Author Archives: Joe

New Windows Phone Ad: What if?

Posted on by

The featured phone is the same one I have and that I gave wife Barbara and daughters Kim and Xenia for Christmas. Barb explicitly told me not to get her one (after I had already bought it). But now she uses it all the time. She plays games on it, she listens to music with it, sends text messages, and she can even check the weather and make phone calls with it. She has thanked me repeatedly since Christmas for getting it for her even though she thought she wouldn’t like anything “too complicated”. It’s not complicated.

It is also the same one that son James and his fiancé Kelsey have. I evaluated all the Windows Phone 7 available just before Christmas and the Samsung Focus edged out all the others with it’s bright display, the camera, and the sound quality. Others apparently agree because from what I’m hearing it is a very, very popular phone.

Full disclosure—I work for Microsoft and I wrote some of the software that goes into this phone.

Quote of the day—MikeB302000

Posted on by

I think what you guys have decided, if I understand you correctly, is you’ve taken a fairly universally accepted right like “life,” the idea that we all have a right to “life,” and you’ve moved from there to “self-defense.” If we have a right to “life” we must have a right to defend that life. So far so good. But here’s where you lose me and a lot of other people too, If you have a right to “self-defense,” you keep saying, then you have a right to own guns in order to best exercise that self-defense. I say that doesn’t follow.

How about this? We have a right to life, right? Too many guns in the hands of irresponsible or criminal people are interfering with that right, the right to life. We need proper (strict) gun control laws in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to “life.”

Why would your leap of faith that easy individual gun ownership is the best way to exercise our right to life be any more valid than my idea that the best way is to severely restrict and control guns?

MikeB302000
February 23, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—LaciTheDog
[As I mentioned in the comments I was fairly impressed with MikeB302000 comment. It showed remarkable understanding of our position and a plausible alternate conclusion. And he did it without his usual animosity. I said that I would respond to him. But it took far more time and words than I thought it would and my response brings up points that I wanted to get more visibility than they would in a comment. I know I run the risk of exceeding his attention span but perhaps the first few paragraphs will get sufficient information across that he will at least catch a glimmer of my point.

MikeB30200,

You don’t explicitly call it this but your claim ‘We need proper (strict) gun control laws in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to “life.”’ is a hypothesis. And in the absence of little or no data I would consider it a quite reasonable hypothesis. Even “common sense”. Perhaps even qualifying as obvious and of little need for validation. In fact, I think it is just as common sense and obvious as the hypothesis that the earth is flat was 500+ years ago.

I think this is where your weak point is. It is “obvious” to you and your fellow gun control supporters. In your camp there is no need for validation. It is so obvious that if was just “done right” strict gun control would result in a safer society. But the test data does not support your hypothesis.

But after many decades of testing this hypothesis, all over the world, in many different circumstances and cultures the best that can be said about gun control is that the benefits are inconclusive. If you want to look at more middle of the road data we have the example of what happened to the murder rate in Washington D.C. when the gun ban was declared unconstitutional. Within one year it dropped to the lowest level since 1985 – a 24 year low. And what about forcible rape? That turned out different. Within one year it dropped to the lowest level since 1967—a 42 year low. Or (via Roberta’s comment) some international data that suggests similar trends. That should be a strong hint that strict gun laws are not the solution to increasing public safety.

But if you want to look at the strongest evidence that gun control is a risk to public safety look at the genocides committed in the 20th Century. From the 1 to 1.5 million Armenians murdered in Ottoman Turkey from 1915->1917 to the 800,000 Tutsi murdered in Rwanda in 1994 gun control enabled the murder of tens of millions of people by their own governments. The evidence continues to mount in places like Darfur. Genocide only occurs when the government knows who owns the guns and/or bans guns.

I think of people advocating gun control similar to people still claiming the earth is flat. They are absolutely correct that evidence to support their belief is all around us. It’s easy to see they are correct. It’s obvious if you just look around your neighborhoods and cities. But as soon as you look at the question from a little higher altitude you see the curvature of the earth and then you see the earth is unmistakably round and that gun control is not a net win for society.

Perhaps an analogy with public safety implications will help get the point across. When nearly everyone gets vaccinated you don’t see the downside of not being vaccinated. You only see the one in 10,000 or one in 100,000 that dies from a reaction to the vaccine. It is difficult to directly see the benefits. It is only through control groups and testing that the hypothesis is rejected and gun control is found to not improve public safety. The one valid point gun control advocates have is (as first pointed out to me in Wright and Rossi’s book) is that with firearms relatively freely accessible it enables criminals to hit harder targets. Instead of young thugs snatching purses from little old ladies they can “knock off” a bank or maybe even an armored car. Just as with vaccines there are innocent victims no matter which path you take.

Gun control shifts the demographics of the victims. How do you want to measure public safety? If you want to measure it strictly by the number of deaths which occur via a bullet, as Joan Peterson apparently does, then you end up with a different solution than you do if you measure public safety in terms of total murders and/or violence crime rates. Most people see no benefit to being murdered or raped by a criminal using a club or a knife instead of gun and this is a big part of why we are winning the gun control debate. This is especially true when the chances of being injured by a criminal increase with increased gun control.

Using the most favorable data to gun control advocates they can only say that the demographics of violent crime are changed in some favorable manner. They end up arguing that one person’s life is more important than an other. I suspect this is part of why the liberal elites are frequently in favor of gun control. It probably does make them safer because the rich generally are “harder targets”. And this is also the basis of “it’s for the children” type of arguments. With very strict gun control society can reduce the number of accident deaths of children. It’s not like murder, rape, or armed robbery where substitute tools come into play. Without guns in the home there will not be a substitute in accidental deaths by drowning or poisoning. What will be substituted is an increase in the murder rate for the weak who might have been able to defend themselves had they had access to the proper tools. And in the long term even the murder rate of children is dramatically increased because of the increased risk of genocide which seldom shows mercy to children.

Gun control also violates the principle of prior restraint. For the most part we punish actions which have victims. If one were to falsely shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater and it resulted in injures there could be both criminal and civil actions against the perpetrator. This is a reasonable restriction on free speech. An unreasonable restriction on free speech would be to duct tape everyone’s mouth shut as they enter the theater. The analogous restriction on firearms is that you couldn’t shoot your firearm in the theater unless it was to stop an attack that was believed to be a immediate threat of death or permanent injury. Something on the order of 10 billion bullets are consumed by private citizens in the U.S. every year yet there are only about 100,000 injuries via shooting. That is a ratio of 100,000:1. In other words a gun being fired is up to 100,000 times more likely to be used beneficially or innocently than maliciously or result in an accidental injury. [Yes, I know that the way I used the number it assumes only one shot per injury or death, but the 100,000 injuries or deaths also includes legally justified shootings of people. I’m hoping the errors will come close to canceling each other out.]

Yes, people have a right to life and gun control is a plausible means of preserving innocent life but when put to the test it failed to live up to it’s promise. It’s time to end the experiments.—Joe]

15% off on Boomershoot merchandise from Cafepress

Posted on by

I just got an email from Cafepress saying that if you use the coupon code FFEB1145 on orders more than $45 through tomorrow to get 15% off. Fine print follows:

Save 15% off for cafepress.com shop orders of $45 or more, excluding shipping charges, gift wrap charges and applicable sales tax. All orders must be added to cart from cafepress.com shops only. Excludes CafePress marketplace purchases (e.g. all products added to cart from URLs beginning with the following (i) http://shop.cafepress.com, (ii) http://t-shirts.cafepress.com and/or (iii) http://www.cafepress.com/sk/), Gift Certificates, Flip products, SIGG bottles, Thermos products, yoga mats and CafePress Make, Groups, and bulk orders. Coupon code FFEB1145 must be entered at check out. Promotion starts on February 24, 2011 at 12:00 a.m. (PST) and ends on February 25, 2011 at 11:59 p.m. (PST). Offer valid online at cafepress.com only, cannot be combined with any other coupons or promotions and may change, be modified or cancelled at anytime without notice. This promotion cannot be applied to past orders.

The Boomershoot Cafepress shop is here.

Quote of the day—Yu-Ain Gonnano

Posted on by

Very macho, that. If you pulled that out, the other gangbangers probably wouldn’t even shoot you. They’d just give you a wedgie and take your lunch money.

Yu-Ain Gonnano
February 24, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center.
[Of course the VPC didn’t see things that way. But their vision has always been reality impaired.—Joe]

Shunning the TSA

Posted on by

As reported elsewhere the TSA is being shunned at some Seattle airport area restaurants.

But it may not be true. I think it is probably too good to be true.

I flew out of the SEATAC airport this morning but was unaware of the claims and running a little to late to check it out anyway. If I can catch an early flight back tomorrow and arrive at a decent hour I’ll try to check it out.

Update: I was unable to get an earlier flight and I will be getting in very late. There is a strong suspicion that the story is a hoax and others apparently have already put more research effort into it that I would have been able to.

Quote of the day—Don Henley

Posted on by

A man with a briefcase can steal millions more than any man with a gun.

Don Henley
[True. And what is perplexing is that no one is advocating restrictions on people carrying briefcases.—Joe]

Quote of the day—LaciTheDog

Posted on by

I have to admit that I find the US concept of rights to be incredibly biased and ignorant.  It seems that they are stuck in the rut of inalienable rights, natural rights, god given rights, and pre-existing rights. Various definitions of inalienability include non-relinquishability, non-salability, and non-transferability. If one thinks about it, all those terms are gibberish.


…


Thus these are nice terms, but truly meaningless as any person with a mind can figure out. Society is what grants rights and it grants the rights which enable certain minimum standards which are ‘of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.’ It does not grant rights which would create a state of anarchy or otherwise contrary to public order.


LaciTheDog
Rights: Natural and Legal
[I find this rather amusing.


He claims those who were regarded as the best political philosophers of their time spent weeks carefully writing what they knew was the most important document in their lifetime ended up with meaningless gibberish. I have to wonder how he came to achieve such a high state of enlightenment. Or perhaps he should reevaluate his own writings for indications of meaningless gibberish.


Since I doubt that there will be any forthcoming self evaluation I will do my own evaluation of this particular post by LaciTheDog.


In other parts of the post he paraphrases Edmund Burke. It is true Burke argued against metaphysical/natural rights of ordinary men but he leaves out the part where Burke argues that rights are granted by the king who was granted his rights from God.


It appears that LaciTheDog must now argue he is improving upon the philosophy Burke in that some entity with the name of “society” inherited the role of King or God and now is in a position to bestow or withhold those rights as desired. In the absence of a King and/or God(s) one has to wonder why the individual did not inherit this power but perhaps this knowledge comes from great enlightenment.


Overlooking that major gap in his reasoning I would now like to point out that the Declaration of Independence specifically rejected Burke’s philosophy and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights rejected LaciTheDog’s “improvements”.


But the real meat of the LaciTheDog deficiencies are that he argues rights are granted and can be taken away by government and/or society. Implicit (and nearly explicit in his post) is that force is used as needed to take rights away from the individual. And it must follow that if the force necessary to remove those rights does not exist then the right remains with the original holder. And this is the part I find most amusing.


LaciTheDog is opposed to individuals having the right to keep and bear arms and has specifically stated that no such right exists. Yet the right is recognized by the majority of the people in our society, the courts, most of the legislators, and the executive branch (or at least given lip service). And even if the entire population that does not own firearms were to agree that no such right exists and they held even a moderate majority they would be incapability of enforcing that decision upon the population of gun owners because the tools of applying force would be in the hands of the gun owners—hence by LaciTheDog’s own philosophy the gun owners would still retain the right simply because no societal element was capable of taking the right away.


It boils down to LaciTheDog saying society can forcibly take away the right to keep and bear arms on a whim and society is philosophically entitled to do this because it can forcibly accomplish it.


I say, Molōn labe!—Joe]

We cannot go back

Posted on by

Co-worker Chet stops by my office and chats every once in a while. We both grew up on a farm, we share similar views on the world, and have similar concerns about the current economic situation. One of the concerns is the potential for world wide economic collapse. This has lead us to ponder how we might deal with the collapse of technology. How would or could we survive in a world with greatly diminished supplies of various natural resources such as oil, metals, fuels, and even water (electricity is needed to move it for irrigations as well as direct human consumption). As a consequence of those reduced supplies the food supply would be dramatically reduced. Our total population as well as the distribution of that population would make “going back” even to the time of our childhood (the 50’s and 60’s for Chet and I) nearly impossible without dramatic and extremely painful consequences.

Some of the concerns are that food production today is heavily dependent on oil based fuels, fertilizers, and pesticides. The yields (bushels/pounds per acre) on the farm today about almost 50% greater than what they were when I was a small child yet our food surplus is smaller than what it was then. If we were to attempt to go back to horse powered farm production it would take something like 20 years to increase the horse population adequately and it requires about 1/3 of the farm capacity to feed them.

The food distribution problems are just as bad. The populations of major cities require food (and frequently water) be brought in from at least 100 miles away if not 300 miles away simply because the land within a smaller radius is not capable of supporting a population that size. How do you transport the food with greatly reduced oil supplies? We can’t produce enough fuel on our farms.

Shall we talk about heating? Coal, natural gas, and oil either directly or indirectly via electricity produce much of the heat for our buildings. How are those supplies going to hold up in an economic collapse? The metals to distribute electricity are already being stolen and sold for scrap (H/T to Roberta). Read Doctor Zhivago or watch the movie. It’s a novel but it was based on events from the Russian revolution and civil war of the early 20th century. People will burn their furniture and even their own houses to keep warm. In todays world I expect even pieces of streets and road (asphalt) will disappear in the night to be burned as heating fuel.

Apparently these concerns are far from new. Yesterday Chet sent me an email (bold added):

As we have discussed several times we cannot easily go back to our parents or grandparent’s way of life if we lose today’s technology.

It looks like this idea has been known for some time. I found this quote in ELEMENTS OF TECHNOLOGY published in 1831 (second edition).

“The augmented means of public comfort and of individual luxury, the expense abridged and the labor superseded, have been such, that we could not return to the state of knowledge which existed even fifty or sixty years ago, without suffering both intellectual and physical degradation.”

Full book at: http://www.archive.org/details/elementsoftechno00bige

That is from 1831!

The civil unrest in the Mid-East is not just something that happens someplace far away. Wisconsin may be the first sign of stress in the U.S. but other states are very close behind and things are going to get far worse before they get better. The attitudes of the people protesting economic belt tightening and demanding revolution will guarantee it. A lot more people need to do a reality check to avoid disaster.

A brief family discussion about these concerns late last year resulted in daughter Kimberly taking it upon herself to read up on how to make your own simple medicines, grow various foods, and we made plans to plant fruit trees on some of our land. Kimberly now has avocados trees about two feet tall and pumpkins blooming in our living room:

KimsPumpkin

We might not be able to go back without suffering intellectual and physical degradation but some people will survive. Will it be you? Or should anyone even be concerned? I am concerned. Far, far from everyone has sufficient land or a Kimberly in their family.

If you don’t choose to fight you are choosing death

Posted on by

American Mercenary took the quotes I gathered from the Brady Campaign and explains why they are wrong from an armed tactics viewpoint. And since he has the military officer training to back up his claims I’m strongly inclined to believe his take on the topic.

He lectures us:

Pistols and shotguns actually do a great deal of good against tanks and machine guns.  Because Tanks and Machine Guns can only be pointed in ONE direction at a time (although if count a pintle mounted MG on a tank then a tank could fire in two directions).

If four people have nothing but pistols, and they work together, they can swarm a machine gun nest.  Then they might be three people with pistols and a machine gun.  Then they get two more freedom minded individuals and use the machine gun to set up a base of fire to drive a squad of government goons into taking shelter where the guys with pistols shoot them in the head.  Now they are four people with rifles, pistols, and a machine guns, and likely a few grenades thrown in.

He corrects the Brady’s:

Gun control advocates seem to believe that it is better to live as a slave than die as a warrior.  Unfortunately history has made it clear that such a choice doesn’t exist.  The real choice is DIE as a slave or FIGHT as a warrior.  And yes, sometimes warriors die.  And sometimes warriors are forgotten.  And sometimes we fail to secure the God given freedoms innate in every human.

But if you don’t choose to fight you are choosing death.  How cowardly.

And he concludes:

The Brady Bunch and their ilk seem to be so afraid of “violence” that they prefer unarmed people to be crushed to death by tanks than armed people dying for the cause of freedom.

Quote of the day—michaelchron1

Posted on by

EXCELLENT! Now maybe we can start getting rid of the teachers that create young Republicans right at the source. With a little luck, maybe these young Republicans will also start killing each other.


GO TEXAS!


michaelkchron1
February 20, 2011
Comment to Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus.
[H/T to AntiCitizenOne in the comments here who asks, “Why are antigunners so violent? I answered that question a few months ago so I won’t get into it again other than to point out that in general anti-gun people are a subset of liberals and that this is just another data point which supports my claim that it is inherent to their philosophy.—Joe]

A work of satire

Posted on by

I was scanning my Bing and Google alerts and found a long discussion on a forum about a “New Study Links Guns, Sexual Dysfunction”. So I clicked on the link to the article/”study”. I didn’t record it with a stopwatch but I have a pretty darned good sense of time from all the shooting I do with a timer. I’m certain it took me less than a second to notice the article said, in bold print, “Notice: A work of Satire”. Even without that notice it should have been blindingly obvious after reading things like:



Some of the gun nuts are simply ‘wet noodles’ but many of them have a double-whammy, their private parts are so small we can’t even use the tongue depressors on them, we keep a supply of popsicle sticks on hand, and now we’re even having to resort to using those little tiny collar stays from men’s dress shirts. It’s like an inverse proportion: The smaller these guys are, the bigger the handguns they buy to compensate. It’s really weird.


Yet this forum went on and on about it. I didn’t read all the posts but I did a search for “satire” on all the pages without getting a hit. Read the “study” before you criticize it guys. It’s was just another confirmation of Markley’s Law.

Campus carry in Texas

Posted on by

For being published in a San Francisco newspaper this is a fairly balanced article claiming Texas will soon ease the restrictions on both students and professors exercising their right to keep and bear arms on college campuses.

Leupold Custom Shop

Posted on by

I just discovered Leupold’s Custom Shop. If I were in the market for a new scope this would be the first and probably only place I would look. I’ve always been annoyed that the features I want in a long range scope were almost impossible to find. The one scope I really like which I put on my Spud Gun (see also this post) required sending it off to put the mil-dot reticle in it. Here I can interactively put those features on the scope before it leaves the factory. Awesome!

Brothers marry sisters

Posted on by

My Dad ran across some stuff about his parents recently.

CecilSadieMarriage

I didn’t realize that my Grandfather and his brother were married on the same day in Juliette Idaho or that they went to Riverside California for their honeymoon.

Also related is this post on the land they purchased shortly after getting married which my brothers and I recent brought back into the family.

Quote of the day—Suzanne Verge

Posted on by

People buy guns in a moment of passion. I think if you’re going to kill someone, you’d better make sure you take the time and make sure you’re prepared to take someone’s life.


Suzanne Verge
December 7, 2009
Sister takes a stand against gun violence
[I’m willing to entertain the proposition that the reporter messed this quote up because most of it just doesn’t make any sense to me. But the main point I wanted to make is about “People buy guns in a moment of passion.” I have never bought a gun in that manner and I don’t know of anyone that has done that. Guns are expensive and it involves budgeting for them and a lot of time selecting the best value for the intended purpose. It is carefully considered decision and has nothing to do with “a moment of passion.”


This is just another data point that demonstrates the anti-gun people make a lot of false assumptions about gun owners. Whether they confirm Markley’s Law, call us uneducated (false), or think us as vigilantes they are just demonstrating their bigotry.—Joe]

Channeling the Jews from Nazi-Occupied Eastern Europe

Posted on by

I have been reading some of the anti-gun people’s thoughts on the events in Egypt recently and a particular theme appeared.

From Colin and Andy Goddard:

If instead of staging peaceful demonstrations, Egyptian protesters been armed with guns, it is highly likely that the Egyptian military, equipped with billions of dollars worth of weapons supplied free of charge by our own government, would have retaliated. That would have produced massive casualties among both the armed and unarmed Egyptians.

From Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson:

If things had gone otherwise and the military had decided to side with President Mubarek instead of the people, what good would pistols and shotguns have done against tanks and machine guns? I say, not much. It would likely have elevated the violence and increased the potential for deaths and injuries.

This theme bothered me but I didn’t quite have the words to express my discomfort. Then I found them here. This is from Reuben Ainsztein’s book Jewish Resistance in Nazi-Occupied Eastern Europe page 585:

The Jewish leaders, however, rejected the offer, arguing that if they behaved quietly the Germans might deport and murder 20,000 or 30,000, perhaps even 60,000 of them, but it was inconceivable that they should destroy the lot; while if they resisted, the Germans would certainly do so.

I fully agree that going to the street in a massive, anticipated to be peaceful, protest while being openly armed is generally not a good idea. I agree that making every reasonable effort to avoid violence is a good idea. It does not follow that the general population is better off without owning firearms the government is unaware of. It does not follow that once the government begins killing innocent people that non-violence is the best response.

The anti-gun people may be channeling the thoughts of the Jews prior to the Final Solution but the Jews hindsight is surely superior and it is those thoughts you should attempt to channel.

Quote of the day—Oleg Volk

Posted on by



Oleg Volk
February 19, 2011
No such thing as a social contract with evil
[Oleg can do more with a single picture and two sentences than I can do with thousands of words.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

The Lady Laser 25 caliber pistol from Sundance Industries of Valencia, California. The Lady Laser is a Saturday Night Special pistol that comes equipped with a laser sight mounted on its trigger guard. Laser sights offer the user point-and-shoot killing capability. Based on the unique characteristics of the weapon price, size, and lethality the Lady Laser appears to be an attempt by Sundance to break into the criminal pistol market that so far has been dominated by fellow California Saturday Night Special manufacturers Lorcin, Davis, and Bryco.


Violence Policy Center
January 20, 1995
Gun Industry, Pro Gun Lobbying Organizations Meet At Las Vegas S.H.O.T. Show To Preview New Products And Hone Marketing And Press Strategies
[Are affordable cars an attempt by the automobile industry to get into the criminal getaway car market? How about a printer for your computer that is within the price range of single mothers? Would that be an attempt to sell to those who would use it for libel?


Those were the dark days of gun ownership and the forces of evil were constantly hammering on us as if we were the scourge of the earth. They came very close to extinguishing the last spark of resistance. But I think they overplayed their hand just a little bit and the public began to see the absurdity of their actions and their rhetoric. We fought back and now if we play our hand right over the next generation or two we should be able to politically extinguish them.—Joe]

Reality check

Posted on by

I haven’t followed the happenings in the Mid-East all that closely but my co-worker Chet frequently comes into my office to update me with the latest news.

According to Chet, in the Mid-East at least some of the protesters are demanding the government give them a house and a job. From my viewpoint that is just Moon-bat crazy talk. Government is force. Except for sale and leases of natural resources owned by the government (I’m thinking of oil, trees, mining rights, etc. on government owned lands) the government obtains its money via taking it from someone else at the point of a gun. If you are demanding money from the government you are demanding they take it from someone else and give it to you. This can work as long as the parasites don’t overwhelm the hosts. Once the host can no longer provide for both itself and the parasite both die. Many people don’t seem to understand this.

As Lyle pointed out in his post earlier today Chomsky compares protesters in Wisconsin to the protesters in the Mid-East. What is it these people expect to happen? The money simply does not exist. In the case of our domestic governments they have been borrowing money for years and the “credit card” is nearly maxed out. The governments are attempt to reduce the hemorrhaging by a small amount. They aren’t even actually stopping the bleeding yet there are those advocating “revolution” if “the people” don’t get what the government can’t physically give them. The taxpayers (the hosts) have almost been bled dry and are dying (both businesses and individuals are going bankrupt). The parasites are being told they have to stop sucking so hard and they respond by demanding they be given blood that does not exist or else they will destroy the infrastructure that feeds everyone.

There are a lot of people that are in dire need of reality check. The sad part is I’m pretty sure the only way reality is going to penetrate their thick skulls is after a lot of parasites and a fair number of hosts have died.

Another Brady Campaign job opening

Posted on by

In addition to the Associate Director of Communications they are looking for:

Director, Development

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its sister organization, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, are the nation’s largest, non-partisan, grassroots organizations leading the fight to prevent gun violence. For additional information and a full job description, please visit www.bradycenter.org. We are searching for a talented Director, Development.

The Director, Development leads the development activities of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.  The Director is responsible for planning and implementing all fund raising for the organizations, with specific emphasis on direct mail campaigns and online giving.  The Director, Development, works with Deputy to the President to set and execute the organizations’ development strategy.  The Director manages and develops the development department’s professional staff.

The Director, Development maintains and expands successful existing programs while designing and implementing new initiatives. The Director, Development manages direct mail, membership services, and new member development, with emphasis on member retention, and online giving.  The Director, Development is accountable for individual annual fund donor programs, fund raising events, foundation grants, solicitor training, and planned giving and endowment gifts.

In coordination with the Deputy to the President, the Director, Development serves as principal staff to the development/fund raising committee of the Board and provides appropriate budget and income analyses.  The Director, Development is responsible for researching, proposing, and executing additional fund raising strategies and opportunities, including but not limited to the use of audio, print and video materials.

Qualifications for this role include:

·        Bachelor’s degree or equivalent. Masters degree desirable.
·        At least 7-10 years of progressively responsible experience in a related nonprofit fund raising position, preferably at the Director level, with experience using traditional and online strategies. Experience with specific emphasis on direct mail campaigns and online giving required.
·        At least three years of experience managing and developing a development staff.
·        Experience planning and implementing all types of fund raising campaigns, including marketing, social networking, foundations and major gifts. 
·        Ability to plan, execute and evaluate major events.
·        Demonstrated skills and experience in budget development and management, strategic thinking and tactical application of an organization’s finite resources for successful development programs.
·        Demonstrated ability to facilitate relationships and work successfully with other organizational units to achieve common objectives.
·        Excellent interpersonal and communication skills (both oral and written).
·        Demonstrated success in managing a staff to achieve results while developing and motivating employees through positive management techniques.
·        Proficiency in fundraising software applications, use of social media and Internet tools.

Please submit your resume and letter of interest to Expand HR Consulting, the organization’s Human Resources Consulting Firm, at jobs@expandhr.com. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is proud to be an equal opportunity employer.

NOTES:
Local Residents Preferred (No Relo)

Requirements

·        Bachelor’s degree or equivalent. Masters degree desirable.
·        At least 7-10 years of progressively responsible experience in a related nonprofit fund raising position, preferably at the Director level, with experience using traditional and online strategies. Experience with specific emphasis on direct mail campaigns and online giving required.
·        At least three years of experience managing and developing a development staff.
·        Experience planning and implementing all types of fund raising campaigns, including marketing, social networking, foundations and major gifts. 
·        Ability to plan, execute and evaluate major events.
·        Demonstrated skills and experience in budget development and management, strategic thinking and tactical application of an organization’s finite resources for successful development programs.
·        Demonstrated ability to facilitate relationships and work successfully with other organizational units to achieve common objectives.
·        Excellent interpersonal and communication skills (both oral and written).
·        Demonstrated success in managing a staff to achieve results while developing and motivating employees through positive management techniques.
·        Proficiency in fundraising software applications, use of social media and Internet tools

I have to wonder if the rats are jumping ship. And furthermore isn’t taking a job with them a lot like going to work for a buggy whip or slide-rule manufacture?