Friday evening.
Seen recently.
Attending the UW $11,859.00 in base tuition a year, going shooting with friends and tossing the empty wiped down ammo boxes in a string of random open waste baskets inside the Comparative History of Ideas Padelford Hall, priceless. There are somethings money can’t buy, but for everything else there’s trolling Marxists in academia.
Anonymous UW Student
July 18, 2016
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
For over 100 years, fingerprint evidence has been used as a valuable tool for the criminal justice system. Relying on the generalized premise of “uniqueness”, the forensic community has regarded fingerprint evidence as nearly infallible having the capacity to “individualize” the source of a fingerprint impression to a single individual. While the uniqueness of a complete record of friction ridge skin detail is generally undisputed, the extension of that premise to partial and degraded impressions has become a central issue of debate. Nevertheless, forensic science laboratories routinely use the terms “individualization” and “identification” in technical reports and expert witness testimony to express an association of a partial impression to a specific known source. Over the last several years, there has been growing criticism among the scientific and legal communities regarding the use of such terms to express source associations which rely on expert interpretation. The crux of the criticism is that these terms imply absolute certainty and infallibility to the fact-finder which has not been demonstrated by available scientific data. As a result, several authoritative scientific organizations have recommended forensic science laboratories not to report or testify, directly or by implication, to a source attribution to the exclusion of all others in the world or to assert 100% infallibility and state conclusions in absolute terms when dealing with population issues. Consequently, the traditional paradigm of reporting latent fingerprint conclusions with an implication of absolute certainty to a single source has been challenged. The underlying basis for the challenge pertains to the logic applied during the interpretation of the evidence and the framework by which that evidence is articulated. By recognizing the subtle, yet non-trivial differences in the logic, the fingerprint community may consider an alternative framework to report fingerprint evidence to ensure the certainties are not over or understated.
It would be a good idea to stop using the term “unintended consequences”. I haven’t see a consequence in years that I could reasonably assume to be unintended. Thinking of them as unintended will only mislead you about the nature of the opposition.
Paul Koning
July 18, 2016
Comment to Govt proposed “Smart-gun” specs
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Maura Healey,attorney general of Massachusetts, wrote an editorial for the Boston Globe and said:
Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year…
Interesting. In just one year 10k a particular class of guns were sold in the state. Since that class of firearm has been around for well over 20 years there must be something on the order of 100K or more of them in the state. That must mean those type of guns are “in common use” and protected by the Heller Decision, right?
And how many crimes were committed with those firearms? She doesn’t tell us of any in the state of Massachusetts. She mentions just four in the entire country over the span of several years. Commenter Doverham (07/20/16 10:28 AM) tells us:
How many people a year are killed with “assault weapons” in MA – isn’t that a relevant number to know before deciding whether this is actually worthwhile or meaningful? I will give you a hint – that number was 2 in 2013, 1/17th the number killed with handguns, 1/30th the number killed by distracted drivers.
Yet she thinks this is justification for banning all of them. What other specific enumerated right, exercised by 100K+ people in your state, could someone justify the infringement of by four crimes committed in other states and two in your own? If that is all someone has to have for justification for infringement then who knows what she will demand be banned next? If that sort of rational passes logical and constitutional muster then she, or the next attorney general, can easily justify the banning of Islam, Democrats, or people with dark skin.
She also said:
On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
Ahhh… there we have it. She knows she can’t get the law changed through legislative channels so she just dictates her desires. And if a gun “has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon” it will be prohibited. That will be “fun” to determine and enforce. I would if she considers ammunition a “component”. And what about a scope, flashlight, rail, spring, peep sight, or bipod?
Also note that she thinks guns have “operating systems”. Dictators don’t have to know what they are talking about. They just have to have people with guns willing to follow orders.
Update: See also what Sebastian has to say about it.
Update 2: See also John Richardson and Say Uncle.
Update 3: See also Thirdpower.
A ban and complete eradication of assault rifles from the hands of everyday citizens is a reasonable reform.
Shaun King
July 18, 2016
KING: Dallas, Baton Rouge massacres show need for assault rifle ban, can make trained cops think they’re under attack from small army
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
Banning the most popular type of firearm (I assume he means “assault weapon” rather than “assault rifle”) in the U.S. is “reform”?
Wrong.
It’s called deprivation of rights under color of law and is a felony punishable by death.—Joe]
Via a tweet from Dana Loesch:
@DLoesch very weak sauce Dana. You must have woke up on the opposite side of your gun barrel dildo. Yes, Dana Loesch makes love to her guns
Saucy Minx @SaucyMinxed
Tweeted July 19, 2016
Is this going to be the Markley’s Law equivalent response to women gun ownership?
These people are so clever and classy.
We have SCOTUS decisions. They have Jr. High level insults.
My gun and I had a great day at the range!
Barb L.
July 16, 2016
[Barb and I took some new shooters to the range and Barb did some shooting as well as provide support for me with the new shooters. She shot much better than the last couple of times we went to the range. I wish I would have taken a picture of her happy dance.—Joe]
Some friends wanted to learn to shoot so Barb and I reserved the training bay at the indoor range near us for late Saturday afternoon.
I was surprised to find both of them were right handed but left eye dominant. Many people who are cross eye dominant end up shooting with the hand which matches their dominant eye (daughter Kim is an example).
I put them at about 5 yards from the targets and gave them stance, grip, and trigger operation instructions.
I started them out shooting left handed for a couple of magazines of .22 with a suppressor then had them try shooting right handed. They both opted to continue shooting right handed. As they continued shooting I showed them how to load the magazines and operate the bolt (Ruger 22/45s) and safety.
They shot a few hundred rounds of .22 with both suppressed and unsuppressed semi-auto pistols on single targets as well as multiple bulls-eye targets. We then put up USPSA targets with “hard cover” and had them shoot two shots on the same target starting from the high ready position. We also put up barricades for them to shoot around at multiple bulls-eye targets.
I offered them some low powered .40 S&W loads. They did fine with those. I offered them full power loads. They did fine at first but then started to falter with some of the shots going a bit wild. The shots were still on the paper but off the target so to finish up for the evening I put them back on .22s.
We ended with them saying they had a really good time, asked about the class Barb recently took, and said they wanted to do it again with us.
Tracie with her new shooter smile.
Kurt with his new shooter smile.
white men have small dick so they compensate by buying big guns.
True Israelite@ 1liberal2a
Tweeted on January 8, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
At least 84 people died Thursday night in Nice, France, when a terrorist plowed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day. Their deaths should free all of us, once and for all, from the toxic and seditious lie, spread by the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, that guns–not madmen or radical Islamics–are a threat to civilized people in America, or in France, or anywhere else.
Dr. Keith Ablow
July 15, 2016
Bastille Day bloodbath in Nice proves that gun control advocates are liars
[Read the whole thing. It’s short and sweet.—Joe]
Is it just me, or do these draft smart-gun specifications have loopholes and problems big enough to drive a pod of pregnant whales through?
Update:
From Stephanie:
Remember how, during the Tea Party rallies, so much attention was paid to the fact that some participants were obese and using mobility scooters? That wasn’t an accident. It’s loathing substituting for analysis. For much the same reason, cartoons purporting to depict gun-rights supporters after Orlando almost invariably depicted obese, aging, white, and downscale (rumpled, ill-kempt) subjects. That is whom the Left believes to be the problem when it comes to violence in these United States — and most other problems, too. The relevant psychology here is that of intellectual development arrested in adolescence. If you’ve ever heard a 50-year-old lefty raging about Middle America and thought that it sounded a lot like a 14-year-old raging about his stick-in-the-mud father, you’re not the first to whom that has occurred.
Kevin D. Williamson
June 17, 2016
The Left’s Phony War on Guns
[Markley’s Law is another data point supporting Williamson’s hypothesis.—Joe]
Only recently, Richmond, Calif., had among America’s highest per capita rates of gun violence. In 2009, there were 47 homicides among 100,000 residents. Officials there theorized that a few bad actors caused most of the problem. As it turned out, 70 percent of their gun violence in 2008 was caused by fewer than 1 percent of the city’s residents. This isn’t unique: in Cincinnati, less than 1 percent of the city’s population was responsible for 74 percent of homicides in 2007.
Richmond developed an innovative, controversial program: They identified the 50 people most likely to shoot someone and engaged with them, even paying them to participate.
The city provided career help, training, resume writing and health care. It asked people what they feared and helped them create plans to mitigate those fears.
Critics called it “paying gang members not to shoot people.” It was more than that. And it worked.
From 2007 to 2012, the city experienced a 61 percent reduction in homicides.
Nick Selby
July 14, 2016
Forget new gun laws. Here’s what could really keep people from shooting each other.
[H/T Say Uncle.
At first thought I’m uncomfortable “paying people to not shoot each other”. It seems to create a perverse incentive. I.E. So, if I start shooting people on a regular basis will someone start paying me to stop shooting too?
But I’m willing to think about this more. If such concerns aren’t realized, the criminal homicides are dramatically decreased, and the costs associated with the programs are not extreme then I’m at a loss as to why one should be against it.—Joe]
It occurs to me that we need some common sense regulation to prevent the tragedies in Orlando and Dallas. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact and the 1st Amendment extremists need to compromise for the safety of everyone.
The five dead and nine wounded in Dallas was predictable, preventable, and should never happen again. All it would take would be a small amount of compromise by the extremists in this country who refuse to consider the most common-sense measures that almost everyone can agree on.
Nearly the same thing can said about the 49 murdered and 53 wounded in Orlando last month. Something like that is entirely predictable and preventable.
Here’s what everyone with a shred of common sense can obviously agree on:
Thousands of lives each year of depend upon these sort of common sense laws. We can respect the 1st Amendment and yet save countless lives every year if we don’t let the extremists get in our way.
[end sarcasm]
Simple things from simple minds:
After they explain how this wouldn’t violate the right to keep and bear arms they will then be required to tell me how easy it is to limit access to illicit drugs. Then I’m going to suggest they take point on the project of collecting the 10s of millions of guns already in circulation.
Some sorta academic clown suggests he and some buddies might storm NRA headquarters.
It’d be like “The Keystone Cops Storm Okinawa.” Amusing, but rather messy for the cleanup crews. Of course an anti gunner sees nothing wrong with homicide, that’s not really the issue….
David Hardy
July 6, 2016
It is possible he and his friends might make it to the elevators
[Delusions are often functional.
In this case my hypothesis is the academic clown is able to imagine some sort of control over his hated enemy in his delusional universe and this gives him comfort that he is lacking in the real world.—Joe]
This is what they think of you:
Ahh, yes. The voice of tolerance and diversity.
Via Tyler Durden:
Nope. I think the Clintons and most of the people around them are so comfortable lying on a regular basis that it wouldn’t even cross their minds there is something ironic about taking an oath defending the constitution. In their minds, the restrictions on government by the constitution are no more real than that moral restrictions imposed up them by the divine dictates of the three eyed, flying, spaghetti monster.