That’s a feature, not a bug

Some people say the name of the bill to remove suppressors from NFA is “brilliantly named”.

I’m not so sure. I can see people on our side of that political aisle thinking it is “brilliantly named”. But from the other side of the aisle we have this (via Sebastian):

There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” says Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “

The real flaw in the silencer lobby’s efforts, however, may be the patent obviousness of their fakery. Calling the Duncan-Carter bill the “Hearing Protection Act” is so absurdly transparent an effort to deceive that voters may be prompted to ask an obvious question: “What are they hiding?”

My take is a little different. The best that can be said about the anti-gun crowd in this regard is they don’t care if gun owners hearing is damaged. They publicly let us know they want us dead. It is my opinion that naming the bill the “Hearing Protection Act” made them realize they are even more opposed to the bill than before. That guns can permanently damage a person hearing is, to them, a feature. It is not a “bug”.

Violence and the left – pathology and party

Interesting interview by Stefan Molyneux of an academic researcher. Dr. John Paul Wright is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati and the author of “Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course.” More links and discussion at his youtube page.

Not a lot we here didn’t already know, but interesting. I like some of his observations about why this sort of connection are not normally the subject of research.

Quote of the day—g_k

Isn’t it great to be a gun owner? Without your weapons, you’d probably have to face up to being an ignorant redneck loser, but with guns you’re the man!

g_k
4:39 PM PST, December 28, 2016
Comment to Why punishing Democrats for their gun-control sit-in is dicey territory for Paul Ryan
[This is what they think of you.

In regards to “ignorant loser” we would probably find that rule number three of SJWs Always Lie is applicable here.—Joe]

This is what progressives think of you

From The Atlantic:

Those of us who know our whites know one thing above all else: whiteness defends itself. Against change, against progress, against hope, against black dignity, against black lives, against reason, against truth, against facts, against native claims, against its own laws and customs.

Interesting perspective.

How very inclusive.

As I have often seen at Instapundit:

Quote of the day—Kevin D. Williamson

Gun control that doesn’t annoy the NRA isn’t considered proper gun control at all. We could be putting violent criminals away for gun-related crimes for longer terms and monitoring them more aggressively through an improved parole system. We could do that before they graduate to murder — remember how many of those charged with possession offenses have prior arrests and convictions. But this isn’t on any gun-control agenda.

Why?

For one thing, it probably would mean locking up a lot of young black men in Chicago rather than hassling a lot of old white guys living out weekend-warrior Rambo fantasies in Tulsa. And for the Democrats, that isn’t an option. The enemy is the enemy, and, guilty or not guilty, he must be punished.

Kevin D. Williamson
June 17, 2016
Their fight isn’t about stopping shooters, it’s about identity politics.
[H/T to Glenn Reynolds.

I think the “old white guys in Tulsa” figured this out on or before November 8th this year. I also suspect “punishment” will turn out a little different than the Democrats had planned on.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ISIS

To the filthy and coward non-believers and to the holders of the Christ emblem, we bring the good news, which will keep them awake, that a new generation in the Islamic State … that loves death more than life … this generation will only grow steadfast on the path to Jihad, stay determined to seek revenge and be violent toward them.

ISIS
August 30, 2016
ISIS spokesman killed in Aleppo, group says
[Read that carefully and remember this:

  • They think of you as a filthy and cowardly non-believer.
  • As long as you are a non-believer ISIS will be determined to be violent against you.
  • The new generation in the Islamic State loves death more than life.

It would appear to me they desire we make one of only two active choices. In either case we give them what they want. Although there is potential for other, long term, active choices if I were directly faced with making the decision on short notice I know what my choice would be.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chas

The anti’s are even out to ban simple graphic images of guns, in addition to real guns, including muzzleloaders. If it even looks like a gun, they want to ban it. They are, in fact, that extreme.

Chas
August 3, 2016
Comment to Leave the SJWing to the professionals
[This is what they think of the right to keep and bear arms. You shouldn’t be allowed to even see a picture of a gun.—Joe]

Quote of the day—danyl

The pro-gun trolls are vicious and ignorant. I’m sure in real life they are pitiful little men who couldn’t get a date with a woman if their life depended on it. It’s easy to sound tough when you’re hiding in your basement.

danyl
07/30/16 05:46 PM
Comment to AG faces sexist, antigay slurs after imposing gun ban
[Via a comment from Weer’d Beard.

This is what they think of you.

Just let them keep thinking that.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Daniel Tepfer

In January 2015, the families of 10 victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings filed suit against the Remington Outdoor Co., which manufactured the Bushmaster rifle used by Adam Lanza to kill his mother and students and teachers at the school. They filed a suit against Camfour Holding LLC, the gun’s distributor and Riverview Sales, the store where Lanza’s mother bought the gun.

They claimed the gunmaker and sellers knew civilians are unfit to operate the assault rifle and yet continue selling it to civilians, disregarding the threat the gun poses.

Daniel Tepfer
July 29, 2016
Gun control spotlight shines in Bridgeport court
[This is what they think of you. You are “unfit to operate ‘the assault rifle’”. If this claim is successfully litigated in court then expect manufacturers of modern sporting rifles to stop selling to private citizens.

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

Quote of the day—Mary Bayer @marybayer3

You have to take that sort of moderate, “We just wanna have commmon sense legislation so our children are safe!”

You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.

Mary Bayer @marybayer3
DNC delegate
July 25, 2016
[See also a shorter version at Say Uncle. I chose this one because it shows her stealing the sign of the people who made the video (the police recovered it from her and returned it to the owners). This demonstrates private property means nothing to her, the First Amendment means nothing to her, and, obviously, the Second Amendment is nothing more than a minor obstacle.

From PVertias Action who made the video:

MaryBayerCoP88qMWEAARV3L

After being included in a tweet about the video she then contacted the police saying that she is being harassed.

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

As the video says at the end:

Now we know what Hillary Clinton and the Democrats mean when they say, “Common Sense Gun Legislation”…

We’ve known this for decades, but it’s nice to have them saying it on video.—Joe]

Markley’s Law equivalent for woman?

Via a tweet from Dana Loesch:

@DLoesch very weak sauce Dana. You must have woke up on the opposite side of your gun barrel dildo. Yes, Dana Loesch makes love to her guns

Saucy Minx ‏@SaucyMinxed
Tweeted July 19, 2016

Is this going to be the Markley’s Law equivalent response to women gun ownership?

These people are so clever and classy.

We have SCOTUS decisions. They have Jr. High level insults.

Quote of the day—SusanBerman‏ @TripleMinority

@AdamPiersen @JoeHuffman @TANSTAAFL23 @MarkAWebster1 @NeLoNe79 @FShagW yes which is y I never date gun nuts. No little puny cocks for me 🙂

SusanBerman‏ @TripleMinority
Tweeted on January 8, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a Tweet from Adam Pierson ‏@AdamPiersen.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charlie Rangel

If it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.

I wouldn’t want them to have it. Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.

[The reporter pointed out the armed U.S. Capitol Police inside the building, just a few feet away from the congressman, Rangel laughed and responded:]

Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.

Charlie Rangel
Congressman (D-N.Y.)
June 21, 2016
Congressman Says His Constituents ‘Shouldn’t Have to Carry a Gun’ — However, Congress ‘Deserves’ and ‘Needs’ to Be Protected by Them
[I’ve seen this referenced several places but I think it was Paul Koning who sent me the first email.

It’s just amazing to me the level of hypocrisy some people are capable of. The hypocritical people I know in real life are like toddlers compared to world class athletes in their prime like Congressman Rangel.—Joe]

The mask drops

So, my Former Classmate I talked about the other day came back and posted a rant on Facebook:

Personally I don’t like guns and superbly do not agree that there is any NON military need for many types of guns available to just anyone.
But what I am absolutely sick to death of is the flaccid guns laws in place. And just as sick of the blockade the criminally financed fucking NRA puts up against any laws that would make harder to buy a gun.

If you are TRULY a responsible gun owner what is your big bitch with doing what CAN be done to mitigate murder by gun?

Your …crappy example of what happened in Paris ( sad as it was) is poor at best when you look at ALL the stats. Gun ownership and gun murders by country.

The USA has the highest gun ownership AND the highest death by gun.
IF IF IF you are a responsible gun owner then keep your bloody masterbatory toys but you MUST know the ease with which you bought them was just wrong. And you know you have gun owning friends that pushed just a tad would roll a full bubble out of plumb.

If if if you want to be a responsible gun owner then support laws that might make it a modicum harder for assholes like the Orlando murderer to get guns.

Oh……and my heartfelt condolences to the “responsible” gun shop owner that offered conceal and carry and gun handling classes. He was shot to death by one of his students because some “responsible” person loaded live vs rubber bullets into the students gun.

I found this very telling. The insults, the demands that gun owners “MUST know” things which she believes. She has an extremely low opinion of gun owners and demands control over them. The mask dropped. She wants to be a tyrant and she is dehumanizing gun owners to justify whatever “whatever it takes” to get her way.

I responded with:

Do you really want to have this conversation with me?

Her response:

No. I did not.

Mine:

You have some options to consider because I won’t be quiet while you insult the nation’s oldest and (probably largest) civil rights organization, the NRA and their 5+ million members. And “bloody masturbatory toys”? Really? You think 100+ million men and women have exercised their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms for masturbation? I think it’s very telling you use insults instead of facts and logic.

As I see it you have the following options available to you.

1)    You can unfriend me. This, of course, would mean that you know your stated beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny.
2)    You do not bring up the topic again. This probably means you don’t have confidence in your position.
3)    You engage me in a civil discussion on the topic. As someone told me recently, “Rare on FB”.
4)    You ignore me as I dissect your hateful rants.
5)    You research the facts and admit you were wrong.

Your choice. What’s it going to be?

I waited a couple days and then yesterday she made another post, addressed to no one in particular, apologizing for being so hateful.

I responded to that post, thanking her for saying that. I also responded to her rant:

I’m tired of the gun laws in place as well. What part of “…shall not be infringed” don’t people understand?

But beyond the snark let’s think about this some.

Terilyn wants to make it more difficult to buy guns so there would be less “murder by gun”. This motive is either deliberately deceptive or naïve. The method of murder is irrelevant. What matters is the total murder rate and, more broadly, the violent crime rate.

Private ownership of guns makes self-defense against a younger and stronger attacker feasible. Guns are an equalizer. If criminals have difficulty acquiring guns they will substitute other weapons or chose easier victims. And let’s imagine making guns the most difficult to acquire as possible. Let’s imagine banning them completely. Would that prevent criminals from getting them?

We know the answer to this. How difficult was it for people to get alcohol during prohibition? Or how difficult is it for the average high school drop out to get recreational drugs? That’s right, they can probably score whatever they want within an hour 24x7x365.

Banning guns will be no different. And the harder you make it to obtain guns the less likely innocent people will go though the effort to purchase them and become skilled in their use. And that means they will be less likely to have a gun to defend themselves when they really need one.

So how can anti-gun people claim gun restriction are a good thing? It’s by being deceptive or naïve and only talking about “gun murders” or “gun crime”.

When comparing violent crime of ALL TYPES in other countries to the US we get a much different picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html.

The violent crime rate per 100,000 in a few other countries (from the late 2000s) is as follows:

UK: 2,034
Austria: 1,677
South Africa: 1,609
Sweden: 1,124
Belgium: 1,006
Canada: 935
Finland: 738
Netherlands: 676
Luxembourg: 565
France: 504

So care to guess where the U.S. fits in there?

….

According to the article I linked to it’s 466. You can verify the US numbers with the FBI here: https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

We have still further means of verifying that private gun ownership in the U.S. is not a problem. Look at the rate of gun sales (millions per year) compared to homicide, violent crime, and accident gun deaths in the attached picture.

CllsSS-WYAAjBsc

Correlation does not prove causation. But a negative correlation certainly proves that “easy access to guns” cannot be blamed for murder and violent crime.

We have still other means to test the claim that “flaccid gun laws” are a problem. I have been asking a question for over a decade now. And many others, including the CDC and the Department of Justice, have been asking it in slightly different forms without being able to find an answer that agrees with those who want more repressive gun laws. The background for the question can be found here: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/

The question is, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?” The answer turns out to be, “No.”

That question is so popular among gun rights activists that I was asked to put it on a t-shirt (available here: http://www.cafepress.com/theviewfromnorthcentralidaho ).

So the final question one has to ask is, “Since we know private gun ownership does not make violent crime more likely, what is the real reason so many people want to restrict gun ownership?” I’ve been working on the problem for over 20 years now and it’s clear the answer is complicated and not very pretty. I’ll leave that for everyone else to think on and we can discuss it another time and place if desired.

I checked Facebook this morning to see if there was any response. There was. I’m glad I kept a copy of almost everything because I no longer have access to her posts on gun control.

Terilyn Reber, Orofino Idaho High School, class of 1973, chose option 1). Reasoned Discourse.

This is what anti-gun politicians think of you

Email from Richard Thomson at FirearmsPolicy.org:

Dear Joe,

Because you are a gun owner, a California State Senator called you “crazy, vicious and heartless.”

He blamed you for the terrorist attack in Orlando.

He stated you don’t care about keeping people safe, and you are only more concerned about holding a weapon in your hand.

Because you are a gun owner, he said you have “a dirty, filthy mouth that needs to be washed with soap.”

Well, here’s your chance to tell Senator Hall that you’ll bring the soap.

Because you are a gun owner, a California State Senator called you “crazy, vicious and heartless.”

He blamed you for the terrorist attack in Orlando.

He stated you don’t care about keeping people safe, and you are only more concerned about holding a weapon in your hand.

Because you are a gun owner, he said you have “a dirty, filthy mouth that needs to be washed with soap.”

Well, here’s your chance to tell Senator Hall that you’ll bring the soap.

Yesterday, our lobbyist Craig DeLuz stopped by his office with a bar of soap.

Of course, the Senator did not have time to physically wash out Craig’s mouth.

Now, we need gun owners from across the country to contact Senator Hall and demand that he retract his accusations.

And also tell him that you’ll bring the soap.

Call Sen. Hall’s office and politely let him know what you think of his statement: 916-651-4035

This is what they think of you. Take appropriate action.