Quote of the day—Murray Rosenbaum

If you have a single gun and over 50 bullets, you could be a public danger.

The amount of ammunition you would need to keep your home safe from potential thieves and those who would cause you harm wouldn’t be even close to 100 rounds of anything. A single clip is more than enough to be threatening and protective if worse comes to worse.

Murray Rosenbaum
A eighteen-year-old senior at Columbia Prep in NYC
February 3, 2016
Bullet, Not Gun Control
[Children say the cutest things!

But children with crap for brains like this shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Murray, let me help with your education.

A typical pistol match requires a 100 to 150 rounds.

Last month reloaded, for my own use, just under 2000 rounds. Last year it was 9531 rounds. Later this month I’m taking a class which requires, “2000 rounds of brass-cased FMJ ammunition (minimum)”.

When I took a friend to the range last weekend for a couple hours to teach her how to defend herself she went through about 200 rounds and her education and practice is far from complete. After I get her to a basic competency and comfort level she will probably take this class which requires, “600 rounds of brass-cased, FMJ ammunition (minimum)”. I expect getting her to that level will require another 500 rounds of ammunition.

Murray, you say,

the trick is making bullets more expensive…

I have no doubt there are plenty of other people who would claim that I’m endorsing the destruction of the second amendment. They can say that all they want, but in the end the Constitution says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” but it doesn’t say anything about bullets.

Okay. Then using that same argument I have to conclude you would be unable to find a constitutional problem with a heavy tax on books. The First Amendment says freedom of the press, but doesn’t say anything about you being able to read it. Right?

When practicing I sometimes go through ammunition at the rate of up to five rounds per second. I figure that is about half the speed you can read words. So I propose we tax your use of reading of words at double whatever tax you want to impose on bullets. The number you used as an example in your post figured out to $75 per bullet. So, doing the arithmetic for you just in case your ignorance extends to the area of numbers as well as firearms and constitutional law, that would be a tax of $150 per word.

If you want to inflict a crushing tax on my education and those of others exercising their specific, enumerated, constitutionally protected, rights then you can say all you want, but in the end the constitution doesn’t protect you any more or less than it does me.*


* If you want to claim “books don’t kill people” ask your history instructor about Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Then reevaluate your claim before you engage me on that issue.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Maj. Gen. Robert Scales

Presidential involvement in small arms has been strategic and game-changing in our history. Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge. Give me a break.

Maj. Gen. Robert Scales
Former commandant of the U.S. Army War College
January 31, 2016
Obama’s eye-opening order to Pentagon: Make combat weapons safer, not more lethal
[He is doing just what he said he would do. He is fundamentally transforming our country.—Joe]

Anti-gun mental ill health

Via email from Miles I received this bill introduced in Missouri by Representative Stacey Newman.

The TLDR version is, in Miles words:

It would create restrictive guidelines that a person must follow to purchase a firearm in the state of Missouri.
 
Basically you can only buy from an FFL that’s at least 120 miles away from your residence, after getting a psych eval signed off (I assume at the buyer’s expense), watch a 30 minute anti-gun video and take a tour of a trauma ER on a weekend between 10pm and 6am when there’s actually a patient being treated for a gunshot wound, visit two families who have had a family member shot and visit two “ local faith leaders” who have performed a funeral service for a teenager who was shot and killed in the last year. Oh, I almost forgot, I have to have my 91 year old father and 89 year old mother sign off on the purchase too as there’s no age limit for the required parental permission slip (and what happens if one is an orphan?).

Many anti-gun people have mental health issues. I have to believe this another one. It’s hard to believe someone, even the most evil, if they are rational, can imagine this would pass muster in the courts let alone with a majority of their fellow politicians. Even in the most generous of scenarios, signaling her virtue to other anti-gun people, you would have to conclude, “this is crazy talk”.

How does someone like that even get elected? They must have stopped taking their meds after winning the election.

Quote of the day—Bruce Rollier

Denying a request to carry a gun in public is not disarming that person; he already owns the gun, and no one is proposing to take it away; just keep it at home. Reasonable gun controls designed to save lives have nothing to do with taking guns away. The writer says that “Examples abound of gun control leading to extermination of dissidents and minorities”, but of course he does not mention any actual examples where this occurred, and there are none.

Bruce Rollier
December 29, 2015
Gun control is not about disarming U.S. citizens
[I would find it difficult to come up with a more disingenuous and/or delusional statement even if I were deliberately trying. This is total crap for brains or alternate universe material.

If you can’t carry a gun in public then you are disarmed in public. Which is,  DISARMED.

No one is proposing to take away our guns? Is the New York Times, numerous politicians, and hundreds of ordinary citizens I have documented as saying they want to take our guns “no one”?

I have to wonder what color the sky is in his universe where Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, The People’s Republic of China, Cambodia, and numerous other countries did not murdered tens of millions of disarmed people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—clintack

To a leftist, reacting to gun-grabbing rhetoric by buying a gun is incomprehensible. The President just explained that guns are bad. Why would you want to self-identify as a bad person? People who would do that are probably dangerously insane.

clintack
December 11, 2015
Comment to White House Spokesman: Surging Gun Sales a Tragic Irony
[I suspect there is more than a little truth to this. It has to do with their desire to conform with the norms of their tribe. Individualism is not something they really understand.—Joe]

Markley’s Law, ignorance, hate, and violence

Somehow I don’t think this is the most effective way to convince people of their righteous. It just makes people laugh.

The following is brought you by David Hale on Facebook:

Listen brianless, I live nine miles from Newtown; those could have been my two sons with their brains blasted out because some nitwit mother thought it would be cool to teach her mental ill son how to shoot an automatic weapon. Had Adam Lanza NOT had access to his AR, would he still have shown with smaller caliber weapons? Possibly, but most likely SOME of those first graders would have survived. But you and your sick friends don;t give a shit about that; all you care about is how hard your dick gets when you drive your BMW to the range to shoot you “big boy” weapons. Amazing how none of you brave sons of bitches volunteers to fight in a real war. Take your perceived (and incorrect) right and stick it up your ass! We ARE coming for your fucking guns!

And this:

No, Dickhead I refuse to acknowledge your word for word talking points as you have been pathologically programmed to spout by that criminal Wayne LaPierre and his whores for the gun industry. You will never acknowledge that people would be alive today if weapons of mass destruction for use by the military to kill large amounts of people in as little time as possible were not allowed in the hands of amateurs. But agin, that’s because you and your little group of gun lovers (emphasis on the word lovers since you need them to get it up) have no sense of decency, are hugely narcissistic and probably would stand up for your rights to target shoot even if some maniac pumped a dozen rounds into your own child. Sick, sick, sick.

And this:

Giggle? Glad on this date you find this all so funny, you sick fuck. Sorry to disturb you … go back to jerking off on your weapons dickhead.

And then on to the violence:

And before I delete you from my page, let me reiterate … with the Governor and two US Senators leading the way, Connecticut IS coming for you guns dickhead. Hopefully we will pry them from your cold, dead hands.

We have facts and SCOTUS decisions on our side. They have Markley’s Law, ignorance, hate, and threats of violence. It’s the best they can come up with.

Delusions are often functional

From Twitter after my QOTD (scheduled for April 25, 2016, but due to a software bug is live now):

@JoeHuffman Is a divisive, old, tiny prick who was picked on in HS. We’ve always had guns and #MassShootings is new normal. Find a solution

bachety ‏@mbachety
December 11, 8:22 PM

Guys like @JoeHuffman are the problem. Our nation needs solutions to #GunViolence We’ve always had guns but not #MassShootings

bachety ‏@mbachety
December 11, 8:31 PM

I find it very telling his description of me having never met. Does he imagine he is capable of remote viewing or telepathy?

Old? Maybe. I have a grandson, does that make me old? Everything else is totally wrong.

Divisive? Wow. I get along so well with so many people that the other day one of my co-workers has to explain to me, in great detail, why someone else was, “A douche bag.”

Tiny? I’m 6’ 3” and 200 pounds. That isn’t tiny in my universe. I wonder what color the sky is in his.

I wasn’t picked on in high school. I was large then too and athletic—I was a three-year letterman. I only remember getting picked on once. Henry S. kicked me for some reason. He apologized and promised to never do it again after I caught up with him at the locked back door into the school. After some gentle persuasion he and I got along just fine.

I’m the problem in some way related to mass shootings? I’m still trying to figure out what color the sky is in his universe.

As Heinlein said, “Delusions are often functional.” In this case it helps bachety cope with his lack of facts and rational arguments about gun owners.

Good plans and crazy psychology

From MSNBC:

Nobody is talking about gun control in San Bernardino. Here’s why

As a financial aid administrator at a local community college, Melissa Contreras has gone through a number of active-shooter trainings at work. But this shooting hit a little too close to home for her. One of Contereras’ neighbors across the street, a mother to a 22-month toddler, was gunned down in Wednesday’s shooting.

“I have never in all 39 years in my life thought to pick up a gun,” Contreras said. “But now, I want to sign up for a class to learn and train to use one.”

And from the New York Times:

In Wake of Shootings, a Familiar Call to Arms Drives Latest Jump in Weapon Sales

“What if someone comes after me or my family?” said Janet Winkler, a grandmother who was shopping for bullets to fill the revolver inside her purse. “I used to never carry it to Target or to Wal-Mart, but the way things are, after all that’s happened, now I do.”

In the wake of mass shootings in Paris, Colorado Springs and San Bernardino, Calif., Americans are once again arming themselves — stocking up on guns and ammunition, bringing weapons into their daily routines and requesting refresher courses from firing ranges.

Thinking of both self-protection and the threat of new gun laws that could follow the San Bernardino shooting that left 14 people dead on Wednesday, much of the country is rushing toward guns rather than away: Gun shops from Texas to Maine have all recently reported increased gun sales, and in some cases, sheriffs have even urged residents to arm themselves.

It is all part of a weapons boom that has been building for weeks. More Americans had their backgrounds checked while buying guns on Black Friday than on any other day on record, according to F.B.I. statistics, which showed a 5 percent increase over Black Friday last year. In all, 185,345 people had their backgrounds checked on Black Friday alone.

Good people implementing good plans. It should help. There will still be losses on our side but it should reduce the kill ratios.

But what amazes me is the how the anti-gun people conform to the psychology described in the book When Prophecy Fails:

These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.

The conditions are met and these people follow the psychology.

The majority of the people recognize gun control is a stupid response to the attacks and the anti-gun people respond with increased proselyting. And yet, with all these people believing buying guns, getting trained, and carrying them wherever they can is an appropriate response to terrorist attacks The New York Times thinks it is plausible, appropriate, and politically possible to ban gun ownership of the most popular rifle in America?

As I said yesterday:

The anti-gun people are on a downward slope to oblivion and the NYT editorial is the shrieking as they approach the abyss.

They literally do not know how to think rationally. They have crap for brains. They cannot determine truth and falsity.

Sympathy in this case is difficult

The French have been working hard for years to show the Muslims that they mean them no harm. THAT, we are told, is how you get along in peace with people of other cultures, and if other people hate you then there must be a good reason; you need to look at yourself and see what you can do to make them stop hating you.

The French have also adopted the idea of massive violations of the right of honest citizens to keep and bear arms. Criminals will have whatever they want, but the honest must be disarmed.

Predictably then, we get this quote after last night’s coordinated jihad attacks in and around Paris. This was from someone at a rock concert;

“We lied down on the floor not to get hurt. It was a huge panic. The terrorists shot at us for 10 to 15 minutes. It was a bloodbath.” (That’s from CNN if you want to look. I’m not linking to them)

If all you can do is lie down and hope, while people around you are being shot, for 10 to 15 minutes, then your tactics suck. Dozens of people died on that scene, like the helpless sheep they worked so hard to become.

They’ve brought this upon themselves, I’m very sorry to say, and it’s difficult to have much sympathy for them. We’ve tried for years to warn them.

The left in the U.S. sees all this and says to themselves; “We totally need more multiculturalism and more gun control.” That attitude, that insanity, is the enemy as much as any jihadist, for it is that attitude that has emboldened the jihadists. They must be laughing their asses off at our stupidity.

Quote of the day—Geoff Garin

Opposing common-sense gun safety laws either means that someone is too extreme or too much in the pocket of the gun lobby.

Geoff Garin
A pollster for Clinton’s 2008 campaign now with her super PAC, Priorities USA Action
November 6, 2015
Why Hillary Clinton Thinks Gun Control Can Win in 2016
[Via an email from Miles (a frequent commenter here).

As he also said in the email:

Yep, this is what they think of us. And if they’re this delusional, I hope thy keep thinking it.

While it’s clear the Democrats don’t have very strong presidential candidates and they are choosing their issues poorly I currently don’t see a lot of strength in their opposition. So I suspect it will be another one of those elections where many people will vote for the candidate who they think is the least evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aaron Duncan‏@AaronCDuncan

You want friendly, head to your local gun show and masturbate with the other gun cum guzzlers.

Aaron Duncan ‏@AaronCDuncan
Tweeted on November 24, 2015
[Via a Tweet from Linoge.

This is what they think of those who exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Just remember that we have SCOTUS decisions and they have childish insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lisa Subeck

Our nation has watched as community after community has had to confront the tragedies that occur when weapons designed to kill large numbers of people quickly get into the hands of a dangerous person. No Wisconsin community should ever have to face such a tragedy at the hands of someone armed with a semiautomatic assault weapon.

I can conceive of no legitimate reason that any citizen should need to own or use a semiautomatic assault weapon.

Lisa Subeck
State Representative, Democrat Wisconsin
Media release November 4, 2015.
[H/T to Barron for the email pointer.

I can think of many reasons why citizens should own and use the type of firearms she wishes to ban. And like a fish who doesn’t know what water is Ms. Subeck doesn’t have the imagination to recognized the most obvious reason. That is, the number one reason for owning and becoming skilled in the use of these type of firearms is to defend ourselves against people like her who are contemptuous of basic human rights.

In addition to the general stupidity of her media release her bill demonstrates she is clueless in many dimensions. Here, for example, is her description of the pistols to be banned from the proposed bill:

3.  A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and that has any of the following:
a.  A folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock.
b.  A 2nd handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand.
c.  The capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip.
d.  A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
e.  A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel, and that permits the user to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
burned.
f.  A manufactured weight of at least 50 ounces when the pistol is unloaded.

She has crap for brains and should be treated as such.

But the real lesson to remember from this is:

Under the bill, whoever transports, purchases, possesses, or transfers a semiautomatic assault weapon is guilty of a felony and may be fined up to $10,000, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to six years, or both.

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

Quote of the day—John Nolte

Everything went black the moment the idiotic CNN talking head used the Paris bloodbath to push for American gun control, and then hand-wring over fears of a unicorn known as the “anti-Muslim backlash.”

John Nolte
November 14, 2015
Why CNN Is Dying: Paris Bloodbath Used to Push Gun Control
[I welcome the efforts to use terrorist attacks such as the incident in Paris for gun control efforts. Rational people only have to think about it for a few seconds before dismissing gun control efforts as idiotic in this context.

As noted by Sebastian there is a surge in people seeking concealed carry license. This is attributed to the Paris attacks. Politicians attempting to make guns harder to get will find their plans do poorly at the polls. Think of this as an intelligence test for politicians. If they say and do stupid things then they get their failed test results at the polls.—Joe]

We told them so

For at least ten years gun owners, the police, and many others have been saying “ballistic fingerprinting” will not and cannot work (many of the links are dead but in January 2005 they were active, I include them anyway to give a hint at the number of people who were in agreement the system was doomed to failure):

Millions of dollars and over a decade later the Maryland legislators finally admitted what we have been saying all along:

Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the “fingerprints” of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of “ballistic fingerprints” to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

But the computerized system designed to sort and match the images never worked as envisioned. In 2007, the state stopped bothering to take the photographs, though hundreds of thousands more casings kept piling up in the fallout shelter.

And now we all get to say, “I told you so”:

Preventing gun violence

Via email a few weeks ago from “longtime reader” Mike H. we have Taking executive action on guns, McAuliffe bans firearms in most state offices:

After facing resistance to new gun-control measures in the General Assembly, Gov. Terry McAuliffe used his executive authority Thursday to bolster prosecutions of illegal gun sales and ban firearms in most state offices.

In an executive order signed during a morning news conference in Richmond, McAuliffe established a task force that will direct state resources toward gun prosecutions, ordered the Virginia State Police to create a tip line to let people collect rewards for reporting gun violations and enacted an immediate ban on openly carried guns in executive branch offices.

“Gun crimes are not acts of God,” McAuliffe said. “But for too long, certain politicians and lobbyists have told us that gun violence in America is some sort of natural phenomenon, something we cannot do anything about. Today, we are gathered to recognize that we are not helpless to gun violence, that we can prevent it.”

Really? McAuliffe is “recognizing” he can prevent gun violence? Citation needed.

Is he also going to “recognize” he can prevent religious violence by restricting religions?

I’m in agreement with Matt Irwin.

 

Quote of the day—Jacob Schuman

The fact is, the widespread availability of guns is a significant, but often overlooked, cause of persistent inequality in the United States. Focusing on the relationship between guns and inequality will allow gun control advocates to argue that restricting firearm access is an essential step towards achieving social justice and economic empowerment.

The first way that guns drive inequality is by making life more violent and less stable for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.

Jacob Schuman
November 4, 2015
The Equality Argument For Gun Control
[He has it exactly backwards. Guns enable a civil society.—Joe]

No. Next question.

Nick Vivion asks, “Could this new Wi-Fi technology revolutionize airport security?”

Some of the most promising new technology has emerged from a multi-year project from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab: a Wi-Fi network that can identify who you are — even through a wall. Yep, you read that right. These geniuses have built a way to implement Wi-Fi as a means to identify the unique characteristics of individual humans.

 

The RF Capture technology is able to analyze how Wi-Fi signals bounce off a human being to create an outline similar to what you might see from a millimeter wave scanner. The secret sauce is a reconstruction algorithm that stitches the many refracted waves into an image and then analyses the results. The system was able to identify 15 different people with a 90% accuracy.

The last sentence is meaningless. There are two types of errors. False positives and false negatives. Which type is this 90% numbers? Furthermore there are two types meanings of “identify” in biometrics. There is, “Who is this person?” (identification). And there is, “Is this person who they say they are? (verification)”. If they are identifying one person out of a population of 15 90% of the time then the success with of a population of 100s, 1000s, or millions is going to be insignificant. If they talking about verification then it means that one out of ten times an imposter is falsely verified. This is way too poor.

If that isn’t enough they don’t address the fundamental difficulty with security. That is that you have an active adversary. The adversary is going to do whatever they can to fool you. Wi-Fi signals bounce off of humans, as shown in the video below, but they bounce of metal even better. A little bit of aluminum foil underneath your shirt and you will appear as a completely different image to their technology. Some outdoor clothing has aluminum built into it for heat retention. This would play havoc with their tech.

Vivion should have asked a security expert his question. The answer would have been “No. Next question.”

Quote of the day—Gerald Lee Wolters

Now the Commander in Chief needs to make these laws Federal with an executive order. Full stop. One nation one policy. Australia y’all.

Gerald Lee Wolters
October 19, 2015
Comment to Federal Court Upholds Bulk Of Gun Control Laws Passed In Wake Of Newtown
[These people live in an alternate reality where they believe we are all subjects of a king or dictator.

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

And their point is?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled:

As to the ban on large-capacity magazines, the court upheld it by again pointing to Newtown and the shooter’s ability to fire “154 rounds in less than five minutes” — an observation that was in line with the lower court’s finding that “large-capacity magazines result in more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks.”

Using that criteria they could also ban six shot revolvers as well as ten round magazines. And I expect, single shot guns. As that is only about one shot every two seconds. Certainly two round magazines would be fail their criteria.

Here you see 12 shots from a revolver in under three seconds:

Hence, using a revolver, people could shoot 154 rounds in less than 40 seconds. Okay, not everyone is Jerry Miculek. And this was pretty much a peak achievement for Jerry. Even multiplying Jerry’s time by a factor of three, which brings it into the range of mere mortals, results in the 154 rounds being fired in less than a minute and a half.

Here I demonstrate shooting 35 rounds in less than 16 seconds with 10 round magazines even though I had to clear a malfunction:

This means one could easily fire 154 rounds in less than a minute and a half.

What these people don’t realize is that the size of the magazine isn’t the critical part of putting a lot of bullets on target. It’s the target acquisition time. If the number of shots fired per unit time were something they were seriously going to restrict they would have to ban cartridges.

Of course they would consider that a valid and worthy goal. But it would be ignored and just as easily circumvented as their existing ban on standard capacity magazines.

So, what’s their point? I have to conclude Ayn Rand has their number.