Category Archives: Psychology

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Posted on by

If you ever hear of a gun control rally happening nearby, do yourself a favor and make it a point to attend.

Do not go to share your opinion on the subject or confront their ideas as a counter-protestor, simply go to their event and listen.

If you experience turns out to be anything at all like the experiences I’ve had, you’ll note a sort of nervous energy in the supporters of gun control. If you spend time listening to them, you’ll probably see them swing back and forth from sorrow to a anger, and back again… often within the span of a few minutes. There’s often chanting involved, a repeated catch-phrase, or a mantra to help keep them focused on the cause.

Almost invariably, they’ll veer from mania to depression, and show signs of poor impulse control.

Bob Owens
October 3, 2014
AND SHE STABBED HIM IN THE HEAD: Why Gun Control Supporters Don’t Trust You With Guns
[I can second that.

They have extreme difficulty in clear thinking. The cannot seem to differentiate between facts and feelings. They will literally say, “I don’t believe your facts”. As Lyle says, they are telling us they are insane when they do this.

You can explain that eliminating all “gun deaths” does not mean people are safer and they cannot understand how that can be true and respond with “Huh? totally missed this logic. I don’t think there is any there.“

They will pontificate on all they are doing for “gun safety” and then have a deer in a headlight response when you ask how many gun safety classes they have attended or taught.

They will tell you that many lives will be saved if there was a waiting period “so people could cool off” before they could buy a gun. Then when asked, “So, if I go into a gun shop, show them my concealed carry permit and a pistol on my hip then they wouldn’t need to make me ‘cool off’ before purchasing another one, right?” they will shut down the discussion because… well… I guess it’s because they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John R. Lott, Jr.

Posted on by

I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.

John R. Lott, Jr.
September 25, 2014
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”

There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:

In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”

The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”

John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”

The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”

Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]

Psychology of mass shooters

Posted on by

Via CGL Admin we have this is a fascinating article on the psychology of mass shooters: Everything We Think We Know About Mass Shooters Is Wrong.

The bottom line is that it isn’t so much that they are psychopathically evil but that they want attention and to be accepted so badly they are willing to kill other people to get that attention. This is consistent with other psychological assessments that say the media coverage of mass shooters helps create more mass shooters.

Quote of the day—Rachel Lucas

Posted on by

Nor would it be different if “mothers” were suddenly put in charge.  I feel vicarious resentment of that claim because if I were a man with children, I’d really like to know just what in the hell makes Sally Field think women love their children more than men do.  Human nature is what it is, and we will fight over shit until we go extinct.  Even if the best mother EVER was Queen of the Planet, someone somewhere would still need to have their ass kicked, and she’d have to send somebody’s child to do it.

Rachel Lucas
September 17, 2007
If mothers ruled the world, there’d be no goddamn….lots of things
[H/T to Erik Onstott for the Facebook comment.

Continuing the almost theme from last week. It gives us more clarity on the issue.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rick McGinnis

Posted on by

There’s an article of faith on the left that the world would be a kinder, more humane place if it were run by women. Based on the leftist women I knew, the world they ruled would be a place you’d navigate by the mountains of skulls.

Rick McGinnis
August 29, 2014
Comment to Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[There is some evidence to support this hypotheses. For example the Weather Underground had many women it.

On a more personal note an admitted Marxist woman I used know was also heavily involved in the ecology movement. To the best of my knowledge she didn’t actually do it but she didn’t see problem in spiking trees even though it presented a life threatening danger to loggers and sawmill employees.

Another way to look at this is the differences in the behavior of females versus males of most mammals. The female is a much more vicious defender of their young than the male. Could those who view a strong government of their making as a “child” and transfer that same instinct of a vicious defense to defending their political creations?

And how about women who are strong advocates for gun control? Does this hypothesized trait explain why anti-gun women are so violent?—Joe]

Calling it ‘Ignorance’ is being generous

Posted on by

I had thought it was well understood that one of the tactics of the anti rights movement has been to blur the distinction between fully automatic and semi automatic firearms (the former being ultra-restricted and therefore ultra-expensive and prohibitive and the latter being widely available and affordable). Apparently I’ve been very wrong.

Coyness apparently remains one of the most successful ruses for the anti liberty movement, even today when we have so much information at our fingertips that ANYONE who cares enough to jiggle his fingers over a keyboard for a few seconds can learn just about anything that is known by anyone.

That proves that most of us in the pro-liberty camp still fail to understand what we’re up against.

KNOW THY ENEMY!

It has been well-documented that anti-rights activists have spoken about, and organized efforts aimed at, confusing the issue of full verses semi auto, and yet we still would rather have fun pointing out the “stupidity” of people like Don Lemon. Well the joke’s on us, people.

More to the point though; if we were standing on principle, the distinction between full and semi wouldn’t matter. The Progressives have had most of us cowed for generations into accepting the NFA, and “defending” ourselves by accepting THEIR premise that, “Oh, well yeah– NO one wants machineguns ‘on the streets’! No-no-no-no!”

And so it’s an interesting play we’re in. The antis are using our own faults against us, by fooling people into making a distinction (which they’re trying to blur now) that only matters because they’ve been successful in fooling or intimidating us.

It’s the very definition of Progressivism. Get us comfortable with one outrage (in this case the NFA) and use that as a stepping stone to the next outrage (conflating semis with the already successfully demonized autos).

Far from calling Don Lemon an idiot or an ignoramus then, I’d say he’s pretty damned clever. So far he appears to have fooled 100% of the commenters on that Beck article.

Quote of the day—David Dunning

Posted on by

If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent … when you’re incompetent, the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.

David Dunning
June 20, 2010
The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1)
[H/T to Linoge who got me started on the Wiki-wander that led here.

I found it fascinating that there have been similar astute observations on the same topic throughout history.

This is exactly what happens with many of the anti-gun people we encounter. They cannot even comprehend how disparate in competence they are when they engage us on the topic. They are frequently profoundly clueless, don’t know it, and cannot be told how clueless they are.

It find it interesting that another aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that those who are highly competent tend to underestimate their skill level. Perhaps the following Twitter exchange demonstrates that:

 Lady Farmer ‏@djmincey11 7h

@apple_butter NOBODY WANTS YOUR DAMN GUN! Understand now? @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Joe Huffman ‏@JoeHuffman 5h

@djmincey11 You must have your head in the sand: https://blog.joehuffman.org/category/gun-rights/no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/ … @apple_butter @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Lady Farmer ‏@djmincey11 4h

@JoeHuffman I don’t care to read your “opinion” piece. @apple_butter @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Joe Huffman ‏@JoeHuffman 3h

@djmincey11 Factual examples are not opinions. Are you allergic to facts? @apple_butter @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Lady Farmer ‏@djmincey11 3h

I know the difference between fact & speculation. Cognitive powers aren’t magic. I’ll give you a minute to Google the big words @JoeHuffman

Joe Huffman ‏@JoeHuffman 3h

@djmincey11 For years I had the job title of Senior Research Scientist II. I know this topic well and I know you don’t. @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer ‏@djmincey11 3h

For years I held the title of Executive Director, Reigional Director, CEO and Vice President/Owner. Now what? @JoeHuffman

Joe Huffman ‏@JoeHuffman 2h

@djmincey11 I suggest you learn some science and educate yourself on the topic at hand. @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer ‏@djmincey11 2h

I suggest you KNOW your opponent BEFORE you run into battle. @JoeHuffman @wallsofthecity

Joe Huffman ‏@JoeHuffman 2h

@djmincey11 I find it odd that you don’t follow your own advice. Is hypocrisy one of your greatest strengths? @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer ‏@djmincey11 2h

Are we finished yet? I am bored with this sniping. @JoeHuffman @wallsofthecity

Joe Huffman ‏@JoeHuffman 2h

@djmincey11 Only if you stop tweeting nonsense about guns, gun owners, and the enumerated right to keep and bear arms. @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer ‏@djmincey11 2h

And FYI… I will NEVER stop tweeting facts because it hurts your feewings. *here’s a hanky* @JoeHuffman @wallsofthecity

I dropped it there because she was going off the deep end into irrationality at that point. At no point did my feelings come up in the conversation or was I even aware of having any particularly strong  feelings on the matter. And she was particularly lacking in facts.

But the point I wanted to make was that I didn’t think I was being particularly effective. Perhaps just a little bit more than holding my own.

So imagine my surprise to the following tweets in response to the exchange:

Linoge ‏@wallsofthecity 2h

Your afternoon’s entertainment: #gunsense useful idiot @djmincey11 is trying to have a battle of wits with @JoeHuffman. She came unarmed.

towerclimber37 ‏@towerclimber37 53m

@wallsofthecity @djmincey11 @JoeHuffman hahahahah she got owned.

Blackstone ‏@bitterclingerpa 36m

@towerclimber37 @wallsofthecity @djmincey11 @JoeHuffman Owned? Broken, sold, used, traded & then sold again. Science vs a Suit

Epic.

Interesting. Very interesting.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

ToyGunToSchool

This is one of those things that makes me think our opponents have mental health issues. They think in terms of “messages” being sent rather than in facts and logic. While I recognize there is value in “messages” the problem is they find whatever they want to find rather than the obvious direct messages. In the case of having armed people protecting our children the obvious messages are that we are willing and able to deliver predators a copper jacketed hollow-point message of “Don’t hurt our children!” This sends a message to the children of, “We can and will protect you.”

I dealt with someone for decades that would, in extreme cases, repeatedly insist there were hidden messages in email that communicated something completely different from what was actually written. Verbal exchanges were frequently like walking into psych ward. I would ask a question and they would respond with something that was only tenuously connected to what I asked. Repeating the question would get something again only tenuously related to my question and unrelated to their previous answer. Asking them to repeat my question back to verify they heard the question would result in them insisting they heard and understood my question but they would not be able to repeat it or even summarize it. They didn’t need to be able to do that because, “I know how you think.” They literally insisted they knew what I was thinking and my words and actions were not necessary for them to act upon “what you really mean”.

The people that relate to the cartoon above are like that person. They live in a world that only intersects with ours enough that we can catch a glimpse of their alternate reality.

These people want to control us because their world is chaotic and they desperately want stability. Having a higher authority exercising control over others brings the sense of the stability they seek. For us to say, “No! We will not be unconstitutional controlled by you or anyone else.” increases their anxiety and insistence that we need to be controlled.

I don’t know how this can end well.

I can explain it to you, but I cannot make you understand

Posted on by

I designed the UltiMAK optic mount for the Kalashnikov to align itself with the barrel (fancy that). There is a radius on the underside, which engages the barrel (something like. V-block, but we’ll call it an “interrupted radius”) so as the clamp screws are tightened, it simply WILL align with the barrel unless something interferes with that process. The “something” that can interfere is the gas block or the rear sight block, or more specifically, a radical misalignment of the gas block with the rear sight block.

The mount has several features that allow it to accommodate a slight to moderate misalignment of those two parts, and so there is a fraction of one percent of AKs (usually Romanian) that cannot properly accept the UltiMAK mount, but I digress.

Continue reading →

All guns are always loaded

Posted on by

That’s gun safety rule one. Cooper said that it’s not a guide to behavior but rather a statement of condition. (For those unfamiliar, “condition” in this sense refers to the status of the gun, whether it’s loaded, or cocked, whether the safety catch is on, etc.)

That’s the problem with weapon “safety” isn’t it? If you keep a gun for self defense, and you treat all guns as though they’re always loaded, and it turns put that the one you need to defend your life is unloaded, you’re not at all safe. A gun is supposed to be dangerous! but only to your chosen target.

As a matter of personal taste I prefer the NRA rule “Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use”. The guns I keep for defense are “in use” all the time and so they are loaded, whether on my hip or leaning in the corner.

I showed a couple how to load a percussion revolver the other day, by “loading” it with powder and bullets, but since we never applied caps to the cones, it still isn’t “loaded” because I won’t fire without caps. I’ll twirl it if I want to, and you can’t stop me, but I generally won’t twirl a loaded gun even it is single action with the hammer down and nothing you do to the trigger alone can ever make it fire.

We’ve come to a point where we’re making too big a deal out of “safety” and admit it– That’s because of lawyers and politicians (two of the more dangerous kinds of people on Earth if we take them too seriously).

Ultimately, “safety”, to the extent that it exists at all, is between your ears. You’re certainly going to die no matter what though, so cheer up! When people, perfectly well-intended, tell me to “stay safe” as an alternative to “goodbye” or “see you later” it sort of disappoints me. “Have fun” or even “be cool” would be better advice. None of the really fun and memorable, or productive, things I’ve done in life were particularly safe, but they always came off better in a state of coolness.

Here’s another important “safety” rule;
“All lawyers and all politicians are always loaded”

I do like that one. As Cooper said; “It is not a guide of behavior, but rather a statement of condition”, and furthermore it would explain a lot.

Open letter to Eric Holder

Posted on by

This, from Mike Vanderboegh, is interesting. It represents one of the stated ideas behind the second amendment back in the day– Something about keeping would-be tyrants “in awe”, presenting a force beyond that of any standing army, etc.

I’m not sure what good the letter could do, beyond letting Holder and Company know that we have a fairly good, general idea of what they’re up to, that we’re not all entirely intimidated, blind, cowed, distracted and demoralized. There may be some value in that and there may not, but there it is. I’ve done similar in the past, but I don’t think I’ll be doing it again.

As for the possibility of violence; I do NOT believe that, at this point anyway, Holder and Company are the slightest bit intimidated. Not in the way the author may have intended. I believe it is likely, insofar as I understand the mentality or the occupying identity that drives them, that Holder et al are quite looking forward to violence, that they’ve been getting impatient waiting for it and can’t quite understand why we’re taking so long to get with it (and thus help them fulfill their plans).

It might be more productive to try to convince Holder & Company that they themselves are mere pawns, and that once their role is served and their usefulness expired they’ll be left in the lurch, or squashed like cockroaches, by those they currently serve, but that won’t dawn on them until it’s far too late for them. It almost never does.

And so the value in such letters or postings is, at best, that later on they’ll not be able to say they weren’t warned or didn’t have any choice. In light of THAT, maybe our efforts should include defining for such unfortunates a viable way out.

The motivation for evil

Posted on by

is evil.

This Land is Mine

Posted on by

…or, the Middle East Explained.

Pop quiz – how many of them can you identify with reasonable certainty, or at least recognize that you knew them for sure at one point?

Wishful thinking?

Posted on by

Clearing out my spam folder just now, I spied one from Senate Republicans out of the corner of my eye, way down the list. My first thought was that it said “Why we lose”, which would have been an excellent and highly relevant topic. In fact it said “Lyle, we are close.”

Actually, we are not close. “We” are not even on the right path and so we’ll never be close until we change paths. Since it was titled with a falsehood, and since they’re not going to address the all-important question of why we lose, there was no point in reading it.

That is of course assuming that “We” means “we Republicans” which in my case is big stretch. Since TR, over 100 years ago, “Republican” has meant “Progressive who must pander to conservatives and libertarians for votes, and who therefore hates his job”.

At least read the book…

Posted on by

…before you attempt to discredit Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Darwin’s theory is an excellent example of conroversy created out of nothing but gossip, speculation and misinformation.

Oleg Volk reintroduced me to Fred on Everything recently. Fred has some very good and provocative essays. This one however seems to have been written in a vacuum.

I think nearly every question or concern in the essay is addressed carefully and in detail in “On the Origin of Species”.

Also, Darwin was a religious man. I don’t understand the conflict between religion and science. It seems to me that they have the common goal (ostensibly at least) of furthering the cause of general understanding. The only way that conflict makes sense is if those individuals fomenting the conflict are more concerned with power and control than with the process of enlightenment (one cancels the other).

The best American is a stupid, silent American

Posted on by

(that is to paraphrase the radio show host, Michael Savage)

Teacher gets suspended for showing kids his tools. Via the Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org).

Properly, that school would have all of its funding suspended until it publicly apologizes to the teacher and agrees to allow tools in the classroom.

Seriously; who doesn’t think there’s been a war going on against individual capability, productivity and self sufficiency in this country? If people are aware, knowledgeable, strong, confident and self-sufficient, who’d need our current nanny style government, after all? That would put 90% of our government right out of business, and we can’t allow that, now can we? “Oh no, Preciousss….nassty kids musst bow to our greatnesss, yesss they mussst. Make them crawl, we will…”

ETA; I wish people would stop using that word (liberal) to describe authoritarians. We CAN take the language back. That would be a great first step. Just use words correctly. It’s easy. Authoritarian. There; I just did it. See? I wasn’t hit by lightning or anything. Don’t be afraid. Go on; try it. It doesn’t hurt a bit.

A twilight zone of my own making

Posted on by

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? Not necessarily.

Yesterday I got a letter in the mail, clearly and properly addressed to my company, from one of our out-of-state distributors. Inside was a copy of one of our invoices to that distributor.

This is all perfectly normal as far as it goes (it is common enough to send a copy of an invoice along with the check in the amount of that invoice) except that the check was missing.

I showed it to Stephanie, our bookkeeper, with a chuckle; “Oops, it seems they made a bit of a mistake there. No check. I guess I’ll have to call them…”

But since Steph is the one who prints the invoices and posts the payments, she looked at the invoice date and number, because each distributor and account status is familiar to her.

It turns out that it was not our distributor’s mistake, but our own.

It was a VERY recent invoice, you see. We had mailed ourselves one of our own invoices, by simply reversing the positions of the two address labels. The post mark being from a nearby town and dated one or two days earlier was another clue, only noticed after Steph had identified the problem, but who studies post marks before opening mail from regular associates?

Fortunately I didn’t get so far as calling the distributor to tell them about “their mistake”.

Spending time reacting to complete misinterpretations of reality. How much of our lives are spent doing that? That’s a much deeper, broader point, see.

Hm; now if we would take to sending ourselves the checks along with the invoices, maybe we could cut out the distributors and customers altogether. Then we could call ourselves The Federal Reserve or something.

The Progressive’s prayer

Posted on by

Our Government in Washington,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on all the U.S., as it is in Washington.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into responsibility,
but deliver us from the constitution.

Psalm of the Progressive

Posted on by

Obama is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Government maketh me to lie down in green pastures: case-workers leadeth me beside the still waters.

Government restoreth my self-esteem: bureaucracy leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for its name’s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no tea-bagger: for government art with me; government’s rod and staff they comfort me.

Government preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: government anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely welfare checks and subsidies shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in public housing for ever.

(OK, now I feel kinda icky)

Others could do better with the wording, but you get the point.

The Bundys speak directly

Posted on by

Interview here. Horse’s mouth and all (not that I’m calling anyone a horse).

Peaceful, cool-headed, principled resistance always works best, but it only works when backed by a substantial, credible force. Doubly so when you’re up against un-principled, arrogant foes. A thousand militia, just being there, will drain the sense of impunity right out of an aggressor. A was said elsewhere;

“No more free Wacos.”

I still don’t fully understand this particular conflict, but it is clear that these people and their supporters have grit, and that’s refreshing to see.

I hope the militia had night vision, some fifties, and some form of aerial surveillance. It’ll be needed next time. This is how the peace is kept.