Quote of the day—Marshall Dunlap

No one needs a gun, especially a handgun. The idea that a handgun is essential for self protection is a myth. If someone is pointing a gun at you then it’s too late for you to pull yours out on them. A handgun is worthless for hunting.

The government is not going to invade your home and take away your guns. Gun-rights advocates say that they need their guns in order to keep the government from confiscating them. It’s illogical, paranoid reasoning, especially given the fact that there are already almost enough firearms in private hands to arm every man, woman and child in the country. The government would not need a list in order to come after your guns. All they would have to do is go door-to-door, and they would likely find one.

Marshall Dunlap
October 7, 2014
Gun control: Background-check inconvenience worth it to keep guns from criminals
[Gun owners are illogical and paranoid? This is a few sentences after he says we handguns being used for defense is a myth (tell the police that), they are worthless for hunting and, “No one needs a gun…” And it’s a few sentences before he suggests it would be easy for the police to go door-to-door and confiscate them.

I think Mr. Dunlap is doing some projection and that he is further evidence of why we shouldn’t have registration lists of guns or gun owners.—Joe]

Well, there’s always the Contender

Via TFB, we see The Dominator, a 308 Winchester upper for the 1911. OK then. As Cooper was fond of saying; I suppose we should refrain from asking “why?” I don’t know what it’s for, but it is interesting from a gadgetry liker’s point of view. If it were a choice between the two I think I’d take the Thompson Center Contender. Hmm; how about a 300 Win Mag upper for your LCP, then, for, you know, uh…practice, or something, so when you’re out shooting for defense with your .380 it would serve as low recoil practice for big game hunting.

Quote of the day—Martin Fischer

I had a liberal colleague giving me grief about guns and that gun owners are crazy, so I just put the question to her – if someone handed you a loaded gun, what would you do with it? She said “I’d look for someone to shoot”. I told her “That’s the difference between me and you – I’d be looking to be sure it was pointed toward a safe place. You’re the one that needs professional help, not me.”

Martin Fischer
October 4, 2014
Comment to AND SHE STABBED HIM IN THE HEAD: Why Gun Control Supporters Don’t Trust You With Guns
[H/T to Paul Koning.

I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justin Trudeau

In his Thursday morning address to the Canada 2020 conference, he declared himself ardently for “humanitarian” intervention — but scorned any air support for a military effort as just, you know, the Harper boys “trying to whip out [their] CF-18s and show how big they are.”

Justin Trudeau
October 2, 2014
Rex Murphy: Trudeau’s joke about Canadian jets bombing ISIS reveals an unserious mind
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday!

As Andrew Benghazi suggested in a Facebook message to me, “The ultimate Markley's Law?”

Perhaps it is. But ultimate implies it cannot be exceeded for all time. We’ll have to wait for the end of time but Andrew just might be correct.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

If you ever hear of a gun control rally happening nearby, do yourself a favor and make it a point to attend.

Do not go to share your opinion on the subject or confront their ideas as a counter-protestor, simply go to their event and listen.

If you experience turns out to be anything at all like the experiences I’ve had, you’ll note a sort of nervous energy in the supporters of gun control. If you spend time listening to them, you’ll probably see them swing back and forth from sorrow to a anger, and back again… often within the span of a few minutes. There’s often chanting involved, a repeated catch-phrase, or a mantra to help keep them focused on the cause.

Almost invariably, they’ll veer from mania to depression, and show signs of poor impulse control.

Bob Owens
October 3, 2014
AND SHE STABBED HIM IN THE HEAD: Why Gun Control Supporters Don’t Trust You With Guns
[I can second that.

They have extreme difficulty in clear thinking. The cannot seem to differentiate between facts and feelings. They will literally say, “I don’t believe your facts”. As Lyle says, they are telling us they are insane when they do this.

You can explain that eliminating all “gun deaths” does not mean people are safer and they cannot understand how that can be true and respond with “Huh? totally missed this logic. I don’t think there is any there.

They will pontificate on all they are doing for “gun safety” and then have a deer in a headlight response when you ask how many gun safety classes they have attended or taught.

They will tell you that many lives will be saved if there was a waiting period “so people could cool off” before they could buy a gun. Then when asked, “So, if I go into a gun shop, show them my concealed carry permit and a pistol on my hip then they wouldn’t need to make me ‘cool off’ before purchasing another one, right?” they will shut down the discussion because… well… I guess it’s because they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cody Wilson

What excites me is giving this world to the politicians. Our strategy is to literalize and reify their nightmare, to give them the world they’re talking about.

Cody Wilson
October 1, 2014
The $1,200 Machine That Lets Anyone Make a Metal Gun at Home
[The options available to the politicians are to blatantly infringe upon numerous other rights or have it clearly demonstrated that they have no practical way to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

That works for me.—Joe]

“Research” on the right to carry

H/T to Ubu52 for the link to this recent paper on The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report. NRC stands for “National Research Council”.

First off it really doesn’t matter if the crime rate were to increase as fewer people had their right to carry defensive tools infringed. You don’t see people doing studies on the conviction rates because people invoke their right to have a lawyer present when being questioned by the police. The only reason they are doing these studies is because they want to eliminate or minimize to the maximum extent possible the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

Here is part of their abstract:

Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.

In addition to aggravated assault, the most plausible state models conducted over the entire 1979-2010 period provide evidence that RTC laws increase rape and robbery (but usually only at the .10 level). In contrast, for the period from 1999-2010 (which seeks to remove the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic), the preferred state model (for those who accept the Wolfers proposition that one should not control for state trends) yields statistically significant evidence for only one crime — suggesting that RTC laws increase the rate of murder at the .05 significance level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis and clarify some of the highly sensitive results and anomalies (such as the occasional estimates that RTC laws lead to higher rates of property crime) that have plagued this inquiry for over a decade.

My statistics are sufficiently rusty that I don’t feel comfortable digging into their numbers much. But the first thing that jumped out at me is “11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime”. And what about the other 16 estimates? Are they cherry picking their data? There are other indications that they are. They specifically removed Florida and Georgia data from some of their numbers:

we note is the strong influence of Florida and Georgia on our estimates of the impact of RTC laws on murder (Figure 10). When we remove these two states, the post-adoption trend lines for murder clearly shift upwards.

I didn’t read the entire paper but I didn’t see where they looked for other states to drop to see if the “trend lines for murder clearly shift” downward. What would have the result been had they done so? They justify the drop of Florida and Georgia because of the crack “epidemic” which coincided with the concealed carry laws changes. But if someone found they could drop other states and show a marked downward trend in crime I suspect they could find some other justification for dropping them. It’s easy to convince yourself of something you want to hear. It is far safer to use all the data unless you know a serious measurement error occurred.

Another issue I have with this paper is the apparent complete confidence in correlation equals causation. They always say RTC (Right To Carry) laws cause the increases in crime they found.

But the biggest issue I have is something they never bring up. And I think this is fatal flaw that completely invalidates their paper. They write about the RTC laws causing an increase in violent crime. They never say that the people exercising their rights are responsible for the crimes. I find that absolutely fascinating. I suspect they studiously ignored this obvious jump for a very specific reason. If they had claimed that then their conclusions would have been easily falsified by data that shows people who have concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the general population. Good numbers are a bit hard to come by but see, for example, the Florida numbers on the number of licenses revoked for any reason.

If their conclusions were actually true then why didn’t they go the tiny bit extra and demonstrate it was the result of all those extra people legally carrying guns that inflicted the crime upon the general population rather than just the passage of the law itself?

My hypothesis is that data proves something they have no interest in being publically known.

Update: Another thing I thought of during the night after posting this was that their model for the effect RTC laws have on crime rates is apparently something like the following. People that would not normally commit violent crimes seek out permission from the government to carry a gun. This government permission to carry a gun in public causes/enables/something them to commit crimes. Hence they obey the rules to not carry a gun without government permission then disobey rules against using the gun in an unlawful manner against other people.

Someone has to be pretty messed up in the head to believe that is a viable hypothesis. And further messed up to be able to twiddle with the data enough to confirm their absurd hypothesis.

Low expectations for failed viewpoint

Via email from Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

I am excited to announce the launch of another limited-edition CSGV t-shirt featuring the slogan, “What Part of ‘Well Regulated’ Don’t You Understand?
This 100% cotton, U.S.-made t-shirt is available in three colors (black, navy blue and light blue) and sends the message that the overhwhelming majority of us do not agree with the NRA’s extreme and insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Our goal is to sell 250 tees in the next 20 days. If we can reach that goal, Represent.com will print and mail out the t-shirts, and donate all but $1 of the proceeds from each shirt directly to CSGV! [Because Represent.com uses the Kickstarter model for their campaigns, if you purchase a shirt and we do not reach our goal of 250 sales, your money will be returned.]


Even ignoring the typo of the word “overwhelming” this email is filled with fail.

The “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment has been explained so many times that the only way someone who follows the issue could be unaware of true meaning of this is if they put significant effort into denial. For example in the Heller Decision we find (pages 23 and 24):

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

So Everitt, mocking people for failure to understand the meaning of “well regulated”, gets it totally wrong himself.

Given such a poor foundation it comes as no surprise that he has a goal of selling 250 t-shirts. 250? For an overwhelming majority of the people opposing the NRA and Supreme Court’s viewpoint? The NRA has about five million members. That would mean Everitt believes there are several times that many people who agree with him. Yet he only expects to sell 250 shirts to those 10 to 50 million people that disagree with the NRA and the Supreme Court viewpoint of the Second Amendment.

One has to marvel at the amount of stupid in this guy if he believes what he is saying. It isn’t even internally consistent. He truly has crap for brains.

Quote of the day—Alan Gura

Perhaps in some cases a studied commitment to atheism leads one to the priesthood, but judges doubtless understand the advantage of Justice Breyer’s approach in sanctioning just about any result they would like to reach.  Dispensing with the constraints of text and history, and deferring absolutely to legislative “judgment” overcomes any constitutional “right.” 

Alan Gura
April 11, 2014
Harvard Law Review Forum
The Second Amendment as a Normal Right: Ruling out ad hoc interest-balancing
[H/T Glenn Reynolds.

In this commentary Gura also makes the abortion rights analogy similar to what Lyle has done here.

See also what Sebastian has to say about Gura’s commentary.—Joe]

Habitat destruction update

I posted on this topic nearly seven years ago. We now have an update on the risk of species extinction due to habitat loss of this well known species:

Every few years an alarm is raised; habitat loss puts this species at risk. “Pubic grooming has led to a severe depletion of crab louse populations… an environmental disaster in the making for this species,” said one entomologist (who also happens to work for a company that specializes in ectoparasite control).

Will the noble pubic louse Pthirus pubis, which once grazed the rolling plains of our crotches in great herds, be driven into extinction? Do we need to erect habitat reserves for crab lice conservation in New Jersey? Will these insects that “swing from hair to hair” in our undergrowth someday only be known from medieval kings and mummies?

The short and curly answer is no, even with new evidence in a research paper that links hair removal to declining crab lice infection rates:

Pubic Lice: An Endangered Species? Dholakia, S., et al. Sexually Transmitted Diseases: 2014. Volume 41.  Issue 6: 388-391.

It’s good to know the general pubic is doing their job of habitat conservation to save this species for the enjoyment of our children and grandchildren.

Quote of the day—John R. Lott, Jr.

I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.

John R. Lott, Jr.
September 25, 2014
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”

There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:

In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”

The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”

John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”

The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”

Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]

Psychology of mass shooters

Via CGL Admin we have this is a fascinating article on the psychology of mass shooters: Everything We Think We Know About Mass Shooters Is Wrong.

The bottom line is that it isn’t so much that they are psychopathically evil but that they want attention and to be accepted so badly they are willing to kill other people to get that attention. This is consistent with other psychological assessments that say the media coverage of mass shooters helps create more mass shooters.

Another civil rights lawsuit

It pleases me to see New York’s Governor Cuomo sued by civil rights group:

“The cartridge limit is arbitrary and serves no useful purpose other than to frustrate, and perhaps entrap, law abiding citizens who own firearms with standard capacity magazines that were designed to hold more than seven rounds,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, who founded the organization in 1974 and watched it grow to well over a half-million members.

“Several top law enforcement officials have already publicly stated they will not enforce provisions of this law, yet Gov. Cuomo and Supt. D’Amico are pushing ahead,” Gottlieb claims.

“The law is contradictory, in that it is legal in New York to possess magazines that hold up to ten cartridges,” Gottlieb said. “But the SAFE Act limits people to seven rounds, with some narrow exceptions. This amounts to virtual entrapment for anyone who loads more than seven rounds in a magazine for self-defense purposes.

“Magazines that hold ten or more rounds are in common use all over the country,” Gottlieb concluded. “This arbitrary limit essentially penalizes law abiding citizens for exercising their right of self-defense, and that cannot be allowed to stand.”

The Second Amendment Foundation’s media release is here. Donate to SAF here.

We are making progress. It’s slow and expensive but one lawsuit at a time we are putting these want-to-be tyrants in their place.

Quote of the day—Janice Wilberg

There has been much talk lately about how gun violence is a public health issue and that, in order to fully understand its epidemiological dimensions, we need to do a dissection of each incident to determine the precipitating factors, the relationships, why and when the shooting occurred, get to the reasons that will explain the violence, the thinking being, I guess, that if we can figure out the reasons, then we can address the reasons and reduce the violence.

I don’t think there are reasons.

I think there are guns.

There are guns everywhere. Everywhere. You better believe it. Right now, in Wisconsin, people are walking around with guns in holsters like this is the O.K. Corral. The folks who went through a $50 concealed carry class walk around in a haze of superiority because their gun lust got sprinkled by respectable fairy dust. Two sides of the same coin to me, the guy who takes a class so he can put his new gun in a fancy holster and parade around town, his jacket artfully arranged so everyone can see that his gun is ready, real ready and the guy whose second or third hand stolen gun is wedged in the lowdown of his pocket; it’s a dick festival in either case. Call it what it is.

It’s not about the reasons.

It’s about the guns.

Janice Wilberg
July 13, 2014
Orbiting Zorkon: Gun Violence in Milwaukee
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S. who said, “really got my attention when she compared legal carry with criminals carrying stolen firearms”.

Yes. She thinks it’s about the guns. She thinks there is no difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun. Citation needed. But you know that isn’t going to happen because she goes all Markley’s Law instead.

She has crap for brains.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]