Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

When it comes down to it, the gun-ban cheerleaders won’t be happy until guns, “go away.” But there is no “go away.” They are guaranteed to remain dissatisfied, while we refuse to cooperate. Have the government take guns? You’re only giving them to Mr. Trump, who gun grabbers think is a Nazi personified, so that’s hopelessly irrational. Irrational. And even a wave-a-magic-wand disappearance method (or 100% effective bill) is nonsense, communist China would start imports worse than cocaine trafficking. South America too. All we face from the left on guns is mythology and Utopianism that interferes with life.

Alan Korwin
January 23, 2020
Why Background Checks Are A Lie: Stopping Psychos and Gun Checks Are Unrelated
[There is no negotiating or even discussion with irrational people. There is only ignoring, avoiding, and controlling them. The ignoring and avoiding haven’t been working so well lately. It’s time to start prosecuting those in power.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

  1. And that is not the only one. We as a society tout many surrogate mechanisms that are poorly correlated with reality. We are obsessed with monitoring and measuring and fail to realize that there are limits to what we can know and understand.

    Afterall many (that includes both left and right) view themselves as gods – omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. If we can imagine it, then ‘science’ can do it.

    There are lots of examples. The Strategic Defense Initiative started by Regan envisioned a system that violated Newtonian laws (as did the movie Star Wars). Unlocking DNA will reveal the secrets of life. Precrime, as depicted in the movie ‘Minority Report’, will make crime obsolete. Gender science, political science, and social science are houses of cards built upon quicksand (with lots and lots of peer-reviewed papers).

    We need to realize that there are real limits and that there are unknowns. Our attitude of ‘hey that’s a great idea – let’s do it’ needs to change to a more conservative cautious approach.

    The gods are real – they have always represented the unknown and the unexplainable.

    • Good points all. Chet. I once had a guy tell me that science was working on away for us to live to 150 yrs. or better. I told him, F—k that! So they can keep me as their wage slave longer? That’s exactly what I want, an 80 year mortgage? The down side.
      The point being no one wants to look at reality. It’s to boring. Many are to comfortable with the dream of a life. Rather than actually facing the ugly truth of one.
      Trying to turn people around is a tough row to hoe. We’ll no sooner finish weeding one generation, only to turn around and see another growing up behind us. The ugly truth. With being right and 5 bucks you can get a cup of coffee.
      I’m still with Joe on this. It would nice to see a few trials.

  2. I don’t know about SDI violating any laws other than Clarke’s First Law: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

    We have been testing interceptor vehicles for a while now it just took a little longer than we thought… Seach for “kinetic kill test” to see where we were 22 years ago or “THAAD test” for more recent accomplishments….

    Scientific American’s trashing of SDI was one of the reasons I quit subscribing.

      • I was talking about the initial concept. SDI envisioned a network of satellites that would monitor enemy launches anywhere in the world with the ability to kill the launch vehicle from space. The problem is that is impossible given the distances and dynamics when the goal was to kill the launch vehicle in the launch phase.

        I also vividly remember that during the early days, the enthusiasm for space was so optimistic that we installed a geostationary ground station to allow high-speed communication with other SDI centers. Unfortunately, the plan was to use a synchronous communication protocol. Ever try typing on a dumb terminal when the echo is close to a second? Needless to say, the ground stations were gone within a year.

        That amoung other reasons is why the program switched to defending targets with local interceptors.

  3. FYI: Just think about the problem of hitting a bullet with another bullet targeting you. Is it possible and under what conditions? Can you wait for the muzzle flash or sound before you fire? What is your reaction time?

Comments are closed.