YEP>>>RT”@linoge_wotc: Markley’s Law. @JoeHuffman RT @ToConservatives I spoke the truth. #GunFetishClowns #UniteBlue pic.twitter.com/swc978c4HR“
Kathy White @katbeewhite
Tweeted May 31, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via Linoge.
And Ms. White didn’t even bother to look up Markley’s Law even though it was mentioned in the quote she retweeted. One has to conclude she has crap for brains as well as a fixation on the size of men’s genitals.—Joe]
Then why are shooting rates among people under the same laws are so disparate?
Look at the Chicago rates discussed in a recently released paper.
To begin with, the dramatic disparities the rates of nonfatal gunshot injury:
overall it’s 46.5 per 100,000 for the city as a whole from 2006-2012.
It’s 1.62 per 100,000 for whites; 28.72 for Hispanics, and 112.83 for blacks.
For all males, it’s 44.68 per 100,000; 239.77 for black males, and for black males from 18-34 it’s 599.65.
All these people are living under the same gun laws, economic system, and mayor. Yet, the rates at which guns are used illegally vary hugely. I’m thinking maybe, just maybe, it’s something other than guns.
After retweeting this post of mine Keri L (@ikeriover) tweeted this:
The crazy is STRONG in the pro-gun world!
— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014
My post pointed out she was either incapable of comprehensive reading or that she was imagining I wrote something completely different from what I actually did. And she calls me crazy?
Another thread of interest is this:
you can get prosecuted for leaving your children in the car alone, but not if you leave a loaded gun for them to find? #NotOneMore
— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014
@ikeriover Not true in most states. Reckless endangerment laws exist and are used.
— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014
@JoeHuffman actually this is a true story.http://t.co/EE1tzMnJDX
— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014
@JoeHuffman you are a bully & not so surprising with your crazy pro-gun stance. I am sure you ‘quote me” &yourcrazy followers will join in.
— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014
@ikeriover I was referring to the part about not being prosecutable for leaving a loaded gun accessible to kids.
— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014
As part of this same thread she also said, “You are a monster.” But that tweet has been deleted.
These people have mental problems. There is no other explanation.
Update for clarification: In the comments there is some confusion about who said what which led to the confrontation between Keri L. and I. Here is more of the thread:
A government that disarms you:
Via email from JoeyD Sr.
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), together with Representative Lois Capps (D-CA-Santa Barbara), are pushing legislation to allow families to petition a court to bar a “dangerous” individual from buying a gun and confiscate any guns said individual owns.
…
The legislation comes in response to Elliot Rodger’s May 23 attacks in which he stabbed three people to death, shot and killed three others, then tried to kill four more by running them down with his car.
Neither Senator nor Capps addressed the confiscation of knives or automobiles.
AWR Hawkins
June 6, 2014
Boxer, Feinstein, Capps Introduce Firearm Confiscation Legislation
[From Mitchel M. on the the gun email list at work.—Joe]
You would think they would know better:
A level 3 sex offender was arrested after he kidnapped a little girl from a Beacon Hill Park. On 6/5/14, just shortly before 7:00 p.m., the complainant called and stated that a male tried to “touch his little girl”. The complainant went on to say that the suspect was surrounded by people in the 9300 block of Carkeek Dr S. Officers quickly arrived and found 3 people beating one male, who was down on the ground.
I sort of understood the protective instincts of parents for their offspring before I had kids. You know you should never get between a mother bear and her cubs so probably there is something similar with people.
But after they were born, it’s like, “OMG! If you try to harm one of my kids you have a death wish! You would rather have a momma bear chasing you than me because she isn’t as smart in the chase, she isn’t as persistent in the hunt, and she isn’t as creative when she catches you.”
If child kidnapping had a high risk of a nearly immediate beating and/or being shot it probably would reduce the incidence more than the threat of an arrest, prison sentence and/or GPS tracking device.
Here’s something for the leftists who really want to do what they can to prevent the next one of these events from happening. How about you all stop with your self-righteous crap about how the NRA has blood on its hands when your side will all but literally stand on the bodies of dead children to politicize any tragedy just because they know it’s the only damn way they’ll ever get any movement on guns.
Accept it. It’s a lost cause for you. If you couldn’t get a change in gun laws like you wanted after Newtown, you’re not going to get it. It’s just not going to happen.
Sarah A. Hoyt
May 30, 2014
Beyond the violence -Tom Knighton
[Once they stop blaming us for things we didn’t do then maybe we can talk about potential solutions to problems we all want solved.—Joe]
I don’t even know what this means:
This is some sort of crazy talk. These people are out of their minds and yet the media listens to them? If anything they should use them as an example of people with mental health issues.
Gun nuts are domestic terrorists, and I have no patience or sympathy for domestic terrorists who want to trample the rights of the rest of us, just so they can pretend they are Wyatt and Morgan Earp.
alyce7
May 29, 2014
Comment to Memo to gun-control advocates: Even Elliot Rodger believed guns would have deterred him
[And just what do you suppose alyce7 thinks should be done with “domestic terrorists” like me and you?
Keep your guard up. The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from people like them.—Joe]
The 10-round limit is a reasonable common sense restriction that should be adopted nationwide. I think, myself, that the 10 round limit is way too liberal. First, you could only hunt in most jurisdictions with 5 rounds in a magazine, so a more reasonable restriction would be a 5-round magazine not a 10. Additionally, since all repeating firearms and handguns are considered terrorist grade weapons, the American Civilian should be regimented to single shot drop breach long guns and break in half single shot shotguns
Italian Rose
May 30, 2014
Comment to The history of magazines holding 11 or more rounds: Amicus brief in 9th Circuit
[We’ve seen the words of this fruitcake before (and here and here). Even though a case could be made for it I can’t believe this is sarcasm. Apparently they have no respect for the Bill of Rights or basic moral principles.
And just what do they think should be done with all the existing guns in private hands that don’t conform to their tyrannical view? Don’t let anyone tell you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]
A despairing parent gets wide latitude. But the NRA didn’t kill young Chris. Elliott Rodger did.
Paul M. Barrett
May 27, 2014
Santa Barbara Massacre Defies Gun Control, Mental Health Proposals: 4 Blunt Points
[That’s pretty much how I feel about the father of one of the victims as well. I’m not comfortable being critical of his inflammatory and erroneous statements when he is half-crazy with grief. If he keeps it up for a month or two then correcting him in a more firm manner becomes appropriate.—Joe]
My former apartment manager, Mila, and I used to talk about guns and stuff. She was very interested but her boyfriend was really opposed to it and so she never took me up on my offers to take her to the range. I moved last September and hadn’t had any contact with her since then. But one of the last things I told her was to let me know if she ever wanted to go shooting. She had broke up with the guy and gotten back together a few times so I wasn’t too surprised when last week she sent me a text message asking if I was still into guns and if I would take her and her new boyfriend, Tim, shooting.
Of course.
Her new boyfriend is “really into guns” and even gave her son a 9mm handgun for his 13th birthday. He hasn’t had but just the most fundamental safety training and he was all for her getting some training from someone with formal training experience. So the three of us went to the range today.
I spent a few minutes with a plastic training gun to teach grip, stanch, sight picture, and the safety rules. Then we went into the range and started with a semi-auto .22. She had problems with the sight alignment and was shooting high and to the left, but with a pretty good group. I let her shoot a couple magazines and then worked with her on sight picture. On the second target things started clicking for her and she did well:
Then it was on to the .22 revolver.
And then the STI Eagle in .40 S&W.
She liked the .40 the best.
She was very enthusiastic and kept saying again and again how much fun this was. She said she wants to get a gun now and that she has a girl friend that has a gun and that I need to go to the range with both of them and teach her too.
Her boyfriend was in the booth next to us and was shooting his .45. He is cross-eye dominate and we talked about how to deal with that. He tried shooting weak handed, moving his head over to get better alignment, and just closing his dominate eye. Closing the dominate eye worked best for him. He also had numerous rounds that failed to fire. He showed me the cartridges and they had very light primer strikes. I suggested that the next time he cleans the gun that he clean and lubricate the firing pin and firing pin channel and then try it again.
We then went out to lunch. I invited Barb and she met us and we all had lunch together.
This is how we win the culture war. The anti-gun people don’t have anything to compete with what we have to offer.
No private individual must not be in possession of ANY gun ever, only those who are to protect us and are trained, with very few exceptions like rifles only (always locked up and registered for hunting & large farms that can prove they are needed to protect their cattle or.? So, absolutely no guns will mean a drastically reduced deaths. Any one who thinks contrary does not respect life. Period! Is mentally disturbed & a murderer!!!
Hans vlasveld
May 29, 2014
Comment to 7 Lies We Need to Stop Telling About Gun Control in America
[Got that? If anyone doesn’t think as he does about the right to keep and bear arms they are mentally disturbed and a murderer.
So what do you suppose he thinks should be done with us? It’s got to be one of the psych ward, prison, or execution, right? So, is he going to be taking point on the visit to my house?—Joe]
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy there is a post about the history of magazines with greater than ten rounds capacity. Very short version: The 9th Circuit court has a case challenging the greater than ten round magazine ban, called Fyock v. Sunnyvale. David Kopel co-authored an amicus brief that gives the history of such things. Many interesting factoids for gun hardware geeks to appreciate, and many things for gun-rights people in general. Many things I knew, many more I didn’t. Worth a read.
It’s another good case to watch.
As anyone who has gone through the process to legally obtain a firearm in Massachusetts knows, there is no dearth of existing laws that regulate the sale, purchase and transfer of firearms. The question should be what gun control laws should be repealed, NOT enacted.
NRA-ILA
May 30, 2014
Massachusetts: House Speaker Introduces Sweeping Gun Control Legislation
[Emphasis in the original.
“The question that should be” asked is applicable to all the states as well as the Federal Government.
Of the simple answers the most correct one is, “All of them.”—Joe]
As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill.
Scott Martelle
May 28, 2014
You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
[H/T to Sebastian.
Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns. This is from the Los Angles Times’ Opinion Staff.
He dismisses the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with:
One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership outweigh any 2nd Amendment pretense to the right to own guns.
He dismisses self-defense with:
Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.
This is even though his cited source, Paul Barrett, says the lower limit on estimated defensive gun use in the U.S. is about 100,000/year which exceeds the murders by a factor of ten.
It is apparently beyond his ability to accept the realities of the Supreme Court ruling that firearm in common use, and handguns in particular are protected. This is in the ruling he linked to! Then after realizing numbers and simple arithmetic are apparently beyond his grasp we could suggest he look to the “success” of banning things which have far less benefit and probably more harm, such as recreational drugs. How did the prohibition of alcohol work out? And the continuing ban of hardcore recreational drugs? Maybe he would like to extend the bans of those things harmful to other things such as tobacco? How does he think that would turn out? We already have a large black market in cigarettes because of the high taxes on them.
But we shouldn’t bother speculating. He obviously has crap for brains and is incapable of extrapolating past the end of his nose.—Joe]
Seattle police are suing the DOJ, The City of Seattle, Seattle Mayor, Seattle Chief of Police, and others about restrictions on their use of force and the right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment:
When a police officer is confronted with threatening behavior, he or she has the fundamental, individual right of self-defense under the Second Amendment, consistent with every other citizen, to protect himself or herself, and others, from apparent and immediate harm. As the Court has long recognized, the rules that define and determine self-defense are of universal application and are not affected by the character of a person’s employment.
This could be far more interesting than one might first guess. If the courts accept this argument then not only is the right to carry in public by private citizens bolstered but the rights of people to carry while at work is given support as well.
H/T to Dave Workman. See also the Seattle PI article.
There is no question it will be the smartest, toughest regulation on gun stores in the country. It’s designed to prevent gun trafficking and illegal sales in these stores.
Janey Rountree
Chicago mayor’s deputy chief of staff for public safety
May 28, 2014
Chicago mayor pushes plan requiring all gun sales to be videotaped
[I don’t care what it is “designed to prevent”. I care about results. The city of Chicago could pass a law requiring chastity belts for all women which was “designed to prevent” prostitution and unwanted pregnancy but that doesn’t mean it would achieve the desired goal or be constitutional.
For decades the city banned handguns and yet the cops confiscated about 7,000 guns a year. So how is the plan for videotaping the sales, limiting sales to about 0.5% of the city’s geographic area, and limiting sales to one per month per buyer going to be measurably better than the way gun stores are regulated in the more free states?
If they think it will be so successful then why don’t they place the same restrictions on alcohol and tobacco sales to prevent them from getting in the hands of minors. Or the sales of illegal recreational drugs? Oh, yeah. Those are even more tightly regulated yet any high school dropout can get anything they want within a few minutes, 24/7, from all the “unlicensed” drug dealers.
This law is not “smart”. It’s crap for brains stupid. It’s unconstitutional. And those that voted for it should be prosecuted.—Joe]
The NRA is primarily in it for money and profit, and have demonstrated that they don’t give a SH about you and your family. They are not protecting your gun rights to have a gun (because no one is trying to ban all guns) – they are protecting THEIR PROFITS. Keep being ignorant and voting with them, and see how far it gets you . . .
reality
May 26, 2014
Comment to Shooter’s rage at women too familiar in America
[“reality” appears to be living in an alternate reality because in my universe the NRA is a nonprofit organization, does a lot to protect our right to keep and bear arms, and there are a lot of people who want to ban all guns.
I wonder what color the sky is in their world.—Joe]
It seems the hot shots of Come and Take It Austin took umbrage to a SXSW panel about social media and gun control. With toddlers in tow, they marched down Sixth Street last Saturday waving flags and revolvers.
…
Still, those of you who were actually invited to our city’s annual party should know that this isn’t exactly everyday behavior. It is true that Texans do enjoy firepower. It is de rigueur for GOP politicians to be photographed at firing ranges, and even our bright liberal beacon Sen. Wendy Davis supports open-carry laws. But in Austin, most of us are content to keep our phallic symbols in our pants.
Without wading into the larger gun-control debate, these kinds of protests are not about the concept of “liberty” that Infowars slings around like a short-order cook. They are about display and braggadocio.
Brandon Watson
March 12, 2014
No, Armed Protests Are Not Normal in Austin
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
H/T to TriggerFinger for the email.—Joe]