The headline reads SF Leads Nation With Toughest Gun Control Law. It's not true, Washington D.C. and Chicago are tougher with near complete bans on handguns and severe restrictions on long guns. But that's not my main point. The headline could just as accurately be SF Bigots Implement Repressive Law Against a Minority but that might make the bigots feel bad about themselves.

The field of explosives engineering incorporates a broad variety of sciences and engineering technologies that are brought together to bear on each particular design problem. These technologies include chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, mechanics, electricity, and electronics, and even meteorology, biology, and physiology.

Paul W. Cooper
1996
Preface to Explosives Engineering
[Chemistry? Check. Thermodynamics? That class was lots of fun. I got an A+ in it. Fluid dynamics? Check. Aerodynamics? Check--see Modern Ballistics. Mechanics? Check, Electricity and electronics? I have a BSEE and MSEE. Meteorology? I'll keep the explosive events to a size that shouldn't be affecting the weather. Biology and physiology? Not particularly--That's what the flak jacket, mask, gloves and apron are for--keeping explosives components, by-products, and accelerated objects out of my body.--Joe]

A person without conscience, even a smart one, tends to be a short sighted and naive individual who eventually expires of boredom, financial ruin, or a bullet.

Martha Stout
The Sociopath Next Door
[At first I was rather depressed by the book. In the U.S. one in 25 people has no conscience. They can do anything they want and not feel the least bit of guilt. Fear of getting caught and punished yes, but that just means they work a little hard and smarter to get away with whatever they want to do. Torturing animals, torturing humans, lying, cheating, backstabbing, murder, rape, whatever relieves their boredom. Those that follow the rules are stupid and naive. All part of the mindset of the sociopath. And it is the sociopath that is the dictator, the corrupt politician, the serial killer, and one of the reasons the average person needs to own a gun. As I got near the end of the book I heard about what serious deficits they have in their emotional lives and how their lives frequently end. This gave me hope. Hope that perhaps justice is more sure than it sometimes appears to be.--Joe]

I asked Barb to sit on my lap while I watched the video about Beth's 12 egg omelette (via Ry). When it was over Barb asked, "What's CaTTy about?" I had no idea so we watched it. Barb laughed so hard I thought she was going to tip over our chair. When it was over she said, "Send that to Xenia." Xenia has two cats.

Yup. It is pretty good.

Video: CaTTy

We’re hearing rumors that the Moscow, Idaho Mayor, Nancy Chaney, is plotting to ban guns in “Public Places”.

One’s right to self defense is under attack right here in Idaho.  Do I need to look up the political affiliations of the Mayor?  Does anyone wonder?

AP has it now, so the story is repeated verbatim on several sites.  As anyone could predict, it starts out describing a multiple murder committed using firearms.  The conclusion is always the same:  We must "prevent" further incidents of people breaking the law by passing more laws.  That way, when criminals obey this new law, they won't be able to break the old ones.

"I think there is probably some nervousness about that, of course."

Chaney said the shooting at the courthouse made her concerned about how vulnerable people might be at public meetings. She said she was also concerned about armed citizens who might be inclined to "swoop in to protect people" in situations that police should deal with.

"We don't want to tread on anyone's Second Amendment rights," Chaney told the Lewiston Tribune. "We want to find out what is within our legal prerogative."

She doesn't want to tread on anyone's rights, she just wants to ban guns.  Its hard to find anything on this locally, so apparently its being kept pretty hush.

Chaney, Girl, you be trippin'!  People may be "nervous" about a lot of things.  Some people at one time were very nervous about black people wanderin' all over free and what not, too.  It doesn't mean they had any right to keep black people out of public places, any more than you have the right to ban self defense.  If you're too nervous to do your job properly while respecting and appreciating the rights of your neighbors, I'm sure we can find a more level-headed replacement for you.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.

Henry David Thoreau
(1817-62)
U.S. philosopher, author, naturalist.
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849).
[Does this remind you of Gandhi in any way? It should. Gandhi studied Thoreau's writings and put a lot of the theory into practice.--Joe]

If there ever comes a time when I have to defend my life, I wouldn't trust that to anybody else -- no matter what oath they took or what contract they signed. I came to America from Brazil. The Second Amendment, I think, is one of the best things about this country.

Diego
Pennsylvania
Armed America--Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes
Page 48

As Uncle pointed out (and here) we have a new kid on the block. I left a comment in response to his post Happiness is a warm gun. Comments require approval before they show up so I decided to post it here because I expect the probability of anti-gun blogger Bryan Miller approving the comment are no better than 50-50.

My comment:

I find the following data points about Miller very interesting:

1. He refers to gun rights activists as “boys”.
2. When people call him on his inaccurate use of the phrase “assault rifle” he says, “It’s just a name.” Yup, it’s just a name. Just like “n****r” is “just a name” for people with dark colored skin.
3. He questions the mental qualifications of people with a fondness for a particular hobby that he doesn’t share.
4. He wants to restrict the rights of certain people.

It’s all part of the mindset Miller has. He apparently believes he is better than others, specifically he is better than people that own or want to own guns. It took me a long time to understand anti-gun people like Miller. I grew up in a place with a very homogenous population and hence there was virtually no elitist mentality other than the typical school stuff of the fourth graders looking down on the second graders and the high school seniors looking down on the freshman. It took some long discussions and email with a recovered liberal friend of mine (see here and "Comments from ‘Mike’ at the bottom of this page) and seeing the racist roots of gun control before it finally clicked into place. It’s even more clear to me from the many discussions I have had with these type of people about what they are trying to do. You can ask them just one question and they will dance around the question and even call you stupid for asking the question--but they won’t answer the question. To them it’s perfectly clear that the question doesn’t need to be answered. What they are doing, what they want to accomplish makes perfect sense and needs no justification. The conclusion was finally obvious to me--the anti-gun people are the bigots of the 21st century. It took me a long time to realize this because I didn’t have any real contact with the more typical bigots until a few years ago. The parallels in mindset and thinking processes were astonishing—but that is a topic for an entire blog post, not just a comment on someone else’s blog. I now have Just One Question for Miller:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

Also, Mr. Miller, when you “explain the Second Amendment” to us, please address the points in this blog posting: An Individual Right. Thank you for providing us with this forum where you show us your true colors and allowing us to show ours.

These high-sounding lectures from you and your colleagues in the so-called "gun rights" crowd are not even slightly impressive (they are amusing, though). As I've written above, society has a duty to mediate between individual privilege (that's right - privilege - neither you nor any other American has an unfettered "right" to own any weapon he or she wants) and public safety. In this case, the choice is clear. The public safety demands that massively destructive weapons like the Big 50 be prohibited from public purchase. And, you are in a tiny minority if you think Americans, and especially New Jerseyans (who suffered so from 9/11), would rather face the issue AFTER some terrorist knocks over a chlorine plant or similar disaster and hundreds die. Nuff said.

Bryan Miller
July 27, 2007
Put down the ducky -- I mean, gun
[Typical elitist mindset--He can't be bothered to address the points made. Furthermore he is willing to give up, and demand that others give up rights, in the name of "crime prevention". What a disgusting, revolting, frightening mindset.--Joe]

Interesting. My most recent post about the TSA is getting more and more attention. Most recent is this mention in a forum:

If you really need to believe that you're safe when you get on a plane, don't read the above. If you want to realize what a bullshit fantasy "safety" through a "security" agency is, then take the red pill and click the link.

I like how he expressed that. Very nice. I remember one time not too long after 9/11 Ry was having Thanksgiving dinner with us and our extended family at my parent's place. Somehow Ry (software tester extraordinaire--finding flaws is what software testers do) and I started talking about all the vulnerabilities in our country that someone could use to cause us great damage. We were rattling things off so fast that someone had to raise their voice to get in a command to "STOP". People didn't want to know. They wanted ignorance. This is baffling to me, but whatever.

Anyway, on to what makes particular posts interesting...

Uncle and Existing Thing (via Uncle) linked to my TSA post. I was thinking Uncle would link to it when I made it. He links to almost anything of mine that is a little out of the ordinary (honest, I have only made him one offer for a free position at Boomershoot--which he hasn't acted upon. I don't think that constitutes bribery). Thinking about what makes a post interesting I made the connection to the recent career advice from Scott Adams (via Kim). I have expertise in more than one field and combining that expertise with a somewhat rare political viewpoint (pro-freedom) increases my "value". In this case it was my expertise in explosives and (computer) security.

I keep wondering if there is a way to combine all my hobbies in an interesting way. But at least for me guns, explosives, and sex just don't mix.

I say, what do you expect? Disarming potential victims is almost never a good idea. As long as predators exist their prey will need to defend themselves. Taking away the tools used for defense is just asking for more victims. That the daughter of a gun control activist gets shot gets two responses from me:

1. (Outwardly) I'm so sorry, is there anything we can do to help?
2. (Under my breath) Well, duh! Would you like some firearm training for your family so this is less likely to happen again?

Regarding predators... I'm listening to a book on my iPod Nano now: The Sociopath Next Door. Four percent of the population are sociopaths. Not all are violent, but more than enough are. There is no cure. As long as sociopaths exist in the general population, and probably even if there weren't, the innocent will need tools to defend themselves. People that argue "economic justice", "midnight basketball", or even "two parent families" will make ownership of defensive tools obsolete is exceedingly naive.

Democracy is a bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.

Oscar Wilde
[My original source claimed it was Wilde but I can't confirm it. But in any case--this is part of the reason why we have a republic rather than a democracy. But these days one could make the case there isn't all that much difference between the two.--Joe]

I can't endorse the bill because it is wasteful and supports an unconstitutional program, but I won't oppose it because it contains provisions that I consider critically important -- things I've been writing about for years -- correcting the injustices of permanently denying Second Amendment rights, without recourse, to tens of thousands of people. Maybe I'm missing something and maybe I'm wrong, but at this point, I think our energy can be expended in much more productive ways -- making sure Tiahrt passes comes to mind.

Jeff Knox
Hard Corps Report
May - June 2007
Volume 4, Issue 3
[Jeff captures my take on it quite well. I wish I had got around to reading it before I posted my own opinion of the Tiahrt amendment.--Joe]

From Canada, Turning Legal Gun Owners Into SOCIAL LEPERS:

Citing concern over the "sinister uses" of guns, University of Toronto officials are closing down their 88-year-old shooting range. No word yet on the fate of the university's chemistry labs.

More than just one more example of political correctness run amok (which of course it is), I take this gesture as academic ideologues' invitation to government to follow suit and ban gun sport and gun collecting nationally. Alas, I think the initiative might find broad public support. To many liberal Canadians nowadays, tolerating gun use in any capacity is akin to complicity in Bambi's mother's murder, fatalism regarding school massacres and genuflection to American imperialism.

And from the same article it looks like I have a new book to read:

In a recently-published book discussed on these pages last Thursday, Mistakes Were Made:Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson argue that many social and cultural problems spring from humans' inability to admit when they're wrong. How right they are. And as further evidence to those adduced in their book, I would cite: the blinkered ideologues who punish responsible gun users for the sins of criminals; police who automatically privilege the idle or fabricated concerns of disaffected women over men's property and civil rights; and governments who continue to throw good money after bad in perpetuating an institution that fails utterly to deter gun crime, but succeeds magnificently in stigmatizing an identifiable minority of law-abiding citizens as criminals in waiting.

Our future as gun owners doesn't have to be same as that of Canadian gun owners. Right now we essentially have the bigots at a standstill. We need to keep pushed them and change the attitudes in this country. We have to have the right mindset and turn the anti-gun bigots into the social lepers.

It is late at night and I got a little agitated reading some of the comments at Schneier's blog post about airplane security. When I'm tired my inhibtions drop and I write things I might not normally. Here's a duplicate of the rant I left in Schneier's comments:

Regarding dust explosions...

This is about 8 ounces of flour over an ounce of black powder (the original gun powder): http://www.joehuffman.org/FlashTek/06-FFFFgFlour.mpeg

That is in open air. In an enclosed room of an abandoned house a similar test brought the house down. Sorry, that wasn't my test and I don't have any video for it.

Shaped charges made from match heads? I don't think so. The "detonation" velocity is just too slow. It's more properly called deflagration than detonation for that type of "explosive". Shaped charges require MUCH faster propagation rates.

Binary explosives are available here: http://www.tannerite.com/ No background check, no license required, delivered to your door via UPS. Now THAT is something you can make a crude shaped charge with.

The "projectile" (typically a slug of molten copper) from a shaped charge is moving at 6 to 10 kilometers per second. At the pressures generated when it hits a "target" everything is "plastic". Hardened steel develops a hole just like a high velocity stream from your garden hose nozzle punches a hole in a dirt bank. Penetration for a properly configured 10 (ten) gram shaped charges is about 2 inches of steel. Yes--a shaped charge using less than one half ounce of explosives will penetrate two inches of steel. See Explosives Engineering by Paul W. Cooper, ISBN 0-471-18636-8 page 442. Or do you think the doors to the cockpit are more resistant than two inches of steel?

Do you think someone could not get a half ounce of explosives through TSA security? You could probably successfully hide that in your mouth or arm pit if you didn't want to use some other body cavity.

Oh, and you know why the explosives detectors work fairly well with plastic explosives? It's, by international agreement (Montreal, March 1, 1991, Article XIII of the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives -- http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/subpartj.pdf ), that all plastic explosives be "marked" by their manufacture with a chemical that is easily detected. Do you think Iran and others are going to abide by that International Convention if they want to provide some terrorists plastic explosives?

We really should spend the $2 billion/year, or whatever it is, on finding and stopping the bad guys before they arrive at the airport/train-station/shopping-mall/etc. than on pointless screening. The bottom line is that the acronym TSA should be reversed--it really stands for "A Security Theater".

It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.

Will Rogers

It's mildly interesting and somewhat amusing but I hope it wasn't funded by some government grant. As much as I'm interested in sex I don't see much point in this study. I also find it annoying that some of the reasons are duplicates; Example, #7 "I'm addicted to sex", and #9 "I am a sex addict". Probably the most interesting part of the survey was this paragraph:

Another perspective comes from the literature on sperm competition (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Shackelford, Pound, Goetz, & LaMunyon, 2005). From this perspective, a man whose partner might have been sexually unfaithful might seek sex, which functions to displace the sperm of the rival male. Or a woman might deplete the sperm of her partner, leaving few available for insemination of rival women. None of these hypothesized functions, of course, need operate through conscious psychological mechanisms.

This is the first meme I'm actually happy to receive. A Brain Like Mine gave me a Thinking Blogger Award.

She even made me #1 in her post about it but I may be reading too much into that. It was my Jews In the Attic Test that did it for her.

Here are the rules:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).

I don't read that many blogs and most of them are not in search for food for thought. Hence there is only one blogger that I'm going to tag--Kevin.

My son, Alex and I went to the range last weekend.  He wanted to confirm zero on his rifle before the start of hunting season, and I wanted to do the same with a 50 caliber muzzleloading caplock rifle.

I don't know how explain this, but it wasn't until we were half way home that I again realized the fact that I had any problems or concerns in life at all-- they had completely gone away for the time we spent at the range.

I hadn't experienced anything like this in, I don't know how long. Talk about "Zen and the Art of the Rifle" which is the title of one of Oleg's recent posts.

Alex had some of his custom ammo left over from the Boomershoot, and since the bullet manufacturer says their VLD is also a decent hunting bullet, he decided to use that accurized load for hunting this year.  I won't tell you the size of his 200 yard group (he fired a total of four rounds that day-- three at 200 and one at 50, to get a first-hand feel for the difference in POI) partly because it would be bragging, but mostly because you wouldn't believe it anyway, coming as it did from a "mere" Ruger M77 MKII.  I had to explain to him that this was something remarkable, and yet maybe I shouldn't have bothered.

It was one of those few days in life wherein one can truly say one was "at peace".  But you don't realize its happening until its over.

The more guns you have, the greater the chance they will be used. But both common sense and the law of averages escape presidential candidates, especially Republicans looking to assert their conservative bona fides. When it comes to gun control, they not only have to be against it but they have to insist -- in raging opposition to common sense -- that the more guns around, the safer everyone is.

[...]

He is the True Republican -- a credit to his party, a threat to us all.

Richard Cohen
July 31, 2007
Thompson on Horseback
[Cohen is referring to Fred Thompson. What Cohen apparently believes is that any gun use is bad. This only demonstrates the mental problems of Cohen because in the same opinion piece he talks about the occasion when he wished he had a gun to protect himself. Cohen also neglects to take into account that during the 20^th Century more people were murdered by their own government than were murdered by their fellow citizens--but only in countries with strict gun control. So, indirectly, people like Cohen who advocate strict gun control are a greater threat than those that advocate recognition of our right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

Update: Uncle and Jeff both commented on this same opinion piece.

Screening ideas are indeed thought up by the Office for Annoying Air Travelers and vetted through the Directorate for Confusion and Complexity, and then we review them to insure that there are sufficient unintended irritating consequences so that the blogosphere is constantly fueled.

Kip Hawley
Head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
April/May of 2007 via an email interview with Bruce Schneier
[Yes, he said that. It was sarcasm. Not that I don't think there was a certain amount of truth in it as well. Reading the rest of the interview (part of one of five is all that is out) was interesting. As you might expect Schneier is asking the right questions but, at least so far, Hawley is avoiding some of the questions and Schneier isn't following up as well as I think he should. For example, Hawley gives a feels good answer to claims of 90% failure on weapons detection. But I don't think there have been any changes that can defeat certain, extremely simple, scenarios.

You are requested to lay your carry-on luggage "flat" on the belt for a reason. That reason is the X-Ray image is produced in the vertical direction. Laying the luggage flat gives the screener the least clutter in the image. It also means that you can present the screener with the most favorable profile of your weapon. Imagine what the profile of a knife looks like on edge and what acceptable carry-on items might look similar or camouflage the knife on edge. It is my contention that short of hand searching or complete emptying of luggage at the check points it will be trivial to get knives past security in your carry-on luggage. Firearms are only slightly more difficult. There may be some things they can do to detect ammunition via nuclear methods but I suspect even that can be defeated if you know what you are doing. It is my contention we would all be much better off if we explored different methods of security.--Joe]