Those we pay to preach to us

I won’t call it “irony”, exactly, for that would be unfair. AHA speaker has heart attack.

Heart disease is real. People die from it. I get it. It’s just that I’m remembering a lifetime of being preached to, agitated, made to fuss over our food, told we shouldn’t eat salt, we shouldn’t eat fat, then told that, never mind, fat and salt are necessary, then we’re told this, told that, do this, don’t do that, or OMG! we’re going drop dead any second! “Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!!!

“Are you having a heart attack right now? Are you sure? Maybe you are having a heart attack! Do you know the signs? We think you’re having a heart attack right now…” I’ve heard the radio ads to that effect, from those rat bastards.

I believe that worry, fear, obsession over your food (or anything else) is more likely to cause health problems than any of the foods (or most any actual dangers) themselves. Trouble is, the fear, agitation and obsession have been the main product, packaged and promoted by the media and the AHA.

So if all you heart experts are so knowledgeable that you could presume to tell the rest of us how to live, would you be having heart attacks yourselves? What is the rate, or incidence, of heart problems among heart specialists, compared to the population at large? Is there any difference? That’s a question. I don’t know.

And if you’re having heart attacks yourselves, maybe go ahead and study the phenomenon but stop with the preaching? When you have proven answers, then come out and calmly declare them. I just don’t want to hear another ad, sponsored by the Ad Counsel, subsidized with my tax dollars, telling me how I should live, assuming that I have the maturity, experience and intellect of a three-year-old.

Just stop with the nanny-nag, nanny state shenanigans. Then I might could take you seriously. Maybe.

I know people who can’t get through half a day without worrying about their food, or their environment, killing them, and that right there is a potentially deadly psychological disease, promoted and spread by the nanny state “experts”.

In any case, if I’m going to die of a heart attack this very day, at least I will have spent some time living without fear, and living without fear is a good thing.

Quote of the day—Heather Wilhelm

In the wake of Sunday’s horrific Texas church shooting, America’s chattering classes promptly responded with silent, respectful, and somber reflection, holding off on divisive and caustic political debates for the day.

Unfortunately for all of us, that was over on Earth 2.

Heather Wilhelm
November 8, 2017
Gun Control and Magical Thinking
[She goes on to say:

Government bureaucracy often fails. It should be held accountable; it is not always our friend. To think otherwise, in fact, might be the ultimate in magical thinking.

Yup.—Joe]

Time for me to stop drinking alcohol

I very rarely drink alcohol anyway, so it’s not a big deal for me to stop entirely. Why would I want to do this? Drinking alcohol causes cancer:

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which represents many of the nation’s top cancer doctors, is calling attention to the ties between alcohol and cancer. In a statement published Tuesday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the group cites evidence that even light drinking can slightly raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer and increase a common type of esophageal cancer.

Heavy drinkers face much higher risks of mouth and throat cancer, cancer of the voice box, liver cancer and, to a lesser extent, colorectal cancers, the group cautions.

“The message is not, ‘Don’t drink.’ It’s, ‘If you want to reduce your cancer risk, drink less. And if you don’t drink, don’t start,’” said Dr. Noelle LoConte, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the lead author of the ASCO statement. “It’s different than tobacco where we say, ‘Never smoke. Don’t start.’ This is a little more subtle.”

Quote of the day—Johnnie Langendorff

He briefed me quickly on what had just happened and said he had to get him. So that’s what I did.

He just hurt so many people, he affected so many people’s lives, why wouldn’t you want to take him down?

Johnnie Langendorff
November 5, 2017
An unlikely hero describes gun battle and 95 mph chase with Texas shooting suspect
[The perpetrator (this loser will not be mentioned by name on this blog) in the Texas church shooting was engaged by a neighbor who got a bullet in through a gap in loser’s the body armor (he was wearing what has been described as a ballistic vest). The neighbor and Langendorff pursued the loser while keeping the police updated who arrived at the location where the loser drove off the road. The neighbor used the hood of Langendorff’s pickup for support of his rifle (and the engine compartment for cover) to keep the loser from getting away. The police arrived five to seven minutes later.

As is usual, when seconds matter the police are only minutes away. The bad guy was stopped by private citizens who did what was immediately needed and the police are investigating and writing reports.

The situation could have turned out better had someone engaged the loser with shots to the head and/or hips when he first entered the church. Texas law appears to allow churches to forbid firearms provided they give notice to church visitors. At this point I don’t know as to whether the church had given such notice.

I see some lessons to be learned here: 1) Carry a gun, and 2) Immediately confront evil. This is counter to the narrative of the anti-gun people who call people who do this “vigilantes” and insist such behavior is “best left to the authorities”. This is one more example of why anti-gun people are losing and are, in fact, aligning themselves with other criminal losers.—Joe]

‘Dangerous game’

It’s a relative term isn’t it?

The vast majority of times, a deer will run if it sees you. They’ll often ignore motor vehicles, but if you’re out walking, a deer will alert on your movements, and if recognizes you as human it will bolt. Anecdote abound, and situations vary widely, but a deer, as a rule, will avoid humans.

On the other hand, a healthy buck in the prime of its life is more than capable of killing you, and quickly, if it gets the hankerin’.

I always carry a sidearm when out and about. Elk and moose are common in my roaming area, and I hear that wolves are getting closer.

The unfortunate in the story was apparently unarmed. Whether that would have made any difference in this case is debatable, but having a heavy caliber pistol cannot but improve one’s odds. What an embarrassing way to die!

The faces of evil

From the Idaho Statesman:

One of the defendants is believed to have picked up Smith as he was hitchhiking in June. Here’s what prosecutors say happened after that, according to the three criminal complaints filed against the suspects:

Vandenberg, Reed and Rabey devised a plan to invite Smith to Vandenberg’s home, and then later to shoot firearms.

Their plan was for Vandenberg to shoot Smith. The trio loaded guns into a vehicle and rode with Smith to an unspecified location. Reed and Rabey watched as Vandenberg deliberately shot Smith at close range in the upper torso and face/head with a .45-caliber pistol.

Reed and Rabey also watched and/or helped Vandenberg remove Smith’s clothing. One or both helped Vandenberg drag the body to a nearby ditch, and then burned Smith’s clothes.

The group planned to commit other criminal acts in the future, including murder, the charging documents allege.

“There were discussions about other offenses. There’s no specific evidence to any other detailed [murder] plot,” Emery told the Statesman on Thursday.

Emery said one of the suspects had possession of Smith’s ID or driver’s license.

“We can’t find that there was any ill will between the deceased and the suspects,” Emery said. “There doesn’t appear to be any rhyme or reason as to the way this went down as it did.”

image

Hollywood frequently gives you visual clues about the face of evil. Reality may not.

Terror attack in another gun free zone

From CNN a few minutes ago:

Eight people are dead and about a dozen injured after the driver of a truck drove the wrong way down a well-trafficked bike path, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said.

“This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror,” he said.

The driver then exited the vehicle while displaying imitation firearms and was shot by police, according to the NYPD. The suspect is in police custody and was taken to a hospital for treatment, sources at the NYPD said.

The incident is being investigated as terrorism, according to multiple law enforcement sources. Witnesses reported the suspect was yelling “Allahu Akbar,” according to four law enforcement sources. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is taking over the lead of the investigation.

We don’t have enough information at this time to know if the innocent people had been allowed to exercise their specific right to keep and bear arms things would have turn out any better, but it’s unlikely it could have turned out worse.

Another fishy data point

In the Las Vegas shooting thing, some huge number of firearms, we were told, were brought along, with the only possible result being a hindrance of the crime.

Similarly bizarre, or more so, the Manafort & Mueller thing was telegraphed days, if not longer, in advance. If the law is serious about kicking in your door to look for evidence against you, they aren’t going to call you on Thursday to notify you of a raid scheduled for the following Monday. Not if the raid is all on the up and up. Yet that is essentially what happened.

I suppose someone more privy to the process will tell me that I don’t understand how it works. Fair enough, but it’s still retarded at best– Basic logic says that a raid for seizure of evidence and arrest of a suspect is done before the suspect has any idea what’s about to happen, not after it’s been in the Drudge Report headlines for days and all the pundits have been talking about it.

What is AgitProp?

It’s short for “agitation propaganda”, sure, but what does that mean?

For a good definition, this should be in textbooks.

All such assertions (in this case the assertion is “We’re jittery and dysfunctional, so we need more gun restrictions”) depend on one false premise, which says, in effect;

Human rights are subject to revision based on circumstance.

If that premise is true, then we should yield to the moment, we appease and give in. “There there, you can have what you want if you’ll only STOP CRYING…”

If the premise is false then we STAND for what we know is right, not for the moment but for all time. We prevent the emotion-driven from making mistakes harmful to themselves and others. We do them the favor of correcting them. It’s what adults do when confronted with irrational behavior.

You all know, even you leftists know, that the premise is a false one. Human rights are not altered by circumstance, statistics, emotions of the moment, nor by the way, are right affected by weather.

Rather than argue circumstances then, we must learn to reject the premise that rights are subject to circumstances, bring some very needed reason into play, assert rights, name their origin and stand up, faithfully and consistently to defend rights for all time. Do it for the children (to play on an authoritarian mind trick*).

Do it for future generations. Otherwise we fall down that rat hole wherein someone’s implanted, overwhelming emotions have the power, all by themselves, to force you to relinquish your rights and appease the sleaze. (Hey, that’s a slogan; “Relinquish Your Rights and Appease the Sleaze….”)

That’s the end game for the Dark Side, and it almost always works.

Will it work this time? How many of you, within a matter of hours or days, started, in your minds, bargaining away bump stocks, for example? Then one after another, like robots…”Bargain away bump stocks, bargain away bump stocks…” It was like a plague that spread via the airwaves, from coast to coast, in a matter of hours.

Who really needs a bump stock, after all, right? Not me, but that’s not the point.

At all.

Don’t participate in the insanity of the appeasement of the insane. That’s how they get you, and you even end up thinking yourself smarter for it. How deliciously evil is that? You’re smarter than those confounded “extremists”;
“Why, if it weren’t for them, this thing could be handled delicately and properly, and we could deal, and everyone would win…”
You’ve heard it all before. Eventually you’ll be saying it more and more.

Here’s an idea; the crazy people, no matter how frightened or offended they on the left act, no matter how they kick and scream and hold their collective breath until they turn blue, and no matter how they threaten or accuse, they aren’t your masters. They’re just sad, angry, confused people with nothing else to offer but more sadness, anger and confusion. Don’t feed the trolls.

Offer reason to the irrational. It’s the only possible way to help them. Don’t be that parent at the supermarket who’s giving in to the three-year-old just to make him SHUT UP. You idiots.

Who’s in control, the parent or the three-year-old? It can go either way, and you’ve all seen it.

Don’t pretend like their crazy assertions (“I’m so scared…we need a gun law to make me feel better– You bastards!”) have any validity, or guess what? You just put the crazy people in control, and you’d have to be crazy to do that. But you do it anyway, then you bitch and carry on about how the inmates are running the asylum. Well no shit Sherlock; you put them in charge.

It happens in your personal life. That’s where it starts. You start out walking on eggshells at home, or at school, and you end up walking on eggshells politically, then before you know it you’re trying to make other people walk on eggshells. Same causes, same effects. The Progressives know when they’ve got to you, just like a shark smells the chum-of-appeasement you’re throwing in the water, just like a dog knows when he has you upset.

AgitProp. That’s what it means. That which arouses emotion in you owns you.

*“Nothing is too good for the children”, we are told. Like most everything the left touches however, the definition of that phrase, when uttered by a leftist, is its own opposite. It means;

“Nothing is too bad for the children.”

For the left, rights deprivation isn’t too bad for the children. Abortion isn’t too bad for the children (except in the sense, “Too bad, children!”), nor is grabbing power from the People, nor graft, nor violating the constitution, nor are coercion and wholesale confiscation too bad for the children. None of the horrible things done by communist regimes, past or present, have been too bad for the children, and if that’s the case (and the left has always had love affairs with communist regimes), then truly, nothing is too bad for the children.

I thought you should know that. Carry on.

Erin Palette was mauled by a dog

Erin Palette founded Operation Blazing Sword immediately after the Jihadist shot up the night club in Orlando Florida. Her organization made international news for setting up a network of LGBT friendly firearms instructors. Her parents dog severely tore up her face. She now needs help with medical bills. Donate if you can.

If you donate over $125 Oleg will send you large photo print of your choice from his collection.

Quote of the day—Nancy Pelosi

They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.

Nancy Pelosi
House Minority Leader
Oct 5, 2017
Pelosi Hopes Ban on Bump Stocks Is a ‘Slippery Slope’ to More Gun Control
[Via email from Paul Koning.

If they get bump stocks, it won’t be for free. And the slippery slope is likely to be leaning in a different direction than Pelosi is hoping for.—Joe]

The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy

This is an interesting study:

The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy

There have been dozens of high-profile mass shootings in recent decades. This paper presents three main findings about the impact of mass shootings on gun policy. First, mass shootings evoke large policy responses. A single mass shooting leads to a 15% increase in the number of firearm bills introduced within a state in the year after a mass shooting. Second, mass shootings account for a small portion of all gun deaths, but have an outsized influence relative to other homicides. Our estimates suggest that the per-death impact of mass shootings on bills introduced is about 80 times as large as the impact of individual gun homicides in non-mass shooting incidents. Third, when looking at enacted laws, the impact of mass shootings depends on the party in power. A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun restrictions by 75% in states with Republican controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature.

I found this difficult to believe. Didn’t the elementary school shooting in Stockton California enable passage of the “assault weapon” ban in California? Didn’t the Newton Connecticut school shooting result in more restrictive laws in New York, Connecticut and Colorado?

I didn’t duplicate their math but I read their process details fairly closely. It sounds like they did a good job of accounting for various factors and categorization of legislative action and every other variable I could think of (and some I didn’t think of).

The bottom line appears to be that those increasing of firearms restrictions due to the mass shooting events I think of are statistical noise. This is interesting and timely because one hypothesis of the most recent mass shooting in Las Vegas is as follows:

It has been said that ‘the medium is the message’.

In this case that is the literal truth. There is only one plausible motive for what this man did. And here it is:

This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense. And it must be said his concept has a certain demented genius.

Because even if the public learns and believes that his motive was all about ‘guns’ the horror of the act itself – an act to protest such acts – is in some ways even worse for being plain evidence that there is no limit to the insanity to which guns can be put.

Also note that nearly all mass shooters are inclined to be Democrats. Most are way around the bend nuts, but was part of their nuttiness that they were trying to convey their message that guns were too dangerous for private citizens to have “because look at what I did?” If so, then widespread knowledge that gun laws tend to be relaxed as a result of mass shootings may tend to reduce the frequency of mass shootings.

Gun details are coming out

It’s still early but this seems to be detailed enough to be believed:

Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, had an arsenal of 17 weapons in his hotel room, mostly military-style rifles, according to a law enforcement source.

At least one of them had been modified with a legal “bump stock” style device that allows the shooter to rapidly fire off rounds without actually converting it to a fully automatic weapon, the source said.

The devices modify the gun’s stock so that the recoil helps accelerate how quickly the shooter can pull the trigger. The devices are legal in the U.S.

Other weapons may have been converted to fully automatic fire, and were still being examined, the source said.

Paddock had four Daniel Defense DDM4 rifles, three FN-15s and other rifles made by Sig Sauer.

Glad to hear it

CBS did the right thing:

CBS fired a company executive Monday after she criticized some victims of the Las Vegas mass shooting as “Republican gun toters” who did not deserve sympathy.

She wrote:

If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.

Don’t forget, this is what some people think of gun owners. They do not think of us as fully human and deserving of life and/or liberty. Violence in support of their beliefs is easily justified. It’s part of their nature.

Something to remember

On this day of extreme sadness and the predictable attacks on private gun owners remember this evil person could have chosen a worse weapon to kill and injury. From Nice France in 2016:

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and the injury of 458 others.

If “properly” equipped such a vehicle could have killed many times more than this in some Las Vegas venues.

That didn’t take long

Early this morning The New York Times posted an editorial by Nicholas Kristof titled “Preventing Future Mass Shootings Like Las Vegas” and described infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms which would have done absolutely nothing to have prevented the mass shooting:

After the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, the impulse of politicians will be to lower flags, offer moments of silence, and lead a national mourning. Yet what we need most of all isn’t mourning, but action to lower the toll of guns in America.

Here is what this liar said, “that would, collectively, make a difference”:

  1. Impose universal background checks for anyone buying a gun.
  2. Impose a minimum age limit of 21 on gun purchases.
  3. Enforce a ban on possession of guns by anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order.
  4. Limit gun purchases by any one person to no more than, say, two a month
  5. Tighten rules on straw purchasers who buy for criminals.
  6. Make serial numbers harder to remove.
  7. Adopt microstamping of cartridges so that they can be traced to the gun that fired them, useful for solving gun crimes.
  8. Invest in “smart gun” purchases by police departments or the U.S. military, to promote their use.
  9. Require safe storage, to reduce theft, suicide and accidents by children.
  10. Invest in research to see what interventions will be more effective in reducing gun deaths.

The intentional deception continues with comparison to regulations on ladders in the workplace and automobile accidents. This deception conflates accidental deaths with intentional deaths. If he were being honest here he would have compared accidental deaths by falls off of ladders or automobile accidents to firearm accidental deaths. Or the use of automobiles in violent crime such as bank robberies, kidnapping, and terrorist attacks. That would be fair. But it’s obvious Kristof is not interested in fair or honest.

Lets do an “apples to apples” type comparison with accidental firearm deaths and see how gun ownership stacks up. I’ve reported the accidental death by firearm numbers before, but here is it again with slight editing to make it consistent with this blog post.

Here is the data I downloaded from the CDC on accidental firearm deaths.

From 1985 to 2015 the total number deaths dropped from 1649 to 489. A decrease of over 70%. And if we look at the death rate instead of total deaths it went from 0.69 to 0.15 per 100,000. That’s a drop of over 78%. And that’s without a government program.

I can’t say that it is cause and effect but the NRA Eddie Eagle program (gun safety for children of any age from pre-school through third grade) was developed in 1988. And there was a big push for more NRA firearms instructors in the mid 1990s.

AccidentalDeathByFirearm1981-2015

AccidentalDeathRateByFirearm1981-2015

But don’t expect Kristof or any other anti-gun person to talk about the successes of the private sector or gun organizations. It’s not about safety. It’s about government control.

Worst mass shooting in US history

The numbers are subject to change but the current count is 50 dead.

The shooter was on the 32 floor of the hotel across the street from a music festival.

No known motive. The best info on the shooter I have seen is here.

Speculation the shooter was a Democrat is premature. Speculation that Democrats will immediately use this horrific act for political gain is a winning bet if you could find someone to bet against you.

This could save millions

This is great news:

Scientists have engineered an antibody that attacks 99% of HIV strains and can prevent infection in primates.

It is built to attack three critical parts of the virus – making it harder for HIV to resist its effects.

The work is a collaboration between the US National Institutes of Health and the pharmaceutical company Sanofi.

The International Aids Society said it was an “exciting breakthrough”. Human trials will start in 2018 to see if it can prevent or treat infection.

If this works out the people of Africa will probably benefit the most, but there is no continent that won’t have significant number of lives saved if there is near universal vaccination of those at risk. And if the technology can be adapted to other viruses, even just colds and flu, it will be a significant win for humanity.