This restriction has directly impacted me for years. Barb and I love visiting National Parks. If we get this through then our visits will be far less stressful:

Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks

Reading the fine print what this really means is that a major offensive has been opened in our battle against the anti-gun bigots on one front. We probably will win but we still have work to do. This is just a commitment to go through the process, including public input, to change the policy. Barb and I have a rule regarding good news. We'll believe it when "the check clears the bank".

Thanks go to former Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne (currently Secretary of Interior), Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), and NRA-ILA.

A glimpse into the future:

Berlin - The German parliament approved tighter gun-control laws on Friday in a move designed to stop the spread of violent crime. The new legislation bans the carrying of replica firearms and so-called airsoft guns as well as certain types of knives.

With so much real world data available you would think they wouldn't even try to get away with publishing something like this. But these people have mental problems so I guess it's not too surprising, just frustrating. This nut case is classified under projection:

Concealed carry safety is a fantasy

Some people say we need to let college students have the right to carry concealed weapons so that they can protect themselves and others. Here's a possible scenario:

Dear Diary:

Well, here I am in my Physics 202 class at NTU, ready for another boring lecture by the professor's assistant. I feel really good today, 'cause I've got my new Ruger 7-shot automatic in my backpack and a box of extra ammo too.

Makes the backpack a little bit heavy, so I think I'll toss out a couple of boring textbooks when I get back to the dorm. I sure hope some intruder will burst into the lecture hall one of these days so that I can shoot him!

Meanwhile, several friends and I are thinking about taking our automatics to the game against State U tomorrow night. We're only a half game behind in the standings and if any of those State guys start smarting off to our coach or players, we'll know how to handle them at half time!

It's so great now that even 18-year olds can pack heat. Is this a great country, or what! Well, diary, I'd better sign off now, 'cause that lecturer is writing some sort of formula on the board and I guess I'd better start paying attention.

Whoa! One of the kids on the other side of the room just stood up and has started shooting people! The teaching assistant just went down, and he's bleeding!

I'll just get my gun out of my backpack and get it loaded in a second and I'll fix him! Oh no! He's pointing that gun at me now! Oh.....

Kurt Thoss

The black market was a way of getting around government controls. It was a way of enabling the free market to work. It was a way of opening up, enabling people.

Milton Friedman
[Speaking of black markets...

Something to keep in mind is a tax greater than 15% on an item is the threshold at which a black market is created. Think of all the things that are taxed at rates greater than that. Then remember than in a black market you don't have the court/justice system to enforce contracts. Which means contract disputes are settled privately--frequently with violence. One further point before I deliver the punch line, it is exceedlying rare that a criminal pays taxes on his income. Thus $100K/year in criminal income is more like $175K/year in legal income. Hence high taxes not only create crime in the form of a black market and their methods of dispute settlements but high taxes make criminal income more attractive than legal income. Big government doesn't keep us safe from crime, it creates crime.--Joe]

This article is very interesting for two reasons. The first is:

A group led by a Princeton University computer security researcher has developed a simple method to steal encrypted information stored on computer hard disks.

The technique, which could undermine security software protecting critical data on computers, is as easy as chilling a computer memory chip with a blast of frigid air from a can of dust remover. Encryption software is widely used by companies and government agencies, notably in portable computers that are especially susceptible to theft.

The development, which was described on the group’s Web site Thursday, could also have implications for the protection of encrypted personal data from prosecutors.

The move, which cannot be carried out remotely, exploits a little-known vulnerability of the dynamic random access, or DRAM, chip. Those chips temporarily hold data, including the keys to modern data-scrambling algorithms. When the computer’s electrical power is shut off, the data, including the keys, is supposed to disappear.

In a technical paper that was published Thursday on the Web site of Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, the group demonstrated that standard memory chips actually retain their data for seconds or even minutes after power is cut off.

When the chips were chilled using an inexpensive can of air, the data was frozen in place, permitting the researchers to easily read the keys — long strings of ones and zeros — out of the chip’s memory.

“Cool the chips in liquid nitrogen (-196 °C) and they hold their state for hours at least, without any power,” Edward W. Felten, a Princeton computer scientist, wrote in a Web posting. “Just put the chips back into a machine and you can read out their contents.”

That's cool enough, but this is just as cool:

The issue of protecting information with disk encryption technology became prominent recently in a criminal case involving a Canadian citizen who late in 2006 was stopped by United States customs agents who said they had found child pornography on his computer.

When the agents tried to examine the machine later, they discovered that the data was protected by encryption. The suspect has refused to divulge his password. A federal agent testified in court that the only way to determine the password otherwise would be with a password guessing program, which could take years.

A federal magistrate ruled recently that forcing the suspect to disclose the password would be unconstitutional.

Not that a child pornographer may be able to get away with his crime but that you can password protect your data and the government can't force you to potentially incriminate yourself.

Another fish bit on my Just One Question lure--sort of.

---

From: "Joe Huffman"
To: bree_dalling@musician.org
Subject: Gun control laws will save lives
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:46:55 -0800

Regarding your opinion piece here: http://media.www.suujournal.com/media/storage/paper951/news/2008/02/19/Opinion/OpEd-Gun.Control.Laws.Will.Save.Lives-3219311.shtml
 
I have just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
 
See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx
 
Regards,
 
Joe Huffman

From: Bree Dalling
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:35 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Gun control laws will save lives

Hi Joe,
As I've explained before, I'm not proposing banning them, or fully restricting access to them. If you're a law-abiding citizen, then you won't have a problem. I'm saying put the people who aren't so law-abiding on several lists. If something changes with their status (they receive anything higher than a class A misdemeanor, or they start having mental health issues), then require them to turn their gun in for as long as it takes for them to get it taken care of and/or whatever happens with it. Notice that every single school shooting in the past few years has been from someone who went off their medications.

I will admit, I have yet to read your blog post. I will get to it once I finish my homework. I just wished to clarify my position.

Thanks,
Bree

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:41 PM
To: 'Bree Dalling'
Subject: RE: Gun control laws will save lives

I don’t know the details of the “several lists” you are proposing but I expect they already exist and are enforced in the form of NICS (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm).

As it is currently implemented my main gripe with NICS is that it consumes money without any measurable benefits. I agree one should expect it to make people safer but no one has been able to measure an improvement. It’s kind of like expecting you will get sick less often if you wash your hands frequently. But if your water supply is contaminated with raw sewage washing your hands just doesn’t make a difference. The real problem is that restrictions on the access to firearms can be, and has been, no more successful than restriction on access to recreational drugs or alcohol during prohibition.

But it gets worse than that because the restrictions end up prevent praiseworthy use of firearms such as self-defense. If someone with criminal intent wants to obtain a weapon they will without concern they are breaking the law—after all they intent to commit some other violent crime why would they be concerned about breaking a law in regards to gaining possession of a firearm? The potential victim(s) generally obey the law and hence restrictions on firearm access hinder them from using firearms as defensive tools. Thus we find that restrictions on firearms have both a positive benefit (it makes it somewhat more difficult for potential criminal use) and a negative benefit (less access for defensive use). The net effect is that people, on the average, are never safer after the restriction was put in place than before. If you want to look at specific people such as Stalin, Hitler, other tyrants, then yes, they were made safer by restricting access to weapons by their prey, but that isn’t an accomplishment any gun control advocate can be proud of.

Do your homework and get back to me if you feel like it.

Thanks for responding.

-joe-

Just released: Illinois shootings prove Brady Campaign is horribly wrong on guns.

It hits on the Brady scoring of Illinois in the top ten in terms of gun laws but the effect was to create government-enforced killing fields. Here is a sample:

The anti-self-defense extremists at the Brady Campaign – who have consistently battled common sense concealed carry laws that put law-abiding citizens on a level playing field with criminals and crazies – are real proud of themselves. They should be begging forgiveness for the horrific crimes that occur in shopping malls, on college and university campuses and anywhere else that their hysteria and political demagoguery have prevented sensible right-to-carry statutes from being enacted.

I like it.

In the U.K. the handguns were the object considered most important to ban as is generally the case in the U.S. However, in Australia they took the long guns first. But not wanting to show favoritism the Australia politicians are now demonizing handguns. And of course little things like facts are no obstacle to the anti-gun bigots:

"We need the same restrictions on handguns, automatic handguns, that the Howard government implemented on long guns after the Port Arthur massacre (in Tasmania) in 1996."

Automatic handguns were effectively machine guns and should be withdrawn from public availability, Senator Brown said.

I'm reminded of Goldilocks Gun Control (another version of the same story is here). But really, it's whatever works for them politically at the time. The only thing that is consistent is they they want more and more restrictions. There is never going to be a gun that is "just right" for people to have.

Josh Horwitz apparently believes if a government declares slavery for blacks, or extermination of Jews, or capital punishment for homosexuals the law of the land then the targeted people need to just accept it. Not only does he apparently believe it is true he wants to ensure such a government won't have to worry about serious resistance:

It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to "suppress insurrections." A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be "tyrannical" is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.

Odd, isn't it, that the same set of people that just successfully overthrew a tyrannical government in the late 1770's would write a constitution with the intent the new government should be able to disarm the populace so future generations would not be able to do the very thing they had to do?

Of course the above is a rhetorical question. Horwitz has his head "in the sand" (this is a family friendly blog). If you read some of the amicus briefs you will see Horwitz gets his head handed to him.

The headline reads, Moore's Gun Control Proposal Is Shot Down By County Commissioners. But was more than that. It was more like stripped naked, body slammed, machine gunned, and urinated on:

County Commissioner Marie Moore’s proposed ordinance to restrict firearms use in the county was solidly rejected by her colleagues Monday night and she took a tongue-lashing from irate citizens as well.

Vale resident Sam Houser said that Moore’s proposal was a “waste of money and time” and urged that commissioners reprimand her for violating their rules by springing the idea on them without any discussion or public input at a meeting earlier this month.

Commissioners had scheduled  a public hearing on the idea for March 3, but their rejection of the ordinance Monday night ended the need for that.

Moore’s proposal would regulate firearms use near houses and occupied structures, but speaker-after-speaker told commissioners that laws are already on the books that would prosecute anyone who maliciously or careless fires a weapon.

Sheriff Tim Daugherty told commissioners he thought Moore’s proposal was unenforceable and said he didn’t want his deputies wasting their time chasing down and investigating calls that would result if the ordinance passed.

Commissioner Alex Patton, who made the motion to kill Moore’s proposal, said that he had received more than 100 emails and 30 phone calls, and not a single person he heard from is in favor of the idea.

“It’s not right for Lincoln County,” he said, rejecting Moore’s contention that a public hearing should be held before a final decision was made.

Commissioner Jim Klein said that it was “unfortunate that this ordinance got as far as it did” and said it is “an ordinance that we don’t need in this county.”

Moore retorted that a woman was killed in Maine in 1989 by a stray bullet.

Commissioner Bruce Carlton then weighed in and said that life has risks and it’s not government’s place to remove every hazard from daily life” unless we want what he called a “vanilla world.”

Patton then sealed the fate of the ordinance by saying that common sense can’t be put in an ordinance.

The audience applauded much to Moore’s chagrin.

Chairman Tom Anderson said that he believed we have laws already in place to cover the issues that concerned Moore, and urged residents to be responsible in their use of firearms.

Earlier, Denver resident Jamie Barnes who has complained about what he calls a nuisance puppy mill on Petite Lane, said there were three accidental shootings in the county last year and 177 dog bites with one fatality.

He said that it seems to him that gun owners are more responsible than puppy mill owners.

“I am more afraid that my daughter will be attacked by a dog than shot,” he said.

Only one citizen spoke in favor of Moore’s proposal, noting that he and his wife were working in their garden when “bullets whizzed overhead.”

Patton’s motion to kill the gun control measure passed 4-1, with only Moore in dissent.

I love the "spirited defense" the North Carolina anti-gun bigot put up, "Moore retorted that a woman was killed in Maine in 1989 by a stray bullet."

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.  At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

Lazarus Long
A character in "Time Enough for Love" by Robert Heinlein
[When I started my QOTD thing my intention was to never repeat a quote. I'm making an exception this time because of this. It's called Verizon Bad Math, but it's not even math. It's 4th grade arithmetic. Background is here. I didn't read it all. It's way, way too painful for me.

What's your call?

• It is the public school system
• Verizon hires only arithmetically challenged people
• People in general are just mind boggling stupid
• Some people should not be allowed to breed
• Abortions should be available on a retroactive basis

Listen sometime when excess adrenaline won’t be a problem and you have your blood pressure meds handy.

Thanks (I think, I may not be able to sleep tonight) to Taqi for the pointer.--Joe]

I have to reluctantly agree with Kim on this one.

You don't pick a fight with George Foreman
You don't get snarky with Tam
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Kim

Okay, it wasn't as scathing as I would have expected but I like to laugh at my own jokes.

[Apologies to Jim Croce]

I didn't have time to read it all before I rush off to work, but it looks like really good stuff.

From: David E. Young 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM
Subject: History News Network article criticizing amicus of professional historians in Heller case

History News Network has published my article severly critical of the amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court by fifteen professional academic historians in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban in the Heller case.

The more people who know about how historically off-base the professional historians' brief is, the better. Other briefs presenting historical material in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban have relied on these completely mistaken historians for their material as well.

The direct link to the HNN article is: http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html

David E. Young
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment

Author - The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms

In addition to the email exchange yesterday I tried to engage a few others.

---

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:47 AM
To: 'bree_dalling@musician.org'
Subject: Gun control laws will save lives

Regarding your opinion piece here: http://media.www.suujournal.com/media/storage/paper951/news/2008/02/19/Opinion/OpEd-Gun.Control.Laws.Will.Save.Lives-3219311.shtml

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

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

Regards,

Joe Huffman

---

In regard to http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/news/2008/02/20/EditorialOpinion/Gun-Control.Problems-3220468.shtml

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:25 AM
To: 'kbruck@student.umass.edu'
Subject: Gun control problems.

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

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

Regards,

Joe Huffman

---

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:45 AM
To: 'jackson@globe.com'
Subject: Missing on gun control.

Regarding your article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/19/missing_on_gun_control/

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

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

---

In response to http://www.houstonvoice.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=16602

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:45 PM
To: 'knaff@washblade.com'
Subject: Time to get serious about gun control.

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

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

From Florida:

The pastor of a southwest Florida church opened many eyes and ears Sunday when he said he wants married couples in the congregation to -- have sex for 30 days in a row.

Dr. Joe says, "Well, it's a start I guess."

I"ve been tilting at windmills again. This one is in Kentucky.

The time stamps on the email are a little messed up because we are in different time zones.

---

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:38 AM
To: lli@kykernel.com
Subject: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

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

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:24 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

The "average" students murdered in Virginia Tech and NIU would not have been killed had stricter gun control been in place to prevent two killers from purchasing handguns legally. I hope that answer your question.

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:51 PM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

That is a prediction about what might have happened had things been different. It is a closer to a hypothesis rather than a fact or a valid conclusion. Stated differently, "What evidence do you have that would actually be the case?"

Over the years there have been thousands of laws passed restricting weapons.
Hundreds of studies have been done testing the hypothesis that such laws make people safer. These hypotheses have never proven out. That is a fact.
If you have evidence otherwise then you will be making sociological and criminological history and you should publish a paper on it. If your data stands up to scrutiny you will be famous.

There is an alternate hypothesis that also must be tested which I don't think you have considered, "Does the restriction of weapons enable and/or encourage predators by ensuring their victims are defenseless?"

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

Regards,

Joe Huffman

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:47 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Joe,

If you wish to get into semantics, using your own logic, your question itself is invalid. By using the word "safer," an adjective in comparative form, you imply that there must exist two outcomes of one scenario, but since the question is in the past tense, there is only one actual outcome.
Making any comparisons would inevitably include making a hypothesis of a different outcome front the actual past, which invalidates the comparisons because you are only looking for "a fact or a valid conclusion." To demonstrate how the question as you intended is not fair, apply the question to finding an argument supporting more gun access. You will inevitably use a hypothetical argument with your example.

Many studies show that the United States lead all developed countries in number of firearm-caused deaths porportional to population, and that lead is substantial. While these statistics and many arguments are inconclusive, or rather, imperfect - in the pure logical sense - to prove that restricting firearms can reduce danger to society, we make worldly decisions based on commonsense and pragmaticism, and all the evidence supports the commonsensical notion that guns indeed endanger the society and should be strictly controlled.

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:59 PM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

You are correct in that the experiment cannot be run again with the same initial conditions changing on the legal restrictions on weapons, but apparently you haven't read my blog posting
(http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx) or any of the papers on the subject. There are two ways the comparison is done: 1) Compare violent crime rates (not just violent crimes assisted by firearms) before and after a restriction was enacted; and 2) Compare violent crime rates during the same time period in geographically adjacent but politically different jurisdictions. For example Washington D.C.'s violent crime rate can be compared before and after the handgun ban (time based comparison).
And geographically Virginia is "just across the street" from D.C. with much less restrictive weapon laws. There are hundreds of opportunities for studies of this nature with the thousands of laws that have been enacted in many countries. The more geographically and culturally distant the two (or
more) zones you are comparing the less likely you will obtain valid results.
Hence your comparison of the U.S. to other "developed countries' would be suspect even if it were to compare violent crime rates rather than just violent crime assisted by firearms.

If you want to examine mass shooting such as Virginia Tech and the more recent North Illinois University tragedies then please compute the correlation coefficient between "gun free zones" (such as schools, workplaces, and states that prohibit people from carrying defensive tools) and the instances of these type of events. Nearly all of them happen in places where firearms were banned. They almost never happen in shopping malls, theaters, and other locations with large numbers of potential victims but yet are allowed to carry defensive tools. Compare, for example, the recent school shootings in the U.S. compared to the recent event of TWO attackers at an Israeli school: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/310078.aspx

You claim, "All the evidence supports the commonsensical notion that guns indeed endanger the society and should be strictly controlled". Yet I have seen zero evidence of this. If you have such evidence you will, as I said earlier, be able to make quite a name for yourself because no one has yet been able to supply it. I would be honored to help you earn your just fame by posting it on my blog in response to my "Just One Question" post.

As for the "commonsense" approach you need to evaluate other viewpoints for validity. Although I agree your appears valid at first glance I view the situation a little differently from you. It's not quite a simple as we would like it to be.

Another way to look at the problem is to make the problem space much smaller. Are YOU made safer if the government takes all your defensive tools from you? I think the answer is clear. No, you are only made safer if the government takes offensive tools away from others that might harm you.

The problem boils down to how does the government (or any other entity) remove weapons from predators with minimal or no impact on the potential victims? No one has been able to accomplish this. It always seems that the predators are less affected by weapons restrictions than are the potential victims who would use the weapons for self defense. This is because most potential victims will obey the restrictions and the predators will obtain weapons illegally or have little or no need for weapons if their prey has been disarmed. Hence weapon restrictions, at best do no good or worse create a low risk environment for predators.

Regards,

Joe Huffman

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:20 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Joe,

I did go back and read your blog post, and I have to say that its arguments are less sound than the arguments presented in your correspondence. For one, you automatically presume that no one can answer your challenge to the point that you wrote, "any comments to this post presuming to support a "Yes"
answer will be deleted." What's the point of posting a challenge if you don't allow any challengers to respond?

To answer your questions from the previous mail, the possible evidence you suggested cannot possibly be logically extensive. Besides semantical arguments, I can also raise more commonsensical arguments to rebuke the proposed evidence. For example, Washington, D.C., has consistantly had high crime rates, so comparing its crime rates to Virginia is unreasonable. In addition, despite the fact that some states/establishments may have much stricter gun control, because guns are easily accessible elsewhere in the state/country, the danger factor from firearms is not necessarily lowered.

I understand that I probably won't be able to change your stance on firearms, nor do I expect you to do the same to me. However, I appreciate the fact that you are using reasoning rather than threats and slogans to get your message across. Now, if only you can be so reasonable in your blog posts...

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:52 AM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Apparently you missed a paragraph in my post:

-----
If you are someone that has a "Yes" answer and believe you can conclusively demonstrate that then write it up and email it to me. Plan to have your work posted on a website of my choosing along with my comments. I will give you credit for your work or keep it anonymous--whichever you prefer. I will put links to those responses in the comments to this post.
-----

I welcome responses. I just didn't want the debate taking place in the comments.

D.C. was just a quick example. Anyplace where a law has been enacted which affected the restrictions on firearms either a time based comparison and/or a geographically based comparison can be (and probably has been) made. The end result of those studies? Weapons restrictions do not make people safer.

You think my blog posts are unreasonable? Would you consent to my posting of our email discussion? Would that make me appear more reasonable?

And what of your reasonableness? You appear to hold the position that firearms should be severely restricted or perhaps banned. But as many times as that experiment has been tried you appear to be either unwilling or unable to demonstrate where that made people safer. So, if you maintain that belief one has to ask, "Why do you maintain that belief when you have no evidence to support it?" What is the real reason for you to hold on to such a belief? None of the answers I can come up with are very pleasant.

Thanks for taking the time to think about the issue. That is a lot more than most people do.

Regards,

Joe

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:49 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Just because my evidence to support my belief is invalid in your mind doesn't mean it's invalid to the rest of us. I wouldn't hold a belief without believing in some reasoning or evidence supporting that belief. So I do not understand your rather militant questions at the end. I respect anyone's opinion, and regardless of whether I agree with it, I am sure that the person has his/her own reasoning, valid or not. So if you don't agree with the evidence and reasoning I stand by, at least consider the fact that, to me, they are as valid as your evidence and reasoning for lifting gun bans. Hopefully, that'll refrain you from calling me a bigot or any other unpleasant name you can come up with.

And if you wish to post our exchange on your blog, I'd be OK with that. But it is your blog, and you have the liberty to do what you wish.

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:43 AM
To: 'Li, Linsen'
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Belief has nothing to do with the validity of evidence.

To respect all opinions is to have no respect for the truth.

Perhaps you haven't seen the definition of "bigot" recently. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot): "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Share with me the evidence which answers my one question in the affirmative and I'll change my mind. What evidence would it take for you to change yours?

Regards,

Joe Huffman

Barb says the joke is getting old. I still think it is funny. Maybe I'm just slow on some things.

In any case there is more evidence of global warming climate change:

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

As people continue to push for restrictions on human activities to prevent global warming climate change you know it has to be they have an agenda other than what they claim it is. It is my belief its about desire for government control rather than freedom. Freedom is too scary for most people.

A terrible crime is committed so government officials want to Do Something^TM to prevent it from happening again. Never mind that prior restraint is supposedly illegal. Never mind that what they propose is illegal and a felony. They admit, in virtually the same breath they used to push their proposals, that their proposals won't work:

But after the news conference, state Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, acknowledged they would not have prevented the NIU shootings. Authorities have said the NIU gunman legally obtained the weapons he used.

If they know their proposal would not have prevented the crime then it's obvious their proposal is intended for the stated purpose. It's about something else. What is that something else? I can't say for certain. In fact it may be they don't even know. The question these bigots need to be asked, "Since you know this proposal won't prevent such crimes, what's the real reason you advocate more restrictions on firearms?"

Kevin Cullen is from Boston so it's no surprise he doesn't have a clue about guns:

So, some cow chip-kickin' senator from Louisiana doesn't want Mike Sullivan, the US attorney in Boston, to become head of the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms because Sullivan wants to make it harder for people to get guns.

Um, isn't that what the head of the ATF is supposed to do?

Let me spell it out for you Mr. Cullen, you're from Boston so I understand the concepts are difficult for you.

The head of the ATF, just like all other government officials are required to uphold the constitution. Until such time as the Bill of Rights is declared null and void it is the NOT the job of the head of the ATF to make it harder for people to get guns. In fact the "Head of the ATF" should be actually be the CEO of a convenience store by the same name (actually you should tack the 'E' on to the end of it but I'm not going to complain if that market is handled by a separate chain that specializes).

Congress surely has the power to regulate firearms in Washington; but if Congress felt that disarming Americans at home were necessary for its security, it might have attempted to do so in the first 177 years of the city’s service as the seat of government. As recent history demonstrates, those who would attack our capital are hardly deterred by Petitioners’ ban on handguns and functional firearms in the home.            

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit

As pointed out by others (and here) Hillary wants a gun summit:

“I believe we really should have a summit where everybody comes together on all sides of this issue,” Clinton said. “Let’s figure out how we can be consistent with the Second Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, and do more to keep people safe.

“I think we can do that, but it’s going to require us all to maybe give a little and understand the point of view of the other people,” she said. “That’s something I would do as President to really bring people together.”

I'm all for reaching a middle ground. In fact I have given this a lot of thought in the past and already determined what the middle ground looks like. Just adopt my position and everyone will save a lot of time and energy.

And even if my reasonable compromise isn't acceptable do not forget Sean's valuable insight.

At 5:59:55 I received a phone call. As I said, "Hello" I pushed the "Delete" button to make position 31 available. The man on the phone wanted to sign up for Boomershoot. I told him he had to do it on-line. He thanked me and I wished him good luck.

At 6:02 Carl pushed the button that claimed the position.

Carl was the instructor for the first firearms class I ever took. Taking that class enabled me to obtain my Idaho concealed carry license.

I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy right now. It's time to go back to bed with Barb.

From Time to decide: Gun control or out of control? By Adrienne T. Washington, February 19, 2008:

"I felt just shocked, like I had been hit by a truck," Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying. "There's over 90,000 licensed dealers in the U.S., and what are the chances that my company is involved with two mass murders inside of a year? I'm dumbfounded."

Really? With 90,000 licensed dealers and no one knows how many more unlicensed dealers, I'm not.

I've stared at these two paragraphs for several minutes and can only conclude Ms. Washington has a seriously malfunctioning logic center. But, as I like to say, it's irrational to expect people to be rational.

In my previous posting on microstamping I tried to be as objective as possible. Now I want to give my opinion.

Microstamped bullets

As much as the anti-gun people would like to implement something as expensive and worthless as microstamping of bullets matched to their cases and boxes I believe they will be laughed out of the legislatures. It is just too difficult and impractical to implement and even the police will complain at the paperwork and expense. Add in the ease with which stolen and re-manufactured ammo will defeat the technology and only the most rabid anti-gun people will support it. The police have a lot of influence anytime guns are brought up and without their support this technology will be defeated.

Microstamped firearms

The argument that microstamping of firearms will help solve crimes committed with guns is invalid. The only criminals that will be caught with this technology will be the stupid ones, those that committed crimes of passion, or those that had no plans to get away with the crime (murder-suicide types). In those cases the criminal would have been caught/detected anyway and the microstamping of the firearm will be irrelevant. There will be a few borderline cases where the microstamping does make a difference but the numbers will be insignificant. This is of little concern to the anti-gun people. Even if all crimes committed with guns were solved instantly they would still demand the banning of firearms. It's not about crime reduction, its about banning guns even at the cost of increased crime (see Washington D.C. and Chicago for example). That they tried less drastic measures and they failed will be one of the reason given for the more harsh measures which follow.

Microstamping of firearms, at this point in time, would be a great burden on manufactures. But I believe I have solutions to all the problems mentioned by NSSF as issues for manufactures. All those issues can be solved with a few changes in their processes. If so, then the promise of only adding a dollar or two to the price of the gun might become a reality. It will take some time and it will cost money to make the changes but ultimately it won't be major obstacle to microstamping. I'm not going to provide those answers here because it does no one any good. If I can come up with the answers in less than a day then so can a lot of other people.

As much as I would like for all manufactures to follow STI and Barrett's lead in refusing to do business with California and other anti-gun states the lure of having a less competitive market will mean some manufacture will fill the void. If there is a demand then someone will supply it. Just as with recreational drugs the price will be above free market levels and the quality may be lower but the demand will be filled. Once the boycott, if it ever becomes that, is broken by one or two manufactures then others will probably fold as well. The only question will be whether the manufactures will make guns specifically for sale in those anti-gun states or will they continue to sell non-microstamped guns in other states. I think the answer to that will depend on the "people of the gun". Will we pay a premium for an non-microstamped gun and/or will we mount an effective boycott against the manufactures that sell into the anti-gun states? I don't know the answer to that.

Conclusion

I'm left without a strong argument against microstamping and I'm afraid ultimately our legislatures will be too. It won't make a measurable change in the solving of crimes but it won't hurt the non-criminal gun owner much either. I can't make a case for it violating the Jews in the Attic Test because I claim the technology can be easily defeated. I don't like it because it is worthless and it gives validity to "reasonable government restrictions" on firearms. Ultimately it will lead to government restrictions on defacing the microstamping just as the existing laws against destroying the serial numbers of firearms. The replacement parts will ultimately be tracked and even if you purchase a gun through a private sale without a 4473 being filled out the repair of the firearm, even on your own kitchen table, will result in your gun being, again, tied to you. But this incremental firearm registration will be not be a sufficient hurdle to block it's passage in the legislatures.

I believe the bottom line is that in order to stop state legislation mandating the microstamping of firearms we will mount an effective boycott of those manufactures that sell into those states. Against Federal legislation we will have essentially no defense.

The Solicitor General has argued, Congress may prohibit such persons as idiots, imbeciles, felons, and children from possessing any firearm whatsoever. Id. at 25-26. While the Second Amendment would not absolutely preclude exclusions, it does prohibit them if they rest upon the constitutionally impermissible ground of unfitness. Exclusions may only be based upon the foundation that the class of persons excluded are not art of the constituent "people" -- i.e., those persons ho have authority to constitute and reconstitute the government -- being either incapable of giving the requisite consent to be governed, such as children, or having forfeited their civil rights, such as a convicted violent felon. According to the republican political philosophy underpinning the Second Amendment, whether a person is "trained" in the use of a firearm, and thus fit to possess it, is a matter of self government, not subject to any fitness regulation of the government.

Herbert W. Titus
Gun Owners of America
Brief amicus curiae in D.C. v. Heller.
February 11, 2008
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0802.pdf

From NIU parents call for more gun control:

"Think of how many (people) are on anti-depressants in this country," she said. "If someone goes off their medication does that mean we should hand them a weapon of mass destruction to go and act out their despair?"

[...]

Jacob said she felt that more funding needed to be put towards mental health services.

"I think there should be more focus on mental health," she said, though she also believed in more gun control. "I don't think these kinds of guns belong in anyone's hands, sane or not sane. And law enforcement doesn't need these kinds of guns in people's hands."

John and Sharon Roszkowski, of Downers Grove, are parents of a student at NIU and came all the way to Skokie for the press conference. Sharon said she was primarily looking for what she as an individual could do to help prevent similar events from happening in the future.

"I think there are just too many shootings," she said.

The press conference didn't give her a good idea of what she could do, but at least, "I feel like I have a direction," she said.

A pump 12-gauge shotgun and a couple 9mm handguns are WMDs? And no one should have these kinds of guns? Then they should start by removing them from the police.

I especially like the part about not having a good idea of what to but yet she has a direction. Press conferences, emotion, and more government--that's what they do, that is their "currency".

How are they going to defend against this new binary explosive?

[Thanks to JoeyD Sr.]

Position 31 for Boomershoot 2008 will become available tomorrow morning, Tuesday February 19^th, at 6:00 AM PST (I think I have my alarm set correctly this time).

Shooting benches are recommended for this position. See http://entry.boomershoot.org/#Main for pictures of the location. Assuming your fingers are fast enough you can sign up for this postion via the online entry webpage of the previous link.

Communism is at once a complete system of proletarian ideology and a new social system. It is different from any other ideological and social system, and is the most complete, progressive, revolutionary and rational system in human history. The ideological and social system of feudalism has a place only in the museum of history. The ideological and social system of capitalism has also become a museum piece in one part of the world (in the Soviet Union), while in other countries it resembles "a dying person who is sinking fast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills", and will soon be relegated to the museum. The communist ideological and social system alone is full of youth and vitality, sweeping the world with the momentum of an avalanche and the force of a thunderbolt.

Chairman Mao Tse-Tung
Little Red Book
"On New Democracy" (January 1940), Selected Works,  Vol. II, pp. 360-61.
[I ran across this book in the Paper Source store in Bellevue, Washington yesterday. A very weird place to find it. I was interested in reading it but didn't want to spend money that would benefit some communist so I found the book on-line. I need to read the Communist Manifesto sometime too. So much of Marx and other communist philosophy infiltrates our politics and even everyday thinking it would help to be able to identify it and point out the errors more readily. As you can see from the quote above their predictions and proclamations have less that stellar accuracy.--Joe]

I don't have the final information available yet but this is the premliminary report from the auction last night:

I'm not sure of the actual selling price, I thought it was $450 each but someone I spoke with said they went for $500 each.

Wow! $450 or $500 for participating in Boomershoot (and donating money to FONRA).

I gave them two positions but was asked to only mention there was one available. The plan was to auction off the one then offer the other position to the second place bidder for the same price.