Lack of real men = violence

The on-going “pussification” of America is leading to more violence, this time in schools.

There was a time when this would not have been possible. That was when the principle and superintendent were both World War II veterans. When I was in elementary school, the principal and sup. were nice guys. They liked kids. They looked out for things. They never had to prove it, physically, and that is critically important, but it was universally understood that they were in charge and could handle anything.

The very idea of having any kind of violence perpetrated by students against a teacher would have laughable. Utterly impossible, in fact. Sure, two boys might get into a scrap during recess, but it would soon be over. Even the old lady teachers could handle them. It was understood that there were men in charge, just within shouting distance, if they should be required. Thus a frail old woman could take a scrapping, healthy boy by the ear and set him down, and give him a talking-to about playground etiquette, and he’d never fight back. He’d sit and pay attention.

In our litigious, pussified, Progressive society however, in which the term “strong man” either means “tyrant” or it has given way to the term “strong woman”, there’s no one left to prevent the violence. Not in some of the more leftist, public schools anyway.

It’s a Lord of the Flies situation we’re building.

I’m not saying women can’t maintain order, just that it’s far less likely, the farther away the men get. Put women in charge, AND give them a Progressive, passive, left-wing “non-violent” mentality, and all hell’s going break loose. Fatherless boys in woman-run public schools are being raised for a life of violence and crime.

The government then becomes the “father”, but a loveless and tyrannical one. That, I believe, is the plan. We can therefore refer to that Harrisburg, PA school as a success.

Frame of reference

On Twitter:

Donald Arant‏ @darant3 Replying to @NRATV @MrColionNoir

More poisonous gun rhetoric and PROPAGANDA! Since you brought up the idea of the evolution of guns…let’s allow all Americans the right to own tanks?

Many other people pointed out that it is entirely legal to own tanks. Expensive, but legal. I thought I could help in a different way. His frame of reference is totally messed up.

So this was my reply:

I think I see the problem here. You believe the government LETS people do things. It’s the other way around. The U.S. Constitution, written by “We the people”, granted the government certain powers. It didn’t grant them powers to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

He has probably been stuck in his alternate reality for so long that I’m not sure he will be able to comprehend things as they really are. But, it was worth a shot.

Visualization

I love the post Looking at the “gun violence” problem by Carl Bussjaeger. But I think some of the comparison could be made a little more relatable. I’m attempting to do that in this post.

Let’s set aside for the moment that a government has no business criminalizing behavior based on the statistics of a particular group. For example, just because Democrats in prison outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of more than two to one does not justify sending all Democrats to prison to prevent the majority of crimes. Hence, even if the numbers on gun ownership showed a very high percentage of criminal activity, it would still be morally and philosophically wrong to put people in prison for owning or using a gun when they had not hurt anyone or their property.

With this set aside for the moment we can show that prevention of crimes committed with guns is crazy talk as well as grossly immoral.

From Carl:

We know that we have a theoretical maximum of 10,228 firearms-wielding murderers. In fact, since we also know of serial and and mass shootings, the number of gun murderers must be lower, but is not quantifiable with available data. For purposes of discussion I will use the high 10,228 figure for murderers.

Estimates of American gun owners vary by significantly large amounts. The lowest I have seen is 55 million, or roughly 17% of the general population. The highest is 120 million, or approximately 37%.

Therefore, murderers are 0.0085 to 0.0186% of all gun owners. 85 ten-thousandths of 1 percent to 186 ten-thousandths of 1 percent.

The first paragraph misses the case where two or more people contributed to the same murder, but I can’t imagine it changes the conclusion presented in the last paragraph much. Carl does a pie chart with these numbers. In this situation I think a different graphical image would better. Taking the midpoint of these two numbers, 0.01355% of all gun owners are a murderer each year, lets visualize this as one murderer facing a line of life protecting gun owners. Let’s assume the life protecting gun owners are shoulder-to-shoulder with enough space to easily draw and fire their guns without bumping into each other. This would mean they are are spaced about four feet apart. This line of life protecting gun owners, facing a single murderer, would be over five and a half miles long.

Even if the air were very clear, there were no visual obstructions, and the murder had 20/20 vision the murderer would still not be able to see the people on either end of the line facing him because the width of the gun owners bodies at that distance would be narrower than human visual perception.

Moving on, Carl tells us:

We have no idea, given the lack of data, of the average number of guns used by murderers. We know it ranges from 1 to 24, but those 10,228 individual shooters could have used any number in that range. For this discussion, I’ll make the probably outrageous assumption that the average is as high as 12, midway in the range (my gut feel is that average is closer to 1.1 per shooter).

So… 10,228 shooters time 12 guns, gives a hypothetical number of “murder guns” of 122,736 (gut feel would be 11,250).

I guesstimated gun owner numbers. Firearms estimates are just as vague. Recent lowball estimates are around 265 million. Others put it well over 300 million. Or over 400 million. The highest estimate I’ve encountered is 750 million.

Again, Carl makes a minor mistake. Some, perhaps a significant number, of guns are used in multiple murders. For example one murderer uses a gun to kill two people in one incident. Or he uses it to murder one person in each of three incidents. Or after using it in one crime sells it to someone else who uses it on the other side of town in a different murder. I would guess the total number of guns used in murders is less than the total number of murders each year. Hence, I’m going to assume that, on average, for each murder there was one gun, or 10,228 guns involved in a murder each year.

Using the approximate midpoint of Carl’s estimate of the number of guns in the hands of private citizens, 500 million, that means that about 0.002046% of all guns were used in a murder in any given year.

Let’s visualize one of those murder guns against corresponding guns not used a murder that year. Lets put those guns lying on their sides, in a line pointing all in the same direction, with an average spacing of one foot (many of them are long guns with normal capacity magazines). That line would be over nine and a quarter miles long.

Extending Carl’s comparison to ammunition, let’s assume that each murder consumed two rounds. That would mean that about 20,500 rounds were used for murder each year. Yet, private consumption of ammunition is 10 to 12 billion rounds per year. That means about 0.00019% of all ammunition is used in murders. Assuming a typical 9×19mm Parabellum cartridge and spacing them side to side with the bases not quite touching we get a line of cartridges over three and a quarter miles long.

Now visual trying to prevent one of the gun owners, guns, or cartridges from being used in a murder. What sort of police state would be required to have a reasonable chance of keeping an unknown gun owner from using one of those guns and two of those cartridges to prevent him from committing a murder? It is no more possible than it would be to prevent the average high school dropout from finding someone willing to sell him a recreational drug. It is crazy talk for anti-gun organizations to imagine they can prevent gun crimes in any significant numbers by placing restrictions on gun owners, guns, or ammunition.

The only practical prevention is by punishing gun owners who hurt others or their property. The scarce law enforcement resource we have must be focused on finding and punishing people who maliciously hurt others and not on creating victimless “crimes” and punishing people who have hurt no one.

Quote of the day—David Frum

Americans die from gunfire in proportions unparalleled in the civilized world because Americans own guns in proportions unparalleled in the civilized world. More guns mean more lethal accidents, more suicides, more everyday arguments escalated into murderous fusillades.

David Frum
October 6, 2017
The Rules of the Gun Debate–The rules for discussing firearms in the United States obscure the obvious solutions.
[If you are totally ignorant it’s a reasonable hypothesis. But if you have half a brain and do a little research you will discover it fails the reality test:

Frum is totally ignorant and/or doesn’t have half a brain, and/or is deliberately lying.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Saurus

STOP THE SHOOTINGS. STOP REPUBLICANS

Saurus
November 5, 2017
Comment to At least 26 dead in South Texas church shooting, officials say
[One has to wonder what color the sky is in this person’s universe. Nearly all mass shooters are either Democrats or have no known political affiliation.

The most likely explanation for the comment is psychological projection.—Joe]

Too bad they don’t understand numbers

We often notice anti-gun people have problems understanding numbers, arithmetic is beyond them and math is totally alien. Last weekend I came across some numbers that, while simple and illuminating, would scare the crap out of them if they could only comprehend them.

I was at the WWII museum in New Orleans and took this picture of a wall:

WP_20171021_10_46_29_Pro

The numbers shown are the total number of items produced by the U.S. for use in World War II.

Compare that number of machine guns, 2,680,000, to the number of machine guns owned by U.S. citizens—490,664. Even though they are heavily restricted and no new machine guns have entered the private citizen market since May of 1986 we have nearly 20% the number of machine guns the U.S. military used to help defeat the Axis powers of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan.

That should give them the chills, if they understood numbers.

There is another number on that wall of even greater interest and applicability to the discussion they don’t want to have. The U.S. produced 41,500,000,000 rounds of ammunition for the military in WWII. A typical year of U.S. civilian consumption is on the order of 10->12 billion rounds. Hence, during the nearly four years the U.S. was actively fighting the Axis powers, on average, they used about the same number of rounds each year that U.S. civilians use recreationally each year. Tell your anti-gun antagonist we use as much ammunition each year practicing for the next civil war as the U.S. used each year in fighting WWII.

See also my Boots on the ground post for more numbers of interest.

Too bad the antigun people don’t really understand numbers. If they did they would probably just curly up into a fetal position and whimper instead of annoying us. In the mean time, just tell them molṑn labé and then carry on as usual.

Quote of the day—Ryan Born

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]

Quote of the day—Leonard Pitts

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]

Quote of the day—Michael Moore

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]

Quote of the day—Jonathan L. Walton

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]

Quote of the day—Dana Milbank

Consider Title XV of the sportsmen’s bill, also known as the “Hearing Protection Act,” which makes it easier for gun owners to buy silencers for their weapons. The uninformed might suspect that silencers are used by people who want to fire weapons without being caught by cops or observed by witnesses. But more and more hunters are finding that conventional earplugs and muffs are not adequate for today’s weapons — for example, quail hunting with an M777 howitzer or grouse hunting with an FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher.

Dana Milbank
September 11, 2017
The NRA’s idea of recreation: Assault rifles, armor-piercing bullets and silencers
[One might guess Milbank is so out of touch with reality that he believes the right to keep and bear arms is about recreation. And one also has to wonder what part of “shall not be infringed” he doesn’t understand.

But, just as likely is that Milbank does have at least a passing grasp of reality and knows he can’t put up a valid argument so he just goes straight to mocking.

We can make most of the stuff Milbank is “concerned” about in our garages with cheap metal working equipment and a trip to the local hardware store. These changes in the law are a mere recognition of reality. The existing law did nothing to improve public safety and made life more hazardous for good and gentle people who just want to be left alone. But to be left alone is asking too much from authoritarians like Milbank. So, I won’t be asking. I’m telling.

Molṑn labé, Dana.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Defens

If DOAbayman and his ilk really think that us gun folk sit around and dream about shooting people, what must be going through his head? Does he dream of boxcars, re-education camps, and gibbets? Or just more mundane things like beatings and stonings?

Defens
September 8, 2017
Comment to Quote of the day—DOAbayman
[Good question.

But, from long experience dealing with people with mental health issues, it’s not a productive use of your time to try and understand the chaos inside their minds. Just avoid them as best you can and have simple and effective plans for your encounters with them.—Joe]

It’s the radiation, Stupid

They started with weightlessness as the reason, they did drop the R-word in the middle (can’t throw out all credibility), but only in passing, then reinforced the weightlessness meme again at the end.

I see it like this (because this is how it is); you can’t get the money if you aren’t offering the hope of something exciting (like a Mars colony) or something excitingly catastrophic (like the end of the world unless government has total control). Therefore you can’t come out and say that a Mars colony is a stupid idea because then you lose your funding.

In fact you’d have to live underground on Mars, or die of radiation. If you’re going to live underground, well, you can do that here on Earth much more easily and cheaply. AND…you don’t want to do that anyway, because living underground forever is boring, so forget the whole thing.

On second thought, no; I’m wrong about all of that so give me a hundred billion dollars and I’ll get you’re dumb ass to Mars. You’ll need to pay in advance.

Quote of the day—Chris Cox

Each month when I write about our right to keep and bear arms, it’s difficult to predict what the state of play will look like by the time this article hits your mailbox. This is especially so when it comes to the dizzying array of fake news from an opposition that is not only increasingly desperate but also increasingly detached from reality.

This time, however, The Washington Post made it easy. In July, the Post published a story that is so ridiculous, so outlandish in its shading of the truth, that it may very well take its place alongside Rolling Stone’s timelessly ludicrous “expose” on America’s five most dangerous guns (i.e., pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and derringers). The story ran under the headline: “Gun-control advocates pushed back a tough year at the state level, and they’ll take the win.”  The basic premise of the Post article is that gun control is “winning” because it’s not losing as badly as it conceivably could.

That’s right. According to The Washington Post—maybe America’s second-most prominent nationwide newspaper—“gun control” is “winning” at the state level in 2017.

The Post article glosses over the fact that the ratio of pro to anti-gun bills actually signed into law at press time was 20:1. Only in the modern era of fake news running amok would that ratio result in the clear loser proclaiming victory and the media reporting it as true.

Chris Cox
August 25, 2017
Gun Control Advocates, Cheered on by the Media, Claim Victory in Losing
[This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. We’ve know for a long time anti-gun people can’t even do numbers, let alone arithmetic.—Joe]

He had me at “solve the Second Amendment”

Stephen Yearwood got creative with the wording of the Second Amendment and in a article titled “Gun Control: How To Solve The Second Amendment” says:

In my lifetime ‘gun control’ has become as explosive as any political issue in this country can be. To my mind, all we need to do to settle that issue once and for all is to read the Second Amendment and do what it says.

He then parses nearly all the words careful, throws up and knocks down and knocks down four straw men, and concludes the Second Amendment means the states can have militias. He conveniently ignores the word “people” and that all nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices agreed it guarantees an individual right.

If he wants to “Solve the Second Amendment” I suggest he make an appointment with me and start here. If he is successful he can work his way out from there. If not, well… I have lots of land and earth moving equipment.

Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

They say we need a “conversation” on guns in America. A common sub-argument is that pro-gun people need to stop saying “No” every time those who prefer a disarmed populace suggest more restrictions on the honest folks who didn’t kill any innocents in Newton.

We already had that conversation.

We had it in 1791, and settled the issue with the second amendment to the Constitution protecting a preexisting right to keep and bear arms. Gun banners being the whack-a-moles of civil rights violation, we had that conversation several times: Cruikshank and Presser come to mind.

More recently, we again had that conversation in 2008, when the Supreme Court pointed out that yes, the second amendment really does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller.

Chi-town pols didn’t like that, so we had the conversation yet again in 2010. The Supreme Court again pointed out that arms really are a right, and that it really is an individual right, in McDonald.

Victim disarmers are slow learners, forever doomed to riding the short bus through life, so we had the conversation yet-a-frickin’-gain in 2012: Moore v. Madigan, in which a federal judge had to lecture the poor, cognitively-challenged pols of Illinois (who have trouble even finding the short bus) in small words that, WHACK-upside the head “Pay attention, dipsticks; we told you it’s a right of the individual people, so stop screwing with it.”

And here we are: Once more, idiots who shouldn’t be on the streets without a guardian to wipe the drool off their faces, change their diapers, and keep them out of the road, are calling for the “conversation”. Like whiny children pestering exasperated parents over and over and over and over for a coveted-but-terribly-bad-for-you present, they keep ignoring the settled issue. “But China does it. What can’t we make all the citizens helpless, too?” they pontificate petulantly. (Yeah, China does it. That’s why their lunatic had to cut up those 22 Chinese schoolchildren with a knife a few days before Newton. Guns bans sure solved China’s violence problems.)

We had that conversation, and explained in words that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size should have been able to comprehend: “the security of a free state”, the right to life and liberty, self defense. At this point, anyone who doesn’t—or won’t—get it probably falls into one or more of three categories:

  • whining mental incompetents

  • those with a “professional” need to ensure a steady supply of helpless victims for violent predators

  • and those with a more extensive agenda

You might abbreviate those as morons, criminals, and traitors. None of which are really interested in reasoned conversation.

Carl Bussjaeger
July 14, 2017
We Had That Conversation
[I hinted at this in the post, Been there. Done that. Let’s move on. That was almost exactly five years ago. Our opponents are ignorant, stupid, and/or evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Fallick

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, claimed that “he’s ‘probably’ the guy who, after the Newtown massacre, killed the bipartisan bill that would’ve required background checks on commercial sales of guns. He had ‘a very big role’ in designing opposition in the Senate.” That’s too bad. I would have preferred a guy who “probably” pushed through legislation so that not one more person since that massacre was ever shot in the United States. Let’s work toward that — keeping everyone safe and preventing any danger of anyone being shot ever again. We need gun control.

David Fallick
July 24, 2017
We need gun control
[If Fallick believes there is legislative action possible such that “not one more person since that massacre was ever shot in the United States” he has to be the all-time winner of the Crap for Brains award.

That is industrial grade stupidity.—Joe]

Education quirk

Interesting. Short version: PISA is the “Programme for International Student Assessment”, it tests schools/kids from around the world. 65 nations entered. America ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. Ouch. Nations that didn’t enter were mostly places like all of sub-Saharan Africa which routinely score badly on such tests; it’s safe to assume the US did better than Haiti, even if they didn’t take the test.

However… Someone looked at how kids performed in each nation by ethnic backgrounds within a country, and compared them across borders (i.e., compare American Chinese to Chinese in China, American whites to whites in Europe, Mexican-Americans to Mexicans in Mexico, etc). Quote:

Asian-Americans outperform all Asian students except for Shanghai-Chinese. White Americans outperform students from all 37 predominantly white nations except Finns, and U.S. Hispanics outperformed the students of all eight Latin American countries that participated in the tests.

African-American kids would have outscored the students of any sub-Saharan African country that took the test (none did) and did outperform the only black country to participate,Trinidad and Tobago, by 25 points.

Huh. That means that one (or both) of these two cherished narratives are false:
(a) American schools are abject failures for the amount of money we spend per student, and spending more money will fix the problem, or
(b) There are no real and significant racial /ethnic /cultural differences, and the low academic scores highly correlated with economic achievement of certain groups is the result of white racism, oppression,  discrimination, etc.

You can lead a horse to water… etc., etc.

You can’t have it both ways with this analysis of the data. Personally, I think we should treat all people as individuals, and do what we can with / for them. Move to an ability-based class-placement system for most things rather than age-based.

Quote of the day—kam

Without Central Banks this market wouldn’t exist. All the algorithms today are but spin off of linear regression. Boats rising with the tide.

Earnings can be replaced with Central Bank cash/credit, but not over the long run. And that day could be tomorrow, or in 10 years. Who could have thought that easy money would have created so many walking corpses.

kam
June 15, 2017
Comment to What Happens When the Machines Start Selling?
[H/T to Brett.

Who? I’m not sure about “walking corpses” being explicitly predicted but there were many people who thought it was a really bad idea.

The lessons learned in the next few years will be remembered for probably a generation or so before “the new kids on the block” believe they are smarter and/or times are different. The best fix would probably be when the lesson is visible world wide as burned out ruins of cities for governments to be prohibited from trying to “manage the economy”. But I put the odds at 50-50 that will happen on even one continent.—Joe]