Author Archives: Joe

Yellow journalism everywhere

Posted on by

H/T to Firehand for this “article” which says:

Well, this should surprise exactly no one. Not even a little. Ever since the NRA created the “grassroots” movement to shove “open carry” laws down America’s throat, white men have been parading their penis extensions to shopping malls and restaurants to bully and terrorize people. Oh wait, I meant “show their patriotism.” No, hold on, I actually did mean “bully and terrorize.”

Meanwhile, gun control advocates have been pointing out that the second black men started to do the same, white conservatives would go into full panic mode. And just as predicted, when the New Black Panther Party did just that, the right wing started to hyperventilate

…

But this is nothing new. Conservatives love love LOVE the Second Amendment right up until the point where black people start exercising it. Hell, the NRA and even Saint Ronnie were so terrified of black men with guns that they crafted and passed laws in the 60’s that explicitly prohibited the kind of open carry that ammosexuals are currently using to terrorize their neighbors.

They made reference to, but didn’t provide the link, to this “article” which has this to say:

Ah, finally. A gun club President Barack Obama can support.

The New Black Panther Party has been suspiciously silent since their unfortunate part in the Ferguson debacle. Thankfully, for those of you following the zany antics of Eric Holder’s favorite group of  militants, they’ve popped up again.

…

We accept all oppressed people of color with weapons,” Darren X told Vice. “The complete agenda involves going into our communities and educating our people on federal, state and local gun laws. We want to stop fratricide, genocide — all the ‘cides.”

…

Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect.

…

It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention.

Now I understand why they didn’t provide the link. The author of the first article greatly exaggerates what the second article says. I didn’t see any “panic” or “hyperventilating” in the second article. Yes, there was some hyperbola. Both articles engaged in sensationalism worthy of second page placement in the National Enquirer. There was a tantalizing bit of truth in each and the rest was forgettable.

If the anti-gun author had wanted to show gun rights people were against blacks keeping and bearing arms then they should have quoted a NRA, SAF, GOA, or JPFO or even a gun blog source saying something to that effect. They didn’t because they don’t exist.

They claim in the 1960s the NRA was against blacks bearing arms. I don’t know the extent of their consent for the California anti-carry laws at the time but there was a NRA revolution in the mid-1970s that purged a lot of those type of people. And apparently the author didn’t know (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could be because it didn’t fit their agenda) about the black civil rights groups that formed NRA gun clubs so they could get training and cheap CMP guns for defense against the Klan. See Negros with Guns and The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement for more information along those lines.

And, of course, the anti-gun author apparently recognized,essentially before they started, their straw man attack they would have to invoke Markley’s Law. It’s the best they can come up with so they led with their “strongest” point.

So that is why!

Posted on by

I’m pretty sure Janelle and Barron told me at least the gist of what they were going to do. But my mind is running close to overload during Boomershoot and since their plans didn’t have much to do with running the event they got filtered.

I had been I wondering why in this picture Janelle was facing away from the fireball:

IMG_2696Adjusted

After finding this picture on Facebook I was able to reassemble the memory fragments:

JanelleBabyFireball

Well done!

Quote of the day—Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

Posted on by

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting).12 Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
May 18, 2015
BRIAN WRENN, JOSHUA AKERY,
TYLER WHIDBY, and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and CATHY L. LANIER,
Defendants
[H/T Firearm Policy Coalition (BREAKING: Washington, D.C. “May Issue” Handgun Carry License Law is Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Court Today).

The decision as a whole says “may issue” carry is probably unconstitutional and pending the actual ruling a preliminary injunction is granted against the highly restrictive D.C. “may issue” law. There are other jurisdictions that are going to have to take notice soon!

Others will have a lot more to say about what this means and the likely response of D.C. See for example see what Sebastian has to say about this ruling. But I really wanted to point out is that in the last sentence I quoted above the judge is calling the anti-gun people out on merely making “reasoning sounds” rather than a logical argument. He’s mocking them!

I especially like the part where the court agrees the plaintiffs should post a bond to cover the costs if the preliminary injunction was improperly granted. The plaintiff have to put up a bond of $1000.00. I regard that as a slap in the face for the tyrants of D.C.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tanya @TanyaInAlameda

Posted on by

Commented on #GunnedDown last nite woke up with NRA after me. America loves their guns lol

TanyaInAlamedaMarkleysLaw

Tanya @TanyaInAlameda
Tweeted on January 7, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Overheard

Posted on by

Text messages from yesterday:

Barb: Drive safely. You must be tired. I would guess we’re staying home tonight?

Joe: I don’t feel tired or sleepy. But cognitive function is diminished. Wait and see?

Barb: Ok! Can you let me know what you’re thinking before you get home? I need to shower.

Joe: Okay.

Barb: I’ll bet your cute with impaired cognitive function. Winking smile

I didn’t find anything cute about it but she confirmed, at least to herself, I was “cute” when I made it home and tried talking to her.

Effectiveness of linear-feedback shift registers in testing digital circuits

Posted on by

In 1984 I wrote a paper for the company I was working for at the time. It was in support of a new test instrument the company was about to release. The paper was published in the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings. I was scheduled to go to Long Beach California and present the paper during the conference January 17-18, 1984. But the company cancelled the release of the product and I did not attend the conference.

Before there was the World Wide Web there were online services you could subscribe to, dial up with a modem (1200 baud rocked!) and do searches of periodicals, journals, papers, etc. This is what one of those services, Dialog, had in their records in July of 1984:

EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTestingDialogEntryCropped

A scan of the paper is here (click on each to get a readable version):

EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting01 EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting02 EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting03
EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting04 EffectivenessOfLinearFeedbackShiftRegistersInTesting05

Today, over 30 years later, there is probably very little of the paper which is applicable to modern test equipment. But something I learned while writing the paper is something I still occasionally “put people in their place” with.

Unless you know the something about the error statistics of whatever digital system you are trying to test then it almost doesn’t matter which checksum, hash, or CRC you use for error detection. In fact, surprising to nearly everyone, if you assume that all errors are equally likely, then you can just pick the last (or first, whatever) 256 bits of a digital message and have just as good error detection as any other 256-bit hash. Or if you are using a 16-bit checksum then you might as well use the last (or first, whatever) 16 bits of the message.

It all boils down to the assumptions about the types of errors in the message. You, whether you realize it or not, make lots of assumptions about the types of errors in a digital message. For example you assume it is very unlikely, compared to other types of errors, that every 17th bit will be inverted. Or that every DWORD will be XORed with 0xBAADF00D. But the assumption, “every error is equally likely” means the math for detecting those errors will arrive at an interesting conclusion:

For a message N bits long there are 2N-1 possible errors. Any hash, checksum, etc., M bits long can only have 2M different states. One of those states represents a valid hash/checksum/etc. The other 2M – 1 represent detected errors.

If all errors are equally likely then those 2N-1 possible errors are equally mapped into each of the 2M possible states of the hash. It will only detect a fraction of those errors. The fraction will be (2M-1)/(2M). Or stated differently the fraction of errors which map into the valid hash is 1/2M. For a N bit message (2N-1)/2M errors are missed. For 2N >> 1 (all real world cases) this is essentially equal to 2N/2M or 2(N – M).

If you use the last M bits of the message it will detect all 2M-1 errors in the last M bits and miss 2(N-M) errors in the previous part of the message.

Hence it does not matter if you use a M bit hash of the entire message or the last M bits of the message. The same number of errors will be escape detection.

In “real life”, not all errors are equally likely. This is particularly true when you are trying to detect messages which have been altered by an attacker. But there are many situations where people spend way too much effort trying to determine the “best” hash to use when just using the first/last/whatever M bits or a simple checksum of M bits will work just as well as the latest NSA blessed crypto hash and consume far less computational resources.

I find this counter intuitive and very interesting. I suspect it says more about our intuition than anything.

Quote of the day—Bill

Posted on by

We aren’t going to be breaking glass and using flash-bangs.

Bill
May 15, 2015
[Mid morning on Friday (the 15th) my boss poked his head out of his boss’s office and asked me to join them and my lead. The first thing he told me was that I wasn’t in trouble. Next they asked me if I would be able to help out a different group by doing some travel that might extend into the weekend.

About then the V.P. poked his head into the office and gave us the guidance above. This was more than a bit amusing since my lead is former special forces, my boss is former law enforcement and army, and his boss helped make explosives for Boomershoot this year. And of course my guns and explosives experience was also being addressed. The V.P. knew of all of this experience in the room and I’m pretty sure he was speaking metaphorically.

I ended up putting in a 17 hour work day on Friday and 11 hours on Saturday. It was an interesting experience. I drove out into the desert and observed and helped another much more experienced team do their work until the early morning. I was the least experienced person there but in some ways I was better prepared than most of them. I shared my food with them and even used one of my knives to assist. There was only one person other than me who had the recommended ear plugs.

Most of the team left about 1:00 AM. One other guy and I left about 1:30 and went to our motels. We came back at 6:00 AM for a few minutes. He then left and I went back to my motel for more sleep. At 9:00 AM I attended a phone conference call for about 90 minutes and then returned to the site by myself until a little after 4:00 PM. I arrived home about three hours later and went straight to bed.

Who knew the life of a software engineer could be so interesting?

No glass was broken and no flash bangs were used. Mission accomplished.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Stossel

Posted on by

No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.

Bootleggers, “robber barons” who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed.

John Stossel
May 13, 2015
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
[This is what I expect will happened with I-594 and its cousins. People will mostly ignore it. The police will “have better things to do” and the prosecutors will only charge people with violating it if the criminal has more serious offenses as well.

Even if we can’t get it thrown out by the courts (the chances are still decent, just not as good as they were before the recent ruling) many, many people will ignore it because it is so stupid. Then eventually a friendly legislature will dispose of it.

This process will soon be visible in the State of New York in regards to The SAFE Act (H/T to Sebastian).—Joe]

Stolen gun numbers

Posted on by

This is interesting (from here):

The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that an average of 232,400 firearms are stolen each year, based on data from 2005 through 2010. Eighty percent are never recovered

And how many “gun crimes” are there each year? In 2013 for robbery (125,366), aggravated assault (146,045), and murder (8,438) these add up to 279,849.

If, on average, each gun was used in only two crimes before being disposed of the criminal market could easily supply those needs from the guns never recovered.

Does anyone really think the criminal who steals a gun is going to do a background check on anyone before they use it in violent crime or sells it to someone who uses it in the commission of a violent crime?

“Universal” background checks of gun sales are for people who believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy. The resources spent on such foolishness should be used on something that has a chance of working..

Quote of the day—Williams, Gibson, and O’Donnell

Posted on by

Our city will be a better place when we realize that our overwhelming access to guns and penchant for violence will only be mitigated by supporting our men and women in blue, realizing they must not be left to address this crisis alone.

Jumaane D. Williams, New York City Council Member
Vanessa L. Gibson, New York City Council Member
Eugene O’Donnell, Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
A Holistic Approach to Reducing Gun Violence
[So they think the police need to reduce access to guns? And how can they do that and still respect the Bill of Rights? The Supreme Court has very clearly said the 2nd Amendment means what it says, “… The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Either these people are saying they have no intention of honoring the U.S. Constitution or they are saying they completely out of touch with reality.

That gives people only two options on how to deal with them:

  1. Prosecute them for conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of the people.
  2. Insist they get treatment for their mental health problems.

In either case they have no business holding the positions they do.—Joe]

This is true

Posted on by

I’m unable to determine if this is a true story about someone else or some sort of joke webpage. But as applied to me the conclusions presented are absolutely true:

Presidential bid by Joe Huffman unlikely

Lack of name ID, fundraising hurdles are practically insurmountable for Huffman

The 2016 campaign for President is heating up, but Joe Huffman is likely to spend this race on the sidelines.

Based on the field of would-be Presidential candidates, it appears Huffman is already too far behind to mount a credible campaign, and for that reason would be unlikely to jump into the fray.

“Joe Huffman simply doesn’t have the name identification of Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or any of the other top-tier candidates. And can Huffman raise a billion dollars of campaign cash in the next 18-months? Frankly, I’m skeptical. I say this all with due respect for Huffman and their family.”

Joe Huffman’s net worth would need to be competitive with that of Clinton or Bush, or they would need to have many wealthy, generous supporters to finance a credible presidential campaign.

Opposition researchers investigate all candidates’ backgrounds, hoping to find negative potential issues like an arrest, divorce, bankruptcy, affairs, girlfriend / boyfriend, mug shot, etc. If there were such issues for any potential candidate, that would be a challenge to overcome. For example, George W. Bush overcame the disclosure of an arrest for driving while intoxicated (DUI or DWI) in 2000 and was elected President.

While some may discount the possibility of Huffman jumping into the 2016 Presidential race, there remains a path Huffman could follow should they decide to run.

I’m sure there are many people who will be quite relieved. Why? We have to keep our priorities straight. I wouldn’t have time for Boomershoot next year if I were seriously campaigning.

Reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated

Posted on by

Different Joe Huffman:

Joe Huffman … died Monday … morning after he was taken off life support following a ruptured aneurysm on Sunday, according to Norm Tindell. Service arrangements are pending.

No known relationship.

Quote of the day—clam_dude

Posted on by

I understand that in the context we live, in which there are many criminals with guns, it may be unfair to stop people from owning them legally.  But this is because of the problem of having too many guns in the first place.  It seems to me that we should try to find some way of decreasing, over time, the number of guns floating around out there.

Or perhaps the best solution would be to limit the number of bullets produced and make them more expensive. 

But I think something needs to be done in the direction of less guns as opposed to more.  Can we agree that in the long run this will lead to less gun deaths?

clam_dude
May 13, 2015
A thought on gun control
[They “dude” is incredibly naïve, simpleminded, or went on a magic mushroom trip and never made it all the way back.

Decreasing “the number of guns floating around out there”? And how would he suggest someone do that? Forbid the manufacture of them then going door to door and asking nicely? I don’t think you have a clue how that might turn out. A reduction in “gun deaths” would not be what history would record for that little exercise.

And the same thing with the ammunition supply.

If this “Einstein” thinks any of his ideas would work then why not try them with recreational drugs and see how that works out. Oh! That’s right. They have tried those sort of things are. Any high school drop out can get whatever recreation drug they want within an hour or two, 24x7x365.

So the answer to his question is, “No!” Now shut up. The adults are talking.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan Gross

Posted on by

This is a huge victory that will save lives in Oregon by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people who will no longer be able to exploit the vast ‘Internet loophole’ to buy guns for cash in back alleys without a Brady background check. Lives will be saved as a result.

Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
May 11, 2015
Oregon Governor Signs Bill to Expand Background Checks
[I know this is a lie. You know this is a lie. The CDC knows this is a lie. And Dan Gross knows this is a lie.

How do I know that Gross knows this is a lie? Look at the careful wording of their media release:

The Brady Campaign recently released a report highlighting the success of the Brady Law, while making the case for why Oregon needs to expand Brady background checks to all gun sales. The report shows that Brady background checks work, and that expanding them in Oregon will save lives. In 2013, Brady background checks blocked 2,215 prohibited sales in Oregon; an average of six every day.

Here they measure success by the number of sales blocked. Not the number of lives saved. If they blocked all sales they would claim an even greater success.

They go on to say:

States with expanded Brady background checks see 46 percent fewer women murdered with guns by intimate partners; 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by guns; and 48 percent fewer gun-related suicides, according to a recent report by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Here they measure success by reduction in the number of people murdered or committed suicide with guns. They don’t tell you if the total number of people murdered or committed suicide went down or perhaps went up. They don’t want to talk about violent crime rates. They only to talk about “gun deaths”.

There is a reason for that. They know that gun control does not save lives. They have a cultural of lies and deception. And whatever their motivation is for advocating gun control they are willing to lie to advance their agenda.—Joe]

Speaking of stupid

Posted on by

How can they think this makes sense?

In the swirling controversy of the tragic death of New York City Police Office Brian Moore who was shot last week in Queens, the gun used to take his life has been tied to a pawn shop burglary that occurred in Perry, Georgia in 2011. The incident has Georgia, and many other states, under intense scrutiny for their gun laws and ATF oversight.

A NYC police officer was shot with a stolen gun from Georgia four years ago and people blame the gun laws in Georgia for the shooting. What gun laws do they think would have made a difference?

Senator Chuck Schumer is not a stupid guy, yet:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer has since asked the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to expand their firearm trace program.

The gun was stolen! How does he expect the ATF to trace a stolen gun? He has to believe the general population has crap for brains.

Quote of the day—RickR

Posted on by

The gun lobby never lets stupid get in the way of their goals.

RickR
May 11, 2015
Tories push gun control changes through Parliament
[I find it very telling that RickR used fabricated data before claiming the gun lobby attempts stupid goals.

It appears to be universal and not just in our country. An anti-gun person believes gun owners are so stupid we won’t notice and call them on how ignorant, and/or malicious, and/or stupid they are.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don MacLeod @halcyondon

Posted on by

I understand you just lurrrve yr guns. Makes the inadequate feel good. Nice culture.

Don MacLeod @halcyondon
Tweeted on May 4, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a Tweet from @BigFatDave.—Joe]

Boomershoot image caption contest

Posted on by

Come up with the best caption for this image from Boomershoot 2015 in the comments and I’ll give you a free Boomershoot 2015 shirt, mug, or thong. Family and Boomershoot staff are welcome to participate but won’t be getting a free anything out of it.

My decision is autocratic, final, and may appear to be at random.

WP_20150503_12_47_09_Pro__highresAdjustedCropped

My thoughts are as follows:

  • Impressive stick throwing from 375 yards away.
  • You’ve proven yourself with the hastily constructed spears.Now try using lead projectiles to get detonations.
  • The BC of wood projectiles is too low to retain enough velocity for reliable detonation.
  • I know reloading components have been tough to come by recently but this substitute doesn’t have much future.

Images from Boomershoot 2015

Posted on by

This is my impression of Boomershoot 2015 in images and a few words.

WP_20150503_08_05_45_Pro__highresCreating a target rich environment.

IMG_2629Adjusted
The hillside as seen through a 6X scope.

IMG_2647Adjusted
Part of the tree line target area as seen through a 6X scope.

IMG_2636Adjusted
Nearly all of the target areas as seen from a 1.5X scope.

IMG_2688
The fireball crew and their work of art. Barron doesn’t actually walk around with a road flare stuck in his ear. See more details here.

IMG_2696Adjusted
On the left Janelle is pregnant. On the right her husband Barron just initiated the fireball.
IMG_2739Adjusted
People inspecting the crater left by the fireball.

IMG_2771Adjusted
Adjusting the artillery for a long distance shot.

IMG_2778Adjusted
It wasn’t really indirect fire.

IMG_2778AdjustedCropped
Appropriate.

IMG_2782Adjusted
Taking a break.

IMG_2804Adjusted
This guy did his prep before he started shooting.

P1000843
Barb and I patrol the shooting line (photo by Kim).

WP_20150503_12_25_51_Pro__highresAdjusted
The two obvious hits are probably outside the active zone anyway. But the target is mostly empty from the rip in the lower right corner.

WP_20150503_12_50_23_Pro__highres
You’ve got the windage down. Let’s work on elevation.

WP_20150503_12_51_55_Pro__highresAdjusted
It’s still a target rich environment at lunch time.

 

Boomershoot 2016 will be April 22nd, 23rd, and 24th. You know you want to. Start making your plans now.

Quote of the day—Ronald Reagan

Posted on by

The starting point must be the Constitution, because, above all, we are a nation of laws and the foundation for our laws, or lack of same, is the Constitution. It is amazing to me how so many people pay lip service to the Constitution, yet set out to twist and distort it when it stands in the way of things they think ought to be done or laws they believe ought to be passed. It is also amazing to me how often our courts do the same thing.

Ronald Reagan
September 1975
Editorial, Guns & Ammo
[From Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.

I was struck by how closely what Ted Cruz said a couple years ago matches what Reagan said decades earlier:

For a long time, a whole bunch of Democrats and unfortunately even some Republicans have been passing laws in this body without even asking where the basis is in the Constitution, and I think the Constitution should be the starting point for everything Congress does.

I agree with the sentiment but the cancer has spread so deep into the fabric of our society that rapidly ripping out the tumors would result in massive hemorrhaging. A slow removal almost certainly result in the tumor metastasizing and changing form to embed itself even deeper and perhaps more threating to the “patient”.

I’m nearly certain there is “too fast” and “too slow”. But what is “just right”?—Joe]