Quote of the day—Paul O’Brien

A simple repeal of the 2nd amendment coupled with a replacement that clearly states what you can and cannot have access to (i.e. MAYBE a single manual hunting rifle or shotgun), plus a government buyback of existing guns and ammo, should do the trick over time.

But it MUST start with putting the gun manufacturers out of business. They need to be shut down immediately.

Paul O’Brien
May 21, 2015
Comment to John Traphagan: When will we examine our heavily armed culture?
[H/T to Hazmat who sent me an email about something else contained here.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

This guy has total crap for brains.

A “simple repeal of the 2nd Amendment”? No such thing is possible.

Roughly 300 million guns, plus ammo, at market value would be roughly $300 billion dollars assuming everyone politely brought them to the local collection point. Add in the cost of those who would turn in their guns only when they were out of ammo and I expect the cost would be an order, or two, of magnitude larger.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandon Smith

Each citizen is his first and best line of defense.

Only when the American people take on the philosophy of self-defense rather than government reliance will we be free of fear from terrorism and free of fear from tyrannical government. It starts with each of you, in your homes, neighborhoods, towns and counties. Citizen organizations for mutual aid and security to counter any threat, regardless of the mask it wears, will be the catalyst for a legitimately free society. In the face of such organization, martial law is not only illegitimate, but entirely unnecessary. ISIS does not matter. It is what we ultimately do about ISIS or similar threats that matters…

Brandon Smith
May 20, 2015
Is Martial Law Justified If ISIS Attacks?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jody Powell

As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals.

Jody Powell
Former President Carter press aide
January 1994
George Stephanopoulos sought gun control debate in Bill Clinton administration
[H/T David Hardy.

Gun rights advocates have been saying this for at least five decades. The Clinton administration knew this over two decades ago. If you listened carefully to the anti-gun politicians and even most of the leaders of the anti-gun organizations you would find they use evasive wording when they talk about gun control. It was, and still is, very clear they know gun control doesn’t and can’t reduce violent crime. I’m certain the Obama administration knows this as well.

So what is the real reason they advocate for gun control?

Whatever the answer is, it can’t be good.—Joe]

Overkill

Execution By Anti-Aircraft Gun: The Photographic Evidence.

Six ZPU-4s were used. Each is composed of four 14mm heavy machine guns. That’s 24 machine guns with each roughly equivalent to a M-2 .50 BMG.

The crime was napping while at an event with the Supreme Leader.

I wonder what the penalty would be for suggesting “rule by despot is a bad idea”.

Quote of the day—J-

Glockheads are heathens, following a false prophet. Real Americans worship at the Church of John Moses Browning.

Follow not the unbelievers. Heed not the basement dwellers, mall ninjas, and armchair commandos. Do not anoint thy hip with Kydex and polymer.

J-
May 13, 2015
Comment to The New Austro-American Jihad.
[It’s a very well done rant and rave.

Via email from Michael B.—Joe]

Repeat an Insights class for 30% off

I’ve been thinking about doing this anyway:

Memorial Day Sale May 20-26

Repeat any class June through August and get 30% off! Because once just isn’t enough.

Call Jenna at 888-958-0884 or email info@InSightsTraining.com to sign up. This offer does not include Tactical First Aid or Shooting Leagues and may not be combined with any other discounts. This is for repeat classes — you must have taken the class previously.

Visit InSightsTraining.com and find a class that fits your schedule. Stay safe and we’ll see you in class!

Maybe now is the time to go through one of the classes I took nearly 20 years ago. I’m thinking maybe Intensive Handgun Skills.

Quote of the day—Bear Brian

This is crap. Grow some balls and ban them outright. This accomplishes nothing.

Bear Brian
May 18, 2015
Comment to Obama to Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons For Local Police Forces
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Yellow journalism everywhere

H/T to Firehand for this “article” which says:

Well, this should surprise exactly no one. Not even a little. Ever since the NRA created the “grassroots” movement to shove “open carry” laws down America’s throat, white men have been parading their penis extensions to shopping malls and restaurants to bully and terrorize people. Oh wait, I meant “show their patriotism.” No, hold on, I actually did mean “bully and terrorize.”

Meanwhile, gun control advocates have been pointing out that the second black men started to do the same, white conservatives would go into full panic mode. And just as predicted, when the New Black Panther Party did just that, the right wing started to hyperventilate

But this is nothing new. Conservatives love love LOVE the Second Amendment right up until the point where black people start exercising it. Hell, the NRA and even Saint Ronnie were so terrified of black men with guns that they crafted and passed laws in the 60’s that explicitly prohibited the kind of open carry that ammosexuals are currently using to terrorize their neighbors.

They made reference to, but didn’t provide the link, to this “article” which has this to say:

Ah, finally. A gun club President Barack Obama can support.

The New Black Panther Party has been suspiciously silent since their unfortunate part in the Ferguson debacle. Thankfully, for those of you following the zany antics of Eric Holder’s favorite group of  militants, they’ve popped up again.

We accept all oppressed people of color with weapons,” Darren X told Vice. “The complete agenda involves going into our communities and educating our people on federal, state and local gun laws. We want to stop fratricide, genocide — all the ‘cides.”

Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect.

It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention.

Now I understand why they didn’t provide the link. The author of the first article greatly exaggerates what the second article says. I didn’t see any “panic” or “hyperventilating” in the second article. Yes, there was some hyperbola. Both articles engaged in sensationalism worthy of second page placement in the National Enquirer. There was a tantalizing bit of truth in each and the rest was forgettable.

If the anti-gun author had wanted to show gun rights people were against blacks keeping and bearing arms then they should have quoted a NRA, SAF, GOA, or JPFO or even a gun blog source saying something to that effect. They didn’t because they don’t exist.

They claim in the 1960s the NRA was against blacks bearing arms. I don’t know the extent of their consent for the California anti-carry laws at the time but there was a NRA revolution in the mid-1970s that purged a lot of those type of people. And apparently the author didn’t know (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could be because it didn’t fit their agenda) about the black civil rights groups that formed NRA gun clubs so they could get training and cheap CMP guns for defense against the Klan. See Negros with Guns and The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement for more information along those lines.

And, of course, the anti-gun author apparently recognized,essentially before they started, their straw man attack they would have to invoke Markley’s Law. It’s the best they can come up with so they led with their “strongest” point.

So that is why!

I’m pretty sure Janelle and Barron told me at least the gist of what they were going to do. But my mind is running close to overload during Boomershoot and since their plans didn’t have much to do with running the event they got filtered.

I had been I wondering why in this picture Janelle was facing away from the fireball:

IMG_2696Adjusted

After finding this picture on Facebook I was able to reassemble the memory fragments:

JanelleBabyFireball

Well done!

Quote of the day—Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting).12 Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
May 18, 2015
BRIAN WRENN, JOSHUA AKERY,
TYLER WHIDBY, and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and CATHY L. LANIER,
Defendants

[H/T Firearm Policy Coalistion (BREAKING: Washington, D.C. “May Issue” Handgun Carry License Law is Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Court Today).

The decision as a whole says “may issue” carry is probably unconstitutional and pending the actual ruling a preliminary injunction is granted against the highly restrictive D.C. “may issue” law. There are other jurisdictions that are going to have to take notice soon!

Others will have a lot more to say about what this means and the likely response of D.C. See for example see what Sebastian has to say about this ruling. But I really wanted to point out is that in the last sentence I quoted above judge is calling the anti-gun people out on merely making “reasoning sounds” rather than a logical argument. He’s mocking them!

I especially like the part where the court agrees the plaintiffs should post a bond to cover the costs if the preliminary injunction was improperly granted. The plaintiff have to put up a bond of $1000.00. I regard that as a slap in the face for the tyrants of D.C.—Joe]

Overheard

Text messages from yesterday:

Barb: Drive safely. You must be tired. I would guess we’re staying home tonight?

Joe: I don’t feel tired or sleepy. But cognitive function is diminished. Wait and see?

Barb: Ok! Can you let me know what you’re thinking before you get home? I need to shower.

Joe: Okay.

Barb: I’ll bet your cute with impaired cognitive function. Winking smile

I didn’t find anything cute about it but she confirmed, at least to herself, I was “cute” when I made it home and tried talking to her.

Effectiveness of linear-feedback shift registers in testing digital circuits

In 1984 I wrote a paper for the company I was working for at the time. It was in support of a new test instrument the company was about to release. The paper was published in the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings. I was scheduled to go to Long Beach California and present the paper during the conference January 17-18, 1984. But the company cancelled the release of the product and I did not attend the conference.

Before there was the World Wide Web there were online services you could subscribe to, dial up with a modem (1200 baud rocked!) and do searches of periodicals, journals, papers, etc. This is what one of those services, Dialog, had in their records in July of 1984:

EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTestingDialogEntryCropped

A scan of the paper is here (click on each to get a readable version):

EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting01 EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting02 EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting03
EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting04 EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting05

Today, over 30 years later, there is probably very little of the paper which is applicable to modern test equipment. But something I learned while writing the paper is something I still occasionally “put people in their place” with.

Unless you know the something about the error statistics of whatever digital system you are trying to test then it almost doesn’t matter which checksum, hash, or CRC you use for error detection. In fact, surprising to nearly everyone, if you assume that all errors are equally likely, then you can just pick the last (or first, whatever) 256 bits of a digital message and have just as good error detection as any other 256-bit hash. Or if you are using a 16-bit checksum then you might as well use the last (or first, whatever) 16 bits of the message.

It all boils down to the assumptions about the types of errors in the message. You, whether you realize it or not, make lots of assumptions about the types of errors in a digital message. For example you assume it is very unlikely, compared to other types of errors, that every 17th bit will be inverted. Or that every DWORD will be XORed with 0xBAADF00D. But the assumption, “every error is equally likely” means the math for detecting those errors will arrive at an interesting conclusion:

For a message N bits long there are 2N-1 possible errors. Any hash, checksum, etc., M bits long can only have 2M different states. One of those states represents a valid hash/checksum/etc. The other 2M – 1 represent detected errors.

If all errors are equally likely then those 2N-1 possible errors are equally mapped into each of the 2M possible states of the hash. It will only detect a fraction of those errors. The fraction will be (2M-1)/(2M). Or stated differently the fraction of errors which map into the valid hash is 1/2M. For a N bit message (2N-1)/2M errors are missed. For 2N >> 1 (all real world cases) this is essentially equal to 2N/2M or 2(N – M).

If you use the last M bits of the message it will detect all 2M-1 errors in the last M bits and miss 2(N-M) errors in the previous part of the message.

Hence it does not matter if you use a M bit hash of the entire message or the last M bits of the message. The same number of errors will be escape detection.

In “real life”, not all errors are equally likely. This is particularly true when you are trying to detect messages which have been altered by an attacker. But there are many situations where people spend way too much effort trying to determine the “best” hash to use when just using the first/last/whatever M bits or a simple checksum of M bits will work just as well as the latest NSA blessed crypto hash and consume far less computational resources.

I find this counter intuitive and very interesting. I suspect it says more about our intuition than anything.

Quote of the day—Bill

We aren’t going to be breaking glass and using flash-bangs.

Bill
May 15, 2015
[Mid morning on Friday (the 15th) my boss poked his head out of his boss’s office and asked me to join them and my lead. The first thing he told me was that I wasn’t in trouble. Next they asked me if I would be able to help out a different group by doing some travel that might extend into the weekend.

About then the V.P. poked his head into the office and gave us the guidance above. This was more than a bit amusing since my lead is former special forces, my boss is former law enforcement and army, and his boss helped make explosives for Boomershoot this year. And of course my guns and explosives experience was also being addressed. The V.P. knew of all of this experience in the room and I’m pretty sure he was speaking metaphorically.

I ended up putting in a 17 hour work day on Friday and 11 hours on Saturday. It was an interesting experience. I drove out into the desert and observed and helped another much more experienced team do their work until the early morning. I was the least experienced person there but in some ways I was better prepared than most of them. I shared my food with them and even used one of my knives to assist. There was only one person other than me who had the recommended ear plugs.

Most of the team left about 1:00 AM. One other guy and I left about 1:30 and went to our motels. We came back at 6:00 AM for a few minutes. He then left and I went back to my motel for more sleep. At 9:00 AM I attended a phone conference call for about 90 minutes and then returned to the site by myself until a little after 4:00 PM. I arrived home about three hours later and went straight to bed.

Who knew the life of a software engineer could be so interesting?

No glass was broken and no flash bangs were used. Mission accomplished.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Stossel

No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.

Bootleggers, “robber barons” who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed.

John Stossel
May 13, 2015
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
[This is what I expect will happened with I-594 and its cousins. People will mostly ignore it. The police will “have better things to do” and the prosecutors will only charge people with violating it if the criminal has more serious offenses as well.

Even if we can’t get it thrown out by the courts (the chances are still decent, just not as good as they were before the recent ruling) many, many people will ignore it because it is so stupid. Then eventually a friendly legislature will dispose of it.

This process will soon be visible in the State of New York in regards to The SAFE Act (H/T to Sebastian).—Joe]

Stolen gun numbers

This is interesting (from here):

The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that an average of 232,400 firearms are stolen each year, based on data from 2005 through 2010. Eighty percent are never recovered

And how many “gun crimes” are there each year? In 2013 for robbery (125,366), aggravated assault (146,045), and murder (8,438) these add up to 279,849.

If, on average, each gun was used in only two crimes before being disposed of the criminal market could easily supply those needs from the guns never recovered.

Does anyone really think the criminal who steals a gun is going to do a background check on anyone before they use it in violent crime or sells it to someone who uses it in the commission of a violent crime?

“Universal” background checks of gun sales are for people who believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy. The resources spent on such foolishness should be used on something that has a chance of working..

Quote of the day—Williams, Gibson, and O’Donnell

Our city will be a better place when we realize that our overwhelming access to guns and penchant for violence will only be mitigated by supporting our men and women in blue, realizing they must not be left to address this crisis alone.

Jumaane D. Williams, New York City Council Member
Vanessa L. Gibson, New York City Council Member
Eugene O’Donnell, Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
A Holistic Approach to Reducing Gun Violence
[So they think the police need to reduce access to guns? And how can they do that and still respect the Bill of Rights? The Supreme Court has very clearly said the 2nd Amendment means what it says, “… The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Either these people are saying they have no intention of honoring the U.S. Constitution or they are saying they completely out of touch with reality.

That gives people only two options on how to deal with them:

  1. Prosecute them for conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of the people.
  2. Insist they get treatment for their mental health problems.

In either case they have no business holding the positions they do.—Joe]