Quote of the day—Béla Nagy, et al

A combination of an exponential decrease in cost and an exponential increase in production would make Moore’s law and Wright’s law indistinguishable, as originally pointed out by Sahal. We show for the first time that these regularities are observed in data to such a degree that the performance of these two laws is nearly the same. Our results show that technological progress is forecastable, with the square root of the logarithmic error growing linearly with the forecasting horizon at a typical rate of 2.5% per year. These results have implications for theories of technological change, and assessments of candidate technologies and policies for climate change mitigation.

Béla Nagy
J. Doyne Farmer
Quan M. Bui
Jessika E. Trancik
2012
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress
[I have two observations.

One; This is awesome! A variation of Moore’s Law applies to, apparently, all technology.

Two; It looks as if they had to make a tie in “climate change” to get National Science Foundation grant money. That’s really messed up. Government grants should not exist. The politics of research should succeed or fail using the money of someone other than that taken by gunpoint via taxes.—Joe]

What we KNOW…. that isn’t true

Mark Twain said: It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” I’ve seen a lot of examples of this in my life, and heard of more. I’m sure you have too. In fact, in installment 002 of “The Stars Came Back” Helton points out that a lot of time the so-called experts have really BAD plans, and that you can’t tell what the outcome of a lot of projects will be based on the credentials of the people starting it.(He is specifically talking about climate science, in fact)

The Climate debate is no different. There is a LOT of garbage out there (and I say this a a teacher with a cert that includes “Earth Science;” I’m in the “CO2 is plant food” camp) Then, along comes something from out of the dry fields that takes on directly one of those “common knowledge, common sense” things directly, and says, “We were wrong. The solution we have been pushing for decades is CAUSING the problem!” It takes some good sized balls, and a dose of humility the size of a Hollywood celeb’s coke habit, to make an admission like that. More so to take that fact, and a much better DEMONSTRATED solution, on the road.

We all know over-grazing causes land to turn into deserts, right?

Maybe not. Maybe the solution to desertification is to put MORE beef in the fields, and on the grill. It’s a win-win-win-win, meaning the lefties will HATE it, and fight it tooth and nail. But the guy makes a good case.

The Stars Came Back -031- Earplugs and Ancient History

INT – night – Adelaide bar

Normal space-port area mid-range night-life bar. Dim. Locals sitting or standing around drinking, talking, playing cards, shooting pool, socializing. No strippers, though there are a few couples dancing in a small corner clearing. At a 4-seat table off to the side near a corner sit SGT Kaushik and CPL Kaminski out of uniform, facing away from the wall, talking in low tones over drinks. An ancient blotto drunk wanders around a little, then staggers over to their table, looking at them a little too closely.

Old Drunk: You… you’re from the ship… Continue reading

Quote of the day—Gayle Trotter

Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The guns are accurate, they have good handling, they’re light, they’re easy for women to hold. And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers or intruders in her home with her children screaming in the background. The peace of mind from having a big, scary-looking gun gives her courage when she’s facing hardened, violent criminals.

Gayle Trotter
Independent Women’s Forum Senior Fellow
January 30, 2013
Best lines from the gun violence hearing
[It’s bigger than a handgun but not so big as a shotgun which can be cumbersome in close quarters.

Think of it as a Goldilocks gun. It’s not too big. It’s not too little. It’s just right.—Joe]

The Stars Came Back -030- Three Rules

Fade in

INT – night – the cramped quarters of Kat, the battalion Legal Officer.

Kat sits at her desk, leaning back in her chair, reading, door open.

Allonia steps up to the door.

Allonia: Knock-knock.

Kat: ‘Evening. Continue reading

Gun Song – Warren Zevon – Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner

He’s always had some odd songs, many of them are disturbing or off-beat. Again, another artist that doesn’t just write and sing popcorn-brained “oh, baby, do-it-to-me, baby!” songs I’ve always like singers with clear voices who are performing to sing, not scream or get autotuned into key. He doesn’t seem to have (at least to my ear) an amazing range or anything, but he uses what he’s got well.

Warren Zevon – Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner

Interesting pics from the era and the place being sung about. A turbulent time – the effects of European colonialism ending meeting the ideology of communism in a place ruled by tribalism and the inheritor of a thousand years of depredation by Arab and Islamic slavers. It’s testament to human toughness and pig-headedness that anyone survived there, and it is only a bad as it is, and not worse.

Quote of the day—Dan Baum

When you’re wearing a gun, you do not get upset if someone takes your parking space, or if someone cuts you in line. You have this quite noble sense of being the sheepdog, being the protector.

Dan Baum
March 6, 2013
What Liberals Need to Understand About ‘Gun Guys’
[H/T to Cargosquid for the email.

I don’t agree with everything he said in the article but I come close enough that I don’t think it is worth squabbling about. The above quote really resonated with me. I said essentially the same thing years ago and I’m pretty sure it was in a Massad Ayob book that I read something similar as well.—Joe]

Conspiracy to infringe

At the “urging” of ubu52 I finally decided to elaborate a bit on an edgy meme I’ve been pushing for quite some time. I’ve been saying something to the effect that people advocating for or enforcing anti-gun laws should be tried, convicted, and punished under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. These are, essentially, laws that prohibit conspiracy to infringe the rights of others which are secured by the Constitution.

I’ve long known that those laws are not going to be enforced against anyone anytime soon. I’m pretty sure there are even some laws that give immunity to government officials under many circumstances.

I don’t care.

I’m taking a long term view of things. There have been many instances throughout history where activities that were perfectly legal or at least accepted by all “right thinking folks” became politically out of favor. Then, as long as the statute of limitations had not expired, prosecutors found pre-existing laws to enforce and punish those who engaged in the activity. The most famous example of this is probably the Nuremberg Trials.

Examples exist in our country too.

Lynching blacks 75 years ago was technically illegal but the risk of prosecution and conviction was pretty low. Decades later some of those people were convicted of murder.

The perpetrators of the internment of Japanese were never brought to justice but, decades later, payments were made to those people who were put into the camps.

Ubu52’s point in regard to people advocating for gun control is:

But they should have the freedom to do that, right? This is the USA, isn’t it? Joe is saying that they shouldn’t have the freedom to do whatever they want. I think he’s wrong.

At first glance, in this context, I’m pretty certain nearly everyone would agree with her. But, in todays context, what would be the legal response to advocating riots, lynching blacks, and assassinating politicians? Anyone doing that would be running a serious risk of prosecution if they or people they influenced began conspiring to implement some of those ideas.

The bottom line is that there are, and rightly so, limits to free speech. Those limits in general are, in our country and our time*, set at the point where someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated. The classic “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” says it more succinctly and less abstractly.

Think about that. The limits of free speech are the point at which someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated.

You see where I’m going now, right?

This is a very clear logical path to prosecuting anti-gun people. Those that object to this logic either don’t regard being able to keep and bear arms as a “real right” or they are being logically inconsistent with those limits to free speech in existing law.

I’m not a lawyer but I’ve read enough court rulings to know that judges will almost always give at least lip service to logic. They may have to fabricate a logic scaffolding that only Rube Goldberg could admire but they will rule in a “logical” manner.

A logically consistent case can, and should, be made that advocating for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is no different than advocating for riots and lynching. People can and do die because they were denied their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It is directly foreseeable that people will be injured because of people abusing their right to free speech.

The logic in my example is far, far less torturous that hundreds of court rulings. It could happen.

What I am trying to do with my “That will come up at your trial,”** quip is to change the culture such that it becomes possible to regard the deliberate infringement of other rights as a punishable offense. Yes, it’s sort of twisted in that I am advocating the restriction of one right to protect another right. It is not “twisted” in the sense that restricting the right to some sorts of speech it does not put people in danger of life or serious bodily harm such as restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms does.

Of course no judge today, or probably even ten years from now, will rule in such a manner. But I want the seeds planted. I want people to ask, “Why aren’t these people violating the law?” “Why aren’t these people being prosecuted?” I want the anti-gun people to pause and think about it.

I want to see the day, perhaps 20 years from now, when people are brought to trial for the crimes they are committing today. By the advocating the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they caused the foreseeable, needless, injuries and deaths of tens of thousands and they should be brought to justice for that.

Update: L. Neil Smith points out we could, literally, have our own Nuremberg Trials in the U.S.


*Kevin links to a fascinating post which ties into this topic. It makes you think about other times and places if you are interested in a much bigger picture. For example, imagine a cultural shift where the advocating of the right to keep and bear arms is a punishable offense.
**Thanks to Sean for that line even if it was in a completely different context.

There’s an app for that

I received the following email this afternoon:

Subject: Cell phone app where users mark gun free zones

I built a cell phone app called GunFreeZone that allows users to mark and share where gun free zones are and which stores are firearm friendly.  The users can then make the decision whether to patronize that particular business or not.  We launched about a month ago and are just trying to get the word out – if you would like to do a post about the app, I can get you whatever other info you need (if you want graphics and so on).

The website is www.GunFreeZoneApp.com in case you’re curious.

Thank you very much for your time and response,

John Peden

The website indicates support for Android, iPhone and iPad. And it is free.

Nothing yet for Windows Phones.

Stereotypical disconnect

At a rally for “gun violence” prevention:

In the middle of the program we had three songs by Eugene singer/songwriter PeterAlmeida, who coordinated the musical portions of the event, including a sing-along with John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

Wow! Maybe next time they should also visualize world peace, or is it whorled peas?

These people really are into the “feelings” aspect of things. It’s no wonder they can’t distinguish between making some people feel better and people being physically safer.

The stereotype of them being disconnected from reality has just been validated.

The Stars came Back -029- Parts and Progress

Fade in

INT – day – engineering

The Engineering Command Center a cramped-feeling, long, machinery and control panel filled room on the top deck, over the cargo bay. Stenson is looking at several screens full of readouts. There are tool-boxes and a generally crowded-but-organized appearance to the room. Helton walks in.

Helton: So, how’s progress? Continue reading

Quote of the day—Ted Harvey

What we are trying to do here tonight is not to protect ourselves from violent crime. What we are trying to do here tonight is prevent students and teachers from feeling uncomfortable by you carrying a gun to protect yourself.

Every witness that has come up here tonight, they want to feel unintimidated and feel free to debate freely on a college campus. And having you have the right to defend yourself against a violent attacker weighs more for them than for you and the right to self-defense. And for that, I apologize.

Ted Harvey
Colorado Republican state Senator.
March 4, 2013
COLORADO DEM TO RAPE SURVIVOR: A GUN WOULDN’T HAVE HELPED YOU AGAINST RAPIST BECAUSE ‘STATISTICS ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE’
[Some people are taking this statement out of context and using just the first paragraph. I too did this on Facebook. I now believe this is wrong.

Taken in the context of this lead in to the quote above things take on a different flavor:

Republican state Sen. Ted Harvey took a shot at Democrats’ gun control efforts, telling Collins that the point of Colorado’s proposed ban on firearms on campus is to make sure people aren’t “uncomfortable.”

Hence it appears to me that Harvey was explaining the stupid, callus, and indefensible position of the anti-gun people. Many people claim they have a right to not be offended or that gun owners make them uncomfortable and government should ease their discomfort. And this was the case in the hearing and Harvey was justified in calling them out for it.

You don’t have a right to not be offended. You have no more business asking the government to make you feel better by restricting the rights of gun owners than you do asking the government to forbid people of color from using the same water fountains, restrooms, and swimming pools or mixed race couples from using the same restaurants as you.—Joe]

More on phonetics

As often happens, I was talking to a customer over a poor cellular connection today. We have to exchange a lot of data to complete an order. He’s spelling the name of his street.

“Wait; that’s A, T, T as in alpha tango tango?” I say to confirm.
“No, it’s hotel echo papa”
“Wow!” I said “I really got that wrong” and I’m thinking to myself, “Bam! We’re home free– this guy knows standard phonetics.” Without it, we’d have had a hell of a frustrating time.

So, Young Grasshopper; learn your Standard Phonetics.

I’m still amazed and disgusted that most cop shops have their own systems, which makes it more difficult because for one, they don’t always use words that all sound completely different from one another, and too, if you know Standard Phonetics, their retarded cop phonetics don’t sound familiar and it therefore takes longer to comunicate. Moron phonetics.

Learning the standard system is easy. There are only twenty six of them, and as it happens, each one starts with a different letter of the alphabet (fancy that) so it’s really easy. It’s an international system, and most pilots, military and ham operators already know it hands down. Whaterya waitin’ for?

Practice. For example, if I look to my left on my desk, I can read off in my mind, “Hotel Papa…Delta echo sierra kilo julliette echo tango.” Stuff like that. Road signs, what have you. This should be taught in school, except for the fact that kids should know it before they get to school.

On a similar note; use text on your phone when the signal is too poor to use the more bandwidth-hogging voice communication. If you have only one bar on the s-meter it still works like a charm whereas vioce communication is two steps below impossible. I explained that to my daughter a while back, and was surprized that she hadn’t thought of it. I’d though it would have been obvious even to a teen-aged school girl– a few dew drops of bits verses a tsunami/torrent of bits, you know.

A Security Theater: Intermission

TSA announced this week that they will begin allowing airline passengers to carry small knives on board again, with restrictions.

“These are popular items we see regularly,” agency spokesman David Castelveter told Bloomberg News. “They don’t present a risk to transportation security.”

Apparently, in the ten years since they were banned, these small knives have learned the evil of their ways, and have collectively agreed to not hurt anyone. I wish TSA would return the little CRKT Zilla tool they seized last year – perhaps if I write a letter on its behalf, promising that it will be good and not slice anyone, they’ll release it from knife jail and send it home.

Of course, those evil “Assault Knives” – box cutters, are still on the banned list. Even though the typical blade length on a box cutter is less than half the length of a newly-permissible knife. And the knife can’t have a locking blade, because, well – it might actually make it useful for something. Or have a molded grip, as opposed to riveted-on scales, because, well – because TSA says so. I didn’t see any mention of the “shoulder thing that goes up,” but if you have a knife with one, it’s probably best not to try to board with one.

I imagine that this relaxing of previously stupid regulations is supposed to placate us – instead of questioning the entire regulation in the first place. Perhaps now is the time to push for complete retraction of all those bans.

“Carry on a full bottle of shampoo? Why, proceed, young lady!”

“Are those hollow points you’ve loaded in that .44 Mag, sir? I’m sorry, we only allow Glasers or other approved frangibles on board – please change those HPs out with these TSA approved rounds, and give them back at the end of your flight. Have a pleasant trip, sir!”

Once again, the typical bureaucratic response to promulgating laws is to make shit up. I run into it all the time in my industry (environmental remediation – regulators without a clue blindly enforcing idiotic rules that actually hinder the cleanup they are supposedly trying to foster). In government, cosmetic features and illusion comprise the reality of bureaucrats. It’s bad because I say it’s bad, unless it’s good.

 

The Stars Came Back -028- Spring Cleaning

Sounds of clanging, heavy working on machines, chains rattling.

Fade in

INT – Day – Cargo bay

View from inside the cargo deck, looking out the open main aft door. A half dozen soldiers in camo uniforms are working clearing stuff from the cargo bay. There are two chain hoists from the ceiling going down to the ramp, which is now partially raised, and each chain hoist has three soldiers hanging from the chains (basically climbing them) and they are just barely able to lift the ramp that slowly inches up. Chief Stenson is in charge, signaling to one of the teams to climb faster. Outside a single guard in light body armor with a rifle can be seen standing. Quinn sits on top of a pile of crates to one side, wide-eyed, taking it all in. Camera view pulls back and Lag is standing next to Harbin, watching progress. Continue reading

Quote of the day—Ned Crabb

As one who came to America from a socialist country at the age of 18, I find it terrifying that elected officials would challenge the legitimacy of rights granted by our Constitution.

When I moved here those many years ago, I was promised my freedom by a Bill of Rights unlike any document ever written previously. It was a liberating experience.

Yet today, I once again feel threatened and intimidated by my government. I implore our elected officials to put emotion aside and ponder the consequences of restricting people’s right to own guns. If there is no regard for those rights, they will be lost forever.

To me as an immigrant, this issue isn’t about guns. It’s about freedom. We can argue all day over statistics and theories, but the real issue is our liberty. Using untruths about something to get it banned or restricted is disingenuous and ignores the rights of all Americans.

Ned Crabb
March 5, 2013
An immigrant’s perspective on the gun control debate
[That should be “rights guaranteed by our Constitution.” But other than that I like what he has to say and his perspective from which to say it.—Joe]

Dr. Joe’s cure for migraines

H/T to Barron for the email.

There is evidence that Dr. Joe’s Cure for everything works for migraines:

“There’s a [portion] of patients with migraines, about one-third, who experience relief from a migraine attack by sexual activity,” said study researcher Stefan Evers, a neurologist and headache specialist at the University of Münster in Germany.

The researchers aren’t sure why this happens, but hypothesize that the rush of endorphins, the brain’s natural painkillers, during sex may numb the pain of migraines.

Previous confirmation of this were preliminary. These results were based on a larger sample than had previously been reported.

I recommend using Dr. Joe’s cure prophylactically instead of waiting for the onset of symptoms but more tests are needed. Please send me your videos so I can study the issue further.

Posted in Sex

Nevada doesn’t want me

It’s big hassle for an out of state resident to get a concealed carry license in Nevada. So for a while I had a Utah concealed carry license and could use it to carry while in Nevada. Then Nevada stopped recognizing it.

Then Nevada started recognizing Arizona licenses and I got an Arizona license. Now, (H/T Say Uncle), Nevada stopped recognizing the Arizona license.

It looks like I might have to actually go through the hassle of getting a Nevada license or waiting until the new Idaho license gets through the legislative process and is recognized by Nevada. Despite the evidence indicating Nevada doesn’t want me; there are pretty good reasons to visit Nevada.

Cherry picked ‘experts’

The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health had a Gun Policy Summit in January. Of course with Michael Bloomberg involved you know it’s all about pushing an anti-gun agenda. I find it instructive to see how they accomplished this when their stated purpose was:

The Summit affords the opportunity for experts on gun policy and violence from the U.S. and selected other countries to summarize relevant research and its implications for policymakers and concerned citizens.

During the Summit, national and global experts, advocates, and leaders in gun policy, violence prevention, law enforcement, and mental health will gather to present research, analysis and their experience.

At the conclusion of the Summit, experts will put forth proposals for gun policies that will reduce gun violence, will have broad public support and will not violate constitutional rights.

As you can see their purpose had a bias to begin with. They were only concerned with “proposals for gun policies that will reduce gun violence”. They were not concerned for “proposals for policies that will reduce violent crime.” There is a big difference and that they carefully chose their words to focus on “gun violence” tells us what the inevitable outcome would be. With only a concern for “gun violence” with no concern for violence inflicted by hands, feet, clubs, or knives they are subtly telling us one of two things:

  1. They don’t care if violence in general increases as long as violence involving guns decreases.
  2. They are so stupid they believe violence inflicted with a gun is independent of violence inflicted without weapons or with some other weapon.

I don’t believe they are stupid. I believe they don’t care about violence in general because as near as I could determine they did not consider guns used as self-defense. As near as I can tell from the agenda there was no discussion of policy changes that would make guns, gun ranges, and self-defense training more accessible to those most in need. They only considered policy changes that made guns less accessible.

So who are the experts and how did they select them?

According to their FAQ they were selected as follows:

Faculty from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, along with University leadership, invited global experts on various policies relevant to gun policy and research to participate in the Summit.

Are you surprised the experts look like a virtual “Who’s Who” of the anti-gun world?

bloomberg.jpg
Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor of the City of New York.

daniels.jpg
Ronald J. Daniels
President of The Johns Hopkins University.

bloomberg.jpg
Martin O’Malley
Governor of the State of Maryland.

bloomberg.jpg
Ted Alcorn
Senior policy analyst in the Office of the Mayor of New York City.

bloomberg.jpg
Philip Alpers
Adjunct associate professor at the Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney. His website is GunPolicy.org.

bloomberg.jpg
Deborah Azrael
PhD, has been a member of the firearms research group at the Harvard School of Public Health.

bloomberg.jpg
Antonio Rangel Torres Bandeira
Coordinator for Firearms Control, Viva Rio, Brazil. He has served as an advisor for the Parliamentary Front for Disarmament for the new firearms control law, the Disarmament Statute (2003).

bloomberg.jpg
Colleen L. Barry
PhD, MPP, is an associate professor and associate chair for Research and Practice in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

bloomberg.jpg
Anthony A. Braga
PhD, is the Don M. Gottfredson Professor of Evidence-Based Criminology in the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University and a senior research fellow in the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at Harvard University.

bloomberg.jpg
David H. Chipman
Law enforcement consultant for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In May 2012, Mr. Chipman retired from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after 25 years. During Mr. Chipman’s work for ATF, he served first as a street agent, disrupting criminal organizations trafficking firearms from Tidewater, Virginia, to New York City and targeting the worst armed offenders in possession of illegal guns as a member of ATF’s Washington, D.C. Special Response Team (ATF’s version of SWAT). He later expanded his expertise to become a Certified Explosives Specialist and member of ATF’s National Response Team, where he participated in the on-scene investigations of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Branch Davidian raid near Waco, Texas, and the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

bloomberg.jpg
Philip J. Cook
PhD, is ITT/Sanford Professor of Public Policy, and Professor of Economics and Sociology, at Duke University.

bloomberg.jpg
Edward E. Cornwell, III
MD, FACS, FCCM, FWACS, is the LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr. Professor and Chairman of Surgery at Howard University College of Medicine.

bloomberg.jpg
Shannon Frattaroli
PhD, MPH is an associate professor at The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health where she is affiliated with the Center for Gun Policy and Research.

bloomberg.jpg
Linda K. Frisman
PhD, is a research professor with the University of Connecticut School of Social Work and a senior research scientist with the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.

bloomberg.jpg
Pete Gagliardi is senior vice president for Forensic Technology Inc. He has more than 40 years of experience extracting useful investigative information from crime guns and related evidence in both the public and private sectors. He spent 30 of those years in law enforcement, most of which were focused on the investigation of firearms- and explosive-related crimes with the ATF.

bloomberg.jpg
Mark Glaze, JD
Director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns as well as a principal at The Raben Group, a public policy consulting firm with offices in Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C.

bloomberg.jpg
Adil H. Haider
MD, MPH, FACS, is a trauma surgeon at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and an associate professor of Surgery, Anesthesiology, and Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

bloomberg.jpg
David Hemenway
PhD, is an economist and professor at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and a former James Marsh Visiting Professor at Large at the University of Vermont.

bloomberg.jpg
Christopher S. Koper
PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University and a senior fellow and co-director of the evidence-based policing research program in George Mason’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy.

bloomberg.jpg
Hsiu-Ju Lin
PhD, MA, is an associate research professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Connecticut, and the principal data analyst for the Research Division at the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.

bloomberg.jpg
Jens Ludwig
PhD, MA, is the McCormick Foundation Professor of Social Service Administration, Law, and Public Policy at the University of Chicago, director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab and co-director of the University of Chicago Urban Education Lab.

bloomberg.jpg
Beth McGinty, MS, is a research assistant and fourth-year PhD candidate in Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her research interests include mental illness, gun violence and the role of the news media in public policy. Her dissertation research examines the effects of news media coverage of gun violence by persons with serious mental illness on the public’s support for gun control policies and stigma towards persons with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

bloomberg.jpg
Matthew Miller
MD, ScD, MPH, is deputy director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and associate professor of Injury Prevention and Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Miller, a physician with training in internal medicine, medical oncology, medical ethics, health policy and management, epidemiology and pharmacoepidemiology, has authored more than 100 journal articles and op-ed articles on suicide, interpersonal violence and unintentional injuries, many of which focus on the relationship between firearms and lethal violence.

bloomberg.jpg
Michael A. Norko
MD, is a forensic psychiatrist and serves as director of Forensic Services for the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), where he oversees all public sector forensic services. He manages DMHAS reporting to the FBI of persons ineligible for gun purchase due to mental health adjudications.

bloomberg.jpg
Mick North, PhD, was a faculty member in Biochemistry at the University of Stirling in Scotland when, in March of 1996, his only daughter was killed in a mass shooting at Dunblane Primary School. Following that event, he became a tireless advocate for gun control. He participated in the Snowdrop Campaign for a handgun ban and helped to launch the Gun Control Network (GCN) to campaign for tighter gun legislation in the UK.

bloomberg.jpg
Rebecca Peters
A violence prevention specialist who has worked for more than 20 years on arms control, women’s rights, public health and human security. A lawyer and a journalist, she was the first director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), the global movement against gun violence.

bloomberg.jpg
Allison Gilbert Robertson
PhD, MPH, is assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine.

bloomberg.jpg
Lawrence E. Rosenthal
JD, is a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.

[no picture]
Janey Rountree
JD, is the firearms policy coordinator for New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and chief operating officer for the bipartisan coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The coalition has more than 800 U.S. member mayors who came together around the idea that it is possible to respect the Second Amendment while doing more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. With more than one million grassroots supporters, the coalition is the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country.

bloomberg.jpg
Jeffrey Swanson
PhD, is a professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine.

bloomberg.jpg
Marvin S. Swartz
MD, is professor and head of the Division of Social and Community Psychiatry and director of Behavioral Health for the Duke University Health System.

bloomberg.jpg
Stephen P. Teret
JD, MPH, is a professor of Health Policy and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Law and the Public’s Health.

bloomberg.jpg
Jon S. Vernick
JD, MPH, is an associate professor and associate chair in Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He is co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

bloomberg.jpg
Katherine A. Vittes
PhD, MPH, is a research associate at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. Her research focuses on evaluating policies designed to prevent gun violence.

bloomberg.jpg
Daniel Webster
ScD, MPH, is a professor in Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He serves as director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, as well as deputy director of research for the Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence.

bloomberg.jpg
Adam Winkler
JD, MA, is a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is a specialist in American constitutional law, known primarily for his research on the right to bear arms and on corporate political speech. His work has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal and state courts. His recent book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms, was called “provocative” and “illuminating” by The New York Times; “a fascinating survey of the misunderstood history of guns and gun control in America” by The Wall Street Journal; and “an antidote to so much in the gun debate that is one-sided and dishonest” by the Los Angeles Times.

bloomberg.jpg
Garen J. Wintemute
MD, MPH, is the inaugural Susan P. Baker-Stephen P. Teret Chair in Violence Prevention and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. He practices and teaches emergency medicine at UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento (a level I regional trauma center), and is professor of emergency medicine at the UC Davis School of Medicine. Dr. Wintemute’s research focuses on the nature and prevention of violence and on the development of effective violence prevention measures and policies. Selected studies include assessments of risk for criminal activity and violent death among legal purchasers of handguns, evaluations of the effectiveness of denying handgun purchase to felons and violent misdemeanants, in-depth studies of gun dealers who are disproportionate sources of crime guns, and the first empirical study of gun shows. He is the author of two books: Ring of Fire (1994), a study of the handgun makers of Southern California, and Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching (2009).

bloomberg.jpg
April M. Zeoli
PhD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. In her research, she uses public health methods and models to increase the understanding of violence and homicide.

I kept thinking of Ellsworth Toohey and his selection of experts as I read the list of participants.

Where is just one expert that has published an article or paper or worked for one pro-rights organization? Why wasn’t Alan Gura, David Hardy, Don Kates, or David Kopel there to tell them many of their recommendations were clearly unconstitutional? Why wasn’t Gary Kleck or John Lott there to tell them private gun ownership has benefits? Why wasn’t someone there from the NRA or SAF to tell them of the millions of people that exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms responsibly?

I think I know the answer. The organizers knew what they wanted the conclusions to be and they cherry picked the ‘experts’ who would give them the answers they wanted.

That’s not science. That’s evidence to be used at their trials.

Date for Boomershoot 2014

I have the dates for Boomershoot 2014 now. I’m pretty sure I told some people that the date was at the end of April and I had the Best Western Conference room reserved for then. But yesterday I discovered it was the same weekend as the NRA convention so I changed it to be May 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.