The View From North Central Idaho

Following a link from Sebastian on efforts to block importation of common knives I found this:

Our interpretation of 15 U.S.C. § 1241(b) and 19 CFR 12.95(a)(1) is supported by case law. In Demko v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 83, 88–89 (Fed. Cl. 1999), the Court of Federal Claims, in analyzing a regulation regarding the grandfathered sale of ‘‘street sweeper’’ shotguns, recited the following interpretations of the word ‘‘or’’ as used in statutes and regulations:

‘‘Generally the term ‘or’ functions grammatically as a coordinating conjunction and joins two separate parts of a sentence.’’ Ruben v. Secretary of DHHS, 22 Cl. Ct. 264, 266 (1991) (noting that ‘‘or’’ is generally ascribed disjunctive intent unless contrary to legislative intent). As a disjunctive, the word ‘‘or’’ connects two parts of a sentence, ‘‘but disconnect[ s] their meaning, the meaning in the second member excluding that in the first.’’ Id. (quoting G. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, Syntax 166 (1986)); see Quindlen v. Prudential Ins. Co., 482 F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 1973) (noting disjunctive results in alternatives, which must be treated separately). Nonetheless, courts have not adhered strictly to such rules of statutory construction. See Ruben, 22 Cl. Ct. at 266. For instance, ‘‘it is settled that ‘or’ may be read to mean ‘and’ when the context so indicates.’’Willis v. United States, 719 F.2d 608, 612 (2d Cir. 1983); see Ruben, 22 Cl. Ct. at 266 (quoting same); see also DeSylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 573, 100 L. Ed. 1415, 76 S. Ct. 974 (1956) (‘‘We start with the proposition that the word ‘or’ is often used as a careless substitute for the word ‘and’; that is, it is often used in phrases where ‘and’ would express the thought with greater clarity.’’);

Emphasis added.

They go on to conclude:

In New York Ruling Letter (‘‘NY’’) G83213, dated October 13, 2000, CBP determined that ’’a folding knife with a spring-loaded blade [which could] be easily opened by light pressure on a thumb knob located at the base of the blade, or by a flick of the wrist’’ was an ‘‘inertia-operated knife’’ that ‘‘is prohibited under the Switchblade Act and subject to seizure. See 19 C.F.R. §12.95 (a)(1).’’ In NY H81084, dated May 23, 2001, CBP determined that 18 models of knives ‘‘may be opened with a simple flick of the wrist, and therefore are prohibited as inertial operated knives.’’ In HQ 115725, dated July 22, 2002, CBP determined that a ‘‘dual-blade folding knife’’ in which the ‘‘non-serrated blade is spring-assisted [and] is opened fully by the action of the spring after the user has pushed the thumb-knob protruding from the base of the blade near the handle to approximately 45 degrees from the handle’’ ‘‘is clearly a switchblade as defined in § 12.95(a)(4) (Knives with a detachable blade that is propelled by a spring-operated mechanism and components thereof.)’’

Again, emphasis added.

So now it appears you can be prosecuted for possession of a switchblade knife if the spring holding the blade shut is broken. It's the Olofson case applied to knives. And it appears they are pushing toward calling any knife you can open with one hand as a switchblade. And who does the testing to determine if whether the knife "may be opened with a simple flick of the wrist"? Will the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Knives, and Sharp Pointy Sticks have labs full of technicians with calibrated wrists such that you can send your knife in for periodic testing to make sure the retention spring hasn't gotten too weak?

I have to wonder if a Second Amendment test case can't be brought up on knives in one of the states in the 9^th Circuit where incorporation has already been made (or in D.C.). What is the government going to say, "Sure, the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to carry a handgun to defend yourself but we can't let people own something as dangerous as a knife in their own home! Think of the children!"? Actually, they might. But it would be pretty funny seeing them laughed out of court when they do.

Update: I just figured out how to open my Spyderco Delica "with a simple flick of the wrist". I think I can use the same method with nearly any folding knife. It's easier and faster to open my Delica one-handed the way it was intended but still it appears that that if the criteria is "may be opened with a simple flick of the wrist" to define it as a "switchblade" and hence it's outlawed then it's game over man. We then will have to go to the courts to be able to carry a folding knife.

For years, the gun prohibitionist lobby has perpetuated a sense of fear against armed citizens in various public venues, including restaurants, Yet in Washington State, where the Citizens Committee is headquartered, it has been legal for many years to carry firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, and it has not resulted in the kind of violence predicted by opponents of the Tennessee measure.

Alan Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
June 4, 2009
CCRKBA SAYS TENNESSEE LAWMAKERS ACTED CORRECTLY ON OVERRIDE
[And here is a list of restaurants that are putting up the equivalent of "no coloreds allowed" signs up in response to the new law.--Joe]

I have listened to all 11 episode of the Vicious Circle podcasts now. Most of them were in two five hour stretches. Shortly after listening I was fairly pleased. But now I'm starting to hate it--for several days I have had this earworm of the music they use.

Will a trip to the range without hearing protection rid me of it? Or am I going to have to use a couple pounds of Boomerite?

As everyone probably knows there was a airplane that went down en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris a few days ago. Almost for certain there were no survivors. A great tragedy.

But in reading this report on the victims families I noticed mention was made of the probable loss of gun control advocate Pablo Dreyfus (among other things he helped with this -- see for example here).

But when Neal Knox died (see also) I didn't find any big name media outlets making mention of the loss of a historic civil rights leader.

I wonder why the difference...

No, not really. I'm pretty sure I know why.

David has been posting a lot of really nice Boomershoot 2009 photos recently, Matthew has one here and here, and now Xenia has posted a couple as well.

I really like this one:

Failed fireball.
From Xenia's Live Journal but taken by her sister Kim.

It gives me some clues as to what went wrong with the fireball target this year. It looks like, as Ry reported privately to me a month ago, that half or more of the explosives failed to detonate. I know we had a problem with the targets made on Saturday. There were way too many targets on the hillside with solid hits in them that failed to detonate. Every single one of them was made on Saturday. I think the explosives were packed too tight. I need to maintain better quality control.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.

Ben Franklin
[I can't say that I disagree. The problem is that people have not been taught to know and prize their rights. Ignorance has been a big part of our country's downfall. People vote for politicians promising perceived benefits without glimmer of recognition there might be unintended consequences.--Joe]

I am generally of the opinion that someone who can graduate from law school and become a state attorney general would have to be someone pretty smart. Hence, if they say a bunch of stuff that is totally wrong one must either conclude they aren't that smart, they are lying or they are out of touch with reality.

I have yet to meet a lawyer I considered really stupid. Incompetent, yeah, I saw a public defender I wouldn't want defending a dead dog. But he wasn't really stupid.

Lawyers aren't supposed to lie to the court. Supposedly they can get in trouble for that. But I've seen lawyers do it. Flat out, bald-faced lies to the judge. He had been given the facts just a few hours earlier and lied--big fat juice lies. My lawyers was flabbergasted and because he wasn't expecting it was unable to present any evidence to the contrary or even put up a coherent argument about it. Other people that saw and heard it and a bunch of other actions he engaged in concluded he was a sociopath. Apparently you can make a lot of money as a sociopathic lawyer.

Another explanation for presenting false evidence is they are just out of touch with reality. They live in some sort of imaginary world that only occasionally intersects with reality--like a few times a day for water and food intake and semi-solid elimination.

I'm not sure if J. Joseph Curran Jr. is a sociopathic liar or is just out of touch with reality. But here is one of his semi-solid elimination deposits:

I further proposed that while hunting and other recreational uses of firearms should remain unfettered, our long-term goal should be an end to unrestricted handgun ownership. Sportsmen do not typically use handguns, and studies on self-defense make clear that people in households with handguns are more likely to be victims of gun violence than those in homes without them. I argued that handguns exact too high a price.

...

Legislation to close the gun show loophole nationally is pending in Congress. Childproofing handguns so only owners and authorized users can fire them would save many lives. The notion that guns in our national parks will make vacationing families safer should not carry the day. And surely we can agree that civilian ownership of military-style assault weapons, which make mass slaughters possible, serves no positive purpose.

Guns have killed 300,000 and maimed another 700,000 in the past decade - a million victims since Columbine. Had we done more 10 years ago, how many of those million might we have saved? Ten years from now, do we want to be asking ourselves the same question?

"Sportsmen" do use handguns. Both for hunting and numerous other sports such as USPSA, Steel Challenge, bowling pin shoots, IPDA, cowboy action shooting, and bullseye pistol just for starters. It's not at all uncommon for some sportsmen to shoot 10K to 100K rounds through their handguns in a single year. This makes the use of handguns in the shooting sports much, much more common that rifle hunting. Is his statement a lie or is he out of touch with reality? He probably really doesn't know what handguns are used for. So, I'm saying he is out of touch with reality on this one.

In his reference to "studies on self-defense" he apparently is referring to the discredited Kellerman study. That study was so bad that when congress held hearing on it (it was paid for by the government and questions were being asked about it being shoddy science as well as being written for a preordained political conclusions) Kellermen and others that approved of the study didn't even bother to show up for the hearing to defend themselves. That hearing was in the mid to late 90s. One would think a college graduate with an interest in gun politics would know his pet piece of "evidence" had been completely and totally trashed in a very public forum. Unless, that is, he was intent on lying or he was out of touch with reality. I really can't decide which it is.

There is no gun show loophole. The same laws that apply to gun shops apply to dealers at gun shows. Is he lying about this or is he out of touch with reality? He is a lawyer. He should know. He claims to know of the existence of laws in states that "closed their gun-show loopholes". I say he's lying on this one.

"Childproof handguns" do not exist. I used to work with biometrics (the type of technology proposed for use in making guns only usable by their owners) and I have my doubts the technology will ever be capable of delivering this dream. Let alone passing some law (like New Jersey did some years ago) and having biometrically equipped guns magically appear on the shelves. He must be out of touch with reality on this one.

The "notion that guns in our national parks will make vacationing families safer should not carry the day" implies he does not care about the facts. He apparently only cares that people believe as he does. He's definitely out of touch with reality with this one--and he wants the rest of the world to join him.

"Surely we can agree"? No. We can't agree. He implies "assault weapons" have no positive purpose. But he doesn't come right out and say it. He is using weasel words to bias people's thinking. I suspect he knows the "assault weapons" he wants to ban include millions of guns owned by everyday Americans. Most of the guns I own, rifles and pistols, qualify as "assault weapons" under one or more "assault weapon" bans in the various states. I call this a lie on his part.

Guns have killed or injured a million victims in the last ten years? No. Completely false. People using guns have killed or injured a million people, not necessarily victims. He doesn't use any weasel words here. He flat out says guns killed people. And he calls all those people "victims". About half of the deaths were suicide. Suicides are not caused by guns. There are many factors but gun ownership is not one of them. He completely ignores the justified and praiseworthy deaths and injuries of violent criminals by innocent victims using guns to defend themselves. He must be out of touch with reality to be unaware of these facts. Had he been lying I think he would have tried to use some weasel words to defend against the obvious flaws in his statement.

Final score:

I have to conclude that he is out of touch with reality. It's time to send him to the funny farm and give him some meds.

I've had numerous people and even the owners of one motel* contact me about the date for Boomershoot 2010.

I've set the dates to be April 23^rd, 24^th, and 25^th. Go ahead and make your motel reservations if you plan on attending.

I'm still working on the entry form software and waiting for a quote on the price of the dinner. I thought I would have all this done weeks ago but it just hasn't happened. Maybe this weekend I'll get it done and open up entries.

* A portion of the motel owner email:

Joe,

We are owners of the XXX Motel in Orofino, Idaho. We appreciate you sponsoring the Boomershoot because it gives us great business during the month of April. We have some great people who have been coming here just to participate in the Boomershoot.

We have had several requests asking if we know when the 2010 Boomershoot will happen. So we thought we would contact you and see if you have set any dates for the 2010 event? Some of our guests reserved rooms already just taking a guess when it would be.

Please let us know when you have chosen the dates.

Thanks,

What if people had been talking about passing a law putting curfew on "people of color" being out in public at night? After all with the darking skin color it only makes sense that they could take advantage of that to commit crimes under the cover of darkness. That seems like a "reasonable restriction" that should prevent crime doesn't it?

Furthermore when the bigoted politicians get voted (and shouted) down in public over it they decide to meet with the KKK and the Aryan Nations to plan their campaign for next time. Political leaders of the opposition, the ACLU, and the NAACP show up for the meeting and are barred at the door from attending the meeting. Then they hold a press conference and block any opposing people from attending.

What do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

Now imagine it's gun owner rights that are being plotted against and it's the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the NRA, and National Shooting Sports Foundation instead of the ACLU and NAACP being blocked at the door.

Now what do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

You got it. You'll only hear about it via new media:

• Tom King
• Jacob
• Sebastian

There are some people speculating that Seattle Mayor Nickels is going to quietly walk away from the gun ban on city property he has been talking about for the last year:

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels might be having second thoughts about moving forward with his controversial "dangerous weapons" ban. The executive order would effectively prohibit the possession of firearms on most city-owned properties. The ban has naturally drawn the criticism of Second Amendment rights groups and also Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has stated that it violates state preemption statutes.

In March, we wrote that the Mayor's office was still planning on following through with the ban, with it taking effect "sometime in May".

...

"They have a dead-bang loser in court and they know we were going to sue," Gottlieb challenged. "The Mayor talks a good game but he hasn't put his cards on the table yet."

Although puzzled by the inaction, Gottlieb theorized that the Mayor could be seeking a middle ground out of the situtation.

"I have a feeling we won't see this executive order," Gottlieb predicted.

Nickels is going to do some public speaking to a group that I am a part of in the near future. If I get the chance I'm going to ask him about it.

The fact that political ideologies are tangible realities is not a proof of their vitally necessary character. The bubonic plague was an extraordinarily powerful social reality, but no one would have regarded it as vitally necessary.

Wilhelm Reich
[I'm thinking of dominate political ideologies of Democrats and Republicans. Extraordinarily powerful social realities with the utility of the bubonic plague. That sounds about right.

The major political parties appear to have no principles or underlying philosophy. As near as I can tell they are merely coalitions of people in desire of fame/power/money. Political ideologies based on consistent philosophies such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party are for the most part unable to achieve power. This is in part because they are consistent philosophies which makes them less willing to compromise.

I sometimes fantasize of creating a political system that makes such coalitions of zero or negative value but have been unsuccessful of anything approaching something feasible. I keep coming back to enumerated powers such that the coalitions can't exceed certain boundaries. We tried that once and look at what we have now. There needs to be a "Fourth Branch of Government" or something that does nothing but permanently nullify laws and remove politicians who voted for them from government if something like 10% of the members think the law violates the constitution.--Joe]

I don't know how many times I've heard from an anti-rights activist; "There are 'Reasonable Restrictions' on all rights..." as an attempt to convince us that gun restrictions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing, but it's been a lot.  As often as not, the pro-rights advocate falls for it, too.

The main argument the anti uses is the old, "You can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" meme as an example of a Reasonable Restriction on a constitutionally protected right (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, therefore your second amendment rights are null and void.  QED).

Oh please!  Seriously; when has fraud been a candidate for the title "free speech"? 

Anyone?

It is a malicious fraud to yell "Fire!" if there is no fire.

The first amendment does not protect fraud, libel, slander, or incitement to illegal violence as "free speech" any more than the second amendment protects armed robbery and murder as an integral part of the right to keep and bear arms.  It says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".  It doesn't say, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to threaten, to rob or to kill anyone they wish, shall not be infringed".

We can readily accept laws against robbery, aggravated assault, and murder without our second amendment rights being threatened in the least.  "Keeping and bearing" arms has nothing to do with committing crimes using said arms.  Keeping and Bearing is absolutely protected, and, well, crime is crime.  Can you say, "Duh"?  Everyone together now;  "Derrrrrr!"

Can we please not, ever, allow the old (says in a snotty tone) "Well, there are plenty of Reasonable Restrictions on other rights, and I don't see YOU opposing with THOSE" argument to get any traction whatsoever?

I decided to tell James Kelly what I really thought of him and his attitude toward gun ownership. My latest comment (which may or may not make it through moderation):

James, you need to look at the actual numbers of lives saved versus lives lost because of the "mass legal gun ownership". You do a fine job of expressing your opinion but not backing them up with facts. Which is the entire point of Just One Question-which you still have not answered. You have come up with plausible hypotheses as to why it might be that firearms restrictions in the U.K. have not improved public safety but you have no numbers which show that it has improved public safety there or anywhere else.

Until you can give us numbers you have nothing but opinions. And until you have numbers to back them up you are no different than someone ranting about how terrible it is that Jews, blacks, or homosexuals are "spoiling the neighborhood".

And not to worry, I would never knowing accept an invitation to a dinner party with someone that advocated the infringement of such a basic human right anymore than I would socialize with someone that owned slaves or supported laws that imprisoned homosexuals merely because of their sexual orientation.

Via an email from Mike B. I found out about this article in the NY Times. Once you get over the cringe factor of the improper grip of the gun that has me wanting to find a box of band-aids just from looking at the picture you find an anti-gun person proposing an interesting experiment:

I propose curbing gun violence not by further restricting the availability of guns but by expanding and reorienting it. Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Never mind all the facts he gets wrong like "men would still be forbidden" (emphasis mine), his belief in the existence of "safe guns", etc. I find it exceedingly interesting that an admitted anti-gun advocate is willing to consider experimental data in the formation of gun policy. And furthermore that he would suggest arming those that are more likely to be in need of arms. He seems to actually get the concept but just needs some more data to convince himself of the efficacy of the RKBA.

Of course such an experiment would be illegal in forbidding men to be armed and perhaps requiring women to be armed (they are required to wear clothes in public so how is it different to require they be armed?). But it does bring up delightful thoughts of proposing such experiments to other anti-gun people to see how they handle such a curve ball thrown at them.

When a man is a fool, in England we only trust him with the immortal concerns of human beings.

Reverend Sydney Smith
From the book I Wish I'd Said That! by Nick Harris which gives more background:

In the good/bad old days, a man's eldest son inherited his estate, another son went into the army -- and the dunce went into the Church.

[Perhaps that should now be "When a main is a fool, in the U.S. we only trust him with writing editorials."

I'm reminded of this because of this dunce who says, "This writer grew up on a farm, enjoying hunting for ducks, geese and pheasants, and in adulthood, shot deer while a pastor in Spearfish." I don't intend to tar all pastors and it appears this guy is no longer a pastor anyway. Perhaps he had trouble with comprehension of the Bible as well as the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller.

More available from Jeff, Robb, Say Uncle, and Sebastian.--Joe]

I never though I'd see the day. I recall listening to Radio Moscow, pre Gorbachev, on HF (that's "shortwave radio" to most) as they blasted the U.S. and her evil capitalist ways. They did it in English, using an announcer who sounded like your favorite uncle from Texas. Now our own government officials sound much like Radio Moscow's English service did in those days, but more strident.

Via the Rush Limbaugh radio show, I heard Pravda is criticizing us for our "descent" into socialism.

Things are bad when Pravda says we've gone too far to the left.

Pravda's web server seems to have melted. It worked just minute ago, but when Rush mentions a web site it usually spells "meltdown". Keep trying. You have to see it.

From our friend Howard;

Friends:

Good morning (in your time zone) from Jerusalem. The biggest ever Civil Defense preparedness drill has begun.

Following clash Hamas called on its members: Confront PA as if you're confronting the occupation.

Words fail me too. Just thought you should know. It sounds all too much like the sort of thinking (or lack thereof) that's going on here.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

Thomas Jefferson
[One might reasonably conclude that the bailout of the automobile and banking industries is evidence that this principle has been forgotten in the years since Jefferson help found this nations government. But then what do I know? I'm not the constitutional law professor who actually respects the constitution like President Obama.--Joe]

Alan Gura will be attending.

That's the equivalent of having someone like Stevie Nicks showing up at my high school prom! And like my high school prom, I won't be attending GBR IV. [Heavy sigh]

I listened to all (I only had time for half of #7 which I had previously heard) the Vicious Circle podcasts on my way to/from Idaho this weekend. The most common topic is guns with some porn and technology discussions thrown in. My kind of stuff!

With very little structure, mediocre production quality, and a fair amount of rambling it's never going to win any awards. But I enjoyed it. It certainly was much better than merely listening to road noise.

In some episodes (especially #8, We be hating) it sort of reminded me of gossipy Jr. High girls whispering to each other about someone else behind their back. And then there was another than made perhaps a few too many "short jokes" for me to be entirely comfortable with it (and I'm not short). But there wasn't really anything I hadn't said in private conversations before. But I wouldn't make those sort of conversations public.

I'll be adding more to my Zune as they come out for further entertainment while on the road.

Full disclosure:

#7, Boomershoot 2009, was very favorable about Boomershoot. Late in #5 a favorable mention of somethings I have said appears to be at least partial inspiration for episode #6. I think there was another favorable mention or two of me in some of the episodes as well.

I don't believe these significantly affected my opinion of the podcasts but I thought you should know they might have.

My jaw dropped after reading this:

What started out as a report of a man drunk and passed out in his car at a Franklin restaurant early Saturday morning led to federal agents searching a storage facility.

Officers received a call at 4 a.m. of a man passed out at the Steak n Shake on Carothers Parkway. Police arrested the man, Timothy Tyndall, and found a gun, ammunition and marijuana in his car.

While he was being questioned by authorities, Tyndall said he had chemicals stored at a facility that were capable of making hydrogen gas, a highly flammable substance.

Officers raided Tyndall's storage unit in Cool Springs and found half a dozen containers of chemicals. Agents with the ATF and FBI examined the chemicals and found they were not capable of exploding.

Having the chemicals capable of making hydrogen gas is that all it takes to get "raided"?

If your home has water and electricity then you too have the capability of making hydrogen gas.

When you can get a judge to sign off on a search warrant when given evidence someone has the capability of making hydrogen gas the 4^th Amendment is completely, totally, without meaning--as opposed to the minor speed bump that is now.

James Kelly is at it again with this:

Another tragedy? Not to worry.

An absolutely heartbreaking story on CNN about a three-year-old girl who accidentally shot her two-year-old brother. In the past, I would have instantly jumped to naive and inappropriate conclusions about this event, viewing it as a fairly clear-cut example of a totally avoidable death that could not possibly have occurred without the lax gun laws in America. However, thanks to my recent long-overdue education on these matters, I now realise that having lots and lots of deadly weapons around doesn't cost lives, it saves them. If you feel that this story appears to contradict that statistically proven fact, you need to bear in mind the following factors -

1) Guns are mere tools, and are no more dangerous than any other inanimate object. If the girl had not accidentally killed her brother with a gun, she would simply have done so with any other tool that happened to be to hand.

2) Legal gun owners have no problem keeping their weapons safe and secure, and out of the hands of children or other vulnerable or dangerous people. This is something that ignorant European liberals simply do not understand. Therefore, this tragic incident is either a figment of your imagination or not statistically significant.

3) You are either far too stupid, or far too stubborn, to understand the arguments. There is overwhelming statistical evidence to prove this is the case. It's too complex to go into in detail here, but suffice to say it has something to do with the Tottenham Outrage of 1909, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and some chap you've never heard of called Colin Greenwood.

Enlightenment is a wonderful thing.

I responded with a comment that apparently is being blocked. When I pressed the "Post Comment" button I received a message of "Your request could not be processed. Please try again." I tried changing some of the HTML but it still wouldn't post.

Oh well, I'll post it here where it will get more views anyway:

If one wants to ignore the specific enumerated right guaranteed by our constitution for the moment and look merely at the cost/benefit ratio I'm willing to do that.

James, you need to look at the actual numbers of lives saved versus lives lost because of the "mass legal gun ownership". You do a fine job of expressing your opinion but not backing them up with facts. Which is the entire point of Just One Question. Which you still have not answered. You have come up with plausible hypotheses as to why it might be that firearms restrictions in the U.K. have not improved public safety but you have no numbers which show that is has improved public safety.

Until you can give us numbers you have nothing but opinions. And until you have numbers to back them up you are no different than someone ranting about how terrible it is that Jews, blacks, or homosexuals are "spoiling the neighborhood".

I'm probably just going to get ignored by him again. But as Kevin says, it's not because I hope to convince him. It's because it might convince someone else.

Update: I apparently successfully added the following comment to his moderation queue:

I find it very telling that you are proud of your "gun death" rate but make no mention of your murder or violent crime rate.

Again, you avoid answering Just One Question.

If bans actually worked and guns were not available you would see more of this (warning--it's very graphic!).

How fast can you draw and fire a shot? How much distance can an attacker cover in the same amount of time?

In answer to the first question 1.5 seconds is a reasonable estimate for most people. 21 feet is the answer to the second. Draw your conclusions and modify your behaviors appropriately.

Did you know that some gun bloggers had to get ATF approval?

Yes, it's true. Here is a picture of some of them.

Boomershoot ended as quickly as it began. It only felt like a few hours, but it was most of the day. I guess time flies when you're blowing shit up.

ErnestThing
May 11, 2009
Boomershoot 2009
[Yeah, time does seem to fly during Boomershoot. I sometimes worry that people aren't getting their money's worth out of the event because it's all over so fast. But people start leaving before I call the final ceasefire so I can't be that much of a spoil sport.--Joe]

Just a few months ago Fred LeBrun was saying things like this (see also my QOTD by him):

For the first time since 1935, with an all-Democratic national government, we are in a position to finally institute some meaningful and sensible gun control measures that will help mightily in regaining our cities from gun terror, street by street. Gun control doesn't have to be a dirty word.

The centerpiece has to be a national identification system for handguns. A computerized system that would be accessible to all law enforcement agencies, and that would standardize the requirements for handgun ownership coast to coast. I am not suggesting anything radical in the slightest. In essence, it would be the system we have here in New York taken nationally, only with less waiting time for handgun permits.

Keep in mind that that "the system we have here in New York" is one of registration. And now he is saying:

The latest case in point is the absurd attempt by a few members of the Albany County Legislature to pass a local law requiring the registration of all ammunition sold in the county, and the recording of all the guns using the ammunition. Not just ammunition for handguns, which is already controlled by existing state law, but all ammunition for shotguns and rifles. This would be a radical departure for Albany County, and New York in general, which do not register or require a permit for these long guns.

Justifiably, this was seen as an awkward local attempt at backdoor gun registration, a hot button issue for gun rights advocates. They rallied fiercely against it, and vowed to work against the re-election of those who support it.

...

The proposed law itself was an ill-considered attempt that did more harm than good. It was deeply flawed from the onset and only managed to irritate a lot of people who would probably have gone along with public safety measures aimed at street crime.

Perhaps he is waking up to the reality of the RKBA as a specific enumerated right. The government can no more be trusted with a registration list of guns and/or gun owners than they can with a registration list of blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.

Full disclosure: I work for Microsoft but not in Search.

I know MS has been spending a lot of money attempting to catch up to Google as a search tool. A year or so ago I attended a few internal meetings and saw data that showed objective tests placing search results above Yahoo! and nearly as good as Google. I expect the results are at least on par with Google by now, but still MS wasn't getting the traffic anywhere close to that of Google.

It appears MS has decided that search quality wasn't a deciding factor. Yes, the branding of "Live Search" sucked. "Bing", to this non-marketing expert, appears to be much better. And I hope that will help. But what they are doing is much, much more than just rebranding it. Check out this video. It's a decision engine, not just a search engine.

Coming soon: Bing.

ALWAYS take at least one knife to a gunfight, just in case you run out of spare mags.

Evelyn Logan
5/28/2009
From the email list NRAInstructorsRKBA.
[Good point. You don't have to reload a knife. But as I heard Greg Hamilton once say, "If I run out of ammo there will be lots of unused guns and ammo on the ground for me to pick up."--Joe]