I find it hard to believe that anyone could think ammunition holders that allow multiple rounds to be fired before reloading are a wise idea.
The Reporter
February 4, 2011
SOUND OFF: More gun control is long overdue
[If this person finds it hard to be believe anyone would not agree with their suggestion to ban lever, bolt, and pump action firearms as well as semi-autos and even revolvers then they must have a very narrow ignorant mind. But what do you expect from a reporter?—Joe]
The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
Henry Louis Mencken
Minority Report, H. L. Mencken’s Notebooks, Knopf, 1956.
[Note that he said, “Enforce”. If there is nothing to enforce, as in a law was repealed it must necessarily be a good thing, right?—Joe]
The following is what started out to be a comment in response to MikeB30200 here in my comments. When I got to about 500 words I decided it was time to make it a post. What you see below is the result.
The short backstory is MikeB302000 claimed:
“gun violence is an inevitable part of there being guns in the society”
And let me add, the more guns the more gun violence. What’s so hard about that? You say you want proof, Linoge. I say you’re just breaking balls.
Without proof, do you say the statement is false? You and Joe are the big intellects around here, right.
If you cannot prove something, it does not exist. Period. Full stop. End of story.
MikeB302000 appealed to me with:
Joe, what say you? Do you agree with that latest pomposity?
Is Linoge’s smoke blowing around here going to be reciprocated? Or is this the sticking point, the point at which you have to part ways with your nastier and more prolix buddy?
And now my response:
In the general case Linoge overstated things. Something may exist without proof of it’s existence being available.
For example; 100 years ago we did not have proof of planets orbiting stars other than our own. The existence of those planets did not rely on our having proof of them. Absence of data about the existence of something does not mean there is no existence.
But in the specific context in which he said the statement in question there is a significant body of data. This data appears to contradict MikeB302000’s claims of fact. Mike appears to be unwilling or unable to supply data that supports his assertions. In order to validate his claims he has to do two or more of the following: 1) Demonstrate the data supplied by Linoge is false; 2) Supply alternate data which contradicts his data; 3) Show that the conclusion drawn by Linoge from the data is incorrect.
Hence, in the case of no data, existence or claims of fact are questionable at best. But in the case of a great body of data claims of existence must match the data or the claims are questionable at best and quite likely false.
Linoge has been saying MikeB302000 presents no data (or the data is of extremely poor quality) to support his claim “the more guns the more gun violence”.
In a strict reading of MikeB302000 I agree that it is obvious if there were zero guns in existence there would be no violence committed with guns. But it does not necessarily follow that violence continues to increase once the number of guns increases above some number. For example, suppose everyone in society had one handgun and all these handguns were identical. If everyone were to suddenly have duplicates of that gun it would seem to be relatively strong claim to say the violence would not increase with this doubling of the number guns in society.
If MikeB302000 were to defend his claim “more guns the more gun violence” is obvious I think his is going to have to restrict the domain of the claim somewhat. Which will then still leave open the response of, “So what? Violent crimes committed with GUNS is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the TOTAL violent crime/murder/injury/etc. rate.”
Once he gets pushed into the total violent crime rate discussion the obviousness of his claims disappears completely and a substantial body of data is needed to support the claims. At that point Linoge is completely correct, if MikeB302000 doesn’t have proof then his claim of fact, in essence, does not exist.
If I were to wear the anti-gun activist hat for just a moment I would say this and might be able to get some hesitant agreement with the pro-gun activists:
Since a zero gun society is not realistic the first order legislative and enforcement question becomes, “What is the optimal number and/or distribution of firearms in society that can be realistically achieved?”
But the anti-gun activists do not make an attempt at answering such a nuanced question. The demands for “ridding society of illegal guns”, as in MAIG, is a crude attempt at answering that question without considering the “realistic” part. It presumes the answer is to remove all guns from the hands of “people for who the law says it is illegal to possess firearms”. The problems with this are many:
The anti-gun owner activists will never find common ground and will seldom even find agreement on the smallest detail with the pro-gun owner activists. This is because, for the most part, they are working with completely different data set. The dataset of the anti-gun activist is primarily composed of the victims of criminal and negligent use of firearms. This is a subset of the total data available. The pro-gun owner activist dataset includes the Constitutional, defensive, recreational, and sometimes philosophical issues. What is trivially obvious to the anti-gun owner activist becomes at best a murky issue and frequently clearly false.
Update: I should have also included this from Brady Campaign lawyer Dennis Henigan:
I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime. For instance, simple cross-national comparisons of gun availability and crime do not control for the degree to which various countries impose legal restrictions on firearms. It also is difficult to sort out whether high levels of gun ownership lead to high crime rates or whether high crime rates lead to high levels of gun ownership.
If even the Brady Campaign is not convinced that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime then what does that say about people like MikeB302000?
The tree of liberty grows only when watered by the blood of tyrants.
Bertrand Barère
Last sentence of a speech given at the trial of Louis XVI given in December 1792.
[I’m reminded of this because of the events in Egypt.
While this is more than a little truth in this statement the events of the French Revolution and others show that things can get more than a little carried away in the passion of the moment. It would seem to me the moral obligation to only use deadly force when there is imminent danger of death or permanent injury to innocent life or after careful deliberation at a trial when emotions have cooled some should still apply.—Joe]
Via email:
The Lewiston Pistol Club will host an Appleseed Rifle Marksman Clinic at the Bernie Petersen Memorial Range on May 14-15, 2011. The entire range will be reserved from 8 – 5 on Saturday and Sunday.
The Appleseed Clinic focuses on the basics of good marksmanship – sight alignment, sight picture, breath control, trigger control and follow through. Interspersed with the shooting, the Clinic leaders deliver an oral history of April 19th, 1775 – the day the shot heard around the world was fired on the Lexington green.
The Appleseed Clinic is an excellent introduction to rifles for youth and beginners. But even old hands have trouble passing the graduation exam – the Army Qualification Test. The final target is the size of a postage stamp at 25 meters. Think that’s an easy shot? Come show us how it’s done!
• General information on Appleseed: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/index.html
• LPC Appleseed Clinic information: http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php?topic=18878.0
• LPC Appleseed Registration: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/1080526885
• Information on what to bring: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/as_prepare.htmlIf you have any questions regarding the Appleseed Project or specifics for coming that day, please contact Larry Cernik at r.contender AT juno.com.
If you have any questions regarding the LPC portion of the Appleseed Clinic, please contact me at action AT lewistonpistol.org.
John Grimes
LPC Action Director
The defeat of Proposition B in Missouri is another nail in the coffin of the National Rifle Association, proof of its waning influence over American politics. The NRA unleashed a massive campaign of spending and grass roots mobilization, with personal appearances by leaders such as NRA President Charlton Heston. Nonetheless, Missourians rejected the ill-conceived hidden handgun proposal.
…
After losing in Missouri, where can the gun lobby count on victory? This defeat, coming on the heels of a resounding referendum vote in Florida to crack down on gun shows, proves that states once considered the heart of the NRA’s power base are rejecting its extremist pro-gun message. As Americans’ support for sensible gun control grows, the NRA’s power continues to crumble.
Violence Policy Center
Press release April 7, 1999
[Note that the year is 1999. Those were dark days for us.
I was reminded of this by the closing of the office of a gun control group.
One could also point out the observation made by Mark Twain, “The report of my death is an exaggeration”, would also be applicable here.—Joe]
F-Troop wants to “study” the “sporting purposes” of some popular shotguns. Maybe they’re desperate to justify their existence. Maybe they’re just bored, or maybe they hate certain liberties enumerated in the constitution. I don’t know, but it’s about time for Congress to look for ways to clamp down on F-Troop, and question the legitimacy of the Gun Control Act of 1968. F-Troop, and federal gun restrictions, are relics of the 1920s Prohibition era, and it’s about time we explore ways to rid ourselves of that ugly legacy once and for all. Short of that, we should at least be able to keep it from growing until we have the votes in Congress to eliminate it.
ETA; Hat tip to Uncle for pointing to the NSSF article.
Gun violence is all too prevalent in our society. It is a plague, and we must dedicate ourselves to its eradication. We must use both education and legislation to combat the deadly consequences of weapon-related crimes.
The shooting that takes in Arizona, in Brooklyn, or no matter what city or state … We have become a society that has embraced a gun culture. Enough is enough. We want our country back; we want our cities back; we want our schools back; we want our homes back; we want to, once again, return to a society where gun violence and innocent people being shot, maimed, or killed are not part of the daily tabloids.
…
There are no First Amendment Rights in your home.
New York State Senator Eric Adams
January 2011
Brooklyn Senator Launches Gun Control Campaign
[The first part of the quote above is from the linked article. The last sentence is from the associated YouTube video which I have embedded above.
I’m pretty sure he meant Fourth Amendment when he said First Amendment. But even if it was a slip of the tongue rather than ignorance for a lawmaker to do that is pretty disturbing.
Combining his stated goal of eradication of “gun violence” and hatred of a culture that exercises our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with his carelessness and/or ignorance of the Bill of Rights I just have to ask, “What would he think of those that attempt to ignore the 13th Amendment instead of the Second?”—Joe]
Oleg Volk is trying;
I am trying to help Dick Heller with raising funds for more legal mischief in DC.
I may be a good idea to assist Heller in piling on, as you are able. The more the anti rights bigots, cowards, liars and charlatans in Washington have to contend with, the better. They are getting desperate now, seeing their Big Chance slipping away after so many generations of careful plotting and planning to spoil this great experiment that is America. The more these kinds of straight-up contests (the Heller kind) are made public, the more the forces of evil lose their control, and they know it. They are afraid, and they will do some very stupid things as a result.
See; right here– This is why the beast hates the internet and lusts for control of it.
Meredith strikes me as the kind of person who reads dystopian novels as though they were instruction manuals.
I mean… that’s some serious “keep you up at night scary” reprogramming she’s advocating.
Exodus
January 28, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—Meredith.
[Yup.
I think it is because they don’t have any sense of history or they believe the big lie that “if only the right people were in charge”. They just don’t understand that, in the most simplistic terms, all power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely and that every class is unfit to govern.—Joe]
I’ve put off saying this for about ten years, but it’s gotten to be too much. “Sorry” to you good gunsmiths. I know you’re out there. I’d say that you know who you are, and I’m sure you do, but the problem is; the bad ones also think they’re the good ones. They’re super good, even. That’s always the way it works. I began to realize this some time in the 1970s when I was in the early stages of my career as a musical instrument mechanic with an alternate career as a live sound mixer (“technician” or “engineer”, respectively, for those who feel it needs to sound exciting and hard to reach).
The really smart sound engineers could quote you all the specs of every piece of gear they had. They could recite from memory the center frequencies of all 31 bands of a graphic equalizer, for example. After they had everything all set up and the system response tweaked using the pink noise generator with the front-of-house EQs, monitor EQs and active crossovers, when the performance actually started (which is when the real job of actually making it all sound good actually begins) they’d turn around satisfied, sit down, and have a sandwich and a little chat about sweet nothings. Man, those guys were really smart, and they often made sure everyone around them understood that they were smart. Why, they went to college, and stuff, don’t you know?
It seems we get an inordinate proportion of failed or stalled UltiMAK mount installations, an inordinate number of misunderstandings of how the system works, from, you guessed it– gunsmiths.
Apparently, they know and understand far too much to be bothered with reading and following the instructions. Even when they contact me about this or that perceived problem, they are too smart to accept my explanations. They, you see, understand mechanics better than the person who designed the system, built the first prototypes using hand tools and common power tools in a musical instrument shop, did the majority of testing, wrote most of the patent claims, and used the system for over ten years. They tell me all the reasons why it can’t possibly, ever work, why my hands-on experience is wrong, why the experience of over ten thousand users of a single model is all wrong, and how I’m being a dumb jerk for suggesting they might just go ahead and follow the simple instructions to the letter anyway and then see how it goes.
Since an inordinate number of damaged mounts have come from such gunsmiths also (again, because they are smarter and more experienced) I have to wonder how many of them go on to become politicians, city administrators, professors, or left wing community organizers. There is an uncanny set of parallels.
That’s the assertion of all leftists (communists, socialists, Fascists, Nazis, the KKK, Progressives, or whatever it is they prefer to be called this week). Here’s one of the super duper smart people (Chuck Schumer) discussing the horrible things (naturally) that will ensue if the socialists don’t get their way, and the Three Branches of Government that all have to get along. Rather than imbed the video, I link to Schumer’s comment here, to show that Reasoned DiscourseTM has broken out on YouTube (at the time of the this post, comments are turned off there).
To summarize the ultrasmart senator’s comments; our creditors want us to go farther in debt, and the three branches of government are the House, Senate, and the President. Oh; and we have to “…pay the debt ceiling…” Well it’s good to know that the smart people are in charge of ordering us around. I’d hate to be pushed around by a fool.
This, says I, is why we can’t allow the smart people the power to make our decisions for us. Don’t tell anyone (it may be too uncomfortable for some of the sensitive types) but some people are so stupid that they actually believe they’re smarter than most everyone else. What is it that’s said of those who have such problems– that they’re usually the last to know?
I suppose New Yorkers like Schumer because he brings them lots of booty. Or they think he does.
If there is no proof, it is not “obvious”.
Alternatively, if it is so very “obvious”, present the proof.
Linoge
January 30, 2011
Comment to A problem with diversity
[This was in response to MikeB302000 who was attempting a proof by vigorous assertion. “It’s obvious” or “It’s just common sense” is not proof but some people just don’t get this. In this particular case MikeB302000 admits he doesn’t care about truth or falsity, causation or correlation so it really doesn’t matter what you say, the data you present, or the logic of your proof. All that matters is that you share his delusional view of the world.—Joe]
It’s just word salad; you’re not really missing anything. If you want a precis, just take your index finger and bounce it across your lips while making “Blub! Blub! Blub!” noises.
Tamara K.
January 28, 2011
In email when asked by Say Uncle for a short version of what Brady Campaign Board Member Joan Peterson posted.
[Robb Allen had a pretty good synopsis too:
Yeah, ‘word salad’ is as good of a descriptor as any. I can’t make heads nor tails of what she’s trying to say. It’s almost like “My side is losing because people are using legal terms and saying mean things and then there’s … SQUIRREL!!!!”
I sort of wondered if there was alcohol or some other mind alternating drug involved. Other than the normal intoxicating effects of hoplophobia of course.—Joe]
I sometimes wonder if people who get published in newspapers believe what they write or if they are actually this sloppy with the facts:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence estimates that each year, 100,000 people in this country are killed by firearms. Spend an hour on the organization’s Web site, and you can watch the day’s total tick unnervingly up.
The writer is confusing injuries with deaths and doesn’t seem to care how many of those were justified, or even praiseworthy, shootings.
Yet recent studies suggest that, far from protecting people who keep them, guns increase the odds that their owners or innocent bystanders will be harmed.
That was pulled out of thin air. Unless “recent” means going back to the discredited 1986 Kellerman study or one of the highly questionable follow on studies.
The U.S. has, far and away, the highest homicide rate of any affluent democracy, and guns are the method of choice.
Historian Jill Lepore notes that in Europe, the annual murder rate is well below 2 per 100,000 people; here it is around five.
This ignores the murder of 10s of millions by their own governments during the 1930s and 1940s. It also ignores the significantly higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland compared to their neighbors while having a murder rate of about 0.7/100K. The same is true of Norway with a murder rate of 0.6/100K.
The murder rates per 100K in some other countries in Europe and nearby (from here) include:
All of those are greater than Switzerland and Norway so to blame it on gun ownership laws is deceptive at best.
Either the facts are irrelevant to these people or they know they have to lie to have any chance of winning.
I’ve been reading what people have been saying about Utah and their proposed “state gun”:
After reading these posts, editorials, and comments it appears to me there sure are a lot of people who have a problem with cultural diversity.
What we need is Gun Rehab. Like every other irrational compulsion it may be modified by Rehabilitation. We need to start a campaign to make Gun Rehab cool. Make TV reality shows out of it. Big TV ad money there. Get Dr. Phil to rehabilitate famous gun owners who would like to give up carrying guns, if they only could. Group discussion to bring to light their compulsion and fears and expose them to the light of day. Follow through and further sessions if necessary. My god, we’ve got to do something! Let’s try that.
We must ask psychologists how therapists learn to change the belief system of a paranoid, defensive, angry, aggressive person who hates authority, must assert independence, and is detached from the suffering of others. ….has maybe a superiority complex…..to make up for feelings of weakness etc? I don’t mean only the gun shooters, No. The right wing Congress! Does this sound like some of our right wing conservative gun nuts? Full of angry, defensive, aggressive statements. Who want to get the government off all our backs. Guns defend American Freedom. No matter how much people suffer?
Let’s try to use therapist’s insights and techniques to understand their mind set and eventually arrive at a way to deal with the right wing in America. They need some kind of treatment, if not individually, then as a cultural group. They are a threat to the country, and that’s not paranoia.
Meredith
January 27, 2011
Comment to Utah’s Gun Appreciation Day.
[As someone else once said (was it Lyle?) something like, “What is it with leftists and psych wards?” If someone doesn’t agree with them they think their opponent must be insane.
If that rant doesn’t make you question the wisdom of requiring psych evaluations for gun ownership your brain isn’t firing on all cylinders. It’s the perfect Catch-22. If you want to own a gun you must be insane and therefore are not fit to own a gun.
Also of interest is that she claims we are paranoid yet says not only gun owners but “the right wing in America” are a threat to the country. One has to wonder if Meredith’s irony meter was overloaded by that comment.—Joe]
If there isn’t a law or regulation against this there probably will be shortly.
A friend of mine suggested this but I’ll leave his name out of it unless he tells me otherwise.
First you go to your local sex toy store and buy the biggest, most realistic dildo you can find. Before going through security you attach it such that is hangs down your leg in a realistic fashion. You then opt out for backscatter nude pictures. It will pass through the metal detector just fine but if they do a full pat-down they are going to find it.
Now—what are they going to do?
If they let you through because they figure that is just part of your normal “equipment” then you have just demonstrated you can defeat their three ounce rule with your three pounder.
If they insist on a full examination they are going to have to take you all the way down to the bare skin (and silicone rubber). This will take additional time. If large numbers of people do this then it drives the WAY cost up and makes the body scanners almost pointless.
For bonus points (and this was part of my friend’s suggestion) you do this with a bunch of guys going through as a group with tickets to Las Vegas. You volunteer that you are going for a “special ladies event”.
The same sort of approach can be done by the women with fake breasts.
Remember, TSA backwards is A Security Theater.
I just finished reading the ATF Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns. Say Uncle and Sebastian already have posts up so check those out too.
My take away is that the ATF have a tough job in trying to enforce the import restrictions on firearm not suitable for sporting purposes. They struggle with how to define “sporting purpose”. They concluded IPSC and USPSA don’t qualify because those sports didn’t exist when the 1968 Congress passed the law and hence they must have meant the types of sports common at the time. In this case originalism works against us. If you recall the 1998 report (I probably have it around someplace I remember reading it and getting upset at the time) they pointed out that if the “sporting purpose” restriction is to mean anything at all then it must be a rather static definition. If it were not then some sport could be invented such that the restricted gun was particularly well suited for that particular sport and the restriction would have to be lifted. Hence the law would become meaningless.
I understand where they are coming from and once you accept they are tasked with enforcing this stupid law they are probably taking the most rational approach. For this reason I mostly give them a pass on this issue. Our real beef should be with Congress and possibly the courts.
Yes, it seems like the “sporting purpose” requirement should be easy to get thrown out by the courts because the Heller decision said the Second Amendment wasn’t about duck hunting—it was about self-defense and the militia. Hence any firearm that was useful for self-defense and military service (as per the Miller decision as well) would be explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. In the recent study they explicitly call out military purpose shotguns and accessories as being grounds to forbid the importation of them. Just exactly backwards from Miller and Heller. There might also be an “unconstitutionally vague” approach that could be used here too.
But to a large extent taking things to court is like rolling the dice unless you have lots of case law backing you up. In our situation there is probably a lot of case law against us and it will have to be evaluated at a higher level before things go our way. Hence I think the first thing that should be done is to get to Congress to remove the “sporting purpose” language from firearms law. The worst case downside of failure with this approach is things don’t change. In the case of taking things to court the worst case downside is that we get some terrible precedent established that is difficult or impossible to get out from under and it affects far more firearms than those being blocked from importation.
One of the most interesting sections of the study is actually a little off topic.
The following is from page 2 when discussing the background of the sporting purpose language:
This section addresses Congress’ concern that the United States had become a “dumping ground of the castoff surplus military weapons of other nations,” in that it exempted only firearms with a generally recognized sporting purpose.
I read this to mean that congress was trying to protect domestic manufactures from competition by foreign nations. Although I suppose it could also be interpreted as a concern that foreign nations would be able to more easily upgrade their equipment by getting cash for their old gear.
Whatever this unorganized militia of ours is doing, I think we should keep doing it.
It’s rather comforting to think that something we do in our spare time for no pay, trumps those who do this full-time for 6-figure salaries.
Kinda a David and Goliath sorta thing except we’re Goliath and we have all the damn rocks.
kaveman
January 25, 2011
Comment to Brady Campaign Response on SOTU Speech
[Political extermination of bigots is very difficult. We still have remnants of the KKK and Nazi skinheads even though their heyday was at least 60 years ago. The heyday of the anti-gun bigots was only about 15 years ago. We are definitely winning but the battle will probably never be over. We need at least two generations and probably three before their hateful culture will no longer be a threat to humanity in our country. As we win here we need to expand the war to free ourselves from other security theater areas such as search and seizure, the war on recreation drugs, ID cards, and attempt to liberate the people of other countries as well. These rights are self-evident and universal.
Keep throwing the rocks.—Joe]