Quote of the day—Jon Miltimore

A new academic study has found that, once again, gun laws are not having their desired effect.

A joint study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that California’s much-touted mandated background checks had no impact on gun deaths, and researchers are puzzled as to why.

Jon Miltimore
December 5, 2018

California’s Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths, Johns Hopkins Study Finds
[When someone demands more background checks on gun sales tell them, according Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, it is a waste of resources. The existing resources used to do the background checks should be reallocated to things that might make a difference. Perhaps more police officers or better mental health care. Or even letting people keep their tax money and spend it as they see fit.

If they insist, them ask them, “Since we know for a fact that background checks do not improve public safety what is your real reason for continuing to insist on expanding them?”—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jon Miltimore

  1. “When someone demands more background checks on gun sales tell them, according Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, it is a waste of resources…”

    “The Science is SETTLED, you Rights Denier!”

  2. Ah, but they are having the desired effect which is to harass the law abiding gun owner. Crime or terrorism or suicide are just tactics to accomplish the goal.

    • Exactly. Let’s break it down further;

      “…gun laws are not having their desired effect.”

      We cannot begin to make any sense of that statement, or do anything with it at all, unless we first “solve for x” (x being the desire, or motive), order of operations being the point here, i.e. let’s not run with a premise until we’ve examined it and made a determination supported by the surrounding evidence.

      Clearly, we cannot rely on claims, arguments, assertions, pleas, demands, accusations, threats or speculation in determining that underlying motive, that x, but we can readily solve for x using what we’ll call “behavioral algebra”.

      It’s a simple enough concept, not unlike 4 – x = 1. Looking at the juxtaposed values, you can see right away that the value of x in that example is three, regardless of what anyone feels, says, or claims to think about x in their denial, or exaggeration of, or attempts to redefine, the values of 4 and 1. The “opo. research”, the paid opposition, may be able to change your feelings about x, or 4 or 1, and thus how you react to it, but cannot in any way affect their intrinsic value.

      To solve for x (the underlying motive which drives efforts to restrict the RKBA) similarly, we need only observe those other values surrounding x, most notably, the behavior of political authoritarians (including Republicans) over time;

      (b/t)

      In simplest form then;

      x = b/t

      We could readily produce a more detailed and complex formula, but you get the point; actions speak louder than words, actions over time reveal allegiance and purpose, and actions over a very long time under varying conditions no matter the assertions prove allegiance and purpose (motive).

      In short; most political assertions are smoke screens, tools of manipulation via deception (lies) so we can safely throw the assertions out of the equation, focus on the simple algebra, and thereby cut straight to the motives without fuss;

      x = b/t

      x need not be initially heard, stated, seen, believed, disbelieved, found on a hard drive stolen from a secret HQ under the Vatican, argued over, or speculated on. As in the simple example of 4 – x = 1, it can be determined objectively and with exactness by observing the surrounding values.

      Thus we can find a value for x (the underlying motive) which can be determined with increasing certainty as time goes on. Being that we have over 100 years of consistent behavior of the left in this country, we already have the information necessary to determine x to a precise value– Adding more decimal points at this stage cannot change the value of x significantly.

      So why do we so often address the assertions without first solving for x? Why does the bull attack the red cloak rather than the matador?

      And yes; it is of course a violation of our highest law to attempt to restrict or chill the exercise of an enumerated right under the pretense of law, so we have them cold regardless. This algebra is just a way of approaching the sentencing phases of their trials.

      In terms of the warrant and arrest phases, this behavioral algebra will be useful in ferreting out the chief perpetrators too.

  3. Pingback: Quote of the day—James Densley @theviolencepro and David Squier Jones @SquierDavid | The View From North Central Idaho

  4. It’s not about gun control or gun safety or freedom from violence or whatever the latest agitprop calls it. It’s about hiring more”administrators”. More administrators means the government employee unions contribute more to pliable politicians. If guns go away, all these administrators go away and the politicians lose money.

Comments are closed.