The market can’t fix this. Markets work because buyers choose between sellers, and sellers compete for buyers. In case you didn’t notice, you’re not Equifax’s customer. You’re its product.
Bruce Schneier
September 13, 2017
On the Equifax Data Breach
[I agree with his astute observation but not his conclusion (government legislation is required).
If someone is harmed by the carelessness of another the careless person can, and rightly so, be sued for damages. How is this any different?—Joe]
When conservatives appeal to “free speech,” it is actually a calculated political move, designed to open up avenues of political discourse while shaming others from moving in active political opposition. I argue that when conservatives resort to this move, they can be safely ignored, as they are appealing to a right that does not exist. In my belief, when conservative ideas are opposed, there is no right that is being infringed.
Ryan Born
September 25, 2017
Speech is free
[At first I though Born was setting up a straw man with “it is actually a calculated political move….”. But that hypothesis was blow away in the following sentence.
Born needs to retake a junior high class on U.S. government and receive a passing grade before attempting to have a conversation with adults. In the mean time don’t ever forget this is what many people on the political left think of specific enumerated rights.—Joe]
A 2014 Pew Research Center study found that the percentage of Democrats and Republicans holding extremely negative views of the opposite party has more than doubled since 1994; Pew also found that, while 64 percent of Republicans in ’94 held opinions that were to the right of the average Democrat, these days 92 percent do. And 94 percent of Democrats are now to the left of the GOP median.
So the right is moving further right, the left, further left and the center, as the poet Yeats observed, “cannot hold.”
…
What other option, then, do Democrats have but to move left, exploiting the anger, energy and enthusiasm to be found there?
Leonard Pitts
October 16, 2017
Democrats need to move left
[Yes. That should work nicely. Advocating for the policies of Venezuela and Cuba will play so well in the GOP advertisements.
I find it very telling that the option of liberty and adherence to the constitutional limits of government doesn’t even cross his mind. Laws and principles are for suckers. The only thing of importance is restoring power to “his people”.—Joe]
Spent my weekend preparing to move due to repeated threats from gun control advocates.
One guy hunted down my private cell phone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard. Another guy created a string of social media accounts, posted photos of my house, threatened to rape me to death. Another gun control advocate, after threatening to hunt me down and assault me, dragged my kids into it.
Dana Loesch @DLoesch
Tweeted on October 15, 2017
[Violence. It’s the nature of the political left.
The scumbags of the political left did the same sort of thing to Michelle Malkin a few years ago. (I suspect it continues to this day). I set up a honey pot for catching those threatening Malkin. The link below is another honeypot. If you link to it from your website/blog using the appropriate text it will get more Google Page Rank and appear closer to the top of search engine results.
If even one-half of one percent of the noncompliant shoot back, that’s 30,000 to 450,000 shooters (depending on the scenarios above).
Please recall that Pennington’s little trip down Tyranny Lane started with — as of latest claims — a single shooter killing 58 and wounding hundreds — in approximately ten minutes.
So tell us: How will you achieve your two-gun goal?
Who will bell the cat?
Carl Bussjaeger
October 17, 2017
Belling the cat
[I have done related analysis and came up with similar conclusions.—Joe]
There’s nothing that would provoke more “gun violence” than an attempt to seize guns. But gun control isn’t about preventing violence, it’s about forcing those rubes in Flyover Country to knuckle under.
Glenn Reynolds
October 13, 2017
ACTUALLY, GUN CONTROL DOESN’T MAKE ME FEEL GOOD
[While for all practical purposes this is true I can think of a few, really “out there” things that would provoke more “gun violence”, but I’m not going to give anyone ideas.—Joe]
As over 90% of gun violence is committed by men, in order for a man to purchase a gun, he must first get a waiver from his current wife, plus his most recent ex-wife, or any woman with whom he is currently in a relationship (if he’s gay, he must get the waiver from his male spouse/partner). This law has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada.
• All automatic and semi-automatic guns are banned.
• No gun or clip can hold more than 6 bullets.
• To activate a gun for it to be used, the trigger must recognize the fingerprint of its registered owner. This will eliminate most crimes committed with a gun as 80% of these crimes are done with a stolen gun.
• One’s guns must be stored at a licensed gun club or government-regulated gun storage facility. Believing that having a gun in your home provides you with protection is an American myth. People who die from a home invasion make up a sad but minuscule .04% of all gun murders in the US. And over a third of them are killed by their own gun that the criminal has either stolen or wrestled from them.
Michael Moore
Facebook post on October 4, 2017
[Other than recognizing that Moore is out of touch with the real world of facts the important takeaway is that you should never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Imagine there has been a horrible case of child abuse in your neighborhood. A large family with 10 children had parents who brutally beat their kids, and two died. In reacting to that horrendous news, there’s a knock at your door. It’s your mayor and police chief.
“I understand you have two children in this house. Is that correct?” the mayor asks.
“Yes, that’s true. Why?” you reply.
“We’re going to need to see them, to inspect them to make sure they haven’t been subjected to abuse by you,” the chief says.
“Wait, what? You’re not going to inspect my children,” you respond.
“We are going to. And we’re going to monitor your kids from here on out, stopping by periodically to check on them, inspect their bodies for bruises and have them talk to a psychologist to make sure they aren’t being emotionally abused either,” the chief shoots back.
“What the hell gives you the right to do that?” you ask.
“After the horrible abuse that took place a few blocks away, we decided that we had to insert ourselves into the lives of all parents to prevent that from happening ever again,” the mayor says. “So we’ve passed a new law that says we can curtail parental rights for the greater good. Now go get your children.”
Derek Hunter
October 5, 2017
After Las Vegas, Democrats Send In The Clowns
[The sad/scary part of this is this that public education is a significant step in this direction and there are policies which show we are on this path.—Joe]
In recent years we’ve seen a remarkable antipathy for the fact that normal Americans even have rights among those on the left. We should have this conversation to clear the air before leftists push too far and the air gets filled with smoke. But we really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.
Kurt Schlichter
October 5, 2017
Nothing Makes Liberals Angrier Than Us Normals Insisting On Our Rights
[This should be enough “conversation” but Schlichter extends the conversation with examples and more saying “No.”—Joe]
We have to have the courage to call the NRA exactly what it has become—a domestic terrorist organization that places profit above the lives of the American people.
Jonathan L. Walton
October 3, 2017
Prof. Jonathan L. Walton calls NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” in wake of Las Vegas shooting
[Ignoring the gross errors of fact regarding NRA “profit” you should give a little bit of thought to what the official response to terrorist organizations is. That’s all you really need to know about Walton.
Yeah, he wants you in prison or dead. Maybe even both.—Joe]
Erin Palette founded Operation Blazing Sword immediately after the Jihadist shot up the night club in Orlando Florida. Her organization made international news for setting up a network of LGBT friendly firearms instructors. Her parents dog severely tore up her face. She now needs help with medical bills. Donate if you can.
If you donate over $125 Oleg will send you large photo print of your choice from his collection.
They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.
Nancy Pelosi
House Minority Leader
Oct 5, 2017
Pelosi Hopes Ban on Bump Stocks Is a ‘Slippery Slope’ to More Gun Control
[Via email from Paul Koning.
If they get bump stocks, it won’t be for free. And the slippery slope is likely to be leaning in a different direction than Pelosi is hoping for.—Joe]
“After Newtown, nothing changed, so don’t expect anything to change after Las Vegas.”
How often have you heard that said? Yet it’s not true. The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.
David Frum
October 3, 2017
Mass Shootings Don’t Lead to Inaction—They Lead to Loosening Gun Restrictions
[Gee… I wonder why that is? Could it be that people realized that having the ability to protect yourself is a good idea?
One would think this is the obvious answer. But Frum is apparently immune to such thoughts:
This may explain why gun advocates insist that the immediate aftermath of a spectacular massacre is “too soon” for the gun discussion. They want the pain and grief and fear to ebb. They want ordinary citizens to look away. Then, when things are quiet, the gun advocates will go to work, to bring more guns to places where alcohol is served, where children are cared for, where students are taught, where God is worshipped. More killings bring more guns. More guns do more killing. It’s a cycle the nation has endured for a long time, and there is little reason to hope that the atrocity in Las Vegas will check or reverse it.
The mind of an anti-gun person is broken. Some can be repaired but for the most part we need to point them out to those who haven’t yet drank the Kool-Aid and let reality sink it. It’s generally a better use of our time.
But if you look at the psychology of the these type of people there is a way to win them over. You remove social support for their position and/or you give them unequivocal disconfirmation of their beliefs.—Joe]
The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy
There have been dozens of high-profile mass shootings in recent decades. This paper presents three main findings about the impact of mass shootings on gun policy. First, mass shootings evoke large policy responses. A single mass shooting leads to a 15% increase in the number of firearm bills introduced within a state in the year after a mass shooting. Second, mass shootings account for a small portion of all gun deaths, but have an outsized influence relative to other homicides. Our estimates suggest that the per-death impact of mass shootings on bills introduced is about 80 times as large as the impact of individual gun homicides in non-mass shooting incidents. Third, when looking at enacted laws, the impact of mass shootings depends on the party in power. A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun restrictions by 75% in states with Republican controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature.
I found this difficult to believe. Didn’t the elementary school shooting in Stockton California enable passage of the “assault weapon” ban in California? Didn’t the Newton Connecticut school shooting result in more restrictive laws in New York, Connecticut and Colorado?
I didn’t duplicate their math but I read their process details fairly closely. It sounds like they did a good job of accounting for various factors and categorization of legislative action and every other variable I could think of (and some I didn’t think of).
The bottom line appears to be that those increasing of firearms restrictions due to the mass shooting events I think of are statistical noise. This is interesting and timely because one hypothesis of the most recent mass shooting in Las Vegas is as follows:
It has been said that ‘the medium is the message’.
In this case that is the literal truth. There is only one plausible motive for what this man did. And here it is:
This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense. And it must be said his concept has a certain demented genius.
Because even if the public learns and believes that his motive was all about ‘guns’ the horror of the act itself – an act to protest such acts – is in some ways even worse for being plain evidence that there is no limit to the insanity to which guns can be put.
Also note that nearly all mass shooters are inclined to be Democrats. Most are way around the bend nuts, but was part of their nuttiness that they were trying to convey their message that guns were too dangerous for private citizens to have “because look at what I did?” If so, then widespread knowledge that gun laws tend to be relaxed as a result of mass shootings may tend to reduce the frequency of mass shootings.
This shooting is more evidence that NO ONE is safe from gun violence. Let’s all recognize that and get guns out of our society. The sense of security advocated by people in favor of gun rights is false and not real protection. Gun pushers like the NRA should be treated like the pariahs on society that they are. They’re conducting a war on the American people. Let’s take away the arms.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment. The time to talk about it has passed. The time to do it is now.
gwaz17
October 2, 2017
Comment to Preventing Future Mass Shootings Like Las Vegas
[People like this aren’t telling you something:
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)
But almost as important is for freedom loving people to make sure that no one gets away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
There should be a MINIMUM PENlS LENGTH LAW for the purchase of a gun.
SpidermanDC
September 29, 2017
Comment to Appeals court order blocks enforcement of D.C.’s strict concealed carry law
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
So why are lawmakers responding to mass killings by loosening gun laws? The wrong answer is that the N.R.A. is this maliciously powerful force that controls legislators through campaign dollars. In fact, the N.R.A. spends a minuscule amount on campaign contributions compared with the vast oceans of dough washing through our politics.
The reality is that in some places people want these laws. It’s true that individual gun control measures, like banning bump stocks, have popular support, but, over all, the gun rights people are winning the hearts and minds of America. In 2000, according to a Pew survey, only 29 percent of Americans supported more gun rights and 67 percent supported more gun control. By 2016, 52 percent of Americans supported more gun rights and only 46 percent supported more control.
…
Today we need another grand synthesis that can move us beyond the current divide, a synthesis that is neither redneck nor hipster but draws from both worlds to create a new social vision. Progress on guns will be possible when the culture war subsides, but not before.
David Brooks
October 6, 2017
Guns and the Soul of America
[For a New York Times opinion piece I found this to be very insightful. His view on “progress on guns” is much different than mine but I believe his words to be correct even if his intended meaning is 180 degrees from mine. We need to win the culture war.
Even in Brooks opinion piece there is evidence this is about a culture war rather than about the facts of gun ownership related to public safety, constitutional law, or philosophy:
This gigantic shift in public opinion hasn’t come about because the facts support the gun rights position. The research doesn’t overwhelmingly support either side. Gun control proposals don’t seriously impinge freedom; on the other hand, there’s not much evidence that they would prevent many attacks.
Even though he knows the evidence doesn’t support his goal of “progress on guns” he thinks it should be done anyway. Why?
It’s about control. He want a culture controlled by a central committee. We want a culture of liberty. We have to win this war. We should only compromise if it takes us a small step closer when we find we can’t make a large step closer to our goals.
Take new shooters to the range. It works. I just found out a couple days ago that new shooters Kurt and Tracie recently bought their first gun.
Guns are a “gateway drug” to liberty. Get them hooked.—Joe]
The US has too many guns and too many idiots who buy them. And we have too many idiot judges that support the idiotic republican view of guns. It may have to do with “small hand syndrome” or an inability to interact with the opposite sex.
MMSJkenB
October 2, 2017
Comment to Why Congress still won’t ‘do something’ about gun laws after Las Vegas
[This is what they think of you and the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]
I am 100% in favor of total repeal of the 2nd. NO RIGHT TO ANY FIREARMS WHATSOEVER. PERIOD. At the very least, it would get rid of annoying squeaks like that.
JDPlenty
October 2, 2017
Comment to Why Congress still won’t ‘do something’ about gun laws after Las Vegas.
[Considering there are tens of millions of gun owners, with 100’s of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition. Many of which will be inclined turn in their bullets, minus shell casing, primer, and powder, prior to surrendering their guns I would expect few will describe the response as “annoying squeaks”. But as we have long known anti-gun people are mostly disconnected from reality. JDPlenty is, of course, projecting.
And, of course, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Civilians have no legitimate need for center fire cartridge, semi automatic rifles, with interchangeable magazines. They are weapons of war, developed for killing people in combat in the most efficient manner possible. Whenever the Democrats finally regain power, they should be banned, with people given 2 years to turn them in for some reasonable cash payments, after which, possession would be a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine, and up to 5 years in jail. Ditto with semi auto center fire pistols.
Bill Simpson
October 2, 2017
Comment to Video from Las Vegas suggests automatic gunfire. Here’s what makes machine guns different.
[It’s a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.
If I could tell Simpson just one thing it would be that we need to enforce the laws already on the books—18 USC 242.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]