Peterson Syndrome example

This is from Canada:

Karen Vanscoy’s 14-year-old daughter was shot and killed in 1996 by an acquaintance using a stolen gun.

“The proposed weakening of our gun laws will make it easier for those at risk of committing acts of violence either towards themselves or others to acquire guns,” said Vanscoy.

She is complaining about the possible elimination of the long gun registry. How in the world does she think the Canadian long gun registry would have prevented the murder of her daughter?

It’s Peterson Syndrome. She is incapable of logical thinking.

And of course the writer (an “independent journalist covering social justice events”) doesn’t give any time to the violated natural rights of firearms owners.

Best study to date on frequency of sexual thoughts

Urban myth has it that the average man thinks of sex once every seven seconds. If you give that a little bit of thought and if necessary pull out the calculator to crunch a few numbers you will realize that just can’t be true. I mean, when would a guy have time to think about food, sleep, and his guns if he was thinking about his penis that frequently? Some would say that we combine the penis and guns thoughts hence there really is time for everything.

But that can’t explain things for men who are are lacking a gun of their own so Terri Fisher, PhD, professor of psychology at The Ohio State University at Mansfield did a study on thoughts of food, sleep, and sex. Apparently she was working on a limited budget and was unable to include thoughts of guns in her study. The results are still interesting and it is claimed:

This is the best study to date looking at frequency of sexual thought,” says Janet Hyde, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She reviewed the study but was not involved in it.


The bottom line is that college aged men think about sex, on the average, about 19 times a day. This is about once every 50 minutes during waking hours. Women think about sex, on the average, about 10 times a day or about once every 96 minutes.

But the more interesting result is that while the averages differed by almost a factor of two the variations were huge for both genders. The men had as many as 388 sexual thoughts per day and the women as many as 140. This means that unless you are a guy with very frequent thoughts of sex or a woman with very infrequent thoughts of sex there is probably enough overlap in the population such that you can find someone who thinks about sex about as frequently as you do.

At least that is what their research indicates. One woman I know recently told me she keeps an inverter in her car to power her Hitachi Magic Wand at stoplights. She probably needs to find about a half dozen high end guys to keep pace with her. She is probably stretching the bell curve so far that the bell would ring ultrasonic if I were to ping it with my gun.

Posted in Sex

Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous

Of course I knew it was possible. But I didn’t dare say it for fear of being wrong and embarrassed when some other explanation came to light. So I just stated the facts when a pro-gun story disappeared from the UK’s Daily Mail.

I did manage to contact the author who responded with a single URL. It is a link to the same story on a different website with the subtitle, “Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous”.

Not only was it possible; it was what happened. Some people in the UK are such wimps they can’t tolerate people even speaking about the exercise of their natural right to keep and bear arms.

Should they end up needing that which they don’t have it will be hard to give them much sympathy beyond nominating them for a collective (as they surely would have wanted it) Darwin Award.

The quality I would expect

Someone apparently wrote a term paper on the Brady Campaign and is making it available to others.

The quality is about what I would expect for a Brady Campaign supporter:

The Brady Campaign is a very large organisation, and they are working to prevent gun violence through legislations. Ronald Weagan’s press secretary was a man called Jim Brady. Jim Brady was seriously wounded by a shoot during an assassination attempt on Ronald Weagan, who was the president of the United States at that time. After the harsh experience and the wounds mentally, Jim Brady and his wife Sarah Brady began to work for stricter gun control laws. In the 1993 the Brady law was passed. If you wanted to buy a handgun, you had to wait in a five-day period so there could be made a background check and a ban on the military-style, semi-automatic machine guns and the “assault weapons”. George Bush did not renew the ban of the “assault weapons” in 2004. The Brady Campaign argues that armed revolution and violence against the government is not necessary in a democracy.

The Second Amendment Myth and Meaning means that the American nation suffers from an epidemic of gun violence. They mean sensible national gun control laws are urgently needed to reduce this violence and killings. They mean the NRA’s constitutional theory is a calculated distortion of the text, history and judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment. They say it is time for the debate over gun violence to focus on the real issues, free from the NRA’s constitutional mythology and they say that the courts consistently have ruled that there is no constitutional right to own a gun for private purposes unrelated to the organized state militia.

The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment is an organisation which promotes the Second Amendment right to carry and bear arms. The organisation has about 4 million members and defends the right to possess, buy and use firearms.

I would guess they are functioning at about a fifth grade level:

  • The Brady Campaign cannot be considered “very large”.
  • Organization is consistently misspelled.
  • It’s Reagan, not “Weagan”.
  • Grammar is extremely poor.
  • “Semi-automatic machine guns” is contradictory.
  • “Assault weapons” were not covered by the 1993 Brady Act.
  • Even though the term paper was uploaded today the Heller decision is unknown (or perhaps irrelevant in their world view) to them.
  • The Second Amendment is not an organization.
  • They state the NRA “defends the right” but yet claims the court interpretations of the Second Amendment does not recognize a right to keep and bear arms.

It’s possible they are mocking the Brady Campaign but my guess is they really are that dumb.

Quote of the day—Noam Chomsky

Government turns to clandestine terrorist operations when it is afraid of it’s own population.

Noam Chomsky
[I was reminded of this quote by various links to this article and related stuff.

But from actually reading the bill I don’t see what the big fuss is about:

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters


(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

This appears to be consistent with my understanding of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in regards to acceptable conduct during war. When someone aids the enemy, on or off the battlefield, they are subject to detention, interrogation, trial, and if not a privileged combatant, even execution.—Joe]

Atlas may shrug

Son James, his wife Kelsey, and I had an interesting conversation about the possible coming collapse of the Euro this evening. I read part of this story to them:

British embassies in the eurozone have been told to draw up plans to help British expats through the collapse of the single currency, amid new fears for Italy and Spain.

As the Italian government struggled to borrow and Spain considered seeking an international bail-out, British ministers privately warned that the break-up of the euro, once almost unthinkable, is now increasingly plausible.

Diplomats are preparing to help Britons abroad through a banking collapse and even riots arising from the debt crisis.

The Treasury confirmed earlier this month that contingency planning for a collapse is now under way.

A senior minister has now revealed the extent of the Government’s concern, saying that Britain is now planning on the basis that a euro collapse is now just a matter of time.

That’s the background. What’s more interesting to me is this article:

About a year ago, I spoke at a conference in Europe that attracted a lot of very rich people from all over the continent, as well as a lot of people who manage money for high-net-worth individuals.

What made this conference remarkable was not the presentations, though they were generally quite interesting. The stunning part of the conference was learning – as part of casual conversation during breaks, meals, and other socializing time – how many rich people are planning for the eventual collapse of European society.

Not stagnation. Not gradual decline. Collapse.

As in riots, social disarray, plundering, and chaos. A non-trivial number of these people think the rioting in places such as Greece and England is just the tip of the iceberg, and they have plans – if bad things begin to happen – to escape to jurisdictions ranging from Australia to Costa Rica (several of them remarked that they no longer see the U.S. as a good long-run refuge).

Of course. Once it is pointed out it is obvious.

Those with money will escape the collapse if it occurs. They will take a big hit and won’t be able to get all of their wealth out but they are generally smart and will generally succeed. The looters (by this I mean to include the socialist governments) will attempt to prevent the wealth from leaving but even if they were successful eventually the looters will run out of loot.

Much of the wealth and nearly all the brain power that generated that wealth will “take a holiday”. There is also a good chance, as in the book, that the escape of these people to another place will hasten the downfall. Rand may have missed a lot of the details but the basic concepts may be close enough that the end result is essentially the same.

Atlas may be shrugging.

Pro-gun story disappeared

There appears to have been an article saying “It is time for Europeans to support the natural right of human beings to protect oneself with a firearm” on a UK newspaper website earlier today. It is no longer available. Here is the screen capture evidence:


Clicking on the link (–It-time-Europeans-support-natural-right-human-beings-protect-oneself-firearm.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) yields, “Sorry. The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.” There does not appear to be a cache available for it either.

I can find all other articles by this same author but the one I am interested in doesn’t show up.

I was unable to find his email address or I would have attempted to contact him and find out what happened.

Update: Via some suggestions in the comments I was able to contact Brian Darling. He send me a one URL response, “”.

I love the line after the title, “Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous”. I do wish he had elaborated on that a bit more but there are times when you don’t tweak the nose of the one who feeds you.

Quote of the day—Texas Aggie

For the people who insist on carrying weapons, driving oversized pickups and HumVees to the 7/11, and similar manifestations of psychological problems, it isn’t that they’re paranoid, although that may also be a problem. Their major problem is a real or imagined dysfunction in their capacity to procreate. They may have tried the various “enlarge your penis” advertisements on the internet and none of them gave results, so now they go with an artificial sexual apparatus enhancer.

Texas Aggie
November 24, 2011
Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
[Ahhhh yes. It’s the kindergarten kids talking about penises and giggling.

When in the context of gun owners it’s known as Markley’s Law.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.

Real gun control will take courage. In the long run, half-measures and compromises only sacrifice lives.

Josh Sugarmann
Seattle and Honolulu shootings more reasons to regulate guns
[This is from the dark days of gun owner rights activism.

Sugarmann goes through regulatory proposals such as licensing, registration, expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines. He then concludes a complete ban is the only rational conclusion.

I grudgingly admire Sugarmann for his genius in regards to “assault weapons” and his honesty in saying the endgame must be, always has been, and always will be a complete ban.—Joe]

States rights doesn’t mean they can infringe on the rights of the people

I realize the ability (and to a certain extent the desire) to get elected is largely uncorrelated with intelligence but the ugly parallels to statements like the following just jump out of the page at me:

While our Constitution guarantees people a right to bear arms, the decision was made to allow states to regulate guns, in order to allow them to develop strategies that meet the individual states’ demographic, economic and lifestyle needs. What works for Florida or Texas may not work for New Jersey and vice versa, and gun control should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.

Replace “a right to bear arms” with “will not be slaves” and “guns” with “ni**ers”.

Now start heating up the tar and gathering the feathers for New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg.

Freedom Group

There is an interesting article on the history of Freedom Group here.

To me some of the more interesting stuff was the hints about gun bloggers:

rumors about the Freedom Group — what it is, and who is behind it — have been circulating in the blogosphere. Some gun enthusiasts have claimed that the power behind the company is actually George Soros, the hedge-fund billionaire and liberal activist. Mr. Soros, these people have warned, is buying American gun companies so he can dismantle the industry, Second Amendment be damned.

I vaguely remember something being said about that a while back but don’t remember it being anything we really took seriously.

And how about this?

the Freedom Group has ingested so many well-known brands so quickly that some gun owners are uneasy about what it might do next. Two years ago, a Cerberus managing director, George Kollitides, ran for the board of the N.R.A. Despite an endorsement from Remington, and the fact that he was a director of the Freedom Group and Remington, he lost. His campaign didn’t sit well with some gun bloggers, who viewed him as an industry interloper.

I don’t involve myself with the internal politics of the NRA that much. Was this really an issue? Or is the reporter exaggerating things a bit in an attempt to create a more interesting story?

Update: This is an article in the NYT (thanks Thirdpower) as well as the Herald Tribune which I originally linked to. The NYT version has the link to Sebastian and Bitter’s post about George Kollitides run for the NRA board of directors. I have updated the quoted paragraph above with the NYT link to their post.

Quote of the day—Exurban Kevin

It amuses me to no end that people who faint dead away at the thought of judging someone by their outside appearance have no problem judging the function and intent of an inanimate object by its outside appearance.

Exurban Kevin
November 22, 2011
Comment to SAF/Calguns Suit Against California Assault Weapons Ban
[For some reason it doesn’t amuse me. I’m inclined to call them intolerant, ignorant, bigots.—Joe]

Boomershoot Mecca update

Barb and I went to Boomershoot Mecca today. I installed a 3/8” U-bolt on the solar panel mount and made a plate to replace the conduit clamps I had used to secure the pole to the top edge of the shipping container. I just didn’t trust the previous configuration. Barb and I raised the pole and secured it in place:


Then I did some more wiring and tested out the transfer switch (it automatically switches from the external generator to the battery powered inverter):


I moved some shelves into the proper position and started putting things away.


But by then Barb was cold and tired and wanted to go home. I had a 1750 Watt heater at her feet with my coat over her lap but it’s getting cold enough that you have to be moving or else be in a warm environment to keep from getting hypothermia.

I still have a little bit more wiring to do such as connecting the 115 VAC battery charger to the generator side of the transfer switch, installing an Anderson Powerpole and securing the cables and flexible conduit to the wall. Then I want to arrange all the boxes, chemicals, mixer, air cleaners and other stuff in prep for Boomershoot 2012.

The solar panel seems to be working well. At one point the charge controller indicated 7.1 amps which is getting close to 100 W (the panel is rated at 130 W under ideal conditions). As we were leaving the sun was lower and the battery was nearing full charge and the amperage dropped down to the four amp range. Still that is far more than enough to run Wi-Fi and a web cam without generator backup.

Quote of the day—Mark Schaffer

Your facts will not penetrate the rabid gun owners heads. Sad we can’t live in a civilized country with much lower rates of violence all in the name of ‘rights’.

Mark Schaffer
November 24, 2011
Comment to Argument for gun control is flimsy.
[“Rabid gun owners”? The only irrational, nearly foaming at the mouth with lies, people in the gun debate I know of have been on the anti-gun side.

But it’s nice to know what you think of gun owners. After all, we all know what is done with rabid animals.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

We haven’t given up hope but our impatience is growing with each passing day.

Dennis Henigan
Acting president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,
November 24, 2011
Tough politics for Obama on guns as 2012 election approaches
[Impatience? I would have thought it was desperation. And it’s the shrinking bank balance and public support that has to have him worried.

I long, and work toward, the day when he is worried about being prosecuted under 18 USC 241.—Joe]

Public lands to remain open to recreational shooters

I find it interesting that the most anti-gun president ever has a strong tendency to run scared from any confrontation with gun owners. The draft regulation to ban shooters from many public lands will apparently be completely dropped (via email from Daniel at work):

The Obama administration says it will not restrict recreational shooting on public lands, reversing a draft policy that had caused an uproar among gun owners and hunters, especially in the West.

In a memo sent Wednesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he would direct his agency to “take no further action to develop or implement” the draft policy, which would have restricted target shooting on some public lands near residential areas.

I wonder if Obama has some plan for implementing this “under the radar”. Or is he just going to maintain as low a profile as possible on gun issues?

No response yet from The Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or the Violence Policy Center. Perhaps someone should check on them to make sure they don’t start looking longingly at their bottle of whiskey and bottle of sleeping pills.

Quote of the day—fr8dog

Many years ago, a young woman lived in Washington DC. Economic circumstances forced her to live in a high crime area & commute to work via metro, as as she couldn’t afford a car. As she walked home one evening she was followed by 2 dirt-bags who attacked her as she unlocked her front door. Over the next few hours she was repeatedly raped, her home ransacked & was beaten so badly her skull was fractured. She spent weeks in the hospital & Many months in rehab. Years later she’s not fully recovered. & never will be. But she’s fit enough to handle a gun which I gave her & now carries it when ever she leaves home. But isn’t this “illegal” in DC you ask? Ask her if she gives a $H1T.

Besides training her to use a gun, I’ve taught her the following:

  1. The 2nd Amd is the only CCW “permit” required. “Permission” NOT required to exercise a RIGHT.
  2. When SECONDS count, police are only MINUTES away.
  3. Better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
  4. My sister will NEVER AGAIN be a victim.

November 21, 2011
Comment to More women are using guns for fun and protection
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

My baby daughter in the icy water

Daughter Xenia says, “Because I live in Alaska now, I wanted to do an “Alaskan”-centric activity.” She decided to do a “polar plunge” for charity.

I told her I would pay her $100 to NOT jump in the water. I could hear her lip quiver over the telephone as she explained she really wanted to do this. I was also unable to get any traction with Barb on keeping my little girl out of the frigid water.

I have to admit that the image of her in my minds eye is a little out of date:


Since she is currently 23 years old I can’t just send her to her room until she has given the matter more thought and arrived at the same conclusion as her father. Why can’t she borrow my .300 Win Mag and shoot a moose (one walked through her yard a few weeks ago so she could do it from an open window) as her “Alaskan-centric activity”? But as a vegetarian this activity probably doesn’t interest her as much as it would her husband.

I still might be able to get her to wear a Boomershoot shirt when she jumps in.

You can donate here.

Congress Debates Status of Tomato Sauce

Seen here.  I heard about it on one of the morning talk shows.  Sorry I don’t remember which.  Beck, Limbaugh or Medved – take your pick.

I said it when I heard Congress was legislating the rules of baseball years ago– this is final proof that we’ve gone far off the deep end of pathological insanity.  If the founders of this nation had heard Congress was involved in determining whether the tomato was a vegetable and no one had stepped in to haul them off and lock them in an asylum, they’d have shot somebody.  Maybe themselves, for they’d have realized that all their learning, inspiration, vision, struggle, suffering, perseverance, profound loss and eventual victory had been in vain.

Every last bit of it pissed out a window by vacuous, nasty little fools who to this day still think we look up to them and celebrate them.  It always comes as a shock to the tyrant when he finally gets his due at the hands of the people, as did Mussolini and his wife.  “Why, they don’t love me?  Surely this is some mistake.  I am the Father of The People.  I don’t understand.  No wait…”

ETA; Congress getting involved in the likes of baseball and vegetables is the very definition of totalitarianism— the doctrine that says nothing is outside the realm of politics, that everything is government’s business.  I used to pose the question to leftists; “What, if anything, do you believe is absolutely, positively, none of government’s business whatsoever?”  It’s a rhetorical question of course.  We know the answer, as evidenced above.  Now that it is settled– that we live in an ideologically totalitarian state, I pose another question.  What is the way out of this?