Quote of the day—Anonymous St. Louis Woman

I told you if you came back, I was gonna kill you.

Anonymous St. Louis Woman
January 2012
Self-defense shootings to get closer scrutiny
[And she did kill him. She will not be charged.

From reading the article I am strongly inclined to conclude that while her actions were probably within the letter of the law she violated the spirit of the law, and acted immorally.

On the other hand if the backstory been that it was my daughter and she had been beaten by him for years (from the story above this is not known to be true), finally kicked him out, and had a restraining order against him at the time he broke in I would have been strongly inclined to handle it differently. Rather than giving the gun to the woman as the guy in this case did I would have had a strong urge to tell her, “I can shoot better than you. Close your eyes and plug your ears.” Then I would have done my best to empty the gun into him before he dropped to the floor. At close range 18+1 rounds should take on the order of 3.8 seconds and leave a hole on the back side that you could hide a basketball in.

Then the daughter would call the cops (she is the one still be able to hear) and tells them nothing but there has been a shooting and they should send an ambulance. Then she would then call a lawyer who will answer all questions from the police.

Regardless of what really happened in the case above it appears to me this woman made some serious errors. Others should learn from those mistakes.—Joe]

This is what they think of self defense

Via email from Brennan at work we get this story from “an award-winning writer”. As Brennan pointed out, “Like all good gun-grabbers the writer knows that there is no such thing as a justified shooting, only ‘extreme self-defense tactics’, ‘settling scores’, ‘vigilantes’ etc.”

Here is a sample:

What didn’t grab the headlines, though, was that more citizens are settling their own scores with criminals.

The unabated crime spree even has more residents resorting to extreme self-defense tactics. In 2011, Detroit reported 34 justifiable homicides, according to Fox2 News Reporter Charlie LeDuff – a whopping 80 percent increase over the previous year.

This rush to arm and self-administer justice would not be encouraged or condoned under normal circumstances. But in the current lawless environment, it is easy to believe these options have broad public support.

Many residents are apt to nod their heads in approval, glorifying potential victims who get off the first deadly shot against a predator. More than a dangerous precedent for society…

The chief’s optimistic crime report does little to restore public confidence in his less than vigilant crime-fighting commitment. So don’t be surprised that frightened, increasingly vigilante-minded residents continue to send the message to City Hall that safe neighborhoods will be restored by any means necessary.

In the comments Sean Sorrentino does an awesome job concluding with, “The writer may be an award winner, but he is clearly incapable of the most basic distinctions between lawful self defense and murder. No one who is that confused should be taken seriously.”

But what really drew my attention in articles was this:

Protection of human life and safety and making neighborhoods safe is the first duty of government.

As pointed out by Frank Clarke in the comments, “Not according to scores (if not hundreds) of cases from every circuit as well as SCOTUS. The police have NO duty to protect any individual before the fact of crime. Their duty is to draw a chalk line around your supine form.”

Furthermore this “award-winning writer” (I keep thinking of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead when I read this line) should be encouraged to look up the dates of when cities first hired full time police officers and compare those dates to when we first had governments. A study of Federal and State constitutions for “the first duty” of governments might prove enlightening to him as well.

But with all the evidence presented in just this one article I’m nearly forced to conclude he has crap for brains and is incapable of being enlightened.

Quote of the day—John West

It’s not scary looking guns that frighten me, it’s the thought of an unarmed citizenry at the mercy of a tyrannical government that makes be toss and turn at night.

The one thing that all slaves have in common, they don’t own guns.

John West
January 2012
Comment to RCMP to seize more ‘scary-looking’ guns before registry dies.
[Nor do slaves own weapons of any type.

I have nothing further to add.—Joe]

Blind faith

I’ve met and talked to a lot of anti-gun activists. With perhaps one exception I always got the impression they were generally nice people. Misguided, sometimes ignorant, and frequently not very bright but they were nice and I wouldn’t have minded having one of them as a neighbor or socializing with them if the topic of guns didn’t come up.

That said we sometimes ascribe evil intent to the anti-gun people. In the case of certain politicians such as Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and President Obama (none of which I have ever met or talked to) this may be true. But generally there is something else going on. The people just aren’t the “evil type”.

But of course just because someone is a “nice” person doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t inadvertently advocate for and enable something terribly evil all the while believing they were doing good. Like I said, a lot of these people aren’t that bright.

Lorne Gunter said something on this topic that struck me as highly likely (emphasis added):

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?

It was purely on blind faith that supporters of the registry — police chiefs, victims’ rights groups, women’s shelter operators and grandstanding politicians — assumed that making Canadians register their guns would magically cut down on violent crime.

Faith, in this context, means believing in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. It was, and is, blind faith motivating these people to continue advocating for gun control. As I have pointed out before and some of them have even agreed, they do not know, or care, how to determine truth from falsity.

As an engineer this is abhorrent to me. When I design a filter using an op-amp, a couple capacitors, and resisters I can predict the frequency response within a fraction of a decibel. But I still test it because it’s possible I made a mistake someplace or a part doesn’t meet the vendor’s specification that I used for the design.

When I design an algorithm for estimating the location of a phone based on the presence of visible Wi-Fi access points and cell towers I know pretty darned close what the accuracy is and how long it will take to do the calculations. But I still test it and there is a test team doing their best to shoot my design and implementation down.

I recognize that human behavior is far more complex and less predictable than electronics and software algorithms. But that just screams that tests have to be done on social experiments. Yet, these people are so stupid (or, granted, in some cases malicious) they not only don’t even bother trying to predict the results or think to do tests but cannot imagine why tests would be needed.

These people deserve all the “respect” of a cargo cult or Heaven’s Gate followers.

Unfortunately this faith is not confined to just gun control. It is my hypothesis that this same blind faith template would match most U.S. government program of the last 100 years.

Quote of the day—Kurt Hofmann

“Project Gunwalker” was not a “botched” operation–it was a massive crime, perpetrated by our own government, to justify attacking our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights.  And now is the time to hold those responsible to account.

Kurt Hofmann
January 23, 2012
Brady Campaign underpants gnome Dennis Henigan missing the news?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Starbucks appreciation

I was a big proponent of patronizing Starbucks after the Brady Campaign attempted to intimidate them two years ago:

I don’t like coffee and haven’t spent all that much at Starbucks recently but wife Barbara does like coffee and visits them sometimes. It appears one of our activities for Valentines Day this year will be to visit Starbucks again to show our appreciation for not submitting to the pressure from the anti-gun groups.

The reason is because a one-day boycott of Starbucks is being advocated by an anti-gun group and our response is a “buycott”.

Other blog posts on the February 14th event:

Quote of the day—Dave Hardy

With all the permit holders, it’s getting to where violent crime isn’t safe anymore.

Dave Hardy
January 23, 2012
CCW customer kills robber
[I’ve been listening to another economics book by Thomas Sowell. He gave many examples where criminals were entirely rational and responded to “economic” pressures. Sowell’s definition of economics is “the study of allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses”. When a violent criminals scarce resource is their body and that it might be reallocated by someone else as worm food most probably come up with the correct answer when they ask themselves the question, “Do I feel lucky?

That violent crime is going down and the murder rate is at it’s lowest level in 50 (I think, I don’t want to bother looking it up right now) years could be because of the dramatic increase in CCW and the number of gun owners in general.

I may just be that the anti-gun people were wrong and the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO, GOA, etc. was right (again).—Joe]

Quote of the day—Vic Frasier

It’s like having a .60 caliber penis in your pants. Only you can kill a person with it.

Vic Frasier
June 21, 2009
Five Guns That Are Clearly Compensating for a Tiny Penis
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

And if he thinks .60 caliber is a large for a human penis then he needs some anatomy lessons as well as psychological help.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Erin M. Duggan

New York state has enacted rational gun laws for one very simple reason: to protect everyone visiting, living, or working in New York.

Erin M. Duggan
January 21, 2012
Director of communications for the New York City district attorney’s office.
New York gun law triggers confusion, arrests for visitors
[“Rational”? What part of “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does Duggan have trouble understanding?

This is the same sort of person that would claim separate restaurants, drinking fountains and toilet facilities is “rational” too. I’m looking forward to the day when a Judge strikes those laws down and threatens the bigoted politicians, prosecuting attorneys, and police officers with arrest and jail time when they fail to obey in a timely manner.—Joe]

I’m surprised

The Washington Post, notoriously anti-gun, published a book review written by Mark A. Keefe IV — editor in chief of American Rifleman. The book reviewed is Glock: The Rise of America’s Gunby Paul Barrett. The review was quite positive without even a hint of anti-gun sentiment between the lines.

It is a good book (my review is here). But in the Washington Post?

Wow!

Quote of the day—Miguel

Dear Lord: Please keep them that stupid until they disappear.

Amen.

Miguel
January 20, 2012
Comment to What That Flushing Sound Is…
[While carefully controlled experiments have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of pray I remain confident the stupidity of the Brady Campaign will continue for quite some time. Whether it will be sufficiently severe in depth and duration to cause them to disappear will require the experiment be run to completion.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alec Rawls

Gun control laws in the United States originated as a scheme for keeping blacks disarmed. By turning gun rights into privileges, granted at the discretion of local police chiefs and county sheriffs, whites could keep blacks from bearing arms while still in practice maintaining their own rights. The slope turned out to be slippery and, in all but eight states, whites lost their gun rights too. Finally in 1987 people of all races started to reclaim their gun rights through the “shall issue” movement, requiring police chiefs and county sheriffs to issue gun permits to all adult applicants who are not disqualified by history of crime or mental illness.

Alec Rawls
2002
Blacks and Guns
[Another one via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms  by Philip Mulivor.

It’s the dirty little secret of gun control. And it’s just one more thing anti-gun people have in common with the KKK.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

When I read stories like this (via Sebastian) I can’t help but think of the story The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Gun control activists are like the two tailors who keep telling the media and politicians (the Emperor) something that obviously isn’t true. The people have finally stopped the pretense and are now laughing at those still attempting to maintain the pretense.

Quote of the day—Supreme Court of North Carolina

The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 11, 1921
Stave v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 107 S.E. 222
[From Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.

Mulivor sent me a free copy which I am enjoying immensely. I will be stealing more quotes from it in the coming weeks.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

We have passed the point, to be honest, where these folks deserve the dignity of being treated like reasonable adults. As they have plainly demonstrated, they are incapable of acting in such a manner.

Sebastian
January 16, 2012
The State of the Debate
[As I have said before, we do not have a common basis to even communicate with these people.

Their “political currency” is the tragedy of their victim “heroes”. Ours is the enabling of self reliance and determination. There is no common ground upon which to compromise or even talk.

There is very little to be gained by engaging them. Point out the absurdities of their claims on our own and public turf then let them fade away into the dustbin of history.—Joe]

They asked for it

The anti-gun people have expressed rage and claim we misunderstood and mocked them. The video Barron and I made was “the most offensive” of the responses (CSGV link is here). My impression is that this was because people in the video repeatedly said, “Candles don’t stop violence.” The anti-gun people said their candle-light stunt was to remember the victims; not to stop the violence.

But if you remember the Brady Campaign did say, “Imagine stopping a bullet before it kills a child. Impossible? Not with your help! All across America people are coming together to save lives from preventable gun violence. Will you join them, and the Brady Campaign, as we host a nationwide candlelight vigil to honor victims of gun violence?”

Our message, as stated by daughter Kim in the video, was, “Your time would be better spent going to the range and practicing…”

For them to be surprised we would regard their publicity stunt strictly as a remembrance vigil is for them to say they were stupid or incredibly naive. They literally said, “…people are coming together to save lives from preventable gun violence…” But in the words of a famous gun blogger, “Gun control: What you do instead of something.” He, and others, have been saying this for years.

They should have known their claim to be “doing something” would be derided. Barron, Kim, and I just cranked it to 11.

Quote of the day—CanadianGuy

It sounds like the shape of the weapon works like Viagra for gun owners.

CanadianGuy
January 6, 2012
Comment to RCMP to seize more ‘scary-looking’ guns before registry dies.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Linoge

I cannot help to see Joan and every other “gun control” supporter like her as being roughly analogous to book burners, especially when viewed in the light of their infatuation with censorship and controlling the message.  Not only do they want us defenseless and easy prey for criminals, they want us quiet, docile, controlled.

Linoge
January 15, 2012
tellin’ riddles in the dark
[There is lots of evidence to support this. Reasoned Discourse, telling us we should just sit back and shut up, and of course the violence and threats of violence from these people.

It’s as Weer’d Beard has said, “Anti-Freedom, not just Anti-gun!”—Joe]

Insanity defense

As I understand it a person charged with a crime can plead legal insanity if at the time of the crime they lacked the mental capacity to determine that what they were doing was illegal.

I keep wondering if the Joyce Foundation allows a plea of that type with the people who spend their money. Some of the things the anti-gun people have been saying and doing lately is just nuts.

Of course if the parallel to our legal system were to remain true they would still be required to spend time in a mental hospital and that isn’t going to happen. A more likely result is that once the Foundation money runs out they will get jobs in the ATF as gun experts.

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

The fatal shooting of Park Ranger Anderson was a bitter reminder of the human cost of appeasing the gun lobby – the Coburn Amendment passed two years ago legalizing loaded guns in national parks.

Dennis Henigan
January 11, 2012
Thousands Lit Candles Against The Darkness of Gun Violence
[Thirdpower already covered the lie about the numbers so I will ignore the lie in Henigan post title.

Let me get this straight… it was because it was legal to have loaded guns in national parks that Anderson was murdered? If that were true then doesn’t it follow that because it was illegal to have loaded guns at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech that those murders could not have occurred?

As was pointed out to me years ago by Rolf; If crime goes down after some gun law goes into effect the anti-gun people will claim it as proof we need even more strict laws. If the crime rate goes up after the law goes into effect then that is proof, to them, that stricter laws are needed.

As near as I can tell there are no facts that can be presented to anti-gun people like Henigan which will convince them any gun restriction should be repealed.

I must therefore conclude Henigan and his kind have crap for brains.

This is actually a good test to discover whether someone is worth your time to discuss the subject. Ask, “What would it take to change your mind? No matter how improbable, what data would convince you that some law restricting firearms should be repealed?” You will be surprised at how many people say there is nothing that will change their mind.

As you walk away suggest to such people that they look up the definition of “bigot” in the dictionary.—Joe]