Dan Rather did Fake but Accurate so I now present Factual but Misleading.
The two pictures below were taken within a short time of each other on Saturday before Xenia’s wedding. Xenia is looking in the direction of her husband to be, John, who is shown in the picture below hers.
Draw your own conclusions about what these pictures mean.
I’ll let Xenia and/or John explain the straight story.
Ry, I’ll match that and raise you several magazines of tracers and about 100 people.
Any range I have ever been to would ban for life any of the people for their gun handling seen in this video (via email from Rob):
I’m all for having fun with guns but we can do it with much lower risk.
Son James lives in Bellevue. From the sidewalk in front of my office in Redmond I could throw a rock across the street into Bellevue. So how the police deal with guns is an important issue to me. I just ran across this training memo for Bellevue Police on open carry. An excerpt:
It has recently come to our attention that a group calling itself, “Pacific Northwest Open Carry” and with a spokesman named Lonnie Wilson, has an agenda that deals with the peaceable open carrying of a handgun in a holster. He says that while doing his research to write an informational bulletin for the public and for law enforcement, he asked a number of BPD officers if it was legal to carry a handgun in public, in the open, in a holster. He says he received a variety of answers, ranging from, it is legal, to, it is a felony, to, you will be stopped and arrested for brandishing.
As a refresher, the Corporals will go over the following:
1. Washington is an “open carry” state for firearms. This means a person may carry a firearm in an exposed holster unless there is something that makes it specifically illegal. For example, carrying a weapon onto school grounds or other prohibited places or carrying a weapon by most convicted felons or anyone convicted of a domestic violence crime.
2. Unlawful carrying or display. RCW 9.41.270 occurs when the person carries or displays a weapon in a manner under circumstances at a time and place that manifests alarm for the safety of persons or with an intent to intimidate. This is something more than just walking around with an exposed firearm. If there is a dispute for example and one person, while angry, displays the weapon to scare the other person.
3. Carrying without a Concealed Weapons Permit, RCW 9.41.050, occurs when a person carries a CONCEALED pistol on his person and does not have a CWP. A person with a CWP can carry a firearm in a vehicle without having the weapon on his person.
I knew it was legal in Washington but not all the cops are aware and certainly a lot of the general public is going to see open carry as cause for alarm. I don’t like confrontations and being hassled by cops even if I’m in the right is something I avoid. But there have been times when I have left work, gone to James’ place, had dinner with him, put my gun on (IWB holster) and without a coat to cover the gun walked to back my car. I would mostly cover the gun with my arm as I walked, it was usually dark, with virtually no one in the parking lot but I still worried a little bit about alarming someone and getting some police attention.
This memo eases my mind considerably. I’ll start opening carrying more in James’ parking lot and maybe discreetly when in a restaurant booth where it’s inconvenient to conceal it.
Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.
Ben Franklin
[I’m amazed at how many people get this wrong.–Joe]
We should melt down all weapons and make jewelry out of it. Or better yet, shackles for all you nuts who love your guns!
Elaine Brower
June 11, 2009
A comment to Gun grabbers shift into high gear.
[Bigotry is a terrible thing.–Joe]
Getting married in about 32 minutes.
Xenia Huffman-Scott
On Twitter at 1328 PDT June 13, 2009
[It went well with only some very, very minor glitches.
Leaving the bridal party preparation room. The wedding started at 1400.
Barb and I escorting Xenia down the “aisle”.
Photo by Amy Huffman.
Xenia and John
Photo by Amy Huffman
Bridesmaids Hannah and Becky. Best-man James. Matron of Honor Kim.
Photo by Amy Huffman.
John and Xenia leaving in their “getaway car”. A ’69 Corvette.
At 1954 PDT I received a text message from Xenia, “We made it! The room has a beautiful view!”
Another one leaves the nest. [heavy sigh]–Joe]
Xenia is getting married tomorrow and I have been pretty busy with things. There won’t be much blogging tomorrow either.
They will be getting married near a tree planted by Teddy Rooevelt.
Xenia and John, with Caleb and Kim in the background at the rehersal this evening.
The wedding is on the Adminstration Building lawn on the University of Idaho campus. The list of people in our family who have attended the university is rather large and includes:
We have roots there. And don’t forget Sarah Palin attended the Unversity of Idaho as well, but she isn’t family.
Gun lovers typically argue that when a perpetrator encounters an armed person–the perpetrator will either back down or get shot. The way to stop gun violence is with guns. We can prevent gun violence so long as sane and rational people are properly armed. So, crazy people care–or even notice?
Robert V. Thompson
June 11, 2009
Holocaust museum shooting–‘just say no’ to the gun lobby
[Actually, Mr. Thompson, the crazy person did notice. Someone with a gun shot him and he stopped his attack. As Greg Hamilton said, “Nothing is as debilitating and disorienting as blowing chunks of heart, spine, and brain out of your opponent.”
I did not leave the above comment for Thompson. Since Thompson quoted Gandhi, I left a couple Gandhi quotes and asked him Just One Question. My guess is either Reasoned Discourse will break out or the comments will be ignored.–Joe]
I probably haven’t mentioned my daughter Dorothy before. That’s because she spends most of her time in Oz:
More pictures here.
Awesome job Xenia.
The anti-gun bigots often use words in ways that make no sense. For example “vigilantism” is frequent used to describe self-defense.
Here Paul Helmke demonstrates he is confused about definition of the word “force”:
Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation’s capital, and should rethink their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
“It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe,” he said.
With the help of George Washington let me explain it to Paul (someone at the Brady Campaign office subscribes to the RSS feed for this blog):
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
speech of January 7, 1790
Laws are force. Government enforcing those laws are force. Removing restrictions on people being able to defend themselves is not force. It is freedom.
And another thing, that shooting occurred in a “gun-free zone” already–just like Chicago and D.C.
“Gun-free and safe” is a self-contradictory phrase. Look up the FBI stats for yourself Paul.
I’d buy Paul a new dictionary but I think the problem is much more systemic than merely having a problem with the definition of words. Like many other anti-gun bigots I don’t think he is capable of determining truth from falsity.
The gun rights people in the U.S. Congress have been giving their anti-gun bigot co-workers some interesting dilemmas recently. There was the elimination of D.C.’s gun laws amendment attached to the bill giving D.C. residents a voting member in the house (on hold). Then there was the removal of guns restrictions in National Parks attached to the “credit card reform” legislation (passed!). And now there is this (via email from Wesley D.):
The Pink Pistols and GOProud are supporting Senator John Thune (R-SD) on an amendment to recently-introduced Federal “so-called hate crime” legislation, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
…
Conceptually, the amendment would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry handguns across state lines with reciprocity, while following local concealed carry laws. That makes sense to me. If the original legislation is intended to reactively punish thuggish citizens for “so-called hate crimes,” it only makes sense to also proactively make it easier for all citizens to defend themselves and prevent the “so-called hate crimes” in the first place.
Although I agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, “Karma is a bitch ain’t it?”
Because courts have decided that people have an inherent right to use condoms to protect themselves and others during acts of consensual sex (surely an optional activity for both parties), they cannot rule that people do not have an inherent right to use firearms to protect themselves and others during acts of non-consensual violent attack (surely a non-optional activity for the victim of attack).
Mikee
0926, June 11, 2009
Comment to Second Amendment Might Be Back on Its Way to Supreme Court via Say Uncle.
[Contrast to James Kelly saying, “…the right to own a gun as a relatively meaningless, one-dimensional freedom, and thus interpret the banning of handguns as merely a minor disappointment to the minority of people concerned…”.
Which way will the courts ultimately decide?–Joe]
Via the Steel Challenge Shooting Association:
|
To: ALL MEDIA June 9, 2009 |
For more information contact: |
|
Scholastic Steel Challenge Launches New Website SEDRO-WOOLLEY, Wash. — The Scholastic Steel Challenge (SSC), the national team-oriented youth shooting program developed by the Steel Challenge Shooting Association (SCSA), announced that it has launched its new website at www.scholasticsteelchallenge.com. The site features program information, team registration forms, scoring information, stage diagrams, program news and more. As the SSC program expands, participants will be able to track their scores against those of other teams from around the country and see who among them can claim the title of the nation’s fastest. “The SSC website will play a key role in the program,” explained Scott Moore, director of SSC. “It will not only be the main information and resource center for coaches and parents, but because the SSC format allows shooters to directly compare their performance against that of others, we also expect teams to use the site to constantly track their progress and develop friendly rivalries with other teams around the country.” “We also hope to expand the site to give competitors a community in which they can share information on shooting techniques and equipment as well as build the kinds of cross country friendships that many in the shooting sports already enjoy.” The Scholastic Steel Challenge, which is funded in part by the firearms industry, is open to young men and women ages 12 to 20 and offers them the opportunity to compete as a four person team for a national title in the action pistol discipline of speed shooting. Already SSC has received wide support from industry leaders such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Smith & Wesson, the Outdoor Wire Digital Network, Action Target and Glock which have committed over $150,000 to the program. For more information on the Scholastic Steel Challenge and the Steel Challenge Shooting Association please visit www.steelchallenge.com. – 30 – About SCSA: The Steel Challenge Shooting Association (SCSA) is the governing body of the sport of Speed Shooting and organizer of the Steel Challenge World Speed Shooting Championships. To learn more about the Steel Challenge Shooting Association and the Steel Challenge visit the Web site at www.steelchallenge.com. There you will find diagrams of the stages of fire, complete listing of past results, a list of past champions, world record times and more. |
|
Via Ry and the Seattle PI:
A vehicle drives on top of plastic toy guns to destroy them in Medellin, Colombia. Police exchanged children’s plastic toy guns for food as part of a campaign to diminish the use of toy weapons. (AP Photo/Luis Benavides)
(June 08, 2009)
Via email from Rob:
WELCOME TO TPA
(Terrorist-Proof Airlines)We at TPA, Terrorist-Proof Airlines, are in the flying business!
We can absolutely guarantee no WALK-ON GUNS, KNIVES, BOX CUTTERS, SHOE-BOMBS or other weapons will ever be carried onto OUR FLIGHTS!
Book your next flight with TPA, the safest airline in the industry.
Image here (not safe for work).
The claims are a bit exaggerated but still it makes for an amusing presentation. It would be much more effective and cheaper than existing airplane security. But neither the government nor the general public are interesting in effective security. They only want the appearance of security. People are willing to spent billions on ineffective security but you don’t even hear a hint of something like the above as part of the solution. Why is that? Is “modesty” that important to people? Existing security has been repeatedly shown to be a complete sham yet people are not willing to do away with it for fear of an attack–yet they will not even consider doing something much cheaper that is effective.
[heavy sigh]
As I have said before, it’s irrational to expect people to be rational.–Joe]
Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough.
Ibn al-Haytham
A key figure in development of the scientific method.
[I mention this because I suspected an anti-gun person was completely clueless as to how to distinguish truth from falsity. I was right. It is a very, very common problem–especially among anti-gun people. Asking them to explain how they determine what is true from false gets a blank stare and/or indignation without a valid response every single time I have tried it.
I was going to use a couple paragraphs from this article for the QOTD but Jeff bet me to it.–Joe]
Apparently I’ve run across another novice trying to run with the big dogs. I posted about him earlier today and he let my comment go through then responded with this:
This is what really gets me about people who believe that the Second Amendment means that we have a constitutional right to own a gun. I provided a whole bunch of statistics in this post about the cost of our love affair with guns in terms both of money and the impact on our lives, but yet, you choose not to address any of that. Instead, you pose a question which is completely unanswerable, as if that’s supposed to render everything else I’ve described as irrelevant, which it doesn’t by any means (and by the way, I have no desire to waste my time trying to find an instance like the one you describe).
As noted here, “in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court departed from over 100 years of judicial precedent and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a militia (in the Heller ruling).”
Even the Cruikshank case you cite states that, “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution.”
Individual states and municipalities should be allowed to regulate guns as they see fit, but I will never believe that there’s a Second Amendment right to own a gun (and, in Cruikshank, it sounds like Chief Justice Morrison Waite didn’t think there was either).
I responded with the following which apparently went through without moderation:
What really gets me about people trying to infringe up on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is they only look at the downside of gun ownership. They refuse to look at the benefits. There are between 800,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year. Most of those were without a shot being fired resulting in no injuries to anyone.
Another thing that gets me about people trying to infringe on our rights is they include legally and morally justified deaths and injuries from successful defensive uses of guns in their totals of dead and injured. They even include justified police shootings!
If you had read the actual decision you would have found that the question of an individual right was supported 9-0 in Heller. The 5-4 decision was about whether the D.C. law infringed upon that right.
If you had read the very next line in the Cruikshank decision you would have discovered “Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” The right to keep and bear arms is a preexisting right. The Second Amendment is a guarantee that it will not be infringed.
If you “will never believe that there’s a Second Amendment right to own a gun” then I guess there really isn’t any more to discuss. Facts and legal decisions are irrelevant to you. But I just have to ask, are you also of the same opinion in regard to the 13th Amendment as well? Should individual states and municipalities be allowed to regulate slaves as they see fit?
If you carefully read his comment above you will notice he has announced phase one of “Reasoned Discourse” (graphic stolen from Robb Allen):
Also note that he says Just One Question “is completely unanswerable”. Nice of him to admit that right up front.
I will not be surprised if phase two, deleting or blocking of comments, occurs shortly.
Have fun with the new toy I found for you guys. Play nice now. Be sure to share your toy with others.
Update June 10, 0800: More comments are coming in. His inability to pay attention to detail is remarkable.
Here’s some statistics on deaths and injuries caused by medical care: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm
(with links to supporting documents)783,936 total iatrogenic deaths annually; 98,000 specifically from medical errors. From these numbers would you make a case that we should ban doctors?
When you look only at the “cost of our love affair with guns” and not the benefits you’re making a case for banning doctors due to the harm they cause.
Another question for you: are all deaths by gunfire bad?
When armed robbers, muggers, psychotic ex-boyfriends, etc. are shot and killed by their intended victims – is that a bad thing? Those people are counted in the statistics you cite.
The plural of anecdote is not data, but anecdotes are useful in understanding the data. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html for defensive gun use anecdotes.
I took a look at the claytoncreamer site you linked to, and you’re right; you’re talking about anecdotes of people who defend themselves with their guns versus the statistics I presented in my post. I don’t know if the number of people in this country using guns to defend themselves matches the number of suicides/accidental shootings, but I have a feeling they don’t (have to leave it up to someone else who has the time to compile those stats, if they can).
I could find stories of accidental victims of gun violence if I had the time or desire, but Bob Herbert already noted them (happens all too often in Philadelphia, for example, followed by the predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth while nothing changes). And concerning the claytoncreamer site, I have no issue at all if the guns the people used to defend themselves were purchased legally.
Oh, and your suggestion that I would be in favor of banning doctors is so silly that it doesn’t deserve a response.
OK, I just saw the comment including the link to the Keszler study citing (allegedly) two million instances of defensive gun use. Good for you – you made your point.
Just make sure you communicate this information to the families and friends of police officers killed in the line of duty because they’re outmanned by thugs, or families and friends of school children killed by stray fire from drug dealers. God forbid that they impugn your right to own any gun you want whenever you want.
Sorry, I meant the Gary Kleck study – and speaking of which, you might want to look at this.
Joe:
That criticism of Kleck’s study was published in 1997. A lot of followup studies have been done to address the concerns expressed there and elsewhere. The results keep coming up very close to the same.
Regardless of the actual number any honest advocacy of restrictions on weapons must take into account the benefits as well as the harm attributed to free access. Hence my Just One Question which you say you have no interest in answering.
I therefore can only conclude public safety is not your real objective. Just what is your objective with advocating restrictions on this specific enumerated right?
Update June 10, 0910: Phase two of Reasoned Discourse has been implemented:
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.
Update June 10, Final: I found his deleted post in the Google Cache for future reference. It doesn’t include the comments however. The above and the comment here are probably all but one or two.
This post by David made my back and neck tingly for a good five seconds followed by my eyes welling up with tears.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Ben Franklin
Also attributed to Dale Carnegie.
[I was reminded of this by what The Liberal Doomsayer had to say yesterday on guns. I left a comment which is “awaiting moderation”. In fear of reasoned discourse I am posting it here as well:
The individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court since at least 1875 (U.S. v. Cruikshank).
It was only in the 20th Century that people attempted to rewrite it to prevent blacks from obtaining firearms. See the link above for more details.
And before you advocate for more infringements on this specific enumerated right please answer Just 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?
–Joe]
Today Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels came to Microsoft to talk to a group of us. He talked for about five or ten minutes then opened it up to questions. The first question was about fixing potholes. The second question was mine, “Several months ago you said you were going ban guns on city property. Then the state AG said the city could not do that because of state preemption of gun laws. You said you were going to do it anyway. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said they would sue and had a plaintiff lined up. There is now speculation that you are going to back down. Is this true? Or are you going to go ahead with your plans?”
He explained the situation last year at the Folk Life Festival where a man with a drug habit and some mental problems got in a fight and during the scuffle he pulled his gun and a shot was fired wounding three people. The man had a concealed carry permit. The Mayor said he “absolutely” planned to continue with his plans to ban guns in parks and other public places. This year at Folk Life Festival they had signs up prohibiting people with guns, even with concealed carry permits, and locker storage for people that came with guns. “There were no protests.” That sort of thing will continue he promised.
I was only allowed one question so I could not do a follow up on it. But another guy did. He said that the perp should not have even been allowed to own a gun let alone a permit to carry it concealed. He asked if Nickels believed someone on drugs and with mental problems would obey a sign which said “No guns allowed”. Nickels started talking about the “gun show loophole” and about there being a gun show every weekend in the state and you could pay cash with no questions asked. The “easy access to guns” was the problem.
If it had been a black guy with a drug habit and mental problems would he have gone on a crusade to ban all blacks? Or if it had been a Jew or homosexual would he ban all Jews and homosexuals? If not, then why does he go after gun owners because someone with mental problems and drug habit does something criminal or stupid?
In article 1 section 24 of the Washington State Constitution it says:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
But Mayor Nickels doesn’t recognize that right. He believes he and Seattle are above the law, just like George Wallace thought he didn’t have to obey the law. It took Federal Marshals and the National Guard to get Wallace to obey. Although I think it would be rather amusing to have the Washington State Patrol haul Nickels off to jail I hope Nickels is a quicker study than Wallace and doesn’t waste taxpayer money to continue his war on the civil rights of people in Seattle.
