Why just the gun manufacturer?

I’ve been thinking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster because of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. And the more I think about it the more clear it becomes that our political opponents are not rational.

If the gun manufacturer is responsible then isn’t the magazine manufacturer just as, if not more, responsible? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the custom springs in the gun? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the propellant in the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the bullets? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the shell casing? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the cups, anvils, and explosive compounds in the primers? Why just the gun manufacturer?

And of course we could, and have, asked similar questions about the car the shooter drove to the school, and that leads to the gasoline, tires, oil, and roads he used to get there. And once we go there why not the shoes and clothes of the shooter? Or maybe he wore glasses and would have had trouble hitting his targets if it hadn’t been for the manufacturer of the corrective lenses and the optometrist who prescribed them.

We could carry this on to bizarrely extreme levels but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how does the anti-gun mind work such that they think the gun manufacture is responsible but none of the other manufactures of the components involved in the crime are? The point is that there is no clear threshold where it is easy to say the manufacturer of one component is responsible and the next is not.

The only thing I can think of is that they have some mind distorting hatred of GUNS!!! such that they cannot think rationally. They recognize the absurdity of blaming the car and corrective lens manufacturers but it just doesn’t register that since the ownership of a gun is constitutionally protected right that makes the liability of gun manufacturer even more absurd.

The inability to recognize the obvious in defiance of clear and presence evidence is evidence of a mental disorder. We see it with Peterson Syndrome and we see it here.

Quote of the day—Tam

Wow, Mark, that was nearly wrong in every particular! It bordered on fractally wrong, in that every little piece, taken by itself, was as wrong as the whole.

Tam
December 7, 2014
Sigh
[I read Mark Morford’s troll piece and briefly considered blogging about it. But I prefer to blog about things that either no one has noticed yet or that I have a quasi-unique viewpoint on. And this piece has been well covered by many others. This is just a small sample:

I had completely dismissed it as blog material. Morford is just too easy of a target and I have dealt with him at length before. Then I read the last sentence I quoted above of Tam’s. Wow!

I have seen this sort of thing many times before but didn’t have a name for it. Fractally wrong. I like it. I like it a lot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Steve Dowson

We are keen to raise awareness of the devastating impact of knife crime and to reduce the number of families affected so we have decided to keep the knife bins indefinitely.

While projects encouraging the surrender of knives are not a single solution to violence, they have an important role to play in inspiring communities to get behind education and preventative measures.

Such campaigns show a desire to address local concerns and Lancashire Police is keen to throw our weight behind them in support.

We’ve been delighted with the response so far, but our communities have told us that they want an end to knife crime and that they want to work with us to make that happen.

Steve Dowson
Detective Chief Inspector
Lancashire, England
August 10, 2014
Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife
SurrenderYourKnife1SurrenderYourKnife2
[Via a Tweet from Chris Knox.

No. This is not satire. Here is another link to marvel at.

Read carefully. Notice how they measure success in terms of symbolism and good intentions? Measuring success in terms of crime rates is not even hinted at. No mention of the futility.

This is a culture that has some serious mental problems. They apparently cannot distinguish between their fantasy of good intentions and the reality of criminal behavior. Do they also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Great Pumpkin?

This would be our future if we were to surrender to the anti-Second Amendment people.—Joe]

First 594 casualty

I-594 has claimed its first casualty, even though it doesn’t go into effect until December. A museum in Lynden, WA, is returning some WW II rifles it was loaned, loans which would become problematic once the law is in effect. So, people going to the museum will not be able to see the parts of history they once could. I’m sure you feel much safer now.

The push to marginalize guns and gun owners, to make them seem “other,” different, freakish, and strange continues.

Quote of the day—Derek Amarpreet Whitman

Total paranoia. You will be one of the first people to be killed.

Derek Amarpreet Whitman
November 11, 2014
Comment to Gun Control Groups Eye More State Ballot Initiatives After Victory In Washington State
[I find it very interesting that in one sentence Whitman tells a gun owner he is paranoid and in the very next sentence tells him that he will be one of the first people to be killed. This is yet another demonstration that these people are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]

This is what they think of us

From Alexis Clark:

B1s3IDFCUAANuLC

She describes herself as “Pleasantly Opinionated.”

If she thinks calling people who live in a certain area names like that is “pleasantly opinionated” you shouldn’t be surprised that she got the labels on her map mixed up.

Update: The Tweet and the picture were deleted a few hours after I posted this.

Michigan Episcopal Church wants to ban guns

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

We have Episcopal Church in Michigan passes gun resolution as evidence to the contrary. The resolution says:

RESOLVED: that the 180th Convention of the Diocese of Michigan, in response to the impact on Michigan communities of deaths from gun violence, join with other faith communities calling for the following steps to be taken by Federal and State lawmakers:

1. Requiring and enforcing universal background checks on all gun sales;
2. A clear ban on all future sales of military-style semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and high-impact ammunition (i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting);
3. Making gun trafficking a Federal crime;

The Episcopal Church supports the U.S. Constitution’s protections of the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms; but, we also stand for public policies to ban gun violence and assault weapons.

You have to marvel at the naiveté and/or stupid exhibited here.

You can’t support the Second Amendment then make the demands for background checks anymore than you could require background checks for sales of First Amendment materials. One would guess they support the First Amendment and would claim protection if gun owners were to demand they be punished for hate speech because of their vocal support of restrictions to gun ownership.

Background checks on all gun sales? As the supporters of I-594 in Washington State found out there are lots of devils in the details. Will gifts and loans require background checks? If not then they have a big loophole. If yes will we then end up with me being able to loan my gun to my son but not my daughter in law? If I loan it to him can he then loan it her? Or maybe I can gift it to him and then he can loan it to her and then after a week he can gift it back to me. Or if all “transfers” require background checks will it make gun rentals impractical? Or how about letting your buddy (or a new shooter or student) take a few shots with your gun? Or loaning a gun to someone for the evening or a weekend with a suddenly active stalker and no FFL available to do the background check? Truly “universal background checks” will result in a chilling effect on the exercise of specific enumerated right. If there are enough exceptions to avoid clear infringement of the right then any claim of society benefit is delusional.

A “clear” ban on “military-style” weapons? I’m speculating the word “clear” was an acknowledgement of the difficulties with the Federal 1994 (and various states) “assault weapon” bans. But the issues aren’t resolved by demanding the ban be “clear”. Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and detachable magazines restrictions were all minor stumbling blocks to people wishing to exercise their rights. We were still able to create, sell, and use firearms that gave anti-gun people the evil black rifle hysterics. And now we have the Heller decision which said firearms in common use are protected. Evil black rifles are now the most popular type of rifle in the entry country. So, good luck with your demands to violate that specific enumerated right.

“High capacity” magazines? The Heller decision said firearms in common use were protected so good luck with that as well.

I have no idea what they mean by “gun trafficking”. Firearm wholesalers? Retailers? Private sales? The Second Amendment would rendered meaningless if you couldn’t buy and sell the protected items.

But the item that pegged my naiveté and stupid detection meters was their call for a ban on “high-impact ammunition (i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting)”. The very purpose of hunting is to kill as quickly and humanly as possible. To that end hunting ammunition has been evolving for the last several centuries to make it the most deadly it can possibly be with the exception of delivering chemical, nuclear, or biological agents which kill more slowly than a lead projectile which expands upon impact. There is no commercially available ammunition more deadly than that ordinarily used in hunting.

So just what were they thinking here? I’m pretty sure thinking is outside of their domain of expertise so such a question should be rejected on the basis that it presumes facts not in evidence.

Quote of the day—witchwind

For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

witchwind
October 7, 2014
UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?
[Via Sean Sorrentino via Michael Z. Williamson on Facebook.

Also in her utopia:

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

And if that isn’t sufficient to confirm she been off of her anti-psychotic meds too long here is a clincher (pretty much every paragraph would do, but I particularly like this sentence):

Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone.

Regardless, don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Crude insults are the best they have

I recently tweeted this:

@CamEdwards @robdelaney @NRA @YouLikeAaron In a debate you lead with the best you have. They have crude insults. We have SCOTUS rulings.

It was in response to this tweet from rob delaney (@robdelaney):

This is how @NRA guys have sex. RT @YouLikeAaron:

The associated drawing is so crude I’m putting it “below the fold.”

This is entirely consistent with The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans. They are not data and logic driven. Anti-gun people are driven by emotions. They know that insulting and degrading people is what is effective on them. They therefore attempt to use this same tactic on us as their best weapon in a debate.

In a lot of ways you really can model them as not having matured beyond grade school.

Continue reading

Quote of the day—Angela Davis

I am totally in favor of gun control, of removing guns not only from civilians but also from police.

I talked about the fact that my father had guns when I was growing up; our families needed to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.

Angela Davis
May 6, 2014
Angela Y. Davis on what’s radical in the 21st century
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take away your guns.

After reading the article I breathed a heavy sigh. Barb asked what was wrong. I answered, “I just don’t know what to do with this. How do you respond to this?”

At some level Davis understands why gun ownership is important but she also wants to take guns from all private hands.

I guess it comes with the territory of being so crazy that you advocate for communism.—Joe]

Quote of the 2014 November election—Nick Hanauer

We need more school shootings!!! Vote yes on Initiative 591.

Nick Hanauer
October 24, 2014
Too Soon? Nick Hanauer Posts Sarcastically, ‘We Need More School Shootings!!!
nick-hanauer_tweet
[Via WAC.

In addition to the moral bankruptcy, blood dancing, and exceedingly poor taste Nick Hanauer is a top funder raiser for I-594.

I-594 is the anti-gun initiative in Washington State which would outlaw many common and innocent acts related to gun ownership. One such example is my loaning a gun to Barb for the weekend so she could take a class. If I-594 were law we would have had to seek out a FFL, pay a fee, and fill out a bunch of paperwork for when I “transferred” the gun to her, and then again when she “transferred” it back.

I-591 is the pro-gun initiative which would limit Washington State to background checks to the same criteria as Federal background checks. And, assuming Hanauer is rational, then the only thing that could possibly be what he was referring to with I-591 being a issue in regards to school shootings is the following:

A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

So, unless Hanauer thinks unlawful confiscation of guns is in the future, he has crap for brains in making the statement he did.

My conclusions is that with this post he just confirms the relationship between those opposed to our fundamental rights, crap for brains, and inherent evil.—Joe]

University of Idaho advocating crimes against gun owners

Via ammoland; University of Idaho “Executive Director for Public Safety and Security” (nod nod, wink wink), Matt Dorschel, has openly advocated abusing the 911 system to harass peaceable gun owners, potentially leading to another “SWATting” of an innocent person.

Intentional misuse of the 911 system is one crime, and this jackass (and anyone who takes his advice) is also committing a federal crime, violating 18 USC 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights”.

This warrants calls and letters to the Latah County Sheriff’s department, the U. of I. president, your ID State Representatives, and to the Governor’s office. The Moscow, ID Police Department contracts with the University of Idaho for campus security, to the tune of around a million dollars, or so I was told, which in this tiny town is a HUGE pile of cash. There’s a major conflict of interest there, and I wouldn’t bother with the city PD for that reason. We have a criminal in our midst, and we’re paying the son of a bitch.

Someone inside the U. of I. I.T. system needs to get hold of Dorschel’s e-mails and other communications before his “hard drive fails”. Pronto!

Hat Tip; Info Wars

Could the Republican Party be any more ridiculous?

I get several messages from the NRSC and other Republican interests daily. They’ve been “name dropping” Mitt Romney, McCain, Carl Rove, and other flabby, pasty-white, clueless, Progressive/elitist dry-balls, as though THAT were they way to get us pumped-up and writing checks– Trot out the guys who made conservatives stay home in the last two presidential elections. I’ve also gotten a few messages saying I could WIN, get this… a STICKER! That I could PUT on my VEHICLE! (squeeeeee!…count me in! Not).

My question for all of you is; could they appear more ridiculous and impotent if it were their prime directive to do so?

I maintain that they could get more support if they all got together, got stinking drunk on bad liquor, took off their clothes, buggered a herd of sheep on video and put that out as their campaign ads, with “Vote Republican and Bugger the Sheep!” as their main slogan. Unlike what they’ve been saying and doing, that COULD be interpreted as actually meaning something.

Quote of the day—Charles Gallagher

There’s a difference between gun culture and hunting culture. They’re talking about hunting in Montana. They’re not talking about walking into a Wal-Mart with a 9-millimeter strapped to their back.

Charles Gallagher
October 10, 2014
Does race shape Americans’ passion for guns?
[Gallagher claims expertise in the field of sociology, race, and guns. I don’t know about his sociology and race credentials but when he talks about “a 9-millimeter strapped to their back” you know he has lots of work to do on the gun side of things.

Other than quoting crap for brains Gallagher in a few places it’s decent article. For CNN to publish this, it’s conclusive proof we are winning.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

There are always people who are convinced there is a rational, polite, gentle and civilized way to stop a violent sociopath from raping their eye sockets.

We call these sensitive souls “Morons.”

Michael Z. Williamson
October 9, 2014
Wishful Thinking Knows No Bounds
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Marshall Dunlap

No one needs a gun, especially a handgun. The idea that a handgun is essential for self protection is a myth. If someone is pointing a gun at you then it’s too late for you to pull yours out on them. A handgun is worthless for hunting.

The government is not going to invade your home and take away your guns. Gun-rights advocates say that they need their guns in order to keep the government from confiscating them. It’s illogical, paranoid reasoning, especially given the fact that there are already almost enough firearms in private hands to arm every man, woman and child in the country. The government would not need a list in order to come after your guns. All they would have to do is go door-to-door, and they would likely find one.

Marshall Dunlap
October 7, 2014
Gun control: Background-check inconvenience worth it to keep guns from criminals
[Gun owners are illogical and paranoid? This is a few sentences after he says we handguns being used for defense is a myth (tell the police that), they are worthless for hunting and, “No one needs a gun…” And it’s a few sentences before he suggests it would be easy for the police to go door-to-door and confiscate them.

I think Mr. Dunlap is doing some projection and that he is further evidence of why we shouldn’t have registration lists of guns or gun owners.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

If you ever hear of a gun control rally happening nearby, do yourself a favor and make it a point to attend.

Do not go to share your opinion on the subject or confront their ideas as a counter-protestor, simply go to their event and listen.

If you experience turns out to be anything at all like the experiences I’ve had, you’ll note a sort of nervous energy in the supporters of gun control. If you spend time listening to them, you’ll probably see them swing back and forth from sorrow to a anger, and back again… often within the span of a few minutes. There’s often chanting involved, a repeated catch-phrase, or a mantra to help keep them focused on the cause.

Almost invariably, they’ll veer from mania to depression, and show signs of poor impulse control.

Bob Owens
October 3, 2014
AND SHE STABBED HIM IN THE HEAD: Why Gun Control Supporters Don’t Trust You With Guns
[I can second that.

They have extreme difficulty in clear thinking. The cannot seem to differentiate between facts and feelings. They will literally say, “I don’t believe your facts”. As Lyle says, they are telling us they are insane when they do this.

You can explain that eliminating all “gun deaths” does not mean people are safer and they cannot understand how that can be true and respond with “Huh? totally missed this logic. I don’t think there is any there.

They will pontificate on all they are doing for “gun safety” and then have a deer in a headlight response when you ask how many gun safety classes they have attended or taught.

They will tell you that many lives will be saved if there was a waiting period “so people could cool off” before they could buy a gun. Then when asked, “So, if I go into a gun shop, show them my concealed carry permit and a pistol on my hip then they wouldn’t need to make me ‘cool off’ before purchasing another one, right?” they will shut down the discussion because… well… I guess it’s because they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Low expectations for failed viewpoint

Via email from Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

I am excited to announce the launch of another limited-edition CSGV t-shirt featuring the slogan, “What Part of ‘Well Regulated’ Don’t You Understand?
This 100% cotton, U.S.-made t-shirt is available in three colors (black, navy blue and light blue) and sends the message that the overhwhelming majority of us do not agree with the NRA’s extreme and insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Our goal is to sell 250 tees in the next 20 days. If we can reach that goal, Represent.com will print and mail out the t-shirts, and donate all but $1 of the proceeds from each shirt directly to CSGV! [Because Represent.com uses the Kickstarter model for their campaigns, if you purchase a shirt and we do not reach our goal of 250 sales, your money will be returned.]

WellRegulated

Even ignoring the typo of the word “overwhelming” this email is filled with fail.

The “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment has been explained so many times that the only way someone who follows the issue could be unaware of true meaning of this is if they put significant effort into denial. For example in the Heller Decision we find (pages 23 and 24):

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

So Everitt, mocking people for failure to understand the meaning of “well regulated”, gets it totally wrong himself.

Given such a poor foundation it comes as no surprise that he has a goal of selling 250 t-shirts. 250? For an overwhelming majority of the people opposing the NRA and Supreme Court’s viewpoint? The NRA has about five million members. That would mean Everitt believes there are several times that many people who agree with him. Yet he only expects to sell 250 shirts to those 10 to 50 million people that disagree with the NRA and the Supreme Court viewpoint of the Second Amendment.

One has to marvel at the amount of stupid in this guy if he believes what he is saying. It isn’t even internally consistent. He truly has crap for brains.

Quote of the day—John R. Lott, Jr.

I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.

John R. Lott, Jr.
September 25, 2014
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”

There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:

In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”

The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”

John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”

The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”

Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Janice Wilberg

There has been much talk lately about how gun violence is a public health issue and that, in order to fully understand its epidemiological dimensions, we need to do a dissection of each incident to determine the precipitating factors, the relationships, why and when the shooting occurred, get to the reasons that will explain the violence, the thinking being, I guess, that if we can figure out the reasons, then we can address the reasons and reduce the violence.

I don’t think there are reasons.

I think there are guns.

There are guns everywhere. Everywhere. You better believe it. Right now, in Wisconsin, people are walking around with guns in holsters like this is the O.K. Corral. The folks who went through a $50 concealed carry class walk around in a haze of superiority because their gun lust got sprinkled by respectable fairy dust. Two sides of the same coin to me, the guy who takes a class so he can put his new gun in a fancy holster and parade around town, his jacket artfully arranged so everyone can see that his gun is ready, real ready and the guy whose second or third hand stolen gun is wedged in the lowdown of his pocket; it’s a dick festival in either case. Call it what it is.

It’s not about the reasons.

It’s about the guns.

Janice Wilberg
July 13, 2014
Orbiting Zorkon: Gun Violence in Milwaukee
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S. who said, “really got my attention when she compared legal carry with criminals carrying stolen firearms”.

Yes. She thinks it’s about the guns. She thinks there is no difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun. Citation needed. But you know that isn’t going to happen because she goes all Markley’s Law instead.

She has crap for brains.

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