There’s a difference between gun culture and hunting culture. They’re talking about hunting in Montana. They’re not talking about walking into a Wal-Mart with a 9-millimeter strapped to their back.

Charles Gallagher
October 10, 2014
Does race shape Americans’ passion for guns?
[Gallagher claims expertise in the field of sociology, race, and guns. I don’t know about his sociology and race credentials but when he talks about “a 9-millimeter strapped to their back” you know he has lots of work to do on the gun side of things.

Other than quoting crap for brains Gallagher in a few places it’s decent article. For CNN to publish this, it’s conclusive proof we are winning.—Joe]

There are always people who are convinced there is a rational, polite, gentle and civilized way to stop a violent sociopath from raping their eye sockets.

We call these sensitive souls “Morons.”

Michael Z. Williamson
October 9, 2014
Wishful Thinking Knows No Bounds
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

No one needs a gun, especially a handgun. The idea that a handgun is essential for self protection is a myth. If someone is pointing a gun at you then it’s too late for you to pull yours out on them. A handgun is worthless for hunting.

…

The government is not going to invade your home and take away your guns. Gun-rights advocates say that they need their guns in order to keep the government from confiscating them. It’s illogical, paranoid reasoning, especially given the fact that there are already almost enough firearms in private hands to arm every man, woman and child in the country. The government would not need a list in order to come after your guns. All they would have to do is go door-to-door, and they would likely find one.

Marshall Dunlap
October 7, 2014
Gun control: Background-check inconvenience worth it to keep guns from criminals
[Gun owners are illogical and paranoid? This is a few sentences after he says we handguns being used for defense is a myth (tell the police that), they are worthless for hunting and, “No one needs a gun…” And it’s a few sentences before he suggests it would be easy for the police to go door-to-door and confiscate them.

I think Mr. Dunlap is doing some projection and that he is further evidence of why we shouldn’t have registration lists of guns or gun owners.—Joe]

Guns are not the answer, ladies and gentlemen. Guns would not have saved the victims of the Navy Yard.

Vincent Gray
Mayor of Washington D.C.
September 17, 2014
Gray Calls For ‘Real Gun Control’ At Navy Yard Ceremony, Says D.C.’s Laws May Be ‘Relaxed’
[Then what was the purpose of the guns in the hands of the responding police officers? And why do many of the politicians in his jurisdiction have armed guards?

This guy has crap for brains. Or else he thinks you do.—Joe]

If judges can pontificate on questions of firearms engineering, then I can write legal decisions legalizing the possession of fully automatic firearms and rocket propelled grenades by the unorganized militia (ie, us). That’s fair, isn’t it?

Scott Connors
September 4, 2014
Comment to Judge Tries His Hand at Engineering
[Yes. It is fair.

It’s also just as likely to be faulty as the judge’s engineering efforts. This, of course, was his point.

What the judge and other “smart gun” advocates apparently don’t or can’t understand is that engineering against an intelligent adversary is dramatically different and more difficult than engineering devices to reduce the probability of accidents or the mitigate the effects of such an accident.

Turn signals and brake lights reduce the chance of accidents. Seatbelts mitigate the effects of accidents. There has been little need to significantly improve the technology of these in the last 50 years.

The technology of antitheft devices has seen dramatic improvement in the last 50 years. This is because in the case of the theft of a car the engineer has an intelligent adversary working against them. Both the thief and engineer attempting to protect the car innovate nearly constantly.

And even that analogy is weak because:

• Guns have the contradictory criteria of failing to fire if the thief removes or disables the power supply and being useable by the owner in an emergency situation if the battery or electronics have died.
• A inoperable gun is far more transportable than an inoperable car.
• A car has large and reliable power supply.
• A car can be disabled for many seconds or even, in extreme cases, a few minutes without serious consequences.
• A few pounds of anti-theft technology added to a car are not an obstacle to its use.
• Two way communication technology is common and relatively difficult to defeat in a car. Not so in a gun.

If you are going to pontificate on “Smart Guns” you should get the advice of an engineer with experience in security.—Joe]

It’s strictly prohibited and we are not in the habit of making exceptions. But we certainly do everything we possibly can to make all our students feel safe. We feel that it is a top priority.

Justin Anderson
Spokesman for Dartmouth college
Gun Control Rule At Dartmouth College Denies Taylor Woolrich Protection From Stalker With ‘Rape Kit’
[I think I see the problem here. Dartmouth only cares about feelings. They care about the feelings of their students and they feel about making those feelings “a top priority”. They don’t have respect for the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They ignore the reality that their feelings do nothing to protect her from the reality of a confirmed stalker intent on raping her. They ignore the reality that her carrying a defensive tool might help her as well as make her feel safer.

There was a time when people that disconnected from reality were put in mental institutions. That probably isn’t a legal option in this case but you would think they could be prosecuted for conspiracy to deny her rights.—Joe]