Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

Quote of the day—Linoge

Posted on by

The anti-rights cultists’ logic fails: on the one hand, we are supposedly high-strung, hair-trigger murderers just waiting for any and all excuses to “whip out our pieces” and go on a shooting rampage, but on the other hand, “gun control” extremists feel quite comfortable insulting and attacking us on a regular basis.

Linoge
December 12, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—lonewolfwisconsin.
[Made QOTD at the suggestion of Windy Wilson.

It’s a good point but I’m sort of dulled from the continuous expose to the irrationality of anti-gun people. These people live with one foot into an alternate universe where the potentialities of their active imaginations are just as real, if not more so, than reality itself. I wish there were a way to make it sink in that potentialities are not actualities.

We are constrained to live in the real world. Neither the utopia they try to legislate nor the “gun-owners will start shooing over parking spaces” universe they imagine are supported by the evidence gathered from all the different legislative experiments run in all the states and the Feds in the last several decades.

Being unconstrained by reality is probably good for art but makes for very poor public policy.—Joe]

Can Someone Please Explain

Posted on by

…in short, sweet, straight-forward detail, the “conservative” position on immigration?  I’ve heard vitriolic disagreement and angry attacks toward any policy proposal that even remotely smacks of “amnesty” and I’ve heard demands for building a wall around the country (like that ever works) but I’ve never heard what the attacker actually wants, exactly.

For the record (and I know this is off-subject as it doesn’t answer the question, because I have no idea as to the answer, which is the point of the post after all); In principle, I believe it should be easy to get into this country, and to become a citizen.  The problem as I see it is the socialism – the goodies – people coming here for a share of the loot.  Turn off that loot spigot and the problem, such as it is, evaporates overnight.  “Heal the World – Outlaw Socialism” would be my bumper sticker if I ever got ’round to putting one on my vehicle, which I probably won’t.

Outlawing socialism would include doing away with labor laws, minimum wage being a big one at play here.  The other loot spigot in play was also manufactured by our government– the “War On Drugs” and we all know for certain that Prohibition failed the first time due to human nature, and that human nature dictates that it will fail just as catastrophically every time, which is what we’re seeing every day.  But we can’t separate it from imigration policy.  Because we’re sniveling cowards.

“They’re takin’ Our Jobs!” (Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!”) is an idiotic assertion.  So forget it.  When the Europeans first started coming here in the late 1400s and early 1500s, they took all the jobs from the “Indians” very quickly, so there haven’t been any jobs here since then anyway, right?  I mean, if you figure that the “Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!” argument has any validity whatsoever.  IF people coming here from other places “takes jobs away” then the peak in the number of available jobs in North America would have taken place before Columbus’ voyage (or much earlier – before the migration out of Siberia during the last Ice Age) and as the Euros et al started coming in, the number of jobs available would have been shrinking constantly ever since.  QED.  So there.

Anyhow;  What, exactly, is the “conservative” policy on immigration – the one that won’t get the pundits, the self appointed Representatives of Modern American Conservatism (the RMACs) all pissed off?  I maintain that there is no such thing, which is why I brought it up.

I figure Newt has a four thousand page preliminary proposal, submitted by his Provisional Committee on Immigration Policy Proposal Research Exploratory Studies, complete with thousands of cross-references and cross-cross-references to the cross-references, which means he doesn’t have a clue and is desperate to avoid clues as it would mean standing for something meaningful and concrete which is to be avoided at all cost.

My explanation for the absurdity is that the Republicans believe in the all the negative stereotypes that the Democrats have created for conservatives– racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes….ad infinitum, thumpin’ a Bible and cryin’ ’bout Jeezus! and so the Republicans are trying, like frightened little kids faced with putting out a house fire, to pander to the Saturday Night Live stereotype “conservative”.  They have no idea how to please us stereotype bigot buffoons without getting into trouble.  They’re scared and frustrated, but they know they have to at least pretend to try, because that’s on the list of things to do to get elected.  So it’s a contest to see who can come up with the most plauseablely meaningless proposal that will offend the least people and will never get enforced anyway.  It makes for good theater all ’round I suppose.

We know for certain that outlawing socialism would be among the most frightening prospects ever presented to a Republican.  Right?  The planet being wiped out by an asteroid would be bad, but at least it wouldn’t leave them blinking in the lights in front of a camera babbling like idiots, knowing they’d have to face the criticism for it the next day– they could die right along with the rest of us and that would be much more comfortable as it wouldn’t require any acts of courage or any application of principles.  It would let them entirely off the hook.

Quote of the day—Conservative4Ever

Posted on by

I had to go talk to my guns just now to let them know If I let them walk that they will be responsible for the violence they cause.

Liberals kill me by their complete lack of logic and reasoning abilities. They are like children.

Hence my talking to guns like they were children.

Conservative4Ever
December 9, 2011
Comment to Gunwalker goes “legal” … again
[He is insulting children. By the age of four my children had better reasoning abilities that some of the anti-gun people I’ve dealt with.—Joe]

You can’t fix stupid

Posted on by

This post is essentially all plagiarized from various people on the email discussion list at work about this event (more details can be found here):

A pistol discovered in a passenger’s carry-on bag was accidentally fired inside the Atlanta airport, grazing a police officer, authorities said on Monday.

Security screeners at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport spotted the .22-caliber pistol Sunday via an X-ray machine and notified Atlanta police, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Jonathan Allen said.

Authorities said the gun was loaded with five rounds of ammunition known as “snake shot,” which typically is used to kill small animals. As a police officer tried to remove the rounds while pointing the weapon at a screening table, the gun was unintentionally fired, according to an incident report.

…

The passenger, a 43-year-old Georgia man, was arrested on weapons charges and remained in jail early on Monday. He told police that he “travels to Florida often on business and keeps the weapon on him for protection, not to kill anyone but in an attempt to scare people off,” the report said.

It was stupid to attempt going though the TSA screeners with a firearm. It was stupid for the police officer to fire the gun. It was stupid to carry snake loads for self protection against humans. It was stupid to carry a firearm to only scare people.

Quote of the day—Christopher Merken

Posted on by

Guns are designed with one purpose only: to kill. Ending a life is the purpose of a gun. The argument that it’s preventative, that it’s the “well it’s either me or the guy coming through my door” mentality, or that guns create a safer society is just plain wrong. Guns are designed to kill. A specially designed piece of metal, slotted into another piece of metal and projected at incredible speeds at another person is designed to kill. There is no way to deny, refute, or get around this simple fact. So why are guns allowed? Why do we as a society accept these dangerous weapons into our community?

Christopher Merken
December 8, 2011
Another Virginia Tech Shooting, and What Should Be Done About It: It’s time to take a stand against gun violence
[Heavy sigh. Here we go again.

I’ve fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns without killing anything but two deer and a rattlesnake. By his logic my guns must have malfunctioned with nearly every shot.

He offers no studies to support his assertions. The best he can do is proof by vigorous assertion.

He asks, “Why are guns allowed?” as if that which government does not allow is forbidden. He apparently missed out on the high school government class where it was taught that government is only allowed certain enumerated powers and the people retain all other rights and powers. He has it exactly backward.

He’s got crap for brains.—Joe]

Percentages

Posted on by

This is one of my pet peeves too:

Percentage Points

People often think that if you decrease something by 50% then increase it by 50% you end up with the original value. It’s surprisingly difficult for people to grasp this is not true. I found it works better if you use 100% reduction followed by a 100% increase. When they say, “But that is different.” I just walk away to avoid the nearly irresistible urge to do some minor cleaning of the gene pool.

Quote of the day—lonewolfwisconsin

Posted on by

I am sick and tired of you pussygunbo­ys crying about your gunpowder and calling everyone names. You can now carry your precious guns anywhere, and there has been NO ATTEMPTS to restrict gun ownership in over 50 years. Just go to your KKK meetings and shutthehel­lup.

lonewolfwisconsin
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[No attempts in over 50 years? So that would be since 1961.

lonewolfwisconsin must be from an alternate universe where the NRA aligned themselves with the KKK instead of the blacks defending themselves from the KKK. In that alternate universe none of the following gun restrictions and bans succeeded or thousands attempts occurred:

  • 1968: Gun Control Act
  • 1976: Washington D.C. bans handguns and all other firearms must be rendered inoperable.
  • 1981: Morton Grove Illinois bans the sale, transportation, and ownership of handguns.
  • 1982: Chicago bans new registration of handguns.
  • 1982: Evanston, Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1984: Oak Park Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1986: Sales of new machine guns banned nationwide.
  • 1989: Highland Park Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1989: California bans “assault weapons”.
  • 1991: New Jersey bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1991: New York City bans “assault weapons” and gun registration lists were used by police to go door-to-door to confiscate them.
    • 1992: Chicago bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1993: Connecticut bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1993: Brady Act.
    • 1994: Sales of new “Assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned nationwide.
    • 2000: New York state bans “assault weapons”.
    • 2004: Massachusetts (Mitt Romney, as governor, signed the bill into law) bans “assault weapons”.
    • 2005: New Orleans sends the police and the National Guard door to door to confiscate all firearms in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

    Either this is convincing proof that alternate universes exist or lonewolfwisconsin has crap for brains.

    I’m going with crap for brains unless lonewolfwisconsin can demonstrate they are a disoriented time traveler from sometime prior to about 1865 (I know there have been periodic gun control attempts since at least the end of the Civil War).—Joe]

    The laws of economics cannot be violated

    Posted on by

    Recently I’ve been listening to Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell as I drive to and from Idaho and on my commute into Seattle. One of the lessons was that if prices are fixed by the government you will have problems.

    If the prices are fixed too low it results shortages, poor quality, and under the table payoffs to suppliers and/or government price control enforcement agents. If prices are fixed too high it results in surpluses, wasted resources, less efficient means of producing the product (no incentive to reduce costs), and a heavier tax burden. Letting the free market adjust prices dynamically results in much closer to optimal allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses.

    This lesson has been known for decades, if not a century or more, but politicians have no incentive to adhere to the laws of economics.

    Via email from Ry we have the further proof that the laws of economics cannot be violated without suffering known punishments:

    A federal power agency discriminated against wind operators in the Pacific Northwest when it unplugged their generators to cope with a surplus of renewable energy on its transmission system this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled on Tuesday. It ordered the agency, the Bonneville Power Administration, to rewrite its rules.

    Bonneville had argued that it had no option but to lock out the wind generators to protect salmon in the Columbia River.

    While the agency could have reduced the power output of hydroelectric dams by routing excess water through a spillway, doing so would violate the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, it said.

    …

    But a group of wind companies filed a complaint with the energy regulatory commission saying that instead off turning off wind turbines, Bonneville should have resorted to “negative pricing,” or paying customers to take the excess power. Bonneville countered that this would conflict with its obligation to repay loans from the federal government and to provide power cheaply.

    …

    The problem could crop up more often as companies build wind and solar farms to meet state requirements for renewable energy.

    “Negative pricing”?

    We need a Constitutional amendment that guarantees freedom of commerce. That would have prevented the health care bill, the war on drugs, subsidies for farmers, and the $200 tax on firearm noise suppressors as well as crazy stuff like people advocating “negative pricing” for electrical power.

    Quote of the day—Excelsior

    Posted on by

    This is never going to end until we make it illegal to own firearms. Until then, thousands of innocent people will die every year. So this country has a choice – either give up the deadly weapons or admit the selfish desire to pack heat is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for all those deaths. There is no other way around it – you own a gun, you’re part of the problem. Period.

    Excelsior
    November 24, 2011
    Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
    [[sarcasm] And the abuse of recreational drugs and alcohol is never going to end until we make it illegal to own them either. [/sarcasm]

    I’m always surprised that people who make claims like this were smart enough to assemble a sentence that was intelligible. They could not possibly have given their views more than a second or two of thought. Of course the last two sentences demonstrate they think proof by vigorous assertion is valid too.

    It’s pure crap for brains.—Joe]

    They actually believe it

    Posted on by

    I have been poking around some more in the anti-gun section of the term paper warehouse I reported on a few days ago and continue to be amazed at the total lack of quality in writing and reasoning. This one really did it for me though:

    carrying a gun will push him to commit a crime which he has never been intended.

    Carrying a gun will “push” a person to commit a crime?

    This is frequently hinted at in the anti-gun rhetoric but I don’t believe I have ever heard it explicitly articulated. I always figured that they knew it was so absurd they would never say it directly. Surely they were smart enough to know that if they did they would be mocked and laughed into oblivion. Apparently this person wasn’t that smart and/or they actually believe it.

    I have to wonder about the mechanism of this “push”. Is it some sort of mind control? Or is it a “flesh magnet” that pulls their hand to the gun and then causes it to squeeze the trigger? Can we measure the magnitude of the “push”? Would that “push” be proportional to the area or mass of the possessor? Does the force extend to nearby people as well? Is it inversely proportional to the distance or the square of the distance? And does wearing a government uniform provide immunity from this “push” for the possessor of the gun?

    But there is another option which should be considered. It could be that the author has crap for brains and just doesn’t have a clue as what they are writing about.

    Peterson Syndrome example

    Posted on by

    This is from Canada:

    Karen Vanscoy’s 14-year-old daughter was shot and killed in 1996 by an acquaintance using a stolen gun.

    “The proposed weakening of our gun laws will make it easier for those at risk of committing acts of violence either towards themselves or others to acquire guns,” said Vanscoy.

    She is complaining about the possible elimination of the long gun registry. How in the world does she think the Canadian long gun registry would have prevented the murder of her daughter?

    It’s Peterson Syndrome. She is incapable of logical thinking.

    And of course the writer (an “independent journalist covering social justice events”) doesn’t give any time to the violated natural rights of firearms owners.

    Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous

    Posted on by

    Of course I knew it was possible. But I didn’t dare say it for fear of being wrong and embarrassed when some other explanation came to light. So I just stated the facts when a pro-gun story disappeared from the UK’s Daily Mail.

    I did manage to contact the author who responded with a single URL. It is a link to the same story on a different website with the subtitle, “Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous”.

    Not only was it possible; it was what happened. Some people in the UK are such wimps they can’t tolerate people even speaking about the exercise of their natural right to keep and bear arms.

    Should they end up needing that which they don’t have it will be hard to give them much sympathy beyond nominating them for a collective (as they surely would have wanted it) Darwin Award.

    The quality I would expect

    Posted on by

    Someone apparently wrote a term paper on the Brady Campaign and is making it available to others.

    The quality is about what I would expect for a Brady Campaign supporter:

    The Brady Campaign is a very large organisation, and they are working to prevent gun violence through legislations. Ronald Weagan’s press secretary was a man called Jim Brady. Jim Brady was seriously wounded by a shoot during an assassination attempt on Ronald Weagan, who was the president of the United States at that time. After the harsh experience and the wounds mentally, Jim Brady and his wife Sarah Brady began to work for stricter gun control laws. In the 1993 the Brady law was passed. If you wanted to buy a handgun, you had to wait in a five-day period so there could be made a background check and a ban on the military-style, semi-automatic machine guns and the “assault weapons”. George Bush did not renew the ban of the “assault weapons” in 2004. The Brady Campaign argues that armed revolution and violence against the government is not necessary in a democracy.

    The Second Amendment Myth and Meaning means that the American nation suffers from an epidemic of gun violence. They mean sensible national gun control laws are urgently needed to reduce this violence and killings. They mean the NRA’s constitutional theory is a calculated distortion of the text, history and judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment. They say it is time for the debate over gun violence to focus on the real issues, free from the NRA’s constitutional mythology and they say that the courts consistently have ruled that there is no constitutional right to own a gun for private purposes unrelated to the organized state militia.

    The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment is an organisation which promotes the Second Amendment right to carry and bear arms. The organisation has about 4 million members and defends the right to possess, buy and use firearms.

    I would guess they are functioning at about a fifth grade level:

    • The Brady Campaign cannot be considered “very large”.
    • Organization is consistently misspelled.
    • It’s Reagan, not “Weagan”.
    • Grammar is extremely poor.
    • “Semi-automatic machine guns” is contradictory.
    • “Assault weapons” were not covered by the 1993 Brady Act.
    • Even though the term paper was uploaded today the Heller decision is unknown (or perhaps irrelevant in their world view) to them.
    • The Second Amendment is not an organization.
    • They state the NRA “defends the right” but yet claims the court interpretations of the Second Amendment does not recognize a right to keep and bear arms.

    It’s possible they are mocking the Brady Campaign but my guess is they really are that dumb.

    Quote of the day—Texas Aggie

    Posted on by

    For the people who insist on carrying weapons, driving oversized pickups and HumVees to the 7/11, and similar manifestations of psychological problems, it isn’t that they’re paranoid, although that may also be a problem. Their major problem is a real or imagined dysfunction in their capacity to procreate. They may have tried the various “enlarge your penis” advertisements on the internet and none of them gave results, so now they go with an artificial sexual apparatus enhancer.

    Texas Aggie
    November 24, 2011
    Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
    [Ahhhh yes. It’s the kindergarten kids talking about penises and giggling.

    When in the context of gun owners it’s known as Markley’s Law.—Joe]

    Congress Debates Status of Tomato Sauce

    Posted on by

    Seen here.  I heard about it on one of the morning talk shows.  Sorry I don’t remember which.  Beck, Limbaugh or Medved – take your pick.

    I said it when I heard Congress was legislating the rules of baseball years ago– this is final proof that we’ve gone far off the deep end of pathological insanity.  If the founders of this nation had heard Congress was involved in determining whether the tomato was a vegetable and no one had stepped in to haul them off and lock them in an asylum, they’d have shot somebody.  Maybe themselves, for they’d have realized that all their learning, inspiration, vision, struggle, suffering, perseverance, profound loss and eventual victory had been in vain.

    Every last bit of it pissed out a window by vacuous, nasty little fools who to this day still think we look up to them and celebrate them.  It always comes as a shock to the tyrant when he finally gets his due at the hands of the people, as did Mussolini and his wife.  “Why, they don’t love me?  Surely this is some mistake.  I am the Father of The People.  I don’t understand.  No wait…”

    ETA; Congress getting involved in the likes of baseball and vegetables is the very definition of totalitarianism— the doctrine that says nothing is outside the realm of politics, that everything is government’s business.  I used to pose the question to leftists; “What, if anything, do you believe is absolutely, positively, none of government’s business whatsoever?”  It’s a rhetorical question of course.  We know the answer, as evidenced above.  Now that it is settled– that we live in an ideologically totalitarian state, I pose another question.  What is the way out of this?

    Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

    Posted on by

    The NRA’s greatest lie is its talking point that gun violence prevention laws in America are a “slippery slope” that will eventually lead to total confiscation of privately held firearms. What an absurdity that is today — 43 years after the signing of the 1968 Gun Control Act — as demented individuals like Jared Loughner and Nidal Malik Hasan continue to legally buy guns and carry them in our communities.

    The reality is that the slippery slope has been running in the opposite direction the entire time — toward a future where even the most violent and deranged individuals can legally buy guns, legally carry them on the street, and legally bring them into churches, schools, daycare centers, public transportation, government buildings and the rest of our most sensitive public spaces.

    Josh Horwitz
    Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
    The Real Slippery Slope of Gun Laws
    November 16, 2011
    [The government has NO business trying to prevent “gun violence”. If there isn’t a victim or imminent danger of permanent injury or death to an innocent person or serious property damage then the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms must be given precedence. This point is probably the most important one we should be making. It strikes at the very core of the “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” and the nearly all of the arguments of people like Horwitz want to make.

    If Horwitz believes that since 1968 “the slippery slope has been running in the opposite direction the entire time” then he has crap for brains, he is lying, or he is so ignorant that he missed out on the following major gun bans (does not include hundreds of increased restrictions, registrations, and lawsuits):

    • 1976: Washington D.C. bans handguns and all other firearms must be rendered inoperable.
    • 1981: Morton Grove Illinois bans the sale, transportation, and ownership of handguns.
    • 1982: Chicago bans new registration of handguns.
    • 1982: Evanston, Illinois bans handguns.
    • 1984: Oak Park Illinois bans handguns.
    • 1986: Sales of new machine guns banned nationwide.
    • 1989: Highland Park Illinois bans handguns.
    • 1989: California bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1991: New Jersey bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1991: New York City bans “assault weapons” and gun registration lists were used by police to go door-to-door to confiscate them.
    • 1992: Chicago bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1993: Connecticut bans “assault weapons”.
    • 1994: Sales of new “Assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned nationwide.
    • 2000: New York state bans “assault weapons”.
    • 2004: Massachusetts (Mitt Romney, as governor, signed the bill into law) bans “assault weapons”.
    • 2005: New Orleans sends the police and the National Guard door to door to confiscate all firearms in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

    And that doesn’t even include the U.S. politicians who said they were trying to ban firearms in the mid 1990s.

    So which is it Josh? Are you ignorant, lying, and/or have crap for brains?—Joe]

    Help the Cooking Shows

    Posted on by

    Anyone else notice that on “Chopped”, or “Top Chef”, etc., it happens nearly every episode that someone fails or nearly fails a challenge because they can’t get their pan(s) hot enough?  They’re using top dollar gas ranges.  What’s up with that?  And I wonder why no one seems to notice after all these failures.  Do they have some federally mandated energy-saving analog to the NASCAR restricter plates on the gas controls?  Maybe it’s just a bad idea to use a stainless steel pan having a mirror finish on the bottom, what?  Maybe someone should do them a favor– go to Goodwill and get a used electric range from the 1970s for fifty bucks, and an old cast iron frying pan with matching saucepan, and donate them to one of the shows.  Seventy five bucks per cooking station, tops, and they’d never have this problem again.  That stuff works for me, anyway.

    I thought they wanted national licensing

    Posted on by

    John Lott makes a great point:

    For decades, treating licenses for guns like those for cars was something that gun control advocates wanted.

    And now that congress is debating making states honor other states concealed carry licenses, just like drivers and marriage licenses, gun control advocates are about to have aneurisms.

    I say let them have their aneurisms. As crazy, irrational, and inconsistent as they already are the extra brain damage probably wouldn’t be noticed anyway.

    Security theater must make people stupid

    Posted on by

    David Perera must have gone through the scanner a few too many times and his brain turned into crap. He claims that just because someone has a security clearance that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to go through airport security without being subjected to TSA scrutiny:

    First, if the ability to go through the expedited line is given to all secret holders regardless of the purpose of their travel, clearance holders would be the recipient of an unfair perk relative to the rest of society. Clearance holders receive access to classified documents – not a badge that permits them to cut in line at the gas station, take 20 items through the 15-item supermarket checkout line or buy 3.2 beer in an Arkansas convenience store on a Sunday.

    Just what does he think TSA security is for? It’s not a line at a gas station.

    I kept expecting him to explain that the only purpose TSA serves is to harass and desensitize people to illegal searches. If some people don’t go through the desensitization process then TSA effectiveness is drastically reduced. After all, TSA has been insisting that pilots and the rest of the flight crew be searched so what purpose could that serve other than desensitization? Do they think that unless they search the pilot for box cutters he would be able to hijack the plane he was already flying?

    But that doesn’t appear to be the case. As near as I can tell he really believes what he says. I can only conclude he has crap for brains. I expect that soon he will insist Air Marshals also go though TSA screening. After all their badges don’t enable them to take 20 items through the 15-item supermarket checkout line either.

    Quote of the day—Dr. Tim Ball

    Posted on by

    There are several misconceptions about CO2, most created because proponents tried to prove the hypothesis rather than the normal scientific practice of disproof.

    Dr. Tim Ball
    November 9, 2011
    Whether It Is Warming or Climate Change, It Cannot be the CO2.
    [There is lots of other interesting data in this post. As Ry summarized when telling me about this, “North America and Europe are net absorbers of CO2. South America and Africa are net producers. And it’s all due to natural causes. Human CO2 production is in the noise of measurement error of the natural sources.”

    Beyond the point the CO2/global-warming/climate-change fraud I wanted to point out that the “normal scientific practice of disproof” is what has been tripping up the anti-gun people. Their hypothesis that gun control will decrease crime is so easy to disprove that they expose themselves as a religious faith. Their deeply held beliefs persist in the absence of and in despite of evidence. I have no problem with them exercising their First Amendment rights to exercise the the religion of their choice but they do not have the right, nor should they have the power, to force others to worship the same god(s) they do.

    If you only need a couple of talking point so to put them in their place point out that since the gun ban in Washington D.C. was thrown out the number of murders (the murder rate would be lower still) has dropped to the lowest in 46 years. Since the gun ban in Chicago was overthrown the number of murders is the lowest in at least 20 years. The gun bans reduce crime hypothesis cannot survive exposure to the normal scientific practice of disproof. This has been well known since at least the mid-1980s when Rossi and Wright published their book.

    The Brady Campaign, The Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are nothing more than fading religious cults whose beliefs have killed tens of thousands of people and put millions of lives at risk. They are no more credible and should be given no more political voice than a cult advocating castration to reach an alien spacecraft.—Joe]