Category Archives: Bloggers

Stuff about other bloggers and sometimes blogging in general.

Gun blogger roulette

Posted on by

Everyone knows what Russian Roulette is. But have you heard the joke about French Roulette? Yes, there is a real game by this name but many decades ago it was also a joke involving Bridget Bardot.

The post from Tamara this morning reminded me of the joke. I have modified it by substituting a different person for Bardot and it becomes “Gun Blogger Roulette” instead of French Roulette.

Q: Do you know how to play Gun Blogger Roulette?
A: Six guys take showers and you give them each a towel when they get out–one of the towels has Roberta X. in it.

Yeah, I know. I’m risking a lot with that.

It’s all in good fun, right? Right? Please?

Senator Kennedy is dead

Posted on by

Senator Ted Kennedy died yesterday.

Posts from gun bloggers on this topic:

Kennedy was a vehement foe of gun owners. I gave him a little slack because two of his brothers were murdered by people with guns. But he used that all up, and more, with his treatment of women in general and Kopechne in particular.

Update: More gun bloggers have something to say:

Did we just win?

Posted on by

We’ve known for several years (see posts here, here, here, and here) that we were winning on the gun control battlefield. The expiration of the “assault weapon” ban and the Heller decision were just the two best known battles. There were thousands, perhaps millions if you count the wins of the hearts and minds of neighbors, friends, relatives, and co-workers.

I recognize open carry is on the path to victory but I figured it would be in the form of open carry at picnics, highway litter cleanup, and maybe as an organization at parades. People need to be desensitized to gun ownership. And concealed carry just doesn’t help that much. When and how we do that desensitization can matter a great deal.

I’ve been open carrying in a few circumstances for a couple months now (here and here). There has been no obvious notice taken and certainly no adverse effects have occurred. Yet, had anyone asked my advice about open carry at a political protest about the nationalization of health care I would have told them I didn’t see any good could come out of it. Obviously these people didn’t ask for my advice or take similar advice from someone else.

In my opinion these people took a huge risk. They were throwing the dice in a game that affected tens of millions of people in this country. I’m not exactly risk adverse, after all I play with explosives for the fun of it and even have my children help make the explosives. But I wouldn’t have taken the risk they did.

And what happened? It’s as if we had been slowly advancing against the enemy. We were a little surprised to win the battle on carry in National Parks and we almost won a battle for nationwide reciprocity we couldn’t have imagined even coming up for a vote had we thought about it after the election last November. But the enemy was still putting up resistance and we thought they were still formidable opponents. Then they collapsed. The White House (or Red Shed as a commenter recently called it) said it was no big deal to open carry. Public opinion is affected by statements from the White House. Having the most anti-gun administration in U.S. history say it’s no big deal to open carry is huge.

We knew recent poll results showed us winning. But I thought that would take time to translate into our enemies fleeing before us. But it appears now that the brave actions of a few open carry advocates broke through the empty shell of the anti-gun organizations and there are going to be a lot of Sad Pandas tonight and people looking at their bottles of cheap rum.

Now, more than ever, we have a chance to push these bigots into political extinction. When they are on the run they have their backs to us and cannot organize and put up effective resistance. We need to acquire the proper state of mind and pound them as hard as we can as fast as we can. There are still pockets of resistance in New Jersey, Chicago, California, etc. but we may have just won the war.

Update: This post just got linked to by Glenn Reynolds. I would like to suggest my new visitors also look at some of my other posts:

Thanks visiting.

Sweaty sex

Posted on by

It’s not exactly a research paper with lots of data but it is a plausible hypothesis:

One of the most intimate forms of loving, it’s far from unsexy. When it comes to excreting buckets of moisture from your skin, wetter can be better. While many would wrinkle their noses at the notion of an antiperspirant meltdown, the action it can inspire captures sexy in its most animalistic form.

…

So who would’ve thought sweaty sex could be sexy and good for you? There are a number of benefits to working up a sweat; provided you both have a clean bill of health and you stay hydrated.

Sweaty sex:

— Means more calories and fat are being burned during a vigorous sex session;
— Allows for more slithery sex as your bodies slide all over one another;
— Makes for a body suctioning effect that enhances feelings of “we’re one” during sex;
— Offers new sensations that appease our need for variety, like salty kisses;
— Puts a twist in your routine as it taps into your inner instinct of raw, uninhibited sex;
— Can have the two of you resembling the wet sleekness of “Sports Illustrated” swimsuit models, with slicked back hair or shiny skin;
— Releases more of our natural scents, particularly those around the groin, which can be an aphrodisiac, even if on a subconscious level.

I’ll put it on Dr. Joe’s list of things that need further first hand (so to speak) research.

I’d tell you which blogger this reminds me of because she very recently mentioned both sex and a sweaty experience on her blog–but then I would have to kill myself.

Good to know

Posted on by

Via Dave Hardy.

The government is not allowed to:

5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency

“(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;”

This wouldn’t protect some blogger making viable threats against a politician (and rightly so). But it could be used to punish someone in the Federal Government (and rightly so) for keeping records of your peaceful opposition to proposed legislation (if that link goes dead here is a saved version of the page from Whitehouse.gov as of August 8, 2009 at 2315 PDT).

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

Posted on by

This makes sense. I mean, email is kind of like the blogosphere in much the same way that the U.S. Mail is like The American Spectator. After all, they’re both full of words printed on paper, right?

Tamara K.
August 4, 2009
Just not getting it.
[Someone should print out a copy of the Internet for this “Jim” guy and let him read the whole thing. Then maybe he would understand the difference–or at least he wouldn’t annoy anyone (see also here) for a while.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Don Gwinn

Posted on by

…“Brady PAC Illinois” has just released its first semi-annual report of contributions and expenditures.

Their first fund-raiser was held in Chicago, which makes sense; Chicago is one of only a few pockets of serious anti-gun sentiment in Illinois. 91 out of 102 Illinois counties have now passed a “Pro 2A Resolution” that clearly states their opposition to all future gun control efforts in the state. Obviously Cook County is one of the 11 lagging behind on gun rights; the same fund-raisers held anywhere else in Illinois would likely have lost money. The question is, how well did they do in Chicago?

It can be hard to tell from the minimum information available in such reports, but here are the highlights of the Brady report:

  • Brady PAC Illinois reported that it raised $27,150 in its first six months.
  • Brady PAC Illinois further reported that it paid out $26,517.14 in expenses during the same period.
  • This leaves Brady PAC Illinois with $632.86 to show for its first six months.

Don Gwinn

July 27, 2009
Brady Campaign fund-raising is flat in Chicago
[That figures out to just over $105/month. That means the gun blogger community probably outspend them 10:1 just on ammo. Nice! -Joe]

I am not worthy

Posted on by

I have two reasons for making this post.

1) He’s wrong. Robb is a smart guy and almost always comes up with the correct answer after a few milliseconds of deep thought. I’ve seen him in action and was impressed. But this time he is wrong. And we all know that if someone on the Internet is wrong you have to do something about it.

Sure, I am pretty proud of my letter and post to Senator Murray, but it was simple and easy for me. My brain takes everything literally. It takes effort for me to translate what people say into what they mean. For example; If someone were to say “It’s a piece of cake”, “Drier than a popcorn fart”, or “Finer than frog hair” I have do a little mental translation. I have to think about the image given and try to fit it into the context, find out it fails, then search for alternate meanings before I know what they meant. When Senator Murray wrote, “Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.” I took that literally and applied it to her known position on gun control and it was like she had written she had walked home from Mars last night or a T-Rex had eaten her brain shortly after she was born. It just didn’t make any sense and it was blindingly obvious she didn’t mean what she wrote.

She had just came up with a justification for doing what she wanted to do. She apparently gives no thought to principals, philosophy, or the Constitution. She just votes the way she feels. Pointing that out to her was fun but it took nearly no effort on my part. I do that sort of thing all the time.

You should see what I do when I’m given a specification to review at work. My co-workers laugh at me when I point things out to them but they also thank me and keep sending me specifications to review. Barb says they shouldn’t encourage me because she has to live with me. Apparently having someone point out all their errors and contradictions starts to get tiresome after a few decades. I can’t imagine why. I figure it is just the price she has to pay to approach perfection. But somehow she doesn’t see it that way.

Robb said it was, “Snark that even Tam should find inspiring”. I’m sorry, but I can’t even come within ranging distance to Tamara. She puts together disparate ideas together in incredibly novel ways. She connects things that I couldn’t imagine connecting and makes the joining totally seamless and completely appropriate. I couldn’t do the stuff she does if my life depended on it. What sort of brain can do that? I can imagine writing a computer program to do what I do. But what sort of algorithm would do things like the following?

When I design my dream home, it’s not going to be visitable by a SEAL team with air support, much less a lone individual in a wheelchair; I’m thinking barbed wire and tiger pits, not ramps and braille on the doorbell. It’s not that I have a problem with visitors gimpier than myself; it’s visitors in general that make me want to release the hounds.

“Avon lady in the wire! Blow your claymores!”

Visita-what?

Or:

In his article, Westen proudly displays his passport from Bizarroland, a place superficially similar to planet Earth, but where drooling idiots with hearts full of hate run amok absent guidance from their spiritual and intellectual betters in politics and academe.

 …

I was waiting for the lizardoids to show up around paragraph seven or so and symbolically rape Gaia while carrying off Al Gore to be a slave on their homeworld, Karlrovia.

*sniff* It’s a thing of beauty.

That just can’t be the result of a mere mortal.

I am not worthy to be in the same plane of existence as Tam let alone be an inspiration for her.

2) I’ll bet you forgot there were two reasons. I didn’t. My brain wouldn’t let me.

There aren’t many things I fear, but being a snark target for Tam is one of those. I rank it worse than a 0300 SWAT team visit but not as bad as being burned alive or The Wrath of Barb.

I just want Tam to know that she doesn’t need to take me down a notch or two just because Sharp as a Marble Robb made a mistake.

For our fellow freedom fighters in the UK

Posted on by

I received a request for help from James in the UK. Here was my response (actually sent in two pieces, but combined here):

I would like to suggest you follow the links in the post Just One Question. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed a number of studies and was unable to conclude gun control made people safer. That review, and the studies they looked at, are probably the most reliable data points.

The following links are not to statistics. The CDC study would be the best reference I have for that.

I don’t have it but I think this book would be very useful:

http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/guns_and_violence

I’ve read a few excerpts and it seemed quite good.

This might also be worthwhile:

http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/keep_and_bear_arms

For more background and potential ways to approach the problem take a look at these:

https://blog.joehuffman.org/?s=%22James%20Kelly%22&submit=Search
https://blog.joehuffman.org/category/places-without-guns/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/britain-is-capital-of-crime-says-us-tv-channel-715251.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Good luck!

Update:

Gun control also violates my Jews in the Attic Test.

Quote of the day–Robb Allen

Posted on by

Markadelphia questioning my logical reasoning ability is like Helen Keller questioning my taste in music.

Robb Allen
July 4, 2009
In a comment to It’s the End of the World as We Know It
[Markadelphia, for those that don’t know, is a liberal who frequently makes comments at Kevin’s place.

I am of the opinion that with the quote above Robb actually somewhat understates the situation.–Joe]

Reasoned discourse in 3, 2, 1…?

Posted on by

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.

Scott:

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.

doomsy:

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.

doomsy:

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.

doomsy:

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:

Not Found

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.

Maybe they are listening

Posted on by

I know the Brady Campaign people sometimes read the gun blogs, including mine, so maybe they actually are listening to some of their critics. From todays blog post by Paul Helmke:



Keeping this in mind, there is an immediate economic and public health crisis in America that, so far, both the President and Congress have chosen to ignore: approximately 12,000 gun homicides, 17,000 gun suicides, 650 accidental gun deaths, plus 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries occur every year in this country.


Do you notice anything unusual about those numbers? They are breaking out the suicides and accidents from the homicides. This is not their normal modus operandi. Usually it’s just “30000 gun deaths per year”.


It’s a step in the right direction Paul. Thanks.


Now if you would just break out the justified and praiseworthy shootings we might be able to have a “meaningful dialog” about the utility of guns in society.

Hating the Vicious Circle

Posted on by

I have listened to all 11 episode of the Vicious Circle podcasts now. Most of them were in two five hour stretches. Shortly after listening I was fairly pleased. But now I’m starting to hate it–for several days I have had this earworm of the music they use.


Will a trip to the range without hearing protection rid me of it? Or am I going to have to use a couple pounds of Boomerite?

Vicious Circle

Posted on by

I listened to all (I only had time for half of #7 which I had previously heard) the Vicious Circle podcasts on my way to/from Idaho this weekend. The most common topic is guns with some porn and technology discussions thrown in. My kind of stuff!


With very little structure, mediocre production quality, and a fair amount of rambling it’s never going to win any awards. But I enjoyed it. It certainly was much better than merely listening to road noise.


In some episodes (especially #8, We be hating) it sort of reminded me of gossipy Jr. High girls whispering to each other about someone else behind their back. And then there was another than made perhaps a few too many “short jokes” for me to be entirely comfortable with it (and I’m not short). But there wasn’t really anything I hadn’t said in private conversations before. But I wouldn’t make those sort of conversations public.


I’ll be adding more to my Zune as they come out for further entertainment while on the road.





Full disclosure:


#7, Boomershoot 2009, was very favorable about Boomershoot. Late in #5 a favorable mention of somethings I have said appears to be at least partial inspiration for episode #6. I think there was another favorable mention or two of me in some of the episodes as well.


I don’t believe these significantly affected my opinion of the podcasts but I thought you should know they might have.

Comment to the Christian Science Monitor article

Posted on by

I made a comment on the CSM article about gun bloggers from yesterday. It hasn’t made it through the moderation process yet so I’m posting here as well:

Here is a blatant example of [what] mostly genius is talking about. At the end of the story, which is presented as a news article, is a notice that it was written by the Brady Campaign.
Susan Gill, it’s a logical hypothesis that more gun control would result in a safer society but the facts don’t support it. This is the basis of my Just One Question post. Before you advocate for more restrictions on firearms you need to 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?”
We have many, many examples of gun control in every state and in every country. You would think that with all those experiments in gun control that social scientists and criminologists would have data showing some benefits to gun control. No such reliable data exists.
As constitutional lawyer and criminologist Don Kates said, “The gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry.”
Susan, I’ll bet you have never fired a gun and perhaps don’t even think you know anyone who owns a firearm. I work in the Seattle area and would be glad to take you to the range to see what guns are all about. I’m a certified NRA firearms instructor and about 70% of my students have been women. See for yourself what the gun culture is all about rather than what you imagine it to be. Base your opinion on first hand facts rather “news articles” from organizations that are the 21st century equivalent of the KKK advocating for the elimination of a specific enumerated right.
Contact me via my blog (voted one of the top ten gun blogs of 2008) and I’ll supply the guns, ammo, and range fees.

Update May 18, 2009: There are 79 comments to the CSM article now. Mine has not shown up but I only counted two that are anti-gun and the rest are pro-gun so I cannot claim my comment was blocked because of the nature of my viewpoint. Perhaps there was a technical problem or it simply got lost in the flood of comments.

Ammo and components in Moscow, Idaho

Posted on by

I couldn’t be in Phoenix with all the cool kids so I went to all the stores in town that sold ammunition and/or components. Here is what I found:

  • Walmart
    • Shotgun primers only
    • A little bit of brass and I bought all the .45 ACP brass they had
    • Virtually no handgun ammo
    • Virtually no powder
  • Tri-State
    • Lots of rifle and shotgun ammo
    • Lots of .40 S&W ammo
    • Three boxes of .45 ACP ammo but I bought two of them adhering to Tamara’s etiquette
    • Don’t carry reloading components
  • Big Five
    • Don’t carry reloading components
    • Virtually no handgun ammo
    • Some rifle ammo
  • Sure Shot
    • Lots of powder
    • Lots of used 9mm and .40 S&W brass
    • Shotgun primers only
    • Virtually no handgun ammo
    • Some rifle ammo


About half of Tri-State’s rifle ammo and in the foreground 2/3s of the .45 ACP ammo for sale in the city.


Apparently Barb called ahead for me. But I didn’t see any gun I really wanted except for the AR-50A1 and there was no indication Barb would allow me to buy the ammo to feed it.


Sure Shot had lots of powder and 9mm and .40 S&W brass.