Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

Knocking down straw men

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign set up a straw man to knock down again yesterday:

While trying really hard to pose as a “victim of bigotry” with his best Rosa Parks impression (someone who faced genuine discrimination), Mr. Pierce forgot to blur the distinction between gun owners and gun carriers.  Whoops.

They are still pushing on the “immutable characteristics” defense against their bigotry. What I find interesting is that they consider religious affiliation “immutable”. And of course they don’t even mention interracial couples.

They make a big deal about “guns are things” and claim people with those things cannot be discriminated against.

They are just so incredible smart to have thought of that. They sure got me on that one. I never would have thought of a defense like that.[/sarcasm]

Let see how well that assertion plays out in general:

  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your burqa and ḥijāb, outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your turban outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your sari outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your Star of David outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your cross necklace outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your NRA/SAF/CCRKBA/JPFO/Brady-Campaign shirt outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your Bible/Torah/Koran outside.”

Is that still not discrimination?

I can only think of two possible explanations for the Brady Campaign to make the claims they do:

  1. They think the general population is so stupid as to believe that gun owners magically materialized a holstered gun on their belt or in their purse just before they walked into the store. And therefore they could just as easily not materialized it just prior to entering the store. That’s not the way it works. Many of us put on a gun just like we put on our shoes, pants, and shirt.
  2. They are so stupid or blinded by their own bigotry that they were unable to think it through.

[Mostly off topic–Does the Brady Campaign even have apparel for sale? I didn’t find anything on their website and none of the Brady Campaign items I found on Cafepress would be endorsed by them. I suppose that makes sense. After all, who would willingly put a “I’m defenseless” sign on themselves while in public? And if I did that I would likely get charged with “hunting over bait” or some such thing.]

Update: Sebastian put up a very well written post on the topic an hour before I started mine.

Just a Reminder

Posted on by

In case anyone has forgotten;

 

That in response to this story.

Bigotry examples

Posted on by

In the past I have had the impression that Sebastian has not wholly bought into my advocacy of portraying anti-gun people as bigots. But this post by him has him landing on the topic with both feet and getting into a word fight with the Brady Campaign.

I can understand people being of the opinion that pushing the bigotry meme is not productive. But I don’t think any rational person can defend the claim that the following post by Mark Morford is anything other than the words of a bigot:

Hello and welcome to our store! Please, feel free to look around, make yourself comfortable, enjoy our fine offerings and, oh yes, by the way? Please, no murdering.

Also, no raping, gang-banging, popping off, stabbing, mauling, stealing stuff, or walking around in a confrontational macho huff, ready at a moment’s notice to harass any of our normal patrons with a snarl and a vague threat of violence because you feel it is your God-given right, given how you are a card-carrying member of a pro-gun “Open Carry” sect that likes to strap unloaded handguns to your Wranglers, walk around in public places and freak people out. Thank you so much!

I’m sorry, I see you are still wearing your little weapon and strutting about like you are the rather doughy, bad-skinned king of the sand castle. Perhaps we were not clear? Shall we try it again?

Clearly, you are not a police officer. Therefore, the management, our employees and pretty much everyone within a 100-mile radius would very much appreciate it if you would put away that ego-fluffing man-toy that is designed solely to kill other living creatures and induce fear and ignorance as it regresses every hesitant advancement in the human soul back to caveman grunting lunkishness. Thank you again!

Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we’ll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won’t you?

What, no drink? You now wish to order nothing at all and instead plop yourself down in the corner, plug in your laptop and angrily scour Facebook all day for evidence that your ex-girlfriend, the one who left you two years ago at a full, what-the-hell-was-I-thinking sprint, is now dating a liberal or a pacifist or an atheist and is far, far happier than she ever was with you? We understand. We appreciate your desire to partake of our free Wi-Fi, buy nothing and not give a damn that we can’t really stay in business that way.

Why, look at you! Refusing to step away from the counter and instead choosing to read aloud from your little card that says how it’s completely legal to carry an unconcealed, unloaded firearm in a public space! Way to stand up for your rights! God bless America!

Turns out you are right. It is legal, sort of. Then again, so is eating gravel, wearing a giant hat made of cow manure and squirrel tails, and slapping yourself in the face repeatedly while ranting semicoherently about Jesus, masturbation and Shania Twain. And you don’t see anyone doing that, do you? Except Carl over there?

We realize it might seem unfair. Far be it from us here at the neighborhood cafe, where families and small children and book readers come to chat and feel slightly better about their day, to ask you to leave because your energy is so low and repellant and also downright silly.

But nevertheless, I’m afraid that’s exactly what we’re going to do. We would appreciate it if you would take your business elsewhere. Right now. No? Very well.

We had hoped it wouldn’t come to this. We had hoped to find a better resolution. However, in response to your insistence on carrying a firearm into our premises, we have no choice but to change our official policy, right here and now, on the spot.

Again, we mean no offense, you jingoistic lump of mancrazy. You are indeed well within your rights to be a thoroughly paranoid coward who has no real inner strength, confidence or social skills, to a degree that you feel you must carry a deadly weapon around to feel like you even exist. We understand your thinking completely. It’s basic psychology. Very, very basic. Childish, even.

So then. Like any business, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. But we realize there are some people for whom this is not specific or clear enough. We realize some people have to have it, you know, spelled out and publicly displayed.

Therefore, we have revised our list. Please note the new sign we have just posted on the front door. We have expanded and clarified a few things. We hope it helps.

Effective immediately on these premises, there will be:

  • No murdering
  • No raping
  • No pillaging
  • No gun slinging, pistol-whipping, sucker-punching
  • No mauling, jabbing, stabbing, hating or undermining
  • No screaming bloody murder
  • No morons
  • No panicking
  • No testing on animals
  • No jumping for Joy. While she appreciates your enthusiasm, our cashier is happily married. Thank you
  • No live birthing
  • No dumping
  • No livestock
  • No smoking
  • No smoking the livestock
  • No exit
  • No way out
  • No diving
  • No spitting
  • No way!
  • No Crusades
  • No “Star Trek” re-enactments
  • No skinny-dipping in the half-n-half
  • No doubt

Thank you so much for understanding. Free sample biscotti on your way out?

And what does Paul Hemke the Brady Staff (correction by the Brady Staff in this post) in a post on the Brady Campaign blog say of this bigotry? “Best. Answer. Ever.”

Had this been about interracial or homosexual couples holding hands and kissing the outrage over a such a post would result in demands that the San Francisco Chronicle fire him. Hemke defends Morford and his support of Morford with:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from firearms that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t guns, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 30,000 (the number shot to death every year in this country).

In the paragraph above let’s substitute “ni**er” for “gun” and “firearm”, correct the numbers to match, and see how that plays:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from ni**ers that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t ni**ers, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 6,000 (the number murdered by “ni**ers” every year in this country).

That sounds a lot like an argument I would imagine someone from the KKK or some other white supremist would make in supporting restrictions against non-whites. Yet they appear to be blind to the parallel.

That some people are frightened by others exercising a specific enumerated right is not justification for infringing that right. As one judge said in regards to the First Amendment, “… free speech cannot be limited on the basis of ‘undifferentiated fear”. It is a severe and unjustified infringement on liberty to engage in prior restraint based on the imagination and paranoid fears people like Helmke and Morford have about gun owners.

It’s not just Morford and Helmke that want to put up the equivalent of “No Coloreds Allowed” signs on businesses they frequent. Here is another bigot having his say on the topic:

Many intelligent educated and reasonable people feel that the presence of openly-displayed guns in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing. Some of them may feel the gun owners are not to be trusted. Others may feel that guns in a crowded public place are too easily within reach of kids and criminals. Some may feel a tacit threat from those carrying weapons, which gets back to the trust issue. But, whatever they’re thinking, aren’t they free to think it? Don’t they have a right to feel any way they want? Aren’t they entitled to request Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy?

How many “intelligent educated and reasonable people” need to feel the presence of ni**ers in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing before it stops being bigotry? How many people have to feel ni**ers are not to be trusted before it is acceptable to enact regulations and push businesses to ban them?

Certainly they are free to think and feel whatever they want. And they can petition Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy with legal intervention to back them up. No one is advocating otherwise. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t feel the outrage from the public for their bigotry. But should they take that bigotry to the next level where they injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate people for exercising their right to keep and bear arms then they should be prosecuted.

I’ve taken Paul Helmke to task on this before but he just doesn’t seem to get it. But I shouldn’t be surprised. Bigots have a tough time learning.

Update: The Brady Campaign has directly responded to this post. They claim that if it is not an immutable characteristic such as skin color then it isn’t bigotry or a civil rights issue:

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

By that logic banning interracial couples, Catholics or Muslims from Starbucks or Woolworths wouldn’t be bigotry either. I’ve got news for the Brady Campaign Staff–they’re wrong and I think they know it.

As long as they held on to the falsehood that the 2nd Amendment did not protect an individual right they might have made a thin case for that. But as soon as the right to keep and bear arms was on the same level as the freedom of association and freedom of religion they lost that crutch. Via D.C. v. Heller we have, and the Brady Campaign acknowledges, a specific, constitutionally protected, right to keep and bear arms. With that decision they became a gentler version of the KKK. No white sheets or burning crosses in our yards but they still attempt to segregate us and ban us from parks, buildings, and businesses. The only difference between them and the KKK is the KKK was sometimes willing to take the law into their own hands. The Brady Campaign attempts to get the government, Amtrack, and Starbucks to do the yucky work of infringing on the rights of others for them. They are now on a slippery slope into obscurity and revulsion and they are grasping at straws with their denial of bigotry.

And their advocacy for public bans of us exercising that right is more than just bigotry. It is just a hairs breadth away from a felony:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Quote of the day–Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

Don’t expect the NRA to abandon its reliance on the fear of gun bans – it is not clear that the gun lobby knows any other way of arguing its case. And, admittedly, it may take years before the impact of the Heller decision on the gun debate is fully felt.

Dennis Henigan
February 3, 2010
Frank Luntz: “Culture War” Over Guns Is a Myth
[Half Truth Henigan is at it again. It will take years before we finish clearing the books of all the unconstitutional gun laws. But the “gun lobby” makes lots of arguments without “the fear of gun bans”. If Henigan believes what he just said then I guess he didn’t notice the some of the things the gun lobby has accomplished recently. Examples include Federal legislation allowing people to check guns with luggage on Amtrak, allowing concealed carry in National Parks, and blocking progress on restrictive gun show legislation. This doesn’t include the progress made in the previous 20 years on enabling concealed carry.

Even ignoring those items the entire premise of his post is obviously false. There is a huge cultural war going on. How else can you explain observations like those made in the second half this post?

But what makes this particular half-truth so interesting is that all of those items, which have nothing to do with “gun bans”, are in the 2009 Brady Gun Violence Prevention Report Card. I can only think of the following possible explanations:

  1. Henigan didn’t read the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  2. Henigan forgot the contents of the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  3. Henigan didn’t believe the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  4. Henigan thinks no one else remembers the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  5. Henigan does not limit himself to rational thought.

I’m inclined to go with #5.–Joe]

Nanny state fails again

Posted on by

Via daughter Kim:

Laws that forbid motorists from using hand-held phones or texting while driving don’t appear to result in a significant decrease in vehicle crashes, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute expected to be released Friday.

The study, expected to be released at a conference in Washington, D.C., Friday, comes amid stepped-up efforts by federal highway-safety regulators to ban texting while driving and curb other forms of driver distraction. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this week announced rules to forbid commercial truck and bus drivers from text messaging while driving. Mr. LaHood has said he would ban all texting while driving if he could.

…

The HLDI, a research organization sponsored by the insurance industry, studied data on monthly collision claims in four states that banned the use of hand-held phones by motorists before and after the bans went into effect. The HLDI also compared collision data from states that enacted bans on driving while texting or phoning to accident claims in states that didn’t enact such bans.

I find the Department of Transportation response “interesting”:

The Transportation Department in a statement Friday criticized the HLDI findings, saying “it is irresponsible to suggest that laws banning cell phone use while driving have zero effect on the number of crashes on our nation’s roadways.”

Typical of the nanny state mentality — in their minds the use of actual facts and data is “irresponsible”.

Quote of the day–Charles Caleb Colton

Posted on by

It is almost as difficult to make a man unlearn his errors as his knowledge. Malinformation is more hopeless than noninformation; for error is always more busy than ignorance. Ignorance is a blank sheet, on which we may write; but error is a scribbled one, from which we must first erase. Ignorance is content to stand still, with her back to the truth; but error is more presumptuous, and proceeds in the wrong direction. Ignorance has not light, but error follows a false one.

Charles Caleb Colton
[I was reminded of this by:

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Judiciary Committee that was hearing it, said the bill includes descriptions of features on firearms such as pistol grips on rifles and barrel shrouds that make a gun “more lethal than your average deer rifle.” That prompted laughter in the hearing room…

I also considered the following as QOTD in response but I had already used them. Anti-gun people suck up my supply of ignorance quotes at a prodigious rate:

I have news for Mr. Kline. The days of ignorance by the people at large is over. It’s not going to work this time.

The sponsors of this bill have, and spread, malinformation. It’s sometimes tough to deal with. But public laughter is a far more effective cure than anger and is better for your blood pressure too.–Joe]

Another cops with guns story

Posted on by

This is so bad I’m not sure I believe it.

Shooting into the ceiling after hours when the bar is closed?

Via Ry.

Quote of the day–Alastair Reid

Posted on by

Looking for temporary Edens is a perpetual lure certainly not confined to writers, who sooner or later discover that the islands of their existence are, in truth, the tops of their desks.

Alastair Reid
Whereabouts–Notes on Being a Foreigner, Page 73.
[The same applies to socialists, progressives, and liberals (but I repeat myself). Anti-gun people also attempt to set sail for their imaginary island oblivious to or deliberately ignoring the fact that so many similar voyages ended in genocide. And those voyages that have not yet ended in genocide did not find Eden or even a better place than the one they left. I wouldn’t mind it so much if they didn’t insist, at the point of a gun, that others join them on their own version of Voyage of the Damned.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Daniel Johnson

Posted on by

If gun people and libertarians want to reject the benefits of American society and live freely, independently and unfettered on their own, they should look for caves in Montana and, if they’re full up, Afghanistan probably has vacancies. They’ll definitely need their guns there.

Daniel Johnson
January 20, 2010
The Second Amendment Fantasy and How Americans Have Been Taken In
[I find it interesting that Johnson and his ilk cling to their beliefs after all nine of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices found that the right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right. And then they want us to leave when the facts don’t suit them. But then, what else can you expect from bigots?–Joe]

Israel and Guns

Posted on by

I know there’s a perception that in Israel, by golly, practically everyone has guns and that makes for great security.  They may have an effective military.  I don’t know.  When was the last time it was really tested?

From our friend in Israel, we get a more accurate picture of how the government treats private gun ownership there;

Friends:

Something new has been inserted into the firearms regulations here.

When your rifle (includes all .22 caliber rifles, even Olympic small bore .22s and air-guns) license comes up for renewal, if you are not an active member of the new Israeli Rifleman Association– a new branch of the Israeli Shooting Federation arisen out of the ashes of the Civil Guard Sharpshooters Association in 2009 – you must turn your rifle into the police or get a licensed firearms dealer to carry it on his “books” for you or sell it. 

1. Since no one can obtain a rifle license, you can’t find anyone entitled to buy your rifle. 

2. I know of almost no gun dealer who wants the headache, even for a fee, of having to deal with the Ministry of Interior inspectors about having “your” gun on his book.  Even though it is “kosher.”

3. Turning your rifle(s) into the police, because your license to possess (even exclusively in your home) your private and valuable property is not renewed because of an administrative decision not to renew it, is confiscation.

And they will send the anti-terror unit of the Border Police to knockdown your door and destroy your home in the process of taking your rifle and you will be arrested and carted away – the TV cameras will be rolling and the newspaper photographers will be snapping photos of the event – you can be sure that the police will invite the media.

If you are a member of the new Rifleman Association you must be “active.”  The Ministry of Interior regulations define active as you participating in a minimum of 5 national competitions per year.

GOD BLESS THE SECOND AMMENDMENT and the entire Bill Of Rights!  Things Israel lacks.

Enjoy the Shot Show.

Howard

This resembles the UK more than it does our popular ideas of what Israel is supposed to be.

Irrational fears

Posted on by

The anti-gun bigots sometimes accuse us of irrational fears. I can’t immediately think of any cases where there isn’t at least some truth to the fears expressed but I suppose the accusation could be valid in some cases.

However the anti-gun mind is overflowing with fears that are so numerous and totally lacking in a rational basis they are not only laughable but they are being slapped down in court about it:

When Tarrant County College denied a student the right to stage an empty holster protest in April 2008 at the South Campus, officials feared someone would use the event to bring a weapon on campus.

“There was certainly the expectation that someone was going to show up with a gun in a holster,” TCC interim Chancellor Erma Johnson Hadley said under cross examination during a trial in federal court Thursday.

School officials had the concern even though they had no evidence that anyone would, and U.S. District Court Judge Terry Means told her — when she couldn’t provide any proof of why she thought someone planned to do so — that free speech cannot be limited on the basis of an “undifferentiated fear.”

“I can’t see any tangible basis for this fear,” Means said.

I am sometimes not nearly so gentle with bigots like this. I insist they inhabit the real world and the leave their lunatic ravings at the funny farm. I say something like, “Facts. It’s what reality is made of. I suggest you check it out.”

Proposed ‘assault weapon’ ban in Washington state

Posted on by

I posted a little something on it yesterday and last month I told you why it is DOA. But I’ve been getting email (thanks Carl and Barron) and I decided to dig into it a little bit more.

From the bill itself (emphasis mine):

(20) “Assault weapon” means:

8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle

9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a

10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also

11 possesses any of the following:

12 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located

13 rear of the trigger;

14 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any

15 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a

16 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the

17 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of

18 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below

19 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;

20 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or

21 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a

22 telescoping stock;

23 (iv) A barrel shroud;

24 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

25 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that

26 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;

27 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine

28 at any location outside of the pistol grip;

29 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,

30 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

31 more than ten rounds of ammunition;

32 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;

33 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;

34 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an

35 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or

36 under the control of any person.

37 (21) “Detachable magazine” means a magazine, the function of which

is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing

2 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any

3 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

4 (22) “Barrel shroud” means a covering, other than a slide, that is

5 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel

6 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the

7 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

8 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension

9 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially

10 or completely encircle the barrel.

11 (23) “Muzzle brake” means a device attached to the muzzle of a

12 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

13 (24) “Muzzle compensator” means a device attached to the muzzle of

14 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.

15 (25) “Conversion kit” means any part or combination of parts

16 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault

17 weapon.

Notice that some pump action guns are considered “assault weapons” by these bigots.

Notice that the firearm has to have a detachable magazine and any of the evil characteristics. In the 1994 Federal AWB it had to have two of the additional characterisitics.

Notice that muzzle breaks and compensators are considered evil enough to make a firearm an AW. That would appear to make all Glock “C” models outlawed under this proposal.

And people like Dennis Henigan (Lethal Logic chapter 3) claim there is no slippery slope.

The line about “any tool, including a bullet or cartridge” appears to be in severe need of rewriting. I can’t make sense of it as it stands. I’m sure the Seattle bigots heard the California bigots whining about the manufactures making “California legal” firearms with a receiver that allows the magazine can be removed with a cartrige used as tool and hence complies with the law. I guess they didn’t hear about the ring worn on your finger than does the same thing.

Also of note is that the grandfathering of existing ownership is more than little harsh:

16 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was

17 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person

18 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

19 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of

20 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to

21 ensure compliance with this subsection;

22 (b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or

23 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use

24 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while

25 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of

26 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the

27 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container

28 during transport.

So in order to exercise your specific enumerate right to keep bear firearms in common use (most of my firearms would be illegal by this definition) you have to allow the sheriff to annually inspect your firearm storage–with no guidance on what is considered “safely and securely”.

A person would not be allowed to transport the firearm under any number of important situations such as to the gunsmith, a hunting trip, out of state for sale or as a gift. Let alone carry one on a daily basis as I do.

And what is it with “duly licensed firing range”? A search of the Washington State Department of Licensing website turned up nothing.

Also note that a couple of the bigots who proposed the law wrote an error filled opinion piece in the Everett Herald.

As other have said–we win because the other side is stupid. They are apparently nearly completely blinded by their own bigotry. But isn’t that nearly always the case with bigots?

Details on the Lakewood shooting

Posted on by

From the WA-CCW email list:

Coffee shop was owned by a retired Tacoma pd officer. It was considered a “safe” hangout for cops waiting to go on duty, or to stop by for a break.

Lakewood Pd (officers that were killed) was a new department recently formed.  Almost all of the deputies were hired from Peirce co Sheriffs office.  The deputies were hired from the jail. Most were sworn deputies, but had primarily worked the jail. Sounds like they had little time on road.

The four deputies were drinking coffee before shift and working on laptops with heads down. Table was approximately 15 feet from counter/check out register.

Shooter came in and smiles and acknowledges the two deputies facing the door way/entrance. They return greeting. Shooter goes up to counter like he is going to order. After stepping up to counter, he pulls semi-automatic pistol from under his coat. Shooter takes a couple of steps toward table, where the deputies are seated. Distance is now approximately 12 feet.

Shooter shoots first deputy, who is facing him across table. He is shot in head. He is killed instantly. Shooter then shoots nearest deputy, that is seated away from him, in the back of the head. He is killed instantly.  Shooter then shoots across table at third deputy, who is facing him, and misses. Fourth shot is fired and strikes third deputy in face, killing him instantly.

Last deputy is a Sgt. He stands, while drawing weapon, and charges shooter.  Table knocked over in attempt to stand. Sgt grabs shooter by coat and engages shooter. First round strikes shooter in mid-section and goes through and through. Second round is fired and strikes shooter in front pocket. Round hits keys, but penetrates about 1.5 inches into shooters thigh. Deputies carry 180 grain gold dot ammunition (unknown at this time what kind of pistol).

Shooter raises gun and shoots Sgt in face. Sgt falls to ground. Shooter kneels/bends over Sgt and does a CONTACT shot to the right eye.  Shooter then shoots Sgt in the other eye, once again a CONTACT shot.

Shooter takes Sgt’s wallet and steals credit cards and Sgt’s duty weapon.
Shooter does not rob the store or hurt or threaten anyone else.

The shooting lasted approximately 3-5 seconds for the first three deputies.
The Sgt’s encounter lasted another 5-7 seconds.

Accomplice waiting outside and gets into car. They leave the area.  Accomplice is a former cell mate he did time with in Arkansas prison.

Federal agents track shooter by cellphone “pinging” to locate phone/area.  Five more additional accomplices help shooter with medical issues, food, money ect. Feds find driver and get the name of shooter.  All accomplices are arrested and general area where shooter is headed is found out.

Tuesday approximately 3:00 a.m. shooter turns off phone and takes battery out, so that Feds can no longer track phone.

Short time later, Peirce county deputy checks 10-46 abandoned car. Car running with lights on and drivers door open.

As Deputy was walking back to squad he sees movement from behind squad.  Once he clears his headlights, which were blinding him, he sees shooter recognizes him. Shooter is crouching behind squad now. Deputy orders him to ground and other commands. Shooter attempts to draw weapon and to run.  Deputy fires five rounds. Three strike the shooter. Shooter falls to ground.  Deputy covers shooter until back up arrives. Unknown how long this took.  Once back up on scene, shooter is cuffed. He is dead at this point.

Deputies find slain Sgt’s duty weapon on shooter. The round recovered from the shooters body is traced to the Sgt’s weapon, confirming the Sgt shot the shooter.

Some lessons to learn from our fallen brothers.

1. Just because you are “off duty” or in a “safe” restaurant, keep your head up and your eyes and ears open.
2. Do not sit close to the register or other focal point (entrance doors, bathrooms, hallways ect). Try to sit where you can scan the area.

3. Leave devices that distract you, like laptops,ect in the car. Do your reports and other things that take your mind off your safety, at post or far away from the public.
4. Even at lunch or break, don’t let your guard down. You should always be in condition yellow.
5. Keep your distance. Take those lateral steps or diagonal steps and move. It is a lot harder for the bad guy to shoot a moving target, let alone alot of distance.
6. Each time you train, train as if your life depends on it.

When the time comes, you will not arise to the occasion and be a hero, you will fall to you level of your training effort and perform at that level.  I do not think they could have done anything different after the contact, do your best at whatever training you attend. Lose the mentality of “It will never happen to me” and train as you wish to fight, fight like you train.

There also is speculation that the “abandoned car” was a trap enable another police killing.

People get all wound up about the guy using a gun to kill. I think fewer lives were taken and he was caught because he did use a gun. In this situation walking in with a lite road flare in your hip pocket and a five gallon bucket of gasoline to soak them down with would have been just as effective and probably less risky for the murderer.

Even with all the shooting I have done and being able to put aimed shots in a stationary man sized target 10 feet away at the rate of about five per second I wouldn’t take on four people, all armed, in a situation like that. It’s just too risky. Had they been in the middle of an empty parking lot and I was concealed 500 yards away with a scoped rifle then maybe the risk would be acceptable to use a gun.

Quote of the day–Marshall McLuhan

Posted on by

I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.

Marshall McLuhan
[This applies to many things. Once you believe the earth is round it is pretty easy to prove it. Once you believe it is possible to defend yourself with a firearm you see how it can be done and is easily a part of your everyday life.

The risk is that once you believe something you may see things that are not there. For example, if you believe everyone is watching you then you can probably find sufficient evidence to maintain that belief. If you believe guns are only useful for murder then you can find evidence to maintain that belief. The same goes for man caused global warming (or cooling) and the benefits of socialism.

The solution to the dilemma is to understand how to distinguish truth from falsity detached from all belief and emotion. I’m saddened to report this appears to be much more difficult than it seems and far, far too rare.–Joe]

Brady Center needs money

Posted on by

As Sebastian noted the Brady Center has been almost shrill in it’s requests for money. Since that post there have been even more requests. Here is the complete list so far:

  • 7:20 AM Dec 17th: Please consider a year-end, tax-deductible gift to the Brady Campaign’s sister organization, the Brady Center. Thanks!
  • 9:49 AM Dec 28th: Be charitable and donate to the Brady CENTER to save on taxes for this year!
  • 11:32 AM Dec 28th: Don’t forget to consider a tax-deductible year-end gift to the Brady Center! Now is the time.
  • 9:41 AM Dec 29th: December 31 is the end of tax year. Click here to give a tax deductible gift to help make America safer.
  • 1:16 PM Dec 29th: Build safer communities and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Make a tax-deductible gift today.
  • 8:03 AM (PST) Dec 30th: Help protect families and communities from gun violence. Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution today.
  • 11:02 AM (PST) Dec 30th: Want health care reform? End gun violence today. Make a tax-deductible gift today.
  • 2:31 PM (PST) Dec 30th: Ending gun violence begins with you. Click here to make a tax-deductible gift today.
  • 8:05 AM (PST) Dec 31st: Help Brady reduce gun violence & reduce the $100 Billion in Tax Dollars spent every year to treat gun victims. Give today.
  • 11:02 AM (PST) Dec 31st: We all pay for gun violence in lost lives and higher taxes. Click here to make a tax-deductible gift today.
  • 3:02 PM (PST) Dec 31st: It takes just two words to fight gun violence…Give today.
  • 8:02 AM (PST) Jan 1st: Once the trigger is pulled, it’s too late…Give today and protect tomorrow.
  • 11:01 AM (PST) Jan 1st: It takes more than words to fight gun violence. Give today.
  • 3:01 PM (PST) Jan 1st: Help us be the example to the world that we should be…Give today to end gun violence.
  • 8:01 AM (PST) Jan 2: With great freedom comes great responsibility…Give today to end gun violence.
  • 11:01 AM (PST Jan 2: Your support helps us be the centralized information source for news related to gun legislation. Give today.
  • 3:00 PM (PST) Jan 2: Donors are the most powerful force to stop gun violence. Give today.

In an effort get even more donations for them I present the following pleas for money for the Brady Campaign:

And if that doesn’t convince you of the righteousness of the Brady cause this should provide the final proof:

Of course what it convinced me of is that any money donated would end up buying this kid more drugs.

[H/T to Dave Workman for the videos.]

Quote of the day–Rev. Jerry Falwell

Posted on by

The argument that making contraceptives available to young people would prevent teen pregnancies is ridiculous. That’s like offering a cookbook as a cure to people who are trying to lose weight.

Rev. Jerry Falwell
[I don’t have to point out the parallel to those that don’t want children taught gun safety–do I?–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ralph Fascitelli

Posted on by

These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that’s someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.

Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
[“Weapons of war”? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.

If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an “assault weapon” by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.

Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?

“Animal assassin”? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?

A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an “animal assassin”? No wonder their side is losing. They can’t make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.

Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It’s another case of Crap for Brains.–Joe]

They don’t realize they already lost this one

Posted on by

Some ignorant lawmakers (I repeat myself) announced they are going to attempt banning “assault weapons” in Washington State:

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

…

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned

Sorry guys. That horse has already left the barn.

Do you remember that little phrase “in common use” phrased in the Heller decision?

Emphasis in the following is mine.

On page 2:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

…

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

On page 52:

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

On page 55:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

For the clueless bigots in Seattle what that means is that if you managed to get your proposed law passed the U.S. Supreme Court, if not the Washington State courts will overturn it. You know why? Because Obama was elected.

What? Yeah, you read that right.

When Obama won the election the U.S. population went on a gun buying spree the likes of which has never been seen before. The guns they bought were the very guns that those Seattle bigots want to ban. If they weren’t already considered “in common use” before Obama’s victory they sure are now.

And because of the delay from when a law is first proposed until the time it can become the law of the land anytime some lawmaker starts having the power to ban a particular type of gun the people will have put that gun into “common use” and thus render the law stillborn.

But if those knuckleheads want to waste their time on harassing activities I suppose that is better than some of the other things they might try.

[H/T to Chet at work and Ry for the pointer to the article.]

Update: Another article with video taken at the gun range where I go when in the Seattle area. And still another article which quotes Washington State AG Rob McKenna as saying, “If this bill is not even going to get a hearing, it is not worth a lot of energy”.

Quote of the day–Larry Summers

Posted on by

Here is what I think they don’t get…It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse.

…

And they don’t get in some cases that they wouldn’t be where they are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are paying today, if their government hadn’t taken extraordinary actions.

Larry Summers
December 13, 2009
White House economic adviser referring to the banking industry. He also chairs the National Economic Council.
White House Lashes Out at Bankers
[In the first sentence he hopes you won’t get it was Federal regulations which required irresponsible risk-taking. In the second sentence he hints that he knows this is true and that the U.S. government rewarded that same behavior.

If you think the government knows what it is doing in terms of the economy then you need to do more reading or if pictures and minimal words are all you are up for then check this out (via Linoge and John Lott):

–Joe]

They want this to be illegal

Posted on by

The TSA document I mentioned yesterday has raised quite a stir (via an IM from son James). They want to make it illegal to post the document.

This reminds me of a story about a psychology professor who asked his students to write down on a slip of paper and put in an box short phrases marketers had used that made the students one to buy a product. He then drew them out of the box to discuss them. The first one out of the box was “Under 17 not admitted without parent or guardian.”

They don’t want people to post it and they don’t want you to have it. What do you think that is going to accomplish?

Yeah, I thought so too.

Get it here if you don’t already have a copy.