Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

Quote of the day—The Contentious Otter

Posted on by

Thank you for demonstrating the criminal mentality of conservative gun owners. Your comment was an excellent demonstration of how all conservative gun owners are guilty of illegally trafficking in firearms, and confirms a recent study which stated that over half of all rural white males who identify as conservatives have lent, gifted or sold a firearm to a friend or family member who was not able to own a gun because of past criminal convictions.

The Contentious Otter
June 10, 2015
Comment to Sensible Gun Regulation Isn’t Unconstitutional
[This is what they think of you. If you are a conservative gun owner you have a “criminal mentality”. And “all conservative gun owners are guilty of illegally trafficking in firearms.”

It’s hard for me to imagine that people like this exist. Who could believe this? Let alone not be embarrassed to say it out loud?

It’s quite apparent that either this person is living in some alternate universe and/or they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Elizabeth Price Foley

Posted on by

Alumni of the UC system should immediately cease wasting their charitable dollars on such an anti-intellectual, fascist institution. And any intelligent young person should avoid it like the plague. The system has clearly been captured by individuals with micro-brains possessing micro-tolerance and micro-confidence. It is–like too many institutions of “higher” learning–a place where critical thinking goes to die.

Elizabeth Price Foley
June 16, 2015
SO BASICALLY EVERYTHING IS A MICROAGGRESSION
[Examples from the “faculty training guide” (if they pull that copy I have another here) include:

  • “America is the land of opportunity”
  • “America is a melting pot”
  • “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
  • “Affirmative action is racist.”
  • “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
  • “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”
  • “I don’t believe in race.”
  • “Gender plays no part in who we hire.”

And my favorite part is from the Fox News story on the training guide, “According to psychological and public health research, micro-aggressions can lead to negative  health consequences including heart disease, diabetes, depression and substance abuse.”

Outward appearances suggest people that came up this must have solved all the other problems in their utopia and had to mine for nuggets in the world’s deepest mines to find the concept of “micro-aggressions” worthy of more than a few milliseconds of their time.

But Occam’s Razor tell us the simpler hypothesis is the most likely to be true. Therefore I have to conclude the real explanation is “crap for brains”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Posted on by

Despite assertions that the benefits from waiting periods and background checks are obvious, the complete lack of empirical studies to support those claims is stark. No evidence is offered that either of these laws reduce violent crime, nor that they reduce overall suicide rates. Even more striking, the discussions that Appellant and amici use are not relevant to the case before the court.

Evidence provided in this brief shows that for at least concealed handgun permit holders, one of the classes of plaintiffs in this case, are demonstratively law-abiding, and that it is unlikely that waiting periods or background checks for additional gun purchases could lower crime rates.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.
[This is about California having 10-day waiting periods for people purchasing a gun even though they already have one or more existing guns and/or a concealed weapons permit.

You might be interested in reading the whole brief but it can be paraphrased as:

Kamala D. Harris and the supporters of this law must be living in an alternate universe. Not only don’t they have any data to support their half-baked ideas, they aren’t even talking about the topic at hand, and they misconstrue the data they do offer.

And if we were talking about what they want to talk about, which we are not and never were discussing, here is the data which destroys their view and proves they have at best a tenuous grasp on reality.

Lee and Lott were much more polite in their choice of words but that is what they said.—Joe]

It is axiomatic…

Posted on by

…among a certain personality type, that when faced with some problem serious enough to cause anxiety or other symptoms…how do I say this? The last place that person will go for help or advice is to those who are dealing with the same exact situation successfully and without stress.

Progressives, for example, behave that way all the time. They will not look to the more successful cities and states, to their policies and culture, seeking the path to the same success. Instead they’ll group up with other problem cities or states and impugn, malign and attack the successful ones.

This happens on a personal level, exactly the same way, because it is the same phenomenon.

I have two such people very close to me in my life, and it is getting to the point that something major (majorly bad, and expensive, and possibly worse) is going to happen. Things simply cannot continue as they are. It’s come to a head, as the personality type is always pushing for it. There is no talking to them about it either, because it causes a Ferguson/Baltimore type response. The resemblances are uncanny, actually.

It’s to the point where I’ll very likely be facing having my business (which I started) and my house (which I bought) taken away from me, or completely hijacked, which amounts to the same thing.

Beyond giving up the capital assets as the ransom my precious freedom I’m at a loss (and again, just like dealing with Progressives – such people are VERY dangerous). Maybe an answer will come along which, at the moment, I cannot see.

Quote of the day—Cody Fenwick.

Posted on by

It’s time we start thinking a little more boldly and demanding much more. We should consider abolishing private gun ownership.

…

We don’t need an alternative to guns, we just need people to realize that guns aren’t needed.

Cody Fenwick
June 7, 2015
Let’s Talk About Abolishing Gun Ownership
[Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Any efforts along these lines will be significantly less successfully than prohibition of recreational alcohol and other drugs. And those were total disasters. I am certain an attempt in “abolishing private gun ownership” will be an even greater disaster.

Why?

Because I and millions more will refuse to give them up.

In the spirit of full disclosure I’ll share that I’m going to the range this week to practice. Then this weekend I’m going to a match to see who can hit five head sized objects the fastest. I think I can draw and hit all of five of them in four to five seconds. Or if they are close enough I can do it in under three seconds.

I can hit a man-sized target on my first shot from 957 yards away.

I also make explosives.

Your move Mr. Fenwick.—Joe]

This is what they think of you

Posted on by

Via a Tweet from Robb Allen we have this Tweet:

@ItsRobbAllen @DLoesch lol there is no need to de-humanize a gun-toting xtian conservative, that’s as far from human as you can get.

An attitude like this makes it all the easier to justify loading up the trains.

I would like to suggest that with this particular minority the task is much easier said than done.

Quote of the day—Varad Mehta

Posted on by

The solution to violence is supposedly to lay down arms and swear a truce. But when one side’s arms drip with ink and the other’s drip with blood there is no peace to be had. “We will stop drawing cartoons” and “we will stop killing you” are incommensurate concessions.

Those who think they are equal, that the pen is mightier than the sword because the sword only wounds the body while the pen wounds something greater because intangible—the soul of society or some ineffable value like justice or safety or dignity—will always implore us to let the wookie win because they take the enemy at his word. But safety of this kind is not really safety because its maintenance is not in our hands but theirs.

Varad Mehta
June 4, 2015
Don’t Let The Wookiee Win
[Via a Tweet from Gay Cynic.

Those who demand others to refrain from the exercise of their right to free speech because of the threats from violent criminals should think about the lessons they are teaching. What they teach is that others should become violent criminals to get their way as well.

What I find most perplexing is that those who insist we submit to the demands of these criminals are those least able to deliver violence should their lessons be taken to heart. Hence they are attempting to create a world where they would be the first to become slaves to those able to deliver violence.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Posted on by

CCW permit holders are so law-abiding that they compare favorably even to police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, during the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 there was an average of 703 crimes committed by police per year, with 113 involving firearms violations.6 With about 683,396 full-time law enforcement employees in 2006,7 that translates into about 102 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers. Of course, this compares very favorably to the U.S. population as a whole over those years, with 3,813 crimes per hundred thousand people – a crime rate that was 37 times higher than that for police.

But concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding than that. Between October 1, 1987 and April 30, 2015, Florida revoked 9,793 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders – a mere eighth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a fifth of the rate for police.

Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 6.9 per 100,000 officers. For permit holders in Florida, it is only 0.31 per 100,000. Most of these violations were for trivial offenses, such as forgetting to carry one’s permit. The data are similar in 24 other states.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.
[This makes it extremely clear that if you are concerned about private citizens legally carrying guns in public then there are a limited number of nonexclusive conclusions that can be arrived at regarding your concerns. Which of the following best describes you?

  1. You are far more concerned about the police carrying guns.
  2. You are not concerned about people legally carrying guns committing a crime with them. Instead you are concerned about those people using them lawfully. If you are a rational person we must conclude you are a violent and/or evil person afraid of being legally shot.
  3. You were ignorant about the crime rates of people who legally carry guns and will now cease advocating in support of more restrictive laws regarding the carry of firearms in public.
  4. You have crap for brains and don’t care what the data is.

Other options exist but they appear to be variations of the themes I have already enumerated. Or did I miss some?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Goodman

Posted on by

Ban all guns…. our country shouldn’t have guns… Guns free country.

Chris Goodman
May 30, 2015
Comment to Administration preps new gun regulations
[There is a difference between a ban on guns and having a gun free country. But people like this don’t have the mental processes to think it through even when you explain it to them with everyday examples.

But the one thing to remember about this is that you should never let someone get away with telling you than no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul O’Brien

Posted on by

A simple repeal of the 2nd amendment coupled with a replacement that clearly states what you can and cannot have access to (i.e. MAYBE a single manual hunting rifle or shotgun), plus a government buyback of existing guns and ammo, should do the trick over time.

But it MUST start with putting the gun manufacturers out of business. They need to be shut down immediately.

Paul O’Brien
May 21, 2015
Comment to John Traphagan: When will we examine our heavily armed culture?
[H/T to Hazmat who sent me an email about something else contained here.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

This guy has total crap for brains.

A “simple repeal of the 2nd Amendment”? No such thing is possible.

Roughly 300 million guns, plus ammo, at market value would be roughly $300 billion dollars assuming everyone politely brought them to the local collection point. Add in the cost of those who would turn in their guns only when they were out of ammo and I expect the cost would be an order, or two, of magnitude larger.—Joe]

I think we have moved beyond counseling

Posted on by

Washington woman says she was ‘well within her rights’ to shoot at husband for not doing chores.

I would respectfully and silently disagree with this assertion and let the SWAT team explain her rights to her.

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—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]

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—Frank Easterbrook

Posted on by

If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.

Frank Easterbrook
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
April 27, 2015
BREAKING: Bans on “Assault Weapons,” Firearm Magazines Can Be Based on Feelings, Rules Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
[So does that mean if people feel safer if all blacks are kept as slaves would it make slavery constitutional?

Of course not. But by Easterbrook’s “logic” it would seem so.

I would feel safer if Easterbrook were to lose his job as a judge and spend the rest of his life scrubbing toilets.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

It’s an attitude I’ve seen before: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it.” Never mind if the something makes any sense or not.

In reality, this is CYA security, and it’s pervasive in post-9/11 America. It no longer matters if a security measure makes sense, if it’s cost-effective or if it mitigates any actual threats. All that matters is that you took the threat seriously, so if something happens you won’t be blamed for inaction. It’s security, all right — security for the careers of those in charge.

Bruce Schneier
April 15, 2015
Metal Detectors at Sports Stadiums
[Gun control outside of a stadium is of the same mindset but multiplied by some very large factor. It’s stupidity at a governmental scale.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

Posted on by

Take your statements about “ultraconservative,” “right wing,” “Read less white males” and “privilege,” and shove them up your ass.

Then write the story where that was a pleasurable and positive learning experience for you.

Michael Z. Williamson
April 21, 2015
Challenge Delivered
[Williamson’s post is worth reading for the facts presented but the last sentence, above, is what gives it the punch of humor.

I’ve read a couple of his books and enjoyed them immensely. The points he makes are indicative of something I’ve written about before. Although these type of people will seldom directly admit it, it is very clear they believe they know what you are thinking without regard to your words or actions. In this case they believe they know the contents of his book without reading them.

What more evidence do you need to conclude these people have mental problems?

No matter. There will be a lot more evidence provided. I directly experienced it for decades and no matter how much I coached them they could not change. The problem, as they saw it, was always me.—Joe]

Fail, fail, fail, fail…

Posted on by

I’m writing this after just getting off the phone with Great Big Gun Accessory Company That Everyone Knows. I’m not pissed, just a little disgusted. I got a 130 dollar tool made by that company, from an Idaho retailer, and the tool is defective.

I called the retailer about it immediately. After some vacillation (first fail) and some obvious back-and-forth amongst the person who took my call and someone else (second fail) they referred me to the manufacturer (third fail).

I then called Great Big Gun Accessory Company That Everyone Knows and got put on hold by a robot. OK; that’s sort of tolerable, as it’s a busy time of day for a busy company in a very busy industry. After only two or three minutes I got a person. I got directly to the point; I had ordered this tool and it has some bad threads.

She actually muttered under her breath at me, as though she’d been robbed few minutes ago and I had just threatened her for her wallet; “Oh, good God…” (fourth fail). She then had to put me on hold (fifth fail) to talk to someone else (sixth fail) after which she went on and on in her Eeyore/Marvin the Paranoid Android tone, (seventh fail) about oh, woe is us; we’re juuust swamped with customer service… (eighth fail) and that she’d take my name and number and someone would call me back, maybe today but probably tomorrow (ninth fail).

There’s a point to all of this, mind you. This isn’t so I can vent my frustration– I’m not frustrated. I got this tool on a lark, because I thought it would be something fun to try. Well, all the fun has been drained right out, but it’s not frustrating in any way because I really have no “need” for this item than can’t be served with tools I already have.

The point is; if you’re in business and you have a customer who has a problem, AND you’re capable of solving said problem, then DO IT, RIGHT NOW. Your customers will absolutely love you for it, and your service will have been so unusually simple and easy that they’ll tell everyone they know about you. That two or three dollars, to fifty or 60 dollars it actually cost you to SOLE THE CUSTOMER’S PROBLEM STRAIGHT AWAY will have been your cheapest and most effective advertizing ever!

The retailer could have solved my problem immediately, without even thinking about it, if they’d simply send me a new part. “No problem, Mister Keeney; we’ll get you another part out to you right now, and you’ll have it tomorrow. Sorry about the inconvenience.”

That is our goal, but we don’t always reach it (for one thing, there is internal disagreement on its merits, if you can believe that). It is an ideal, which will rarely be met in all cases, but it is none the less THE ideal.

This is so very simple, and so very obvious, that practically all businesses fail to consider it. The few who do will rule the retail world. All the rest will have every excuse in the book why they don’t do it, and they’ll all be very reasonable and thoroughly justifiable excuses.

If you HAVE THE ABILITY to solve the customer’s problem RIGHT NOW, that is an OPPORTUNUTY for you and your company. Don’t miss the opportunity.

Meanwhile, after talking to two people, at two companies, each of whom had the ability to solve my problem right then and there, each of whom had to talk to at least one other person who also had the ability to solve my problem right then and there, I’ll be waiting for a phone call (not a replacement part, mind you, not even a promise of a replacement part, but a phone call) that may or may not come in the next 24 hours.

The time it took either one of the two people I spoke with to hum and haw and consult with peers and finally get around to telling me to call somewhere else or to take my name and number for someone else to get back to me, THEY COULD HAVE SOLVED MY PROBLEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE, and so you see, it would be far MORE EFFICIENT just for them, which would free up more customer service representatives to help more customers.

This isn’t rocket surgery.

Quote of the day—obvious-if-you-read-carefully

Posted on by

The people fighting universal background checks are the people who deliberately want to be irresponsible.  Plain and simple.

obvious-if-you-read-carefully
April 1, 2015
Comment to Gun background check hearing: Does bill close loophole or create unenforceable law?
[The type of people who say things like this have mental problems. It is common in some personality disorders for the person to believe they can read your mind. I’ve had them insist they knew what I was thinking and/or meant even with the words I used were written down and visible in front of them and I insisted they were completely, totally, wrong. They just knew in direct disregard for all the facts.

This is why I sometimes ask how someone determines truth from falsity with stunning effectiveness. I have literally been told, “It depends on how I feel.”—Joe]