Quote of the day—Julia Gorin

Sexual and psychological insecurities don’t account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It’s one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it’s another to impose the same handicap onto others.

People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn’t know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don’t sit cross-legged. That they’re able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

Julia Gorin
March 8, 2002
The anti-gun male
[Via Don in a comment to Quote of the day—Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

It turns out I have quoted from this article before. Read the whole thing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Guns, and their use, on the other hand, are pretty darn real. You can’t fire a shot now for “future use.” You can’t correct a mistake in a future edition. You can’t do a write-through on a bullet.

What’s more, you can’t spin your way out of a mugging or a rape. Guns, simply by existing, are a reminder that there is another, more concrete world out there, one where reality is more fixed, and where actions have inescapable consequences, consequences that can’t be talked out of existence. I suspect that most journalists are threatened by this world, and perhaps by the sense that they wouldn’t do very well in such situations. Their hostility to guns is a way of dealing with insecurity and a form of denial fueled by performance anxiety: If you’re afraid you’re not up to protecting yourself or your family, you compensate by deriding the means of such protection. And, given that it’s a defense mechanism and journalists are herd animals, any colleague who disagrees is a threat who must be shouted down. (Unsurprisingly, of all the journalists I’ve dealt with, the folks at Popular Mechanics—where they write about real things with concrete consequences all the time— were the most comfortable with guns).

If I’m right, then there’s not a lot gun enthusiasts can do to win over journalists in large numbers. You may change a mind or two, but most of them hold their opinions because doing so is less threatening to their self-esteem than agreeing with you. Those who wield a pen have a vested interest in believing that the pen is mightier than the sword. And apparently they’ve been that way at least since Mark Twain’s time.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds
August 2020
Why So Many Media Members Are Opposed to Your Freedom
[See also yesterday’s QOTD about insecurity and performance anxiety.

I’ve read enough insider stories by fed up journalists and seen disconnected from reality reporting of gun events where I was there to know the national mainstream media is, almost without exception, delusional and/or evil. The primary exception is the Newsweek writer who attended Boomershoot (pictures here). But she had Stephanie Sailor “holding her hand” for a couple days and I’m sure that made a big difference.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sarah DiMuccio and Eric Knowles

The present research illuminates the impact of manhood threat on male aggression in the political domain—specifically, men’s adoption of political views that communicate toughness, forcefulness, and strength. Contrary to our original expectations, our data suggest that it is liberal —not conservative—men who engage in increased political aggression after experiencing threats to their masculinity. This finding has crucial implications for the future of gendered politics in the United States, as it suggests that right-wing candidates might benefit from media strategies designed to induce masculine insecurity among liberal men.

Sarah DiMuccio and Eric Knowles
October 21, 2022
Something to Prove? Manhood Threats Increase Political Aggression Among Liberal Men
[Via a tweet from Rolf Degen @DegenRolf.


This appears to be applicable to Markley’s Law. Liberals attack the masculinity of their political opponents because they view that as an extremely potent attack—as it would be against themselves. They are insecure about their manhood and they imagine the same of their political opponents.

As frequently suspected, projection is strong with these people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian B @ogbrian_b

He has a small dick

Brian B @ogbrian_b
Tweeted on July 4, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

You have to wonder how he is so certain. I suppose it could be an intimate relationship or voyeurism. But my bet it is just the usual delusional belief about gun owners. It is too bad there isn’t a good treatment plan for that.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ketchup dripping down the wall + Pink Lemonade @PinkLemonadePie

She didn’t say she wanted to ban and take away your tiny flaccid penis, you know. Damn.

Ketchup dripping down the wall + Pink Lemonade @PinkLemonadePie
Tweeted on July 6, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

I wish I knew a research psychologist I could get to study the minds of anti-gun people. I wonder if they could figure out why there is just a high correlation between their obsession with penis size and the advocating of restrictions on civil rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rachel Alexander

Researchers found that by merely analyzing that type of brain activity, they could predict whether someone is Republican or Democrat 82.9% of the time.

John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska political scientist, researched twins and found that identical twins share more political beliefs than fraternal twins. Since identical twins share more genes, he concluded, “Forty, perhaps 50 percent of our political beliefs seem to have a basis in genetics.”

Rachel Alexander
September 26, 2022
Our Brains Are Wired Differently Than Democrats, So Don’t Get Too Mad at Them
[Interesting… They (for certain values of “they”) are broken and can’t be fixed. At least you could say that from a first glance at the data. A deeper dive would reveal more subtle conclusions.

She didn’t mention it in the article but a book I just started reading points out that different personal viewpoints have advantages and disadvantages depending upon the current situation.

For example, experimenting and risk taking to improve your life is probably a good thing when your situation is changing in a potentially life changing manner. If life is good then not changing things is probably the proper path.

I say that because there will be some people who will claim that some sets of people, including their children, are irredeemable and a threat to humanity. I don’t agree with that except for some extremely small sets (violent psychopaths for example).

The large sets wouldn’t be large if they were unfit from a evolutionary standpoint. We may not see their benefit to society. If fact we may be able to make a good case they are a detriment in our current situations. But there must have been some benefit at some time in the past. This means there may be a time in the future when they will be a benefit again and you are the detriment in that new situation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

Imagine thinking “encouraging minorities to build their own firearms in order to defend themselves” is a “fascist” position to take.

These people are insane.

In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on September 13, 2022
[This was in response to this tweet by coderedamerica.com@coderedamerica

Replying to @RICECUTTA0 @OleGelo5 and @POTUS

@FBI @FBIWFO here is a great thread to follow especially with people like @SamuelWhittemo3 involved. Nothing spells fascist like a maga follower pretending to be a christian and promoting ghost guns.

Words mean things and there are dictionaries which can be referenced determine those meanings when you are unsure. But some people see words meaning whatever suits their purpose as the time. Others see them as just sounds they make which give them some sort of satisfaction.

My first awareness of this was in conversations I attempted to follow with a particular family. Read my comments at that link!

This family trait was a source of considerable bafflement and some amusement to me. But things didn’t really “click” for me until, as I reported in the linked post, I was told my inability to resolve a contradiction in what someone had said was unimportant:

Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.

They were just making sounds at each other. It was sort of like humming to a baby to help it go to sleep.

Casual conversation is one thing. Legal definitions is another. My first recollection of having frustrations with this was in “assault weapon” ban of ‘94. What does “shall not be infringed” mean to these people? The issue was brought into clarity when I realized it was, at least sometimes, deliberate deception using the definition of words.

Other examples:

See also, Speech Is Not Violence by John Stossel.

And redefining, or perhaps more accurate in many cases “undefining”, words applies to people who job depends upon the precise meaning of words.

As much clarity as I discovered on my own since my first awareness 30 or 40 years ago, this is not a new thing. Greater minds than mine made the practice far more clear pointed out the dangers. Lewis Carroll is one such example in his book Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Circling back to the QOTD by In Chains above is something my daughter Jaime asked of me a few days ago:

Please look up the definition of “fascism” in your old timey dictionary*.

Here is the result:

Fascism The principles or methods of the Fascisti—Fascist, I. A member of the Fascisti. II. Of or pertaining to the Fascisti.

Fascisti … The members of a patriotic society in Italy, animated by a strong national spirit, and organized in connection with a repressive movement directed against the socialists and communists and the disturbances excited by them during 1919 and the years following, which regarded the government as criminally negligent in failing to deal with these disturbances, and took measure on its own account, often violent ones, to combat them, and which developed into a powerful party obtaining political control of the country in Oct., 1922, under its founder and leader, Benito Mussolini, as prime minister; hence, the members of a similar society or party elsewhere.

This definition is not the same as what is commonly used today but perhaps it has a hint of something more accurate than many people think. The people being called fascists typically are opposed to socialism and communism. But the violence component does not appear to have manifested itself.

So, is In Chains correct when he says, “These people are insane.”? Perhaps. I’m nearly certain some people redefining or undefining words have mental issues. Others, perhaps most, wish to be the master.

* “Old timey dictionary” means the unabridged The New Century Dictionary Copyright 1946, 1944, 1942, 1938, 1936,1934, 1933, 1931, 1929, 1927.

Quote of the day—Keith M. Bellizzi

Facts First” is the tagline of a CNN branding campaign which contends that “once facts are established, opinions can be formed.” The problem is that while it sounds logical, this appealing assertion is a fallacy not supported by research.

Cognitive psychology and neuroscience studies have found that the exact opposite is often true when it comes to politics: People form opinions based on emotions, such as fear, contempt and anger, rather than relying on facts. New facts often do not change people’s minds.

Keith M. Bellizzi
August 13, 2022
Cognitive Biases and Brain Biology Help Explain Why Facts Don’t Change Minds
[This is probably a big part of the reason that Mao Tse Tung coined the phrase, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Facts and reason are nearly irrelevant in politics. The only reliable means of changing people’s minds regarding politics is with a bullet.

Socialism and communism are so inefficient they cannot tolerate slackers or doubters. They need a very high compliance rate to sustain themselves.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John @6102cd

A self-centered political philosophy.

“This thing scares me, so ban it” (guns)

“This thing is difficult for me to get, so provide it.” (Healthcare)

“I want to break this law, so don’t enforce it” (drugs)

John @6102cd
Tweeted on June 13, 2022
[In response to the question:

Ultra progressives seem to want both more laws (e.g., gun control) but also less punishment for breaking laws (e.g., criminal justice reform).

How can we interpret this seeming contradiction?

It appears to be a very strong hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Timur

Propaganda that knows what strings of human nature to play is a powerful weapon. In fact, propaganda is more dangerous than the atomic bomb. Because it is propaganda that sooner or later will justify its use.

June, 2022
A Russian journalist asked his former classmates about the Ukraine war. The answers were disturbing.
[Propaganda of the anti-gun people is of this type.

Of course, if you look at the fundraising propaganda of any successful political organization it will play on the “strings of human nature”. Use cold reason and be especially wary of crowds cheering a charismatic leader.—Joe]

She probably doesn’t trust numbers

This is very telling:

She probably feels this way because she doesn’t trust numbers to give her the correct answer.

Quote of the day—Chet

The problem is not Mental illness! In the best-case gun control is a stupid attempt to address a symptom of the breakdown of society. The ills of society that we are seeing is due to that very society and addressing the symptoms cannot fix the ills. It is society that has gone amuck. It is society that needs fixing.

Look back 50+ years. Guns could be purchase if you had the money. You could live in a shack if that is what you could afford. There were definite expected roles for men and different expected roles for women. Boys were given a gun on becoming of age usually in their early teens. There were jobs even for people on the lower half of the IQ curve. A single wage earner was sufficient to raise a family though it was preferable not to be a hired hand.

So today, it is women and POC that get the jobs and the promotions. What is a young man to think when society is saying that he has no role? That he is not wanted? Yet, he can look at what is being achieved and be alarmed.

Does recognizing reality make him mental ill?

June 12, 2022
Comment to Insightful observation
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Samuel Alito

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.

And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.

That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

There’s probably some truth to this

Via Ivermectin and Artemisinin @triplecrown777:

One thing people need to understand about extremely kind, nice, and loving people, is that their other side is jus as extreme. It’s the hell they survive that makes them gentle. Don’t mistake their self-control for weakness. The beast in them is sleeping, not dead.

A couple decades ago a coworker from India told me it was well known and taught in the psych classes in his country the person most likely to kill you wasn’t the person easy to anger. Those types calmed down just as quickly and easily as they angered. The person that was always calm, gentle, and soft spoken was very difficult to make angry. But when they did get angry they would kill you even if it was days or weeks later.

My hypothesis for this is that the person who is frequently angry has learned to manage that state of mind from 10s of thousands of incidents growing up. One the other hand, the cool, quiet, gentle type, has hold experiences with extreme feelings of anger which number in the dozens and they are more likely to be overwhelmed by the emotions.

There may be a lesson to be learned here about rioters, emotionally driven anti-gun people and their long suffering victims.

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Be careful what you believe.  Be careful what you wish for.  Dramatic narratives are appealing, but emotional engagement is no assurance of truth.  It’s just the easiest way to manipulate people.  Distrust all cheering crowds, and distrust even more the men and women for whom they shout.

Roberta X
June 12, 2022
A Pause For Reflection
[I am tempted to extrapolate that to say, “Truth does not need emotion to validate itself. Emotional engagement is an indicator you must examine the evidence and logic closely looking for deception and/or error.” But that’s not as succinct.

The problem is that long before we developed logic and formal processes to distinguish truth from falsity we had emotional shortcuts that served us and our ancestors reasonably well as far back as there were pea sized brains. Logic and rational thought is an extremely thin veneer on top of that emotional lizard brain core. People, others or ourselves, can either deliberately or unintentionally bypass than thin veneer and engage that emotional core with minor effort to great effect. It is a wonderful system for generating extremely fast decisions with minimal effort. This works well for probably 99+% of the decisions we make each day. But this emotional core can also override reality. It takes a lot of evidence and effort to correctly conclude the earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe if you have have spent 20 years believing it was flat, motionless, and were certain the sun and stars move in the heavens.

Reality is really, really tough. Don’t let emotion, especially that created by a charismatic leader, degrade your ability to discern truth from falsity.—Joe]

Insightful observation

If found this very interesting:

Stop conflating mass shootings with mental illness

It’s important to understand the most common underlying factors that lead to violence: untreated anger, family violence, past history of violent acts, growing up where violence is used, and being young and male. To be clear, anger is not a mental illness. Hatred of others is not a mental illness.

It strikes me as probably true and gives us insight as to why Federal law against people who have been involuntarily treated for mental illness being banned from gun ownership is mostly useless and should be repealed.

A bigger issues is, “Can this this knowledge be leveraged in some way to reduce violent crime without infringing upon the rights of individuals?”

Quote of the day—Gwenie @GwenieThinks

If black people start purchasing AR15’s today, gun reform laws will begin tomorrow!!!

Gwenie @GwenieThinks
Tweeted on May 27, 2022
[There are number of different things that could be going on here:

  1. Her projection is displaying her racism.
  2. She believes she can read the minds of gun owners (a sign of a personality disorder).
  3. Willful ignorance.
  4. Deliberate lying.
  5. Some combination of all of the above.

The last time I know of when the stated mindset had any traction was in the late 1960s (I’m thinking of GCA68). That was on the tail end of the KKK (100% Democrats with an oath you were not a “radical Republican”).

For many years now I have been teaching anyone that showed an interest. The demographics are far from old white men.

Whatever the problem with Gwenie’s brain function, she is clearly wrong.—Joe]

Optimism is associated with higher cognitive abilities


Researchers were interested in investigating the associations of dispositional optimism and pessimism with cognitive abilities in adulthood. They found that young adults with higher dispositional optimism and lower pessimism had higher reasoning skills and higher pessimism was related to lower scores on memory tests for middle-aged adults.

Previous research shows that optimism is related to positive health and wellbeing outcomes, whereas pessimism is associated with health-related risks and maladaptive behaviors. According to intellectual investment theories, it is suggested that personality traits can affect cognition abilities. For instance, joy promotes creativity and negative emotionality activates people’s thought-action repertoire to prepare them for quick decisions in threatening situations. People with optimistic views tend to pay attention to positive information and believe they are capable of influencing their lives. On the other hand, pessimists tend to believe life events are caused by external forces and their own influence is inferior.

I hadn’t thought of that. I was well aware that pessimists can and do create their own self-fulfilling prophecies. This leads to them to successfully justify their pessimistic demeaner. But, higher cognitive abilities for optimists? That’s very interesting…

This is what they think of you

VIa email from pkoning.

Tyrants gotta tyrant:

IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may deny a license under this section if the Attorney General determines that the applicant poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm, after examining factors the Attorney General considers are relevant to the determination, including…

(gg) any recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons;

This is one of those “can’t win” scenario those who have mental issues create for you. If you buy some ammo they can declare you unfit to buy a gun because you might actually have the ability to use it.

I’ve experienced and put up with a mental issues environment… for decades. Highly discommended.

The other case you see this sort of behavior is the situation described by Ayn Rand regarding the creation of criminals. This is a situation you want to avoid even more than an individual with mental issues.

But what I find most telling about this proposed legislation is what such a politician must think of you. It must be one of the following:

  1. You are too stupid to see the trap this creates, or
  2. They believe that the desire to exercise a specific enumerated right demonstrates criminal intent.

Just say no, and keep saying no, until you run out of ammo.

Quote of the day—The New York Times @nytimes

What psychiatry calls psychosis, the Hearing Voices Movement calls nonconsensus realities. It provides support groups for people with hallucinations and is part of an effort to reform how the mental health field approaches severe psychiatric conditions.

The New York Times @nytimes
Tweeted on May 17, 2022
[While some delusions are functional that is not the way to bet.

I find it very telling that the NYTs is onboard with “nonconsensus realities”. That explains a lot of things.—Joe]