Sunday, February 18, 2007

Via Phil at Random Nuclear Strikes comes this story from the U.K. about another small step toward a police state:

Thousands of council staff are being trained to police the smoking ban in bars, restaurants and shops in England.

Ministers have given councils £29.5m to pay for staff, who will be able to give on-the-spot £50 fines to individuals and take court action against premises.

They will have the power to enter premises undercover, allowing them to sit among drinkers, and will even be able to photograph and film people.

...

But the council is also exploring the possibility of getting street wardens, who currently aid the local police force, to help ensure the ban is effectively enforced.

Steve Dowling, director of environment and public protection at Nottingham City Council, said: "We have about 100 wardens and they could keep an eye on whether people are smoking in pubs as they go about their other duties."

"But it is not just about pubs and restaurants. We will also be looking at the likes of car garages and shops are complying as well."

Does anyone remember what happened with all the "Revenue Agents" after the end of prohibition? Faced with unemployment congress passed a jobs creation bill to keep them employed. That piece of legislation is now known as the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34, or just NFA). Something that most people don't think about is that people believed that in order for the Federal government to have the authority to ban the recreational use of alcohol they needed to amend the constitution. And the thinking after the repeal of the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment was that without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment congress couldn't prohibit gun ownership either. But what they could do was put a huge tax on certain guns. $200, the standard transfer tax specified in NFA was about six months salary in 1934. All those "Revenue Agents" now had a job to do. They had to collect those $200 transfer taxes on guns that sold for, maybe, $10.00.

Even if these street wardens and council staff, trained to "keep an eye on people", don't have their job functions removed by legislation more enlightened about the rights of property owners there is still a serious danger lurking. Since they are already watching, taking pictures, and reporting on "anti-social" behavior they will be utilized for other things. What will it be next? Will people that complain about the smoking ban get called in to answer some questions about their loyalty to The Crown? Or perhaps ten years from now it will gay lovers who hold hands or steal a kiss in the dark corner of bar that will be charged with a "crime against nature". East Germany had approximately one out of every 50 people as informers in the late 1980's just before their collapse. The U.K. has better technology and is now recognized as having the most surveillance of western democracies. 

Adding informers to assist their technological surveillance will come in quite useful when the next tyrant comes to power. You don't think they will get a tyrant in the U.K.? Maybe not anytime soon. But one never knows for certain what can happen in just a few years time. But what you can be certain is that the more power given to the state the more people that love power will be attracted to that centralized power. People that love power (why do I have these images of a certain Senator from New York flashing in my mind now?) use it to gain more power. They then exercise it to the detriment of a free society. Currently the U.K. is further down The Road to Serfdom than we are and just took another step ahead with the training of these informers.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:16:14 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

It's not just Israel, Europe (H/T to Kim), or the United States that Muslim have problems with. Here is the latest from Thailand:

BANGKOK, Thailand — At least 23 bombs exploded Sunday in apparently coordinated attacks in parts of southern Thailand plagued by a Muslim insurgency, killing three people and wounding more than 50, the military said.

The bombings targeted electricity transmitters, hotels, karaoke bars and markets in the country's southernmost provinces, the only parts of predominantly Buddhist Thailand with Muslim majorities. Two schools were torched.

Violence in the south has been escalating in recent months despite a major policy shift by the military-imposed government, which is trying to replace an earlier, iron-fisted approach in dealing with the rebels with a "hearts and minds" campaign.

More than 2,000 people have died in the provinces bordering Malaysia since the insurgency erupted in 2004, fueled by accusations of decades of misrule by the central government. The insurgents have not announced their goals, but they are believed to be fighting for a separate state imbued with radical Islamic ideology.

Add things like the above to my listening material (audio books) in recent weeks:

And with the recent developments in congress I have become more and more convinced we, the non-Muslims, are going to be pushed into essentially unthinkable actions in the near future. By retreating from, or failing to accomplish, the least distasteful of the options available (what President Bush is trying to accomplish in Iraq) we will allow them to develop and use nuclear weapons against us. This war is different than any other war I have heard about. This is a war where there is no one leader, country, or countries to negotiate "terms of surrender" (the surrender of either side) with. You could take out the top three layers of leadership and still the war would not end.

I believe the "religion of peace" will either permanently succeed or permanently fail in the next few decades at the cost of 100's of millions, if not billions, of lives.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:58:56 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Last night Barb and I watched the movie the The Unbearable Lightness of Being. The DVD box quotes Roger Ebert, "The most erotic serious film since Last Tango in Paris." The IMDB plot summary is:

Tomas is a doctor and a lady-killer in 1960s Czechoslovakia, an apolitical man who is struck with love for the bookish country girl Tereza; his more sophisticated sometime lover Sabina eventually accepts their relationship and the two women form an electric friendship. The three are caught up in the events of the Prague Spring (1968), until the Soviet tanks crush the non-violent rebels; their illusions are shattered and their lives change forever.

Tomas is a surgeon, living in Prague. He has a physical relationship with Sabina - but not an emotional one. They are happy with the situation. Then, Tomas meets a waitress in a station, but leaves. Eventually, she comes to see him in Prague. Will he go against his 'values' and let himself get emotionally involved?

It was about that and it did have a lot of erotic content and pretty graphic sex for a film made in the 1980s (among other things full frontal nudity of women). But what I got out of the movie was a lot more than just the sex. My first clue was when one of the characters talks of "socialism with a human face" (a real life phrase). Then when the Soviet tanks rolled in I immediately saw the movie from a completely different viewpoint.

Where were the snipers picking off the exposed tank crew members? Why weren't there Molotov cocktails being thrown from the windows? Why didn't the communist officials fear a suppressed .22 bullet to the head every time they stepped out of their homes? But I knew the answer. The answer was in socialism and the culture it creates. There isn't the sense of individual responsibility. People aren't really expected to provide for themselves and they certainly aren't expected or even encouraged to protect themselves or their country. That's the job of the government. In real life the first secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Alexander Dubček, told the people not to resist. This was despite the fact that he had initiated the welcomed reforms to the Soviet view of "unshakable fidelity to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and declared an implacable struggle against 'bourgeois' ideology and all 'antisocialist' forces."

Late in the movie Tomas and Tereza move from the city to a farm. I grew up on a farm and own some land that my brothers still farm. Sometimes they let me help or I borrow some equipment to make some improvements for Boomershoot. The contrast between being on the farm driving a tractor, a truck, or a combine one day and then being 300 miles away in an office building writing software in the city the next is incredibly jarring to me. The contrast is so incredible that I don't think I can really explain it even if people were to express an interest--which they don't.

Boomershoot is that way too. My crew and I spend days making explosives and over a hundred people with rifles show up from all over the world to our little patch of land and we make the earth shake with hundreds of explosions and fireballs soar up above us heating our chilled skin in the cold morning air. From 700 yards away targets no bigger than a human head disappear in a cloud of water vapor, dirt, and a chest thumping boom. The day after Boomershoot I'm back in an office in the city writing software. It's so odd to me when I first sit down in front of my computer again and look across the hall at the other people in front of their computers. Do they know what I was doing yesterday? In a sense, yes, they do know. But in many ways I can't imagine they do. I don't think people realize what a difference in mindset living on a farm makes. I wish they had captured that in the movie. But probably nearly all the people involved in the movie didn't really realize it and how could they capture something they didn't know existed? And even knowing it exists, I'm not sure I can capture it and put it on display is such a way that non-farm people can really understand.

The "gun culture" is very closely related to life on the farm. Think about it. In both cases who is considered responsible? The individual. You are responsible for your safety and you are responsible not only for yourself and your family. But it goes much further with the farm culture. 

It is my memories of farm life that drive a lot of my hostility to socialism. We had a few cattle on the farm when I was growing up. I see the socialists as treating people as cattle (see also this post). I'm certain the cattle viewed us as benign. No different than socialists view government. The cattle-owner/government provides food, shelter, medical care, and protection from predators. What they don't readily see is being herded, fenced, branded, de-horned, and castrated. The images of Nazis (National Socialism, remember?) putting Jews in cattle cars to be taken away and slaughtered validates the metaphor.

I remember at some meals mom announcing all the food on the table at dinner except for the spices and sugar came from the farm. It included the milk, the homemade butter, cottage cheese, the jam or jelly, the meat, the vegetables, and the fruit. We cut wood from the small forest behind the house for heat in the winter time. Our water came from our own well. We had our own septic system. We burned and/or buried our own trash. We built and maintained our own buildings, machines, private roads, and even our own private telephone system among our buildings.

Just after Christmas 1968, the same year the Russian tanks rolled into Prague, it snowed about six feet on the farm. In places there were snow drifts twice that deep across our driveway. As soon as it stopped snowing and blowing the temperature dropped to -30 F, the electricity went out, our pipes froze, and the phone went out. But our family was fine. We kept the wood stove red hot at times, we melted snow for water and we cooked over what we called "the trash burner" in the kitchen--in essence a small wood cook stove. It was week before the electricity came back on but during that week we never once concerned ourselves about when or if "the government" would help us. We took care of our cattle and we eventually plowed the snow from the county road so we could check on the neighbors--who, of course, were doing the same. It was probably 10 days before we saw the first, and last, government assistence. That assistence was in the form of the county road crew plowing the snow (they had better equipment for it and did a much better job than we and our neighbors had done).

In the movie when the tanks came the people had mass demonstrations, yelled, and shook their fists at the invaders. If they were brave they took pictures of the Soviet tanks and they talked about the failure of their government. I saw perhaps two tanks that burned but they didn't really fight back. This is consistent with the real life reaction. Early in the movie the people talk about the Soviets in relation to some hostile political writings and conclude, "What can they do?" What they didn't realize is the Soviets concluded essentially the same thing when planning to send in the tanks, "What can the people of Czechoslovakia do?" And the answer was, essentially, nothing. They had accepted socialism. They did not have a gun or farm culture as I know it and if their government abandoned them to a predator there wasn't much more they could do than what cattle do when herded into a corral for branding and castration. The cattle make a lot of noise, snort, and give you hostile looks. I saw those crowds surrounding the tanks in Prague as just like those cattle.

I see now the disappearance of the farm culture is a major contributing factor to the loss of our freedom. As much as I love life on the farm I will not even suggest pushing our country in the direction of a farming society. It's not feasible or even desirable for so many reasons. But is it only our gun culture that can defend our culture of freedom and protect us from, among other things, what Tereza calls The Unbearable Lightness of Being? I don't know. But I do know this is a part of why I do Boomershoot.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:36:47 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld Alabama's 1998 sex law. The court said states have a "legitimate rational basis" for making rules to preserve public morality.

That law bans nude dancing, limits where strip clubs and X-rated theaters can go, and bans the sale of any device whose main purpose is to stimulate human genitals.

Hmmm. Does that make Viagra a sex toy?

Lee Roop
February 18, 2007
I call a cease-fire in the war on sex toys
Huntsville Times
[I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Barb and Xenia yesterday. Xenia told us of one of the Moscow Idaho high school teachers commented to her about her older brother James and discussions in government class. Paraphrasing, "Sometimes he was ultra conservative. Sometimes he would take a completely liberal position. You just never knew." As I told Barb and Xenia, "Some people are very confused by freedom." And I could have added that most people don't want freedom. I wonder how well the folks in Alabama would get along with Xenia when she posts about celebrating Vagina Day. It's probably a good thing I didn't take her to Space Camp in Huntsville during the middle of February.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:23:34 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Saturday, February 17, 2007

We are adamantly opposed to that because there would be a break in the chain of evidence so it could not be used in court. If I were a gangbanger, I would go to a shooting range and pick up a bunch of casings and leave them at the scenes of crimes.

Sam Paredes
Executive director of Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group.
February 16, 2007
Bills target criminals' use of guns
[I find it interesting that of the five articles I found (Officials support tougher gun law, California gun control bills win endorsementBills target criminals' use of guns, Officials Endorse Gun Control Bills To Help Deter Gang Violence, Top cops, mayor want new gun laws) on this topic only one included a quote anywhere this negative about the proposals. Some didn't include anything from the pro-freedom side at all. And of course none of the article titles are the least bit negative.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:46:37 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, February 16, 2007

Gun control measures, from the slave gun bans of the 1700s South to the Brady Bill regulations of the 1990s have unfairly targeted black Americans and have worked to curtail a disproportionate number of their constitutional rights. Access to firearms was understood by our founders and many early American jurists as an essential aspect of full US citizenship, and it was for this reason that the Black Codes established after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment -- which constitutionally abolished slavery -- prevented black freemen from owning guns.

Ken Blackwell
Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement

Joe Huffman  Friday, February 16, 2007 9:29:39 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Thursday, February 15, 2007

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.

Lord Acton

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:16:50 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The prerequisite, of course, to getting the correct answers is to ask the right questions.  Doing so, of course, will often be extremely difficult, and for a wide variety of reasons.

Regarding the Trolley Square shooting incident: We understand that the perpetrator was stopped by an "off duty policeman".  Said off-duty policeman was also outside of the jurisdiction in which he worked as a policeman and was presumably carrying his own, privately-owned handgun (unless I'm wrong and it is in fact the policy of the Ogden Police Department that officers are allowed to carry their city-owned, issue weapons while off-duty and outside the jurisdiction).

So the questions you wont hear are:

Wouldn't that make him just another, regular, armed citizen?

Wouldn't he in fact have been a concealed carry permit holder, like you and me?

If so, how many concealed carry permit holders have you heard of being recommended for honors by city officials after using their guns to save lives, as has been done in this case by Ogden city officials?

Wouldn't the normal response have been "No charges have been filed as of yet" if the defender had NOT been a policeman?

What might have happened if the perpetrator had done this in NYC, DC, San Francisco, or Chicago, where citizens cannot legally defend themselves with concealed firearms?  In that case, wouldn't we be treated to days or weeks of demands in the media for even more gun restrictions, even though the gun restrictions themselves had resulted in a higher death toll?

How should we, as concerned citizens, treat our public servants when they attempt to undermine our ability to defend ourselves and our families against aggression?

Lyle at UltiMAK  Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:55:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

Amazing. Of all people you would think this guy would get it. Jewish, he fled Nazi Germany as a boy in 1939. Yet John H. Adler says this:

Nowhere in the civilized world are civilians permitted to carry arms unless they have specific reasons to do so. Thanks to the unbelievable political power of the NRA, almost anyone within the USA can obtain a license to purchase a gun.

Yet, the majority of the American public just doesn’t get it!

Is it so hard to understand that our entire nation suffers from the ready availability of arms?

Why, and for what purpose, are we arming ourselves?

...

Surely our forefathers did not intend to create a country filled with potential murderers. When the law to bear arms was enacted, this entire country was the “Wild West.” But we grew up and we like to think of our society as being “civilized”.

...

Is there still hope that the people of our country will come to their senses? Will they ever say,

“We finally got it!”

A little refresher course for Mr. Adler from the preface to Lethal Laws "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide:

A. Genocide: The Down-side of "Gun Control"

"Gun control" advocates cannot see any harm in "gun control".

But "gun control" has a down-side. A very nasty one. "Gun control" victims number in the tens of millions.

The down-side of "gun control" is genocide.

There have been at least seven major genocides in this century, involving 50-60 million victims, using conservative estimates.

In every case, a "gun control" law was in force before the genocide began. In five of these cases, the lethal law - the "gun control" law was in force when the "genocide regime" took control of the government.

B. Personal Safety: The False Promise of "Gun Control"

"Gun control" laws usually enacted in a crisis: before or after a civil war, invasion, economic collapse, upsurge in terrorism, etc. People then put personal safety above all. In the long-run (and sometimes in the short-run) this deal - disarming in exchange for government "protection" - amounts to committing suicide for fear of death.

...

Even if protection actually is given during the crisis, the laws remain after the crisis ends. These laws clear the way for the murder of millions, sometimes decades later. "Gun control" has a fatal flaw. It can promote personal safety. But if - and only if - it is ruthlessly enforced. Government with the power to ruthlessly to enforce "gun control" laws can easily commit genocide. They have done so repeatedly - and increasingly often - in this century.

This flaw - that getting "gun control" to "work" involves giving government the power to commit genocide - is the reason the realizing at most short-term gains in personal security via "gun control" increasingly involves payment of a very high price: genocide. Yet, the link between "gun control" and the mountains of corpses resulting from "gun control" has been overlooked.

And finally, from the German Weapons Control Act of 11 November 1938 (BTW this was the basis, after subtracting the restrictions on Jew's and Gypsies, for the United States Gun Control Act of 1968):

§ 1

Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§ 2

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 3

The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§ 4

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§ 5

For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§ 6

This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938

Minister of the Interior

Frick

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:30:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

Both sides can try to get some political pay out of it. We feel these types of situations actually make the point that a law-abiding citizen should have less controls or it would inhibit lawful self defense.

Clark Aposhian
February 14, 2007
Trolley Square slayings heats up gun-control debate
Chairman of the Utah Concealed Weapons Permit Review Board
Regarding the Trolley Square shooting in Utah.
[It was also Mr. Aposhian that I received my training for a Utah concealed carry permit.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:39:19 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Second Amendment isn’t about guns or hunting anymore than the First Amendment is about typewriters, Mr. Mayor. It’s about concepts of liberty residing in the authority of the people since the inception of the nation and written to remain that way. The First Amendment is watchdog of government in various ways and is not absolute, and the Second Amendment backs our sovereignty by force and is absolute, which authority cannot legally be taken away.

Taking weapons is breaking the law because it challenges our sovereignty with abuse of process, itself backed by force. This is not leadership or governance: this is an illegal challenge to sovereign authority.

Candidates who oppose personal carrying of handguns lack the understanding to serve and have only the lust to rule. The first step is, of course, to outlaw the honest. It keeps the issue of violent crime alive while people die at the hands of it. Gun control never reduces crime, but endures as an immortal, evergreen issue.

Listening, 2008 Candidates?

They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters – with force, if necessary. It’s how 22,000 gun laws profoundly affect the non-gun owners in America: it challenges their sovereign authority, too.

Repeal gun laws and stop challenging the sovereign authority of the people: protect it and serve it.

John Longenecker
February 13, 2007
2008: Gun Control Candidates Need Not Apply

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:23:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I thought that banks were required by federal law to have the Socialist Security numbers of all account holders.  It turns out not be true, apparently, for illegals.  I'll choose to think of that as good news.  I'll assume I can now open accounts all over the country, including credit card accounts, without my Socialist Security number or any other documentation of my true identity.  Cool.

Lyle at UltiMAK  Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:29:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Monday, February 12, 2007

I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating.

Boss Tweed
[I keep thinking of this quote as I read about the possible nominees for the next President. Someone who doesn't like my politics must be doing the nominating for the nominations. It seems there will only be bad, worse, and worst options available.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 12, 2007 10:33:09 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Sunday, February 11, 2007

Lots of lessons to be learned here.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:34 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I always regarded it as sort of personal quirk without need of a "fixing" but I found it very "deflating", shall we say, to have one of the kids knock on the door while my wife and I are engaged in certain intimate activities let along for them to actually be in the room. That personal quirk aside, I never understood why some people would regard it as child abuse or endangering of a child's welfare for them to see such activity. After all, animals engage in that sort of activity in front of their young without apparent harm. And what about very primitive human societies without doors that can be locked? Do those children, or animals, that see those sort of activities suffer some sort of harm? I think we can safely predict the results of those studies before someone spends X million dollars of government grant money on the topic.

However such a study might help out this couple who I believe should be convicted of committing an act of stupidity not neglect:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman's 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex "all the time" in front of the child and that "we don't believe in hiding anything."

He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex. Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain on the bed, Prata said.

Sex
Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:06:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

With a title for a book review like Fighting Gun Disease (the actual book is Enter the Babylon System: Unpacking Gun Culture from Samuel Colt to 50 Cent) you know the review and probably the book is going to have some serious problems. I wasn't disappointed:

There are 65 million handguns in the U.S. It's estimated up to 1.8 million of them are stolen every year in the States and as many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime.

The 65 million number might be close. It seems plausible at least. The 1.8 million stolen each year doesn't. I looked up the U.S. production records on the ATF website and found that after subtracting the exports manufactures entered 1,043,538 handguns into U.S. commerce in 2005. Imports added another 856,259 which adds up to 1,899,797 handguns entering into the U.S. in 2005. This includes those that went to the U.S. military and law enforcement. Some anti-gun bigot apparently figures that annual import and manufacture of handguns just barely covers the number of firearms stolen each year and it gets the number published in book.

As many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime? Then that would mean that just to keep up with the annual increase in handguns (~1.9 million in 2005) there would have to be at least 474,949 firearm crimes using different handguns.

From the FBI we find there were 139,994 aggravated assaults and 135,444 robberies with firearms in 2005 add that to the 7543 murders committed with handguns in 2005 and we end up with only 282981 crimes committed with handguns. Hence, even if every single crime involved a different gun we come up 191968 short of estimate.

Of course there mght be additional crimes committed with handguns which aren't listed but the vast majority will be covered in those three categories. And the above numbers make the very conservative assumption that each crime involves a different gun. Clearly someone was just making stuff up. It's not an "estimate" by anyone qualified to be making estimates on this topic.

This reminds me of an entry in my quote database:

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Title 18 USC 242 says:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Furthermore the FBI says:

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.

...

During Fiscal Year 2005, the FBI investigated more than 1,100 color of law cases.

I think that since the FBI states they are the lead agency for investigating color of law abuses we should be reporting abuses to them. The FBI has a web page telling how to go about it (near the bottom of the page):

To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

• all identifying information for the victim(s);
• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
  agency employed;
• date and time of incident;
• location of incident;
• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
• a complete chronology of events; and
• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written
complaint to:

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.

Reporting Mayors Daley, Bloomberg, and others involved in the conspiracy to deprive others of their rights to keep and bear arms would seem to be a good starting point. There are those involved in the Katrina incident. That's just the beginning.  There are lots of politicians and law enforcement types all over the country that could benefit from some time in prison for violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Reporting Schumer, Feinstein, and others involved in the "assault weapon" ban would merit my approval as well.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:15:35 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Gun control:  Being able to hit a moving target at 500 yards with one shot, one kill, henceforth conserving your ammunition for further skirmishes and engagements.

Howard Hutchinson

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:01:18 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Saturday, February 10, 2007

Basically, IPSC is, and rightly so, about shooting people.  Some people need to be shot.  Get over it.

Joe Huffman
January 15, 1999 12:52 PM
Unofficial IPSC email Discussion List

Joe Huffman  Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:47:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

One of the many murder mystery shows on TV these days recently did an episode wherein an assassin shot his victim through the heart at a mile and a half with a single shot from a super-scary sniper rifle, complete with portable weather station, laser range finder and computer, etc. (sounds a bit like my setup).  It reminds me of Henry (nostrilitis) Waxman’s attempt to scare children over the magical capabilities of the .50 BMG cartridge.

 

Knowing this claimed feat to be beyond ridiculous, and for fun I decided to test it using Joe’s exterior ballistics program.  Using all the most generous figures:  Caliber .50 BMG (loaded with the slipperiest small arm bullet, with a Ballistic Coefficient of 1.05) which I gave an impressive standard velocity deviation of only 5 feet per second, and an inherent accuracy of 0.5 minutes of angle (super, ultra special, custom ammo) with a wind estimation error of only 2 MPH over that whole mile and a half, and perfect assessment of temperature, humidity and barometric pressure.  It turns out that the probability of a hit (any hit) on a 15 inch circle at that distance (2,640 yards) is from 1% to 8% (depending on which 100-shot simulation you go with-- i.e. there were 100-shot strings in which only one bullet hit its target) assuming a perfect shooter with nerves of perfect steel, perfect optics and visual conditions that can resolve a 16-inch (a little over ½ MOA) wide target at 2,640 yards.

 

Using the more common, high powered, long-range 300 Winchester Magnum, with the same amazingly good velocity deviation and the same super 0.5 MOA accuracy, the hit probability went to about 0.6% on a 15-inch stationary circle.  Bullet's time of flight: 7.37 seconds.

 

On the TV show, the shooter did another amazing trick by timing his shot (from a mile and a half away) to exactly coincide with some blanks fired in a movie set dual.  The time of flight for his (assumed) .50 BMG bullet at 2,640 yards is nearly 5 seconds, so the shooter would have to anticipate his victim's actions with superb accuracy, five seconds in advance.  Furthermore, he took the shot from an urban area, where the intense muzzle report from a necessarily very powerful rifle would have gotten the attention of people in a wide radius.  The rifle was bolt action, and the ejected cartridge case was depicted as having melted into the outdoor carpet on the balcony that served as the shooting position-- also preposterous, as the case sits in the chamber too long to leave it so hot upon ejection (the relatively cool barrel acts as a tremendous heat sink for the thin brass case).  Only autoloaders spit out hot cases because they extract the case within milliseconds of firing.  Oh and the target, being a human in the process of acting out a mock duel, was moving, making the probability of a hit even less (my simulations were done on a stationary target).

 

Now some would say, "Hey, its just a TV show.  Its entertainment, Dude, lighten up."  I would agree if it were a science fiction series, or fantasy, but this stuff is put forth as serious, hard-hitting drama.  To me its like a serious W.W. II drama in which people fly like superman, battle tanks travel at 200 miles an hour, and animals talk.  It ceases being entertainment and becomes an insult.

Lyle at UltiMAK  Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:52:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |