So basically anything she disapproves of ought to be banned? Jesus. Who died and made her Mussolini?
Sebastian
October 20, 2010
Comment to Sorry, It’s Like a Bad Accident on the Turnpike.
Referring to Brady Campaign Board member Joan Peterson.
[The answers are “Yes” and “My leading hypothesis is one of the voices in her head.”—Joe]
It’s a happy day for the Windows Phone 7 team.
I should go celebrate or something but my chemistry set is frowned upon in Redmond.
I’ll probably get some iPhones and Androids to dispose of in Idaho after the carriers start selling in the U.S.
There has been some very good postings about “need” recently. Perhaps a good comeback for the Marxist with the mindset of “to everyone according to their needs” can be expressed a little more succulently.
In this country the people don’t have to justify their needs to the government. The government has to justify their needs to the people.
The only “evidence” that “screening works” comes from their claim that, in 2008, 1.5 percent of those having a Brady background check were denied from purchasing a gun. What the authors likely are aware of, though they do not tell the readers, is that virtually all these cases represent so-called “false-positives”: In 2006 and 2007 (the latest data years available), a tiny fraction — just 2 percent of those 1.5 percent — involved possible unlawful possession; just 0.2 percent of the 1.5 percent were viewed as prosecutable — 174 cases in 2006 and 122 in 2007. At least a third of the remaining cases didn’t result in convictions. These are the types of errors that an academic journal shouldn’t let in, but if it does, they should fix it. But it is my understanding that the journal has refused to publish a clarification of these numbers.
…
Eventually even the subscribers to the New England Journal of Medicine will learn about these facts. Just look at the changes in the climate debate — not even the most prestigious places can get away with biased research for too long.
John R. Lott Jr.
October 18, 2010
Medical Journal Bias on Guns
[Via Phil.
As I have said before people can appear to be normal functional members of society yet have severe mental defects. Just as people at the Brady Campaign can’t seem to distinguish between a hypothesis and a conclusion some of the “researchers” published in the New England Journal of Medicine have the same problem or are deliberately publishing bad papers. In either case they deserve to have their credentials pulled.—Joe]
This just doesn’t make sense to me. But I guess that is to be expected when you are dealing with journalists and anti-gun people:
Wendy Cukier teaches at a business school, so she understands economic imperatives – and the importance of innovation and prosperity. But for the associate dean of Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management, what matters most is preserving core Canadian values around safety, equity and respect for human rights.
This is so full of fail it is mindboggling.
The right to defend oneself is the most basic human right in existence yet she works to restrict it at every opportunity. This endangers and imbalances things. It doesn’t preserve safety and equity.
She understands economic imperatives? Yeah, right. Read the rest of the article. She is all about liberal causes.
An expert in emerging technologies, Prof. Cukier has spent two decades championing workplace diversity and gun control. The unifying themes of her work are innovation and change processes, says the co-author of 2002’s Innovation Nation: Canadian Leadership From Java to Jurassic Park. After spending her early career with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Prof. Cukier became a consultant to organizations such as the Palo Alto, California–based Institute for the Future.
It seems to me it is quite a stretch to connect “emerging technologies” with “championing workplace diversity and gun control”. I wonder if that was Cukier or the writer that came up with that.
Also note:
The Transformational Canadians program celebrates 25 living citizens who have made a difference by immeasurably improving the lives of others. Readers were invited to nominate Canadians who fit this description. Over several weeks, a panel of six judges will select 25 Transformational Canadians from among the nominees.
Nominations remain open until November 26. Submit yours today.
I think some balance to the anti-rights representative needs to made. Know any pro-freedom Canadians that might qualify?
Alan blasphemies by questioning the word of Jeff Cooper. Sebastian follows up with similar thoughts.
The NRA put some thought into this topic many, many years ago and came up with three fundamental rules instead of Coopers four:
Notice the rules are all expressed as things you must do.
The Cooper rules are a mixture of things that must and must not be done. This is not good. If you were told to not imagine pink elephants what is the first thing that enters your mind? Yeah, images of pink elephants.
The most frequent questions people have above rules are:
The answer is the gun is “in use” when you put it in the holster on your hip or in the nightstand. Hence, the gun may be loaded while you are carrying it.
I hate to be divisive but I’ve long been of the belief that the NRA rules are much better than the Cooper set. It is because of this I have used them as the basis for the Boomershoot rules for many years.
I hear this one a lot– The word “fact” being used interchangeably with “wild assertion” or “opinion” etc. It’s become quite common. I would add it to my “Left Speak” dictionary except that it’s being used this way by people who should know better. Maybe it’s one of the rare Left Speak redefinitions, or retardations, that have actually succeeded in that it’s been widely adopted.
“I disagree with the fact that…” is saying you disagree with something while acknowledging it as fact, which is simply another way of saying you’re crazy.
This might be the entry; Fact: Wild assertion or lie. Example: “I disagree with your facts.”
No matter how the entry is worded, it doesn’t work, mostly because the “facts” the communist is disagreeing with are often facts in the original meaning of the word. Maybe I should let it lie. The leftist is saying he’s insane, so that works out OK so long as the rest of us know the definition of “fact”.
The problem, as usual in Left Speak, is that it becomes impossible to impart knowledge from one generation or era to another. Many young people today, and some not so young, upon reading that this or that is a fact, will take it to mean that it is an opinion. The example I like to use is; “Upon finishing the meal, my family and I had much gay intercourse over the dinner table.” In the 19th century, that would be universally taken to mean we all engaged in cheerful conversation. Today it would be taken quite differently. When the language breaks down, there is no history. That’s why I try to avoid using “regulated” when I mean “restricted”, for example. They’re not interchangeable, any more than facts are with wishes or opinions.
Again, the grades reflect the ability of a CCW law to maintain public safety. Seven states (Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin) have decided the safest way to protect citizens is to not allow carrying concealed weapons at all. The other 43 states have implemented laws that vary in their ability to protect public safety. The seven states which do not permit any carrying of concealed weapons received “A” grades. While a state-licensing system, with all the proper safeguards, could receive an “A” rating, no state permitting system presently meets those requirements. But a few state licensing systems like Iowa, New Jersey and Minnesota, receive relatively high marks because they give local law enforcement officials discretion in issuing a license and require both safety training and an adequate background check.
At the other extreme, Vermont allows anyone to carry without any criminal background check or any type of safety training. Major pro-gun organizations, including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, point to Vermont as the ideal system that they would like to see replicated in the other 49 states.
Commonsense, and the growing number of intentional and unintentional shootings involving licensees, dictate that more guns on the street put everyone at risk.
Handgun Control, Inc.
December 18, 1997
Concealed Carry, Concealed Risk Year-End Report on U.S. Concealed Weapons Laws
Emphasis in the original.
[Commonsense would dictate that they have evidence to support their assertions. But no matter how often and how long these people attempt to prove by vigorous assertion that “more guns on the street put everyone at risk” they don’t make any progress. We now have more Constitutional (Vermont) carry states, more reciprocity, and more shall issue states than we did in 1997. And the facts are that there is no evidence of increased crime. The Brady Campaign apparently agrees with this data as they say on their own website (September 2008):
The National Research Council carried out its own review and analysis of peer-reviewed literature and concluded that there is “no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.
If there is no credible evidence right to carry laws increase violent crime then it should be “commonsense” there is no justification for restricting the carrying of self-defense tools in public. Right?
Perhaps the most telling of the facts is that the Brady Campaign (forming Handgun Control, Inc.) no longer issues reports on concealed weapons laws. I guess they realize that battle has been lost and it was just commonsense to drop the silly grading since it was unrelated to public safety.
Perhaps someone should tell, Joan, Peterson, Brady Campaign board member, the flesh has putrefied on that horse.—Joe]
If I had finished up the other things I was working on this weekend I would have written a post on how many times Joan Peterson uses “common sense” as the sole basis for her assertions of the righteousness of gun control.
Linoge does the equivalent (or better) than I would have done with Peterson’s use of “everybody knows”. Reading this excellent post reminded me of this quote by Robert Heinlein.
Yes. I have been extremely lax in my blog posting. I have been spending a lot of time working on the Boomershoot entry website. I have made a lot of progress and expected to finish up this weekend but I had some unexpected problems come up which put it out at least another week.
I’m really pleased with the changes. Most will be transparent to the users but the most visible changes will be:
Having lived for many decades in deeply liberal enclaves and having had many long-term friendly and working relationships with progressive types, I puzzled about the mental diff myself.
What I came up with is that your basic libertarian conservative is an optimist who doesn’t doubt for a second that, left to our own devices, things slowly but surely tend to get better. Your social conservative feels much the same *provided* we are on guard against moral trespass–you can’t get on the right track if you’re living on the wrong track.
Your progressive, otoh, is a pessimist who firmly believes that, left to our own devices, we will surely go astray in mass through greed, ignorance, prejudice and other low motivations. Hence, we need parental-type authority over us. Love of material things, particularly in categories like guns and cars, stands as proof of intent to drag all of society into your own mental hell.
If you point out the march of progress over recent centuries to them, to the extent they reply at all (as opposed to just blowing you off as some idiot), it is to state that that’s all delusion, a bubble that will burst leaving us in worse shape than if we had not pursued the folly of econo-technical progress at the expense of getting our heads right. Almost anything you say to them not from the choir book is mere confirmation that you are hopelessly delusional.
Curiously, most people who come right out and say they are socialists, you can have a debate with. They just think you’re the enemy, a swine, deluded but not delusional.
Charlie
October 17, 2010
Comment to Same Planet different worlds.
[I really like this. I like the way it succulently expresses the philosophical viewpoint of the various camps. Of course it’s possible to construct some gray area between the various camps. For example it’s possible to say the government should stay out of the lives of people but if people want to use public roads it might be okay for government require proof of driving skill.
But the main conclusion which can be drawn from this is that the progressive/pessimist leads themselves into a logical trap. If they are correct that people will “go astray” and need parental-type authority over them then the same argument can used against government. Hence you end up requiring an infinite chain of parental-type authorities. Just like requiring the universe to have a creator—who created the creator? It’s not turtles all the way down and the government can’t be fathers all the way up.—Joe]
Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other’. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly.
Chancellor Angela Merkel
October 17, 2010
Angela Merkel declares death of German multiculturalism
[The same could be said of our tolerance of the liberal/progressive/socialist culture.—Joe]
The gun debate isn’t just about waiting periods, semi-automatic bans, licensing, registration, handgun bans or the Second Amendment; it’s about liberty, and the fundamental beliefs that make democracy possible.
Robert K. Corbin
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 116.
There simply cannot be peace between our people and it’s entirely because of different mentalities, world views and ways of thinking.
Say Uncle
Same planet, different worlds
October 15, 2010
[As I said in the comments to his post:
In another time these people would have been reading entrails or doing trials by fire to make decisions. Some people actually believe evidence and reason are counter productive to good decision making. They are NOT stupid. Some of them sit on the SCOTUS and you don’t get there riding on the short bus.
As further evidence look at Joan Peterson “rest her case” defending against people informing her that she is ignorant and a bigot. This is why Peterson Syndrome was named after her. She simply does not know how to determine truth from falsity. She makes “reasoning noises” (thanks to MJM for that phrase) but she totally lacks the mental processes to follow a path to defendable conclusions.
Frequently the biggest obstacle to problem solving is in understanding and defining the problem. I think I have now done that. But now that we know the problem I think we still have a huge obstacle. I don’t know how, or if, these mental defects can be cured or prevented. But I do know that if we don’t find a solution soon Darwin is currently implementing a solution which is extremely painful for everyone.—Joe]
Microsoft has released two of the ads for Windows Phone 7. I saw preliminary versions of them (and others) about a month ago. Most are pretty good. One has a little bit of what is known in our family as “Scott family humor” (my wife’s side of the family). I don’t like it but I included it anyway.
You will be seeing a lot of these ads soon. Microsoft is making a really big deal out of this phone and I think it is justified. I’m more proud of this work than anything I have done professionally for 15 years.
When I have shown the phone the speech function (particularly in conjunction with search on maps) has most impressed people (it’s working much better than when I was demoing it at the NRA convention):
See more Windows Phone 7 videos here.
Full disclosure: I work for Microsoft on Windows Phone 7.
I remain focused on common-sense reforms that everyone, regardless of party, should be able to agree on. My legislation to close the Terror Gap and the gun show loophole would keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and strengthen our homeland security. These are safety measures that even NRA members overwhelmingly support, and they should move through Congress with bipartisan support.
Frank R. Lautenberg
October 12, 2010
‘Gun Ban Obama?’ Not So Much, Say Gun Control Advocates
[As much as anti-rights advocates claim there is no viable threat to our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they still have powerful supporters.
The only way they can “close the gun show loophole” is by enabling gun owner registration. This would be done by requiring every firearm transaction to go through NICS. NICS could be modified with incredible ease, if it hasn’t already been enabled, to keep a permanent record of all people who purchase a firearm and the number of firearms purchased. This is just as unacceptable as the registration of all homosexuals, Jews, or people in interracial marriages.—Joe]
You heard it here first folks, Peterson Syndrome.
Sean D. Sorrentino
October 13, 2010
Comment to Why ignorant people should never make law
[This was in response to a comment of mine in the same thread about Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and her mental defect.—Joe]
Via Sebastian we have this bit of nonsense:
Justice Department legal adviser Amid Torres told lawmakers during a public hearing last week that the agency would submit amendments to the weapons law to La Fortaleza that reflect the jurisprudence established by the nation’s top court in McDonald vs City of Chicago this summer. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the U.S. Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.
Puerto Rico will have to ease its stringent firearms code in relation to the acquisition and possession of guns for self-defense.
Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.
I’ve gone through this many rounds in an hour of practice. There are very few firearms classes that I have taken which used this few of rounds. This is like telling a journalist they may only publish five articles a year.
A specific enumerated right that is limited to, at best, exercise only one weekend per year cannot stand.
I’ve got a better idea. How about governments can repeal as many laws as they want but they can only enact five laws per year?
Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense, consists in the ability to choose.
Simone Weil
[There was once a time, not so long ago, where people could not choose marriage partners where the skin color didn’t match. In most state people still can’t marry if the genders do match. This is not liberty.
The government in many states forbids the use of noise suppressors on firearms but requires their use on cars. This is not liberty either.—Joe]
Last Wednesday Senate Candidate Dino Rossi came to Microsoft and I went to listen to him talk and answer questions. I thought he did quite well. The Microsoft crowd has a strong tendency to be liberal. And his incumbent opponent has been considered the most liberal in the U.S. Senate. And as Rossi pointed out that when she has admitted socialists and people like Nancy Pelosi for competition in that contest that says a lot about her. The crowd was polite and listened. Almost his entire point was the financial crisis our country is in. His credentials are a degree in business with successful business ventures as proof. Then he took the lead in getting Washington state’s budget balanced several years ago.
When someone asked what he would do about the tax penalty that the questioner and his partner (it was worded such that it was pretty clear they were a homosexual couple) suffer that married couple don’t. Rossi had what seemed to be a satisfactory answer. He said he hadn’t really thought about it but he certainly would if it came up. And that it is rare that he would turn down an opportunity to reduce taxes so the chances are probably good that he would support something like that.
He didn’t mention guns at all. It’s probably just as well—particularly in that venue. He should let others tell that story. Here is an example of what his opponent says about guns. No one has ever accused her of being smart.
Here is what the NRA has to say about Rossi:
Update: I just heard a survey result on the radio. Rossi leads by 1%. In a state where King County (the Seattle area which is very liberal) sometimes reports more votes than registered voters this isn’t a big enough lead. Even in a fair election this margin is in the noise. We need to increase the margin. People will start voting in a few days (everyone votes by mail in Washington State) and the time is now to help Dino Rossi. See also the comment here from Boyd.