they are schools or businesses or churches, are armed criminals.

Criminals, by definition, do not care about laws. Only the law-abiding care about them. So, making more laws or rules and regulations that ban firearms in places only encourages violent criminals to do what they do – kill, rob, rape, maim.

There is nothing incorrect about what he says but if I had the time I would take it much further.  In almost all cases these sorts of “studies” fail to distinguish between justified and unjustified homicide.  Did Reich engage in this sort of bias as well?  What about other weapons?  Is there a high rate of injuries from people using other type of weapons in the same business that have high injury rates from people using firearms?  If so then there is at least one other factor in common with the high injury rate other than firearms.  And what about the percentage of attacks that were stopped before the police arrived in places that allowed firearms versus those that didn’t?  Shouldn’t that be true measure?  And I would ask Reich if he believe that policemen responding to an ‘event’ should leave their firearms behind.  After all, if the possession of a firearm by an employee is dangerous why isn’t it dangerous for the policeman to bring a firearm into the situation as well?

Hits on PNNL info site

As you might guess I watch at least some of my website log files pretty closely.  Yesterday and last night I started getting some hits referred from a new source.  It was Voice of the Taciturn.  He only mentioned my situation in passing:

National labs have a great way of dealing with those they perceive to be misfits and malcontents or just plain undesirable. Generally speaking, it involves getting the third degree, slapped up-side the head with policies you don’t get to read yourself so that you might try to fight back, and unemployment.

Not a big deal but interesting take on things in the greater context of his posting. 

However, there may be a big deal if things go as planned.  I believe there will be some significant news to report next week.  I’ve been spending a lot of time on this and I expect there will be some interest in the latest developments.  Barb says I should have sent a copy of one of the letters I sent yesterday to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.  “Why?” I asked.  “To make them sweat.”, she replied.  Barb isn’t one to hold back when something irritates her.  I prefer to calmly sit back, perhaps go on vacation and watch as the realization of reality washes over my adversaries.  Maybe next week…

It all sounds so reasonable

Wendy Cukier, President Coalition for Gun Control, and moonbat extraordinaire sent out a news release yesterday:

international standards for marking and tracing, for import and export and for the regulation of firearms is essential to preventing the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets and the efforts over the last 8 years at the United Nations to combat the illegal trade have been important.

By all means, shouldn’t we combat illegal trade and stop legal guns from getting into illegal markets?  It’s just common sense, right?  Why are so many people opposed to common sense gun laws?  The only people opposed must be red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals and criminals.  How could it be any other way?

That depends.  What’s your definition of an “illegal market”?  The store in the state prison?  Okay, I won’t argue that one today.  But what about those people prohibited from weapon ownership by the Weapons Control Act of 1938?  That law, passed in March of 1938, made it illegal for certain “undesirable” people to own weapons.  The state would provide for their protection, if they needed it.  In November of that same year there was a “spontaneous” riots against those same “undesirables” who had been disarmed.  It was called Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass.”  The riot lasted for two days as the fire and police brigades stood by.  The morning after the riot was over 30,000 arrests were made.  The arrests were of the “undesirables” who were the targets of the riot and not the rioters.  The government was implementing it’s first attempt at a solution to “the problem of the Jews”.  By the fall of 1941 they were implementing the Final Solution to the Jewish question.  Any weapons delivered to Jewish people and other “undesirables” was a crime by that German law of 1938.  What about the shipments of arms into that market?  Would Cukier have supported that law?

One of the argument the moonbats make is that arming people just prolongs the conflict and makes a return to peace more difficult.  I’m sure that is true.  The 10 million dead from the Final Solution are very peaceful now.  That conflict (the extermination of millions) would have taken much longer had the victims been able to defend themselves better.  Wouldn’t that have been terrible?

There were no 20th centery genocides without there first being a gun control law to remove the weapons from the target of the genocide.  Estimates vary but somewhere between 60 and 200 million civilians (men, women, and children, not just soldiers!) were murdered in the 20th century by government sponsored programs of extermination–all of them were victims of gun control.  How many millions will there be in the 21st century if we don’t learn the lesson from the 20th century?

What Cukier (Kooker?  How appropriate is that?) apparently doesn’t realize is that ownership of weapons is a right even more essential than freedom of speech or any other natural right.  Without the means to enforce your rights the others mean nothing.  The government can infringe upon them at will with virtually no recourse.  You cannot have a secure free state without the right to keep and bear arms.  This entire concept has been expressed succinctly as, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  This right shall not be infringed!  So, as Lyle in the comments section of this post, says, “… there’s one legitimate gun law in America. It makes it illegal to write gun laws.”  I think Lyle, while correct, is a bit narrow in his scope.  I would expand that to international scope.  Laws restricting personal weapons in any country are as revolting and without moral authority as laws authorizing slavery or genocide–which is what those weapons laws enable.

Now do you believe me?

Michelle Malkin gives a good overview of the situation in New Orleans with links to pictures and video.  There is massive flooding with both airports underwater, the mayor estimates 80% of the city is underwater–some of it 20 feet deep, at least one major bridge was destroyed, etc, etc. 

Steve Sabuldowsky of says:

Unless the two block breach in Bucktown is fixed, New Orleans which is already 80% flooded according to Mayor Nagin will destroy the City of New Orleans.  In my view, that includes the CBD and French Quarter.

New Orleans might not be able to survive the total inundation of water that is rising so quickly and causing so much damage.  With Slidell, St. Bernard and other cities and Parishes so completely devastated it will take more than a Marshall Plan to restore Louisiana to its glory.  It will take a miracle for the city of the Saints.

One of the commenter’s to a previous post of mine asked, “Do you really think that it’s possible that the entire city will be completely gone after this hurricane?”  Yes, it’s possible.  It almost for certain will not be completely gone this time, but it is possible it will happen next time.  Next time could be next month, next year, or 10 years from now.  It won’t wait 50 years, the technology just doesn’t exist and almost for certain won’t exist in time to save this city.  This time it will just be 20% (a number I pulled out of the air, or should I say water?) of the net worth of the city will be destroyed.  Someday, in the not too distant future, New Orleans will be a water and silt filled archaeological site.

Serious consideration should be given to only rebuilding enough of New Orleans to use the port temporarily.  Spend the money saved on building a new port where the Mississippi natural outlet is (something like 100+ miles to the west).  Move the people in the path of the new waterway out of there.  Then gradually over a course of days, weeks, months, whatever, allow the river to change it’s course.  Then tell people in the firmest terms available that if they build below sea level they are asking for Darwin Awards.  If they persist then let them collect their awards.

Update: I’m not the only one talking about giving up on New Orleans.

Update2: Novel application of a shotgun:

People used axes, and in at least one case a shotgun, to blast holes in roofs so they could escape their attics. Many who had not yet been rescued could be heard screaming for help, police said.

But is this allowed under the “sporting purposes” criteria of GCA 68?

Following the moving van

Actually it was a small U-Haul truck.  They used the “shuttle” because the big moving van couldn’t make it into the confines of where Ry used to live.  They called at 9:00 this morning to gain access to Ry’s old home.  I had the key as Ry now lives in the Seattle area working for Microsoft. 

On Saturday I helped Ry prepare for the move by taking my Astrovan over and hauling things to the dump.  Ry’s main objective was to get out of town before Barb could see all the stuff I set aside to bring home, then find and kill him.  But since she and Xenia were at yard sales all morning I figured Ry was safe.  And besides, a lot of that stuff is going to friends and relatives of mine that I’m certain will be pleased to get it.  Ry, his kids, and I worked all day Saturday to get things ready for the move.  It was a small place but there was a lot of stuff to do.  I left before it was quite all done.  Then later Ry stopped by pick up a few rounds of linked .50 BMG ammo and to say good-bye before his drive back to the Seattle area.

Yesterday Xenia and I went over to do some cleaning.  More cleaning needs to be done now that the stuff is moved out and we’ll get it done before the end of the month so Ry doesn’t have to pay another months rent on the place.

The movers arrived, called me for access and I was over there in 15 minutes.  It would have been only 10 but one of the dogs “marked” one of my shoes I was going to put on.  I pointed out the stuff to be moved and the room to stay out of because it contained my garbage can, vacuum cleaner, and a few cleaning supplies.  There wasn’t much there and it was all packed and the small truck was rolling into town to the moving van by about 11:45.  I followed the truck into town from Ry’s place.  A sadness washed over me as I watched the truck drive away with the last of Ry’s belongings.  At Mountain View Road I turned south and they turned north.  I went on to UltiMAK to dump off the stuff Ry was giving to them and they headed towards the other side of town and the moving van that would deliver Ry’s belongs to him–340 miles away.  I’m chatting on-line with him right now as I write this but I’ll miss the talks until the early morning light in my living room and the impromptu trips to the range with my chemistry set to try out a new Boomershoot mix.

Heavy sigh… closure.

So much for gun control

Ahhh…. It’s nice to see editorial writers whacking the anti-freedom liberals with a clue by four–even if it is in Canada instead of the U.S.:

When we first read the headline in last Thursday’s Sun – “Feds taking aim at gun violence” – we thought that there must have been some mistake.

Gun violence? What gun violence? We have a very expensive national gun registry that was put into place to ensure that every firearm in Canada can be tracked. We have cumbersome regulations in place that make it more difficult for Canadians to buy guns. We have armies of bureaucrats shuffling paper to and fro to make sure that everything related to guns in this country is all very above-board and law-abiding.

So there can’t possibly be any gun violence in Canada!

Back in late 1994, when then-justice minister Allan Rock first unveiled the gun-control program, he declared, “This tough new gun-control program will improve public safety and also send a strong message that the criminal misuse of guns will not be tolerated.”

Eleven years later, the Liberals are suddenly worried about gun crime because Toronto has been blitzed by gun violence. In a more sane country, Toronto would realize that the gun registry has been exposed as an expensive waste of money and would punish the Liberals for lying to them by voting them out. And the Grits would shut down their useless registry and put the money into actual police officers fighting crime.

As we said, these lessons are all going to go unlearned.

True.  The lessons will go unlearned.  But at least whacking them alongside the head a few times and giving them a special mention for When Prophecy Fails provides some satisfaction.

Update: American Realpolitik comments on this same editorial about the succession talk in western Canada inspired in part by the oppressive anti-gun laws imposed on them by the east.

Another shot at New Orleans

I commented on this sort of thing last September.  New Orleans had a miss then when Ivan came to town.  But it appears Ivan was a poor shot and minor caliber compared to Katrina–scheduled to hit tomorrow morning:

Hundreds of thousands of New Orleans residents fled inland on Sunday as Hurricane Katrina strengthened into one of the fiercest U.S. storms ever seen and barrelled towards the low-lying Gulf Coast city.

Katrina had a central pressure — a measure of a storm’s intensity — of 902 millibars, which would make it one of the four strongest storms on record. The Labour Day hurricane of 1935 that hit the Florida Keys, killing some 600 people, was the strongest with a minimum central pressure of 892 millibars on landfall.

They are evacuating the city.  It’s quite possible this will be the last evacuation.  The city is below sea level and it is only going to get worse as time goes on.  As I said last year:

My belief is that long term the people and businesses of New Orleans should close up and move out.  Barring some extraordinary technological breakthroughs in earth moving (I’m talking raising an entire city from deep down under the water soaked earth) and/or lowering the sea this battle cannot be won.  It’s better to surrender gracefully than to let the enemy annihilate you.  Spend the billions on salvage and rebuilding in another location, but surrender the current New Orleans to it’s muddy grave.

This could be the end of New Orleans.  Interesting times we live in.

Update: I’ve been reading some of the articles about Katrina and New Orleans.  They are incredibly sobering. 

Quote of the day–Jeff Cooper

A family member recently returned from Bolivia informs us that Bolivian gun laws may be the best in the world. There are none, and Bolivia gets by with a serious law against murder. Funny that no one in Britain or America has thought of that so far!

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 4, No. 9
August 1996

Who is the idiot here?

Does this guy Kane think we are idiots?  Rhetorical question alert–Or is he an idiot?  From the Washington Post:

“I’m committed to not violating the Second Amendment or infringing upon the gun rights of law-abiding citizens,” Kaine, the lieutenant governor, said to a handful of supporters and local reporters who were on hand to watch him shoot. “I’m committed to protecting that constitutional right to hunt and fish. . . . I value the traditions that Virginians value.”

Who, in their right mind, believes that while guaranteeing our rights to free speech, freedom of religion, due process, a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, etc. etc. the writers of the Bill of Rights were guaranteeing the people the right to “hunt and fish” with the Second Amendment?  (I think it was Rolf that pointed out that particular argument to me.)  As if they were anticipating a similar absurd claim the founding fathers wrote, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” as part of that guaranteed right.  As someone else once said, “It ain’t about duck hunting.”  If you still don’t get it, here is a clue.

Highly trained Islamic snipers on their way to the USA

Considering the source–probably not (according to Jihad Watch).  But it makes for interesting reading:

Los Angeles, Alta California – August 23, 2005 – (ACN) The USA mainstream media is “filtering” the news coming out of Iraq. It is not reporting on certain items deemed by the Pentagon to be detrimental to the morale of US troops or their families back home. Conspicuously absent are any reports on “Juba”, a sniper who has been terrorizing US soldiers in Baghdad for months. Juba is the name given by US forces to a superbly trained insurgent sniper who has already killed at least 19 GI’s including four US Marine snipers in one day.

As if our mainstream media would ever hold back any demoralizing news coming out of Iraq.

No US soldier has ever seen Juba. They only hear one distinctive shot from a Tabuk sniper rifle (An Iraqi sniper rifle based on the Soviet Kalashnikov but fitted with a long barrel and a muzzle brake. It uses the 7.62mm Kalashnikov cartridge) and the next thing they see is another GI slumping down dead. The hit is usually to the head but Juba also aims at gaps in the GI’s body armor. He has been known to hit his mark from 300 yards which is the length of three football fields. Juba takes only one shot and then disappears.

If I knew a sniper was after me I can’t think of a single center-fire rifle cartridge I would rather he used.  Accuracy and power are both pathetic with this round.

US troops who scramble to find Juba soon after he has struck find only his trademark that consists of a single 7.62mm Kalashnikov cartridge casing with a handwritten note. The note, in Arabic, says, “What has been taken in blood cannot be regained except by blood”. The note is signed, “The Baghdad Sniper”.

Juba is now a mythic hero to the Iraqi resistance. Word on the streets of Baghdad, from those who know Juba, is that his rifle is running out of space to add more “notches” that signify US occupation soldiers he has killed. Juba is now training an “elite” insurgent sniper squad that will target personnel coming in and out from Baghdad’s Green Zone.

He’s running out of room for notches?  I thought he had only killed 19 GI’s.  What does he cut his notches with?  An out of control chain saw?

A particular worrisome development for USA based warmongers is a CIA intelligence report that says that a superbly trained Islamic sniper squad is on its way to the USA. According to the report, the Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon (Muslim Brotherhood)is preparing to send a highly trained sniper squad to the USA that will target, at first, the lower and middle level leadership of the Islamophobic organizations that cater to the Zionists. This, we presume, includes the lackeys of the Zionists on radio and television. A few weeks ago, these puppets of Israel added insult to injury when they went on a vile tirade in support of the “toilet flushers” of the Holy Koran at Guantanamo. Many of these radio talk jockeys are not Jews but they act as mouthpieces for their employers who are. One of these virulent pundits for the Zionists said over the airwaves, “US soldiers at Guantanamo should have used the pages of the Koran to wipe their asses!”

And how did they come across a CIA intelligence report?  Yeah, right.  And all the major media outlets are owned or managed by Jews?  If that were so then I would expect the major theme MSM would be much greater support for war in Iraq and against Muslims instead of weeks of haranguing of GI’s for minor offenses in the prison where Muslims are held.

If a “superbly trained Islamic sniper squad” does show up it might have the benefit of increasing the number of private citizen carrying firearms for protection.  And if they put a decent bounty on their scalps firearms instructors will see marked increase in their class sizes.  Would we lose some people?  Almost for certain the answer is yes, but their kill ratio would be much better with suicide bombers at the loss of unskilled button pushers instead of “superbly trained” snipers.

Airport security editorial in the Seattle PI

This editorial in the Seattle PI is surprisingly good.  I would have expected something in the PI to be more of the nature of “Give the government more money and power so it can protect us better.”  It’s not that way at all.  In fact he points out a change in passenger attitudes is a major deterrent to future hijackings:

A repetition of 9/11-style attacks became less likely, not because of increased airport security, but because of a change in passengers’ responses to airline hijackings.

And he correctly points out how we ended up with 100% loss of our 4th Amendment when we travel on commercial airlines:

How did we get to this abysmal state of affairs? Because even in times of crises — in fact, especially in times of crises — politics plagues government security efforts. Congress and the bureaucracy have to show the nervous public that they are doing something, even if those efforts make little sense. Sixty-five percent of the funds spent on domestic homeland security goes toward aviation security alone, leaving many fewer resources for measures at ports, borders and on mass transit.

The public should demand that the TSA be abolished and airport security be reprivatized. Perhaps it would be a first step toward ending the paranoia that has resulted in excessive emphasis on airport security to the exclusion of everything else.

I only partially agree with his conclusions.  Before we reprivatized airport security we should research the alternatives.

Quote of the day–Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

…researchers concluded that the total 1992 cost of firearm violence was $112 billion when taking into consideration direct medical costs, lost productivity, and lost quality of life. This study also reported that each of the estimated 4.91 billion bullets sold in 1992 represented $23 in costs due to firearm violence, including $0.60 in medical and emergency services, $7.20 in lost productivity, and $15.10 in pain, suffering, and lost quality of life.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
From: (as of 11/12/98)
[They neglect to report on the benefits in lives saved, property protected, improved quality of life, and lack of tyrants due to those same 4.91 billion bullets.–Joe]

No surprise here

From World Net Daily:

TEL AVIV – Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and members of various Palestinian terror groups this week decided at a meeting “resistance” against Israel would continue and would be coordinated at the national level until the Jewish state evacuates “all territories,” WND has learned.

Earlier this week, it was reported Qurei held a private conference in Damascus with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. According to media reports, the parties reached an agreement under which the PA would not attempt to disarm the terror groups in spite of recent U.S. and Israeli calls for the groups to be dismantled after the Gaza evacuation.

But security sources close to the meeting told WND agreements reached at the conference went one step further – it was concluded the Palestinians would continue to use “resistance” against Israel until the Jewish state leaves “all occupied territories” – code for the destruction of Israel. The resistance, the sources said, is to be coordinated between the Palestinian groups and based on the foundations of Palestinian unity.

Afterward, the Battalions held a press conference in which a spokesman stressed his group’s determination to “do whatever it took” to liberate the “rest of our land,” including kidnapping Israelis and committing “resistance attacks.”

How many times do we need to learn this lesson?  Their extremist culture must be destroyed.  They give us no alternatives but our own destruction.

Update: That didn’t take long:

Driving home fears Palestinian terror groups will use land gained by Israel’s Gaza evacuation to launch rockets deeper inside the Jewish state, two Qassams today were fired at western Negev towns as Israeli troops prepared the Gaza Strip for handover in the next few weeks.

The “reason” I was terminated

Today I received my security file from the Department of Energy.  Enclosed was the first specific allegation of wrongdoing on my part.  They claimed I used the company computer for hosting my personal websites.  This allegation is completely false and I explained this to HR on May 26th in response to their vague questions about “large quantities of personal information” on the company computers.  As I then suspected, they didn’t believe me.  They could have verified my story with any number of my co-workers, the customer, the IT department (who would be aware of any traffic of that nature on the network), by looking up the IP addresses associated with those websites, or a call to my hosting provider.  They apparently did none of those things. I know for certain they didn’t talk to my co-workers and my hosting provider.  I suspect they did not talk to the customer–for reasons I can’t go into here.  This explains why they claimed I was dishonest.  They didn’t believe me and didn’t bother to check it out.

Why did they not bother to check out my story?  I can only think of the following reasons:

  • They didn’t want to know the truth–they needed an excuse to fire me for being “a gun nut”.
  • They were/are incompetent.

Am I missing something?

Interesting twist on the Nigerian scam

I’ve been getting hit with the typical Nigerian scam since about 1990–before most people had email.  Back then it was via FAX.  Today a new (to me) twist showed up in my email:

Al salaam,

My name is Haja mashed from Brunei I am a 23 years old and a british citizen who was taken to Brunei by my father 10 years ago. He deceived me that I was going there on vacation and later married me out to a wealthy Prince in Brunei who is 30 years older than me. I was thus forced into marriage and when I objected I was beaten and raped by this Prince.

I was locked up in a house for six months after which I submitted and decided to accept my faith, knowing that was the only way out. After I got my freedom back I have been allowed by my husband to have access to his account and businesses. With the help of a loyal aide I have been able to divert $4.500.000.00 (four million five hundred thousand dollars)as bonds into a private finance house without his knowledge.

Right now I have mapped out a plan of escape out of Brunei,thou I have tried escaping several times and its been fruitless. first of all I have been able to move the fund out of Brunei. This is where I need your assistance,to help me secure the fund from the finance house before I get out of Brunei if I am lucky enough. If you know you are capable of handling such a huge amount of money respond to me and I will compensate you by giving you $ (one million dollars) of the total fund.

Note also that you must keep this transaction secret as my life is at stake if my husband or any of his relatives hear of this transaction they will stone me to death or hang me. Please reply me here :

Yours faithfully,

Haja mashed

I’m not the first to have gotten the email or something very similar.  Here are some other reports:

It’s interesting to me it took this “technology” this long to morph into something more compelling–a plea for help from a young woman as well as the “promise” of a large sum of money.  But perhaps it was just that the other version was so successful there was no need to make significant changes.