Author Archives: Joe

Which is better?

Posted on by

This is a slight refinement from something son James and I discussed a few days ago.

When debating which is a better political system we can point to many instances where anti-freedom systems (communists/socialists/progressives/fascists/theocracies/kingdoms/dictatorships/etc.) have been implemented and review the outcomes of those experiments. A significant proportion of those experiments have resulted in a tragedies of epic proportions. A short list from the last 100 years includes USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Nazi Germany, and Romania.

So what are the worst examples of a freedom based political system and how do those compare to the worst of the anti-freedom? I don’t know what my political opponents would give for examples. Would it be the United States? If so, then that little debate would be settled in two minutes or less. Why risk those tragedies when the worst you can do with a freedom based system is so much better?

Taking that tactic a little further we can also ask the question, “What are the best outcomes of a particular type of political system?” For a freedom advocate the United States surely would be near the top of the list with the probable additions of Canada, and many of the countries of Western Europe. I suspect the anti-freedom advocate will include many of the socialist leaning, but generally free countries, of Western Europe.

Rate each of the various countries on some scale from good to bad. This can be used to create a chart with upper and lower bounds of the outcomes. It might look something like this:

GoodVsBad

So, which system is the better choice? The answer is obvious.

This technique can be use to compare just about anything. In general compare the upper and lower bounds of the two (or more) proposals being debated.

Comparing gun control utopias to gun owner utopias will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

the attempted commercial introduction of the Armatix has floundered so badly that it remains the sole example that Brady can cite as even approximating a “smart gun.”  Thus, were it to trigger the New Jersey law, the result would surely collide with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.  There, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes.  Even the Brady Campaign cannot seriously argue that all handguns other than the iP1, an $1800, 10- shot pistol chambered in .22LR, are not commonly used for lawful purposes.

NRA-ILA
December 4, 2014
N.J. Attorney General Rejects Brady Campaign Bid to Trigger Handgun Ban
[Elaborating even further, it seems likely the entire NJ law will declared unconstitutional simply because it makes illegal those guns which are in common use.—Joe]

Defying I-594

Posted on by

Via Chris Knox who says, “A merrily upraised middle finger to #gunsense” and David Codrea (Activists defy new Washington gun law to demonstrate its unenforceability):

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

What it shows though is the power of setting the narrative, and that’s done in print on paper, even in these days of the Internet.

And The New York Times and their cronies control it and do it. Despite reality, despite the ludicrous absurdity of their claims about so-called assault weapons that can’t even be defined, they were able to twist the national civil-rights debate about guns into a knot for ten years, and then only fess up ten years later. Two decades lost to mythology — by “the paper of record.”

Alan Korwin
December 3, 2014
“The Assault-Weapon Myth” (NY Times Headline)
[It’s only by perpetuating the culture of deceit that they win.

It’s time to prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Oleg Volk on I-594

Posted on by

Totally coincidental and entirely appropriate, considering the email I received last night, this morning Oleg sent me this (the picture is of Barron):

bro_I594_5034hires

He also posted about I-594 on his blog.

I would like to make a minor correction to his text. We didn’t lose any rights with I-594. We have specific enumerated rights, supposedly protected by the Second Amendment and the State of Washington Constitution, being infringed by I-594.

I want the perpetrators prosecuted.

I-594 fears confirmed

Posted on by

I received an email from a reader with a attached document from the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife dated December 2 and addressed to “Hunter Education Instructors” with the subject of “Analysis of Initiative 594.”

The part of most interest to me is the following:

Although we are still evaluating I-594, it does not initially appear that student-to-student transfers of firearms would fall within the general WDFW exemption for law enforcement agencies. For students under eighteen, however, temporary firearms transfers for educational purposes are exempt if the student is under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult (such as a Hunter Education Instructor) who may lawfully possess firearms. Students eighteen and older are not entitled to this exemption. However, regardless of the age of the person, temporary transfers that occur at an established, authorized shooting range are also exempt, if the transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at the range. If adult student-to-student transfers are not exempt, then adult students may, without triggering I-594’s background check/transfer requirements—

  • Use inert firearms or air rifles (which do not meet the definition of a firearm); or
  • Hand their functional firearms to an instructor who then hands it to the other student.

In summary, the transfer/background check exemption I- 594 applies to the following transfers of firearms to or from WDFW Hunter Education Instructors while in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program:

  • Between WDFW employees and Hunter Education Instructors
  • From one Hunter Education Instructor to another Hunter Education Instructor
  • Between Hunter Education Instructors and NGOs
  • Between Hunter Education Instructors and students

WDFW is the “State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife”. The volunteer instructors to WDFW are considered “law enforcement” or else they would not receive the the exemption described above. And notice that students are not allowed to transfer the guns between themselves. They must transfer the gun to an instructor who then transfers it to another student.

Private instructors, such as myself, would not have an exemption unless we were at an “authorized range” (“authorized” is undefined). We cannot do classroom work that involves gun handling at any location other than an “authorized” range. Even then it is in doubt unless we are using the guns that are “kept at all times” at the range.

So, now you have it. All those proponents of I-594 said we were alarmist and crazy for saying things like this would require a background check. Now we have word from the State of Washington that says, in essence, “You gun nuts were right about I-594 and the anti-gun people lied to get it passed.” But that is to be expected. Anti-Second Amendment people have long had a culture of deception.

Update: The complete letter is posted here.

Update2: It is important that you also read The Cluemeter: Washington State violates the Letter of Initiative 594. It appears that WDFW may have misunderstood the definition of “law enforcement officer” as it applies to I-594.

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the ‘freedom’ of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.

Josh Sugarmann
Executive director of the Violence Policy Center
December 1, 2014
Connecticut dodges answers on Sandy Hook school tragedy
[I find it very telling that ‘freedom’ is in quotes.

Sugarmann has no respect for, and perhaps does not even recognize the existence of, individual freedom. If he did then he would recognize that the freedom of individual gun owners is dependent upon there being a free market offering for sale the types of firearms the individual wants.

For example, would we have freedom of religion if the book publishing industry were only allowed to publish religious texts if they were consistent with Islam? Protecting the freedom of the gun industry to design, develop, and manufacture whatever gun or accessory there is a market for protects the specific enumerated right of the individual to keep and bear arms of his choosing. Sugarmann has clearly stated he does not want individuals owning handguns or “assault weapons.” This rhetoric is a means to that end.—Joe]

Mugme Street news

Posted on by

This is about the area near where I work:

My heart is a little heavy because the city that I love, the city in which I grew up, the city where I’ve chosen to raise a family and make my livelihood, it’s just done. I’m finished with Seattle.

Two weeks ago, we were talking to Seattle police about the area around Westlake Center. It’s an area that has gotten completely out of control. There is rampant open weed smoking everywhere you look between Westlake and Pike Place. There’s open drug dealing going on down there. There is all kinds of crime.

…

There is no way I would bring a family into downtown Seattle right now. The criminals have won. The gangs have won. The protesters are out of control.

Seattle police, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, Kshama Sawant, they’ve all lost. But they refuse to do anything about it because it’s the rabble-rousers that comprise their base. They don’t dare stand up to the criminals and protesters who have taken over downtown Seattle because that is the element that got our politicians elected.

Yup. I didn’t care for what I saw here over three years ago when I first started working here. There have been ups and downs since then but the culture I see and hear (literally, many floors up from the street I can hear them chatting nearly everyday) is that of looters (in the Ayn Rand sense). I don’t see it getting better any time soon.

What does this look like?

Posted on by

IconicScreenShot

Ignore the red color. In use that part of the image could be green, blue, yellow, brown, pink, whatever. The white part is supposed to be an icon representing something.

The thing it is supposed to look like and what I suspect it looks like to many people is “below the fold”.

Continue reading →

Quote of the day—samsingh

Posted on by

Ammunition is not protected under any stretch of any amendment.

samsingh
December 1, 2014
Comment to L.A. City Council tentatively approves new gun control measures
[This constitutional scholar has further study to do.—Joe]

Gun ownership numbers

Posted on by

Via David Hardy we have:

telephone surveys result in numbers that are significantly too low, as by an eighth to a tenth, even when the ownership is completely legal.

These were old studies (1990 and 1995) but let’s assuming they are still valid.

This is where gun ownership is legal and doesn’t count situations such as Chicago or D.C. where gun ownership is highly problematic. So lets go with the “low by an eighth” number or:

0.875 x OwnershipRate = ReportedRate
OwnershipRate = ReportedRate/0.875
OwnershipRate = 1.14286 x ReportedRate

The reported rate for 2014 is 34% so the true ownership rate is approximately 39%.

Quote of the day—Sandra Lägel‏ @WittyGentlelady

Posted on by

Of course. You guys have the freedom 2 kill 1 another with your penis extensions. Congrats!

Sandra Lägel‏ @WittyGentlelady
Tweeted October 16, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—L.Bearer

Posted on by

The problem we have is not with death, so much as it is the violence, which is ironic since we seem to want to curb the very right and the very tool that protects us from said violence.

L.Bearer
January 20, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Where are Bloomberg, Brady, etc. now?

Posted on by

After all the Ferguson shooting “protests”, property damage, injuries, and general mayhem from all the people coast to coast why aren’t Bloomberg, Moms Demand, The Brady Campaign, and the other violence prevention groups speaking out? They usually are dancing in the blood before it has even had time to cool. If they were as interested in preventing violence in general as they are with preventing “gun violence” they would be demanding the repeal of the First Amendment and an end to open government.

If we had a government truly doing it’s job in violence prevention when Wilson shot his attacker they would have brought in a sanitation crew that would have cleaned up the mess and confiscated any video that showed up. Then, as needed, they would have brought in for “questioning” anyone that said anything about the incident. That’s what the Gulags are for. It should be a police matter and not a citizen concern. Those common sense, reasonable changes to our laws would prevent almost all violence of this nature.

That these groups aren’t demanding that sort of infringement on the First Amendment tells you something about them. It tells you they are hypocrites and/or they know they need to destroy the Second Amendment before they can move on to the First Amendment.

I am inclined to believe it is a matter of destruction of the Second before the First Amendment. This is because they aren’t demanding changes in the law with regard to the police shooting someone. They apparently don’t have a problem with the police possession of guns. They just don’t want private citizens to have guns. Guns in the possession of police will come in handy when they move on to infringing the First Amendment.

Quote of the day—evilwhitemalempire

Posted on by

I personally wish the blue states (but only blue states) would legalize all the drugs.

Reason: You can’t straighten any of them out but you MIGHT be able to screw them up badly enough to render them useless as a voting bloc.

evilwhitemalempire
November 26, 2014
Comment to The Children’s Wing of the Libertarian Party
[I understand the desire to screw up the voting of the blue states but I don’t think drug legalization would have that effect any more than freely accessible alcohol and tobacco does now.

Yes, many of the drugs are much more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco but I think that in general the people who currently avoid them because of their danger would continue to do so. And the people that don’t recognize the danger will, as they currently do, run those risks.

Yes, I believe there will be some people that will use the drugs that wouldn’t have if they were illegal. But I also believe that some people will be more likely to get help and recover from the consequences of recreational drug abuse.

And more importantly, where do you or the government, with a limited set of powers that you posses, get the authority to make decisions about what sort of recreation others partake in? Society has a legitimate concern about driving while intoxicated, or even carrying a gun in public while intoxicated. But aside from a few cases like that it really should be a matter of freedom of choice.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rep. Dan Muhlbauer

Posted on by

We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them. We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons. We should ban those in Iowa.

…

The state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.

Rep. Dan Muhlbauer
(D-Manilla)
January 7, 2013
Iowa Lawmaker on ‘Semi-Automatic’ Firearms: ‘I Think We Need to Start Taking Them’
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

He may incoherent and possibly even hallucinating about guns with legs running down the streets. But his vote in the state legislature is worth thousands of times more than yours is in the ballot box.—Joe]

Black Friday sale for Boomershoot 2015

Posted on by

From 12:00 AM PST November 28 until 12:00 AM PST December 1 you can sign up for Boomershoot 2015 and get 30% off on High Intensity, Private Fireballs, and the Long Range events. Just use the discount code “Black Friday” when you sign up here.

Sign up now to get the position you want!

Legally shooting people

Posted on by

The anti-Second Amendment people will frequently claim that all you have to do is say, “I felt threatened” and you can get away with murder in “Stand Your Ground” states. Of course this isn’t true. But they believe it and of course, in their world view, their beliefs trump facts.

Larry Correia used to teach self-defense classes professionally and wrote up in great detail the legal criteria for legally shooting someone in self-defense. It should go in your list of links to send to those who think a license to carry is a license to murder.

The short version is someone must have the Ability, Opportunity, and Immediacy to inflict great bodily harm or death upon an innocent person before you can use lethal force to defend against them. I used teach Means, Opportunity, and Intent. But it amounts to the same thing.

Quote of the day—Steve Dowson

Posted on by

We are keen to raise awareness of the devastating impact of knife crime and to reduce the number of families affected so we have decided to keep the knife bins indefinitely.

While projects encouraging the surrender of knives are not a single solution to violence, they have an important role to play in inspiring communities to get behind education and preventative measures.

Such campaigns show a desire to address local concerns and Lancashire Police is keen to throw our weight behind them in support.

We’ve been delighted with the response so far, but our communities have told us that they want an end to knife crime and that they want to work with us to make that happen.

Steve Dowson
Detective Chief Inspector
Lancashire, England
August 10, 2014
Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife
SurrenderYourKnife1SurrenderYourKnife2
[Via a Tweet from Chris Knox.

No. This is not satire. Here is another link to marvel at.

Read carefully. Notice how they measure success in terms of symbolism and good intentions? Measuring success in terms of crime rates is not even hinted at. No mention of the futility.

This is a culture that has some serious mental problems. They apparently cannot distinguish between their fantasy of good intentions and the reality of criminal behavior. Do they also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Great Pumpkin?

This would be our future if we were to surrender to the anti-Second Amendment people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Soyer

Posted on by

Criminals and gang bangers throughout the Washington State are also planning to return their stolen or purchased-with-drugs guns to comply with the new law.

Jeff Soyer
November 20, 2014
WA: Another Example of Why “Universal Gun Background Checks” Laws are Foolish
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]