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.

Quote of the day—Asbury Park Press

Typically, as with any debate over gun rights, rational viewpoints are hard to find. Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, said the new standards could lead to “every cabdriver, every pizza delivery driver, and anyone else living or working in a high-crime neighborhood to qualify for a firearms permit.”

That sounds a little extreme, but is that any more hysterical than the gun-rights activists sounding alarms about government conspiracies and widespread gun confiscation every time government wants to ban an assault rifle or expand background checks?

In general terms, however, Weinberg’s warning should be heeded. The gun-rights crowd is trying to exploit the death of Carol Bowne, a Berlin Township woman allegedly stabbed to death by an ex-boyfriend while she was awaiting a permit to carry a gun for protection. Would Bowne’s life have been saved by an easier permitting process? We’ll never know. But as tragic as her death was, we can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death to advance an unnecessary and dangerous relaxation in the state’s gun controls.

Asbury Park Press
May 13, 2016
EDITORIAL: Don’t loosen grip on gun control
[This is almost material that could have come from The Onion.

The thought of people living or working in a high-crime area being allowed to defend themselves is considered “extreme” and “hysterical”? Wow!

They say, “We can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death…” Interesting. We should remember that the next time some activist wants to use anger and grief over the tragic death of someone murdered by a criminal with a gun. But of course that’s not how it works with these people. They have zero problem with their own hypocrisy.

Of course it may not be hypocrisy. It could be the sky is a different color in their universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks

@SPQRzilla @TL671 @JoeHuffman @GunFreeZone president Hillary will ban guns and well finally be free of white terrorists.

Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks
Tweeted on April 13, 2016
[This is what they think of you. And this is how they think things will go down in such a scenario.

Delusions are often functional.—Joe]

Deliberate deception or crap for brains?

I know mainstream media reporters get a lot of things wrong through ignorance and laziness. But this seems like a tough one to mess up on without being deliberate. The Washington Post headline is After the Pacific Ocean swallows villages and five Solomon Islands, a study blames climate change:

In a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the scientists link the destructive sea level rise to anthropogenic — that is, human-caused — climate change. The study marks the first time anyone has concretely analyzed the loss of Solomon Island shoreline in the context of global warming, they say.

the sea-level rise observed in this study — at about a fourth to two-fifths of an inch a year — is triple the global average.

Really? So they believe the water just got piled up in the South Pacific? Do they have crap for brains? Or do they just believe their readers do?

So… I read the original paper, Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics in the Solomon Islands. Abstract:

Low-lying reef islands in the Solomon Islands provide a valuable window into the future impacts of global sea-level rise. Sea-level rise has been predicted to cause widespread erosion and inundation of low-lying atolls in the central Pacific. However, the limited research on reef islands in the western Pacific indicates the majority of shoreline changes and inundation to date result from extreme events, seawalls and inappropriate development rather than sea-level rise alone. Here, we present the first analysis of coastal dynamics from a sea-level rise hotspot in the Solomon Islands. Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these remote Pacific communities.

Nothing about climate change.

Here is the conclusion of the paper:

This study represents the first assessment of shoreline change from the Solomon Islands, a global sea-level rise hotspot. We have documented five vegetated reef islands (1–5 ha in size) that have recently vanished and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. The large range of erosion severity on the islands in this study highlights the critical need to understand the complex interplay between the projected accelerating sea-level rise, other changes in global climate such as winds and waves, and local tectonics, to guide future adaptation planning and minimise social impacts.

The paper mentions concerns about changes in climate which may affect the islands, but they do not attribute the changes they have seen to climate change. And, in fact, the paper mentions something the Washington Post conveniently doesn’t mention (emphasis added):

Change in the twelve islands in Roviana was mixed with six islands growing slightly (<20%) and six islands declining slightly (<20%).

Some islands are growing in size. Apparently that doesn’t fit the narrative so the general public doesn’t need to see it.

My conclusion: The Washington Post is deliberately deceiving the general public and has crap for brains for believing their readers are too stupid or lazy to read the original paper when they even give us a link to the original paper.

Quote of the day—Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks

@_Stars_Stripes_ @NRA ban all guns for the actions of the majority. Gun owners are terrorists throw them in prison

Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks
Tweeted on April 12, 2016
[This is what they think of you.

This is typical thinking of statists. They refuse, or are unable, to think in terms of individual rights and responsibilities. If one, or a small minority, of people do something wrong it is justification for punishment of an entire class of people. One of the problem with this type of thinking is that you can justify almost anything. People could justify prison for all young black males because the statistics show young black males commit crimes at a higher rate than young Asian females. Our nation, and to a certain extent Western Civilization, was founded upon the principle of individual rights. People like this appear to think in terms of group responsibility. It’s a slippery slope to the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual and to everyone according to their need and from everyone according to their ability.

Then look at potential consequences of what he is saying about gun owners being terrorists and belonging in prison. Do these people think things through? This is very dangerous talk. I keep thinking that if this is what they really think of us then why would people bother to try and convince them otherwise? If one is told they belong in prison for simply existing, and there are people actively attempting to put them there, then what is the downside for doing something the actually earns a prison sentence? It would be easy for people to rationalize showing them the contrast between the way things are now and the way they could be if typical gun owners really were terrorists.

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

They want us dead

Via a tweet from Proud Hunter‏@Duck_Hunter7 (which also resulted in a Markley’s Law Monday post scheduled for January 16, 2017) we have this tweet from Pupper, Esq. ‏@alltehmunnies:

I hope you’re killed in an armed stand off with law enforcement.

And this tweet from not nev ‏@existentialslut in the same thread:

my dream gun control legislation is all gun owners shoot themselves

Why are progressives so violent?

Oh yeah! Now I remember.

This is what they think of you

This is so you know the type of people who oppose private gun ownership.

Via a tweet from Linoge I found that at 12:40 PM PST, on November 30, 2015 Chris Tacy tweeted:

@monteiro perhaps they should have to shoot their kids to keep their guns

This is what they think of you and the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the day—Murray Rosenbaum

If you have a single gun and over 50 bullets, you could be a public danger.

The amount of ammunition you would need to keep your home safe from potential thieves and those who would cause you harm wouldn’t be even close to 100 rounds of anything. A single clip is more than enough to be threatening and protective if worse comes to worse.

Murray Rosenbaum
A eighteen-year-old senior at Columbia Prep in NYC
February 3, 2016
Bullet, Not Gun Control
[Children say the cutest things!

But children with crap for brains like this shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Murray, let me help with your education.

A typical pistol match requires a 100 to 150 rounds.

Last month reloaded, for my own use, just under 2000 rounds. Last year it was 9531 rounds. Later this month I’m taking a class which requires, “2000 rounds of brass-cased FMJ ammunition (minimum)”.

When I took a friend to the range last weekend for a couple hours to teach her how to defend herself she went through about 200 rounds and her education and practice is far from complete. After I get her to a basic competency and comfort level she will probably take this class which requires, “600 rounds of brass-cased, FMJ ammunition (minimum)”. I expect getting her to that level will require another 500 rounds of ammunition.

Murray, you say,

the trick is making bullets more expensive…

I have no doubt there are plenty of other people who would claim that I’m endorsing the destruction of the second amendment. They can say that all they want, but in the end the Constitution says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” but it doesn’t say anything about bullets.

Okay. Then using that same argument I have to conclude you would be unable to find a constitutional problem with a heavy tax on books. The First Amendment says freedom of the press, but doesn’t say anything about you being able to read it. Right?

When practicing I sometimes go through ammunition at the rate of up to five rounds per second. I figure that is about half the speed you can read words. So I propose we tax your use of reading of words at double whatever tax you want to impose on bullets. The number you used as an example in your post figured out to $75 per bullet. So, doing the arithmetic for you just in case your ignorance extends to the area of numbers as well as firearms and constitutional law, that would be a tax of $150 per word.

If you want to inflict a crushing tax on my education and those of others exercising their specific, enumerated, constitutionally protected, rights then you can say all you want, but in the end the constitution doesn’t protect you any more or less than it does me.*


* If you want to claim “books don’t kill people” ask your history instructor about Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Then reevaluate your claim before you engage me on that issue.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Miss Tina‏ @Miss__Tina

@NRA I’d wager most of your members are adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Miss Tina‏ @Miss__Tina
Tweeted on January 7, 2016
[This is what they think of you. If you don’t think like them you must be crazy and it’s off to the psych ward for you. It’s what Stalin did and it’s what they will do if they get the chance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Police Detective Sergeant

I had a female in here. She’s every bit of 5-foot and 80 pounds. I’m not going to say anyone can’t take a gun from me or, or you know. But, I’m just saying and I told her I’m going to be completely honest with you. In my opinion, I said, if I saw you and I saw you with a gun, especially here in Essex County, and the people we have here in this county. Um, I said yeah I’d be concerned with you having a firearm. Again it wasn’t anything against her. It’s not her fault she’s female and only, but I said we’ve got to look at the public safety.

Police Detective Sergeant
Orange New Jersey
December 2, 2015
Second Amendment Society Claims Police Departments Delaying and Denying Handgun Permits
[As I have said many times before (see also here and here). The only reason I’ll willingly go into New Jersey in its present corrupt state is if I can get a hunting license with an unlimited bag limit for people like this Sergeant.—Joe]

This is what they think of you

If you own a gun or are thinking of owning a gun for personal protection you need to know what some of the anti-gun people think of you. This is from Green Bay 4 Bernie‏@BernieNda4 (H/T to Linoge for the tweet):

there is no such thing as self defence it is murder

Now that you know that you can comfortable ignore or mock them and anything else they might have to say on the topic of guns.

No sane person

This is what they think of you:

@Libertea2012 no sane person needs a gun- they are for the paranoid- thus the mad cycle begins #gunsense #NRA

Ellen Michailov‏@2Dmonds1Pistol
December 3, 2015

And just what would you suspect a person that thinks you are insane thinks the government should be done with you?

My guess is if Ellen Michailov‏ had her way with us we would be sent to a psychiatric hospital. Progressives have a long history of doing that.

Quote of the day—Comrade Enver Hoxha‏@ComradeEnver

@NRA The best way to stop violence is a prompt march of you delusional fanatics to the nearest labor camp.

Comrade Enver Hoxha‏@ComradeEnver
Tweeted on December 1, 2015
[Via a tweet from Linoge.

This is what they think of you. This is what they want to do with you.

Take appropriate action.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Geoff Garin

Opposing common-sense gun safety laws either means that someone is too extreme or too much in the pocket of the gun lobby.

Geoff Garin
A pollster for Clinton’s 2008 campaign now with her super PAC, Priorities USA Action
November 6, 2015
Why Hillary Clinton Thinks Gun Control Can Win in 2016
[Via an email from Miles (a frequent commenter here).

As he also said in the email:

Yep, this is what they think of us. And if they’re this delusional, I hope thy keep thinking it.

While it’s clear the Democrats don’t have very strong presidential candidates and they are choosing their issues poorly I currently don’t see a lot of strength in their opposition. So I suspect it will be another one of those elections where many people will vote for the candidate who they think is the least evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aaron Duncan‏@AaronCDuncan

You want friendly, head to your local gun show and masturbate with the other gun cum guzzlers.

Aaron Duncan ‏@AaronCDuncan
Tweeted on November 24, 2015
[Via a Tweet from Linoge.

This is what they think of those who exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Just remember that we have SCOTUS decisions and they have childish insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan Gross

This is not a negotiation with the NRA. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.

Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
October 14, 2015
Gun control group bashing Sanders, Chafee
[H/T .

And what is the typical way of dealing with terrorists?

This is what they think of you and the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They want you in prison or dead for defending and/or exercising a constitutionally protected right.—Joe]