Quote of the day—user_4429094

I have no complaint about hunting or target shooting. But “Gun Country” folks often end the conversation there. They try to paint their culture as wholesome, the “real” America. It isn’t. Much of the gun culture is really sick.

October 27, 2017
Comment to Finding common ground on gun control
[This is what they think of you.

Please note that no mention was made of self-defense as being acceptable. There are many people out there who will give you vehement objection to self-defense as a valid reason for firearms ownership.

And they think we are “sick”.—Joe]

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.

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

Jeff Snyder
Nation of Cowards pages 18 and 19
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.

If I could get an anti-gun person to read just one book it would be Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control. I’m thinking I should buy a few copies and have them handy to give out.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

If only the government and its various agencies possess weapons than the Right to Free Speech becomes an empty promise.

We then live in Orwell’s 1984.

That’s why both Hitler and Stalin passed laws that forbade the private ownership of gun.

Robert J. Avrech
October 25, 2017
Jews With and Without Guns
[I once watched a movie where only the police and the military had guns. It was called Schindler’s List (I forget where I stole this line from).

Also, via Nomen Nescio, “As the old Soviet joke went, everybody in the USSR had freedom of speech, but the law never guaranteed freedom after speech.”

And finally, from Joseph Stalin, “Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?—Joe]

Anti-gun researcher does some straight shooting

Philip Cook (see also here), is no friend of gun owners. But in this article he comes across as in touch with reality:

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals.

That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.

The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to that for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.

In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to that for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.

In essence the criminal market for guns is crowd sourced. Which means it is far more challenging for law enforcement to “close the loopholes” than if were were organized criminal organizations. The allocation of scarce resources to investigate, prosecute, and incarcerate people who sold a single “crime gun” is far better spent on going after violent criminals instead of those involved in victimless crimes of straw man purchases.

There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.

Actually, no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions.

That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.

And this doesn’t include private transaction in the used gun market. But it does tell us that nearly 99%, if not far more, of each year’s gun transfers between owners don’t involve violent criminal activity.

Why spend resources on investigation of activities where 99+% of the actions are harmless, and there are no motivated witnesses to the “crime”, when you could spend those same resources investigating known activities which have a 99+% chance of there being a true victim and people motived to cooperate with law enforcement?

Update: See also this post about other aspects of background checks.

Gun Rights are Women’s Rights

Via Robert J. Avrech:

Some of the comments regarding the video are pretty good:

Feminism doesn’t want women to be safe. They tell women to ignore safety tips to avoid rape because it “blames the victim”, discourages women from arming themselves with mace, pepper spray or even a Taser, telling them that it’s men that should be taught to stop rape instead of them being responsible for their own safety.


feminism like liberalism needs victims.


Quote of the day—Helen Thomas

If a person buys guns legally it doesn’t matter how many they have. If the police come to my house to see how many guns I have and I ask what organizations I belong to I’m telling them to go to hell.

Helen Thomas
October 10, 2017
Comment to Tucker vs. Lawyer on Gun Purchases: ‘How Many Should Trigger a Police Visit?’
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John R. Lott Jr.

Last month, the prestigious, bipartisan Texas Lyceum invited me to debate gun control issues. They asked Everytown, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center if they would participate. Once again, they refused.

Mr. Bloomberg and his groups are unwilling because they don’t want viewers to see their inaccurate information being challenged. They would rather people just take their falsehoods at face value.

John R. Lott Jr.
April 27, 2017
Challenging inaccurate information about guns—A fair debate on the issue is needed, but liberal lobbying groups refuse to participate
[Of course. The truth is toxic to their agenda.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Scott Adams

The way private gun ownership protects citizens is by being a credible threat against all the civilians who might be in any way associated with a hypothetical tyrannical leader who uses the military against citizens. Citizens probably can’t get close to the leaders in such a scenario, but it would take about an hour to round up their families, and the families of supporters.

That would do it.

America is unconquerable.

Scott Adams
October 6, 2017
The Worst Gun Control Arguments
[About an hour? He must be thinking the lists with addresses are already compiled.—Joe]

The latest interrogation technique

Fascinating stuff. The scientists persuading terrorists to spill their secrets:

Each interview had to be minutely analysed according to an intricate taxonomy of interrogation behaviours, developed by the Alisons. Every aspect of the interaction between interviewee and interviewer (or interviewers – sometimes there are two) was classified and scored. They included the counter-interrogation tactics employed by the suspects (complete silence? humming?), the manner in which the interviewer asked questions (confrontational? authoritative? passive?), the demeanour of the interviewee (dominating? disengaged?), and the amount and quality of information yielded. Data was gathered on 150 different variables in all.

Watching and coding all the interviews took eight months. When the process was complete, Laurence passed on the data to Paul Christiansen, a colleague at Liverpool University, who performed a statistical analysis of the results. The most important relationship he measured was between “yield” – information elicited from the suspect – and “rapport” – the quality of the relationship between interviewer and interviewee. For the first time, a secure, empirical basis was established for what had, until then, been something between a hypothesis and an insider secret: rapport is the closest thing interrogators have to a truth serum.

The psychologists observed and coded the actions of the “interviewer” (interrogators) in thousands of hours of interviews from hundreds of real-world interviews with terrorists suspected of serious crimes. From this they distilled a process which appears to work better than any other interrogation technique.

I’m reminded of other things I have read such as Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Also books on the Crusades (from both sides of the conflicts), the Soviet Union, criminals, and terrorists. People who do things far out of social norms need to justify their actions and thoughts to themselves. They almost never think of themselves as evil. And when outside of the bubble of their peers (if any) they feel a need to proselytize and convert the non-believers and make people understand why they were justified in their actions. If the interviewer gives the suspect a “safe place” to tell their story to an apparently receptive audience they are likely to do so.

This has application to other situations as well. From the same article:

Miller argued that counsellors were having precisely the wrong kind of conversation with their clients. Addicts were caught between a desire to change and a desire to maintain their habit. As soon as they felt themselves being judged or instructed, they produced all the reasons they did not want to change. That isn’t a pathology, Miller argued, it’s human nature: the more we feel someone trying to persuade us to do something, the more we dwell on the reasons we should not. By insisting on change, the counsellor was making himself feel better, while reinforcing the addict’s determination to carry on.

Miller argued that rather than instigating confrontation, counsellors should focus on building a relationship of trust and mutual understanding, enabling the patient to talk through his experiences without feeling the need to defend himself. Eventually, and with the counsellor gently shaping the dialogue, the part of the patient that wanted to get better would overcome the part that did not, and he would make the arguments for change himself. Having done so, he would be motivated to follow through on them. Miller called this approach “motivational interviewing” (MI).

I’m wondering if “interviewing” an anti-gun person in a similar manner might yield results as well. The bottom line is that both (honest) sides of the gun debate want to increase public safety. Interview the anti-gun person in a nonconfrontational manner and “let” them explain the details of how things will work. Let them realize, for themselves, their solutions cannot possibly achieve their desired goals. In essence, The Socratic Method. Might they, in the end, realize they were advocating for that which cannot deliver the desired results and instead results in a decrease in public safety?


The premise of interpersonal psychology is that in any conversation, the participants are asking for status – to feel respected and listened to – and communion – to feel liked and understood. “Power, love,” says Laurence. “The fundamental elements of all human behaviour.” Conversations only go well when both parties feel they are getting their fair share of each.

A father who opens the door to his daughter when she comes home late might adopt a confrontational style, implicitly inviting a contrite response. But his daughter, feeling her agency being denied, pushes back, which provokes her father’s anger. A power struggle ensues, until the conversation terminates with one or both stomping off to their bedroom. If the father had emphasised his love for his daughter, a conversation about acceptable norms might have developed. But doing so isn’t easy, partly because children know exactly which buttons to press. “I tell (the police), if you can deal with teenagers you can deal with terrorists,” says Laurence.

I saw evidence supporting this when dealing with my teenage daughters.

Good stuff.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

On the other side of the argument are the folks on our side who think just shouting “no” very loudly is a legislative strategy. How much impact do you think Ron Paul had on the overall direction of Congress? Because that’s effectively what he did for his whole career. People who do that in deliberative bodies get ignored, and worked around. For these people, the question is this: would you rather sulk in the corner and take solace in the fact that you believe you’re right and righteous as you lose one thing after another, or do you want to actually play the game and win? The latter is what you’re seeing now.

October 25, 2017
What’s Going on With Bump Stocks?
[Principles are, at best, merely guidelines when you are involved in the dirty business of politics.—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:


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—Peter Gillespie

Get back to the basics. Scrap the outdated constitution. Just a document writted by politicians and the cause of many of the problems in the US.

Peter Gillespie
October 15, 2017
Comment to Tucker vs. Lawyer on Gun Purchases: ‘How Many Should Trigger a Police Visit?’
[How refreshing! A brief flash of honesty and an admission of guilt about his intended goals.

I look forward to his trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—L. Neil Smith

America was born in a struggle about private weapons. Let them pass—or ratify—any legislation they please.

Americans have obeyed their last gun law.

L. Neil Smith
January 27, 2015
Americans Have Obeyed Their Last Gun Law
[It’s a lot like the laws against marijuana, prohibition of alcohol, and oral sex. Nearly everyone knows they are stupid laws and eventually the laws will go away. In the mean time there are occasions where token compliance is made for appearance sake and to avoid hassles. And of course we have to put up with the whining of self appointed busybodies.

But, yeah, most of the gun laws are so ridiculous most people I know just go about their business and ignore the stupid.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Wildebeest @wildebeest4160

the only infringement from taking your AR 15 is your penis shrinking

The Wildebeest @wildebeest4160
Tweeted on October 20, 2017
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

It’s very telling that our opposition resorts to childish insults and we have Supreme Court decisions.

Via a tweet from BFD @BigFatDave —Joe]

Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

If even one-half of one percent of the noncompliant shoot back, that’s 30,000 to 450,000 shooters (depending on the scenarios above).

Please recall that Pennington’s little trip down Tyranny Lane started with — as of latest claims — a single shooter killing 58 and wounding hundreds — in approximately ten minutes.

So tell us: How will you achieve your two-gun goal?

Who will bell the cat?

Carl Bussjaeger
October 17, 2017
Belling the cat
[I have done related analysis and came up with similar conclusions.—Joe]

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.

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—Kurt Schlichter

In recent years we’ve seen a remarkable antipathy for the fact that normal Americans even have rights among those on the left. We should have this conversation to clear the air before leftists push too far and the air gets filled with smoke. But we really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.

Kurt Schlichter
October 5, 2017
Nothing Makes Liberals Angrier Than Us Normals Insisting On Our Rights
[This should be enough “conversation” but Schlichter extends the conversation with examples and more saying “No.”—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]