Nice work!
We often hear from anti-gun people things like:
It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles.
Or this:
If you’re someone who honestly believes that you can stage an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States government, you’re too mentally unstable to own guns.
Is it asking too much for these people to learn something from the number of police being shot up in Dallas? ONE guy murdered five armed police officers and wounded several others in the span of a few minutes. He didn’t make it out alive, but still there are some things that could be learned here.
How many “gun nuts” would it take to overthrow, or at least completely remove the majority of those in control of, a small city government they thought was corrupt? Or a large city government? Or a state government?
Think about the resources tied up for a month when the two D.C. snipers were active. Think about the time and number of police it took to find, surround, and finish off the one rogue police officer in Los Angles a few years ago.
Multiple that by, picking a number, 3% of the number of gun owners in the U.S. (about 100 million). For those anti-gun people who may be arithmetic challenged that is 3,000,000. And 3,000,000 is much, much, larger than one or two. And there is a synergy with larger numbers that cause a systemic failure such that it would far worse than just 3,000,000 times the effect of one or two acting on their own. Nearly all of those 3% would do virtually nothing more than show up, look around, shrug, and talk among themselves about the replacement government to put in place.
Or looking at it another way, think about what might happen if ISIS, with a few thousand fanatics, decided to put together an ongoing, diversified, guerilla attack against us with a dozen or so people per team.* The evidence supplied in Dallas demonstrates our police would not do well. The military doesn’t have enough people to protect every local government or vulnerable target. It would require some percentage, maybe 3%, of U.S. gun owners to help defend our homeland—to protect “the security of a free state”.
See also my previous post on the topic, Boots on the ground.
But don’t expect anti-gun people to change their story. They believe what they want to believe. Facts are apparently not something within their domain of expertise. They work more with insults.
* I’ve seen some of the training tapes our military found in the caves of Afghanistan. One of those was about ambushing and killing police officers.
What liberated us? It might have been the printing press, or capitalism, or the sailing ship. But it might have been the gun. And if it was the gun that liberated us, then we should be very worried. Because when the Age of the Gun ends, the age of freedom and dignity and equality that much of humanity now enjoys may turn out to have been a bizarre, temporary aberration.
Noah Smith
March 11, 2014
Drones will cause an upheaval of society like we haven’t seen in 700 years
[We all know that the gun is civilization so that condition is met, but it’s not entirely clear to me that drones will eliminate the power of the gun. And drones are in the hands of private citizens as well as the government so it’s not a complete loss of power by the individual even if drones somehow make guns essentially obsolete.
But it is something to think about and I think a very real concern. Especially since the government is ahead of the curve some and is requiring registration of drones in this country. They missed the window of opportunity on registration of guns but they nailed it on drones.—Joe]
Via a tweet from the NRA we have this:
Among Democrats, 20 percent said all 11 guns should be illegal, while 15 percent of Republicans said they should all be legal.
One of the guns was clearly a flare gun and marked as such. A flare gun!
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns. One out of five Democrats want it to be illegal to own a hunting rifle, a common shotgun, or even a flare gun.
Sometimes information can move in two different directions on the same communication link. This may mean you can utilize your enemies communication channel for your own purposes.
I received this via email:
Hey Joe,
I hope you don’t mind me contacting you. I came across a website through the magazine The Week. The website is called goodbyegunstocks.com. Their goal is to drive people to funds that contain little or no gun related stocks. I just used it to discover one of my funds was 0% gun stocks, I then proceeded to use the same website to find another fund that was more heavily invested in gun stocks and transferred a chunk of money to that one.
I don’t have the reach that bloggers like yourself have so I thought I would alert you to this. Wouldn’t it be great if we could co-opt this into a way to direct MORE money to gun friendly business?
Just a thought.
Thanks
Sam
As I watched that first debate, and I heard Hillary Clinton answer the question about her enemies, my mouth dropped to the floor. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard from someone who wants to lead this country. She just called 5 million law-abiding Americans her enemy, and she was proud of it! Of all the atrocities going on in the world, we are what she sees as an enemy?
In this day and age, when we are constantly being lectured on “acceptance” and “tolerance” of people who don’t look or act like us, how is it acceptable for a presidential candidate to call out gun owners as enemies? This seems like textbook bullying tactics—maybe worse. Her comments segregate, demonize, blame, and suggest that we don’t have common sense if we disagree with what she and her anti-Second Amendment cronies define as “common-sense gun control.”
Dianna Muller
22-year Tulsa Police Department veteran and professional 3-gun world champion.
July 6, 2016
Hillary’s Enemies List: Dianna Muller
[Of course the NRA and gun owners are at the top of her enemies list. We are in a 5th or 6th Generation War. We must recognize this and respond accordingly or we will be defeated and probably handled just as leftist have treated their defeated enemies in the past.—Joe]
There is even a bot that wants to take your guns:
This application scrapes a website for recent gun crime in America. It’ll then post it to the provided twitter account. Please put an end to guns and an end to the violence.
H/T Say Uncle.
Oh, the irony. “A professor at the Southern State Community College (SSCC) in Ohio is currently under investigation for threatening to shoot up the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia and Washington lobbyists in order to increase support for anti-gun legislation.”
His FB post read, in part :
“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors.
This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists.
Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons.”
Not sure how someone with this tenuous a grasp of reality manages to become an adjunct prof, but there you have it. And while I’m sure that if he did do that, he might see some action on weapons, but I’m not so sure it would be legislative.
Don’t ever let them tell you nobody wants to take your guns.
The truth is quite simple. IslamoNazi ideology is spreading like a cancer across the globe. The only way to defeat this scourge is on the battlefield, and through effective counter propaganda.
America accomplished these twin goals in World War II — by reducing Germany and Japan to ashes. Half-measures are doomed to failure. The only language radical Islam understands is the language of brute power.
And apparently, the only language the Democrats understand is Orwellian Newspeak.
Robert J. Avrech
June 21, 2016
Democrats Believe Orlando Massacre is America’s Fault
[While I agree with most of this there is a difference between WW II and now. We are now in a 4th generation style war which is primarily composed of violent non-state actors instead of nation states. Our response to the asymmetric war we are in must be different than that of WW II. My hypothesis is that the best response will involve an increase in the non-state actors on our side as well as our traditional military forces. My vision of our non-state actors are private citizens able and willing to deliver firepower to the enemy in the first few seconds of an attack.
Defenseless innocent people are an invitation to attack. Politicians who disarm people via “gun-free zones” should be considered guilty of treason in the time of war and treated as such.—Joe]
I was reviewing a research paper today and found some interesting stuff. For background I present part of their conclusion:
Seventy-nine percent (220/279) of the femicide victims aged 18 to 50 years and 70% of the 307 total femicide cases were physically abused before their deaths by the same intimate partner who killed them, in comparison with 10% of the pool of eligible control women. Thus, our first premise, that physical violence against the victim is the primary risk factor for intimate partner femicide, was upheld. The purpose of this study, however, was to determine the risk factors that, over and above previous intimate partner violence, are associated with femicide within a sample of battered women. Our analysis demonstrated that a combination of the most commonly identified risk factors for homicide, in conjunction with characteristics specific to violent intimate relationships, predicted intimate partner femicide risks.
Now, pulling some selected data from the body of the report we get some very interesting, at least to me, information.
Given that a woman was in a physically abusive relationship, the next highest risk factor was the abusers employment status. If the abuser was unemployed the Odds Ratio (OR) was 5.09 that he would murder her compared to someone who was employed in the population of abusers. But if he had a college education (vs. a high school education) the OR dropped to 0.31 (over three times less likely to murder than someone who only had a high school education).
If the abuser used illicit drugs the OR = 4.76. Excessive alcohol use was not associated with an increased risk.
If they lived apart and the female “had sole access to a firearm”* the OR dropped to 0.22. Yes, as expected, if a woman has access to a gun she is four to five times less likely to be murdered by her abusive intimate partner who does not live with her than if she doesn’t have access to a gun.
If the abuser has access to a gun then the OR is 7.59.
If the abuser had threatening behaviors and stalking was involved the OR were as follows:
Guess which statistic Mother Jones magazine pulled from this paper for “Myth #7: Guns make women safer.” I’ll give you a hint. It wasn’t the one which showed a woman was four to five times less likely to be murdered if she has access to a gun.
They said:
A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
This doesn’t tell the story that the woman is already in a physically abusive relationship. And it leaves out the part about her having access to a gun increases her safety by a large factor.
As usual, they have to lie to have any hope of winning.
* I’m not exactly sure what “sole” access means in this context. My best guess is that it means that the abuse victim has access to a gun and the abuser does not.
I always find it ironic when people say we should limit the ammunition capacity of the guns we use against criminals and tyrants to the same capacity as those we use for hunting. We limit the capacity of hunting guns in order to ensure that we have game to hunt in the future. Are they trying to ensure we will always have criminals and tyrants?
Bill Twist
July 5, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Paul Joslin
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Members of the NRA, other gun owners, including myself, and other non-gun-owning citizens all agree that a human should not use an assault rifle or other automatic weapons to hunt down and kill a deer or other game. We also all agree that a human should not use such weapons to hunt down and kill another human.
Since there is nothing else to kill, can’t we all now agree that we can do without such weapons without contravening the Second Amendment?
Paul Joslin
July 1, 2016
We can do without assault weapons
[Since Mr. Joslin is under the delusion that he has read the minds of all citizens in this country and simultaneously doesn’t not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment I’ll let Federal Judge Kozinski spell it out for those who aren’t quite as delusional.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.
Hence, under a doomsday situation we could, should, and would use assault rifles and fully automatic weapons to hunt down and kill those humans who would enslave us. And therefore such weapons are not only protected by the Second Amendment, the use of those weapons under those circumstances are the primarily purpose of the Second Amendment.—Joe]
From Stephanie:
Remember Terilyn Reber from about 10 days ago? My blog post about the Facebook discussion I had with her was shared on Facebook 131 times and was viewed by thousands of people making it one of my most popular blog posts ever.
Today I received an email indicating I had been tagged on Facebook by Terilyn’s older sister, Bev Reber:
So it’s just sad that social media breeds trolls and even sadder when said troll escalates to a cyber bully. Feed ’em fish heads!! Their world is small. Joe Huffman this is for you.
Bev Reber
July 4 at 11:32am
I clicked on the link in the email to see the post and had planned to respond with:
I understand if you are just supporting your sister who’s feelings may have been hurt. If you want to just drop this with the understanding that you need to be loyal to her I’m fine with that I and won’t say anything further. But if you really believe what you said about me then you aren’t aware of facts and I’ll be happy to explain them to you. Your choice.
But the link came up with the following message:
Sorry, this content isn’t available right now
The link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you’re not in.
I did a search for her on Facebook and she doesn’t even show up. After logging in with a different account I easily found her.
Ahhh yes…. Both sisters are strong advocates of reasoned discourse.
Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place.
David Smalley
June 25, 2016
Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Smalley quotes Mother Jones as his definitive source of information. This magazine article claims have been refuted countless times. Here and here and here are a few examples.—Joe]
From Stephanie:
Once again, we have a high profile shooting, and once again, the hysteria is out in force.
Let’s start with some facts: If you don’t shoot, or have only occasionally shot on a range, then your opinion on how useful an armed respondent would be is garbage. If you don’t drive a car, you aren’t qualified to tell professional drivers what they should have done in an accident.
Seriously, shut up, you’re an idiot.
Michael Z. Williamson
June 15, 2016
After An Attack: Understanding the Fear
[He continues with an enumeration and examination of the possible outcomes. It’s a very clear and logical analysis which demonstrates there is significant chance of a big upside and very little, if any, chance of a downside to people having guns to defend themselves in a mass shooting situation.—Joe]
Either you match a dispersed threat with a dispersed capability to respond, or you lose…
Harry Schell
June 16, 2016
Comment to Decentralized response to decentralized threat.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
If our politicians had half a brain, combined, they’d STOP going after guns . . .
. . . and start going after munition. Regulating the amount and tracking of ammunition sold, across the country, would be a neat little step. Heck, perscritions get only so many pills. Why not cap Ammo? And if we force all shell casings to be stamped, even the home brew folks (which even the NRA said accounts for a small percentage) would be accountable. Get ranges and back yard nuts to police their brass and turn in casings to get new ones, voila, environmentally responsible AND a built in tracking.
windowlickers
June 27, 2016
Comment to Gun control a high priority for N.J. lawmakers today
[Simple solutions from simple minds. And total crap for brains or else a troll.
“…force all shell casings to be stamped…”? With what? And then what? And people ignore you? And then what? And what about the billions of “unstamped rounds” already in private possession?
This person has to be a troll, right?—Joe]
Making good people helpless will not make bad people harmless.
TisReality
June 27, 2016
Comment to Gun control a high priority for N.J. lawmakers today
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
