BP and the FBI both say it wasn’t an intentional act but one has to wonder how they know that for certain so soon.  Details here.

FBI agents found “no evidence for any criminal or terrorist activity” linked to Wednesday’s blast at the third-largest U.S. refinery, FBI spokesman Al Tribble said in Houston.

Two Islamist groups claimed responsibility, but BP also said it had ruled out sabotage as a cause of the third fatal accident in a year at the 71-year-old plant.

Of course various groups would probably claim responsibility if a meteorite fell on the Pope too.

I missed it when it first came out but late last month the TSA banned all lighters from checked as well as carry-on luggage.  I had grumbled about the congressional idiots who passed the law before and sort of expected the TSA would bring some smarts to the table.  I was wrong.  The TSA expanded the congressional idiocy.  Read their press release here.  Relevant snippets are here:

After carefully evaluating the security threat, Congressional intent and operational considerations, TSA determined that passengers should be prohibited from carrying all lighters on their person or in carry-on luggage in the sterile areas of airports or onboard an airplane. The policy will be fully enforced beginning April 14, 2005.  

…

All lighters will be banned from sterile areas beyond security checkpoints at airports.  This includes, for example, butane, absorbed-fuel (Zippo-type), electric/battery-powered and novelty lighters.

TSA’s mission includes preventing air piracy and use of an airplane as a weapon.  TSA prohibits items that may be used to that end from being carried aboard an airplane.  The lighter ban will fulfill Congress’ intent as expressed in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and reduce security vulnerabilities, providing one more layer of security for the nation’s travelers.

No mention of matches in their press release.  So I guess if you light a fuse with a match they don’t have a problem with it.  And interestingly enough, confirming their idiocy, is that their list of prohibited items says:

Up to 2 lighters or 4 books of safety matches are allowed in your carry-on baggage – NOT checked baggage. Disposable lighters and absorbed liquid lighters are allowed in your carry-on baggage.

Everything I said before about the congress critters applies to the TSA idiots that implemented the idiotic law.

Yesterday I sent an email to the author of an anti-freedom editorial.  I received a response from her today and I responded:

From: Zackywacks@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:40 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Red Lake, Minnesota Shooting [On Gun Control]

Hi Joe.  Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.  I guess that any percentage of decline would not make a difference for those bent on carrying guns that get in the hands of babes and then kill other children…so let’s begin to issue guns to children in grade school so they can protect themselves from each other.  NOT!

 

Thanks again and have a nice day.

Michelle

 

From: Joe Huffman 
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:39 AM
To: ‘Zackywacks@aol.com’
Subject: RE: Red Lake, Minnesota Shooting [On Gun Control]

The point wasn’t that it wasn’t possible that some decline in gun related deaths occurred due to the assault weapon ban.  The point was that the numbers used could not possibly be accurate and that the number of gun related deaths are really irrelevant.  This is because thousands of those deaths are people shot by the police and private citizens in the defense of innocent life.  Furthermore if firearms become less available, the criminals substitute other weapons, and their victims are less able to defend themselves due to the lack of a firearm the total violent crime death rate may actually increase. To evaluate the benefits of gun control there is only one question we need to answer:

 

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

For more background:

 

https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/

 

And I fail to see how sarcasm is productive in this discussion.

 

You have a nice day too.

 

 

Joe Huffman
Senior Research Scientist
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
—-
https://blog.joehuffman.org
http://www.boomershoot.org

My son once suggested we auction off a rainy day on eBay to someone who wanted it to rain on a particular day.  They would choose the day and we would then schedule Boomershoot on that day to guarantee that there would be rain.  Except for the one event in July of ’99 (we had a fire the next day instead of rain the day of) he would have been able to deliver on his auction.

This Sunday, the 27th, we are putting on a “private party”.  I started watching the weather forecasts last weekend.  It didn’t look good–rain AND snow was predicited.  I sent an email to the participants telling them to bring rain gear and to plan on getting wet.  No response.  Okay, if they can handle it so can I and the kids helping me.

I sent an email to my cousin who owns some of the land we use for the event.  Being a farmer he watches the weather forecasts pretty close.  Our email exchange follows:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:21 PM
To: Alan
Subject: Boomers on Sunday afternoon.

There will be a few guys shooting some boomers this Sunday afternoon.  Is this something that would interfere with any of your plans?

The regular boomershoot is April 29, 30, and May 1.

-joe-

From: Alan
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:30 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Boomers on Sunday afternoon.

It will probably be snowing this week end so I won’t be out and about.  Have fun.

Alan

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:48 PM
To: Alan
Subject: RE: Boomers on Sunday afternoon.

The forecasts I have been looking at predict rain but since it’s a boomershoot event I figure freezing rain and 30 MPH winds is more likely.  But I suppose snow is possible too.

-joe-

I just sent the following email to the author of an anti gun editorial.

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wed 3/23/2005 12:31 PM
To: zackywacks@aol.com
Subject: RE: Red Lake, Minnesota Shooting [On Gun Control]

I just read your article (http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/mar/article320.html).  There are a couple errors that I thought you should be aware of.

You stated:

As a matter of fact, according to the Brady Center there was a 66% decline under the ban for crimes that could be traced back to the use of assault weapons.

But what the Brady Center actually said (http://www.bradycampaign.org/ler/docs/doj_study_talking_points.doc)

The Brady Center report had found a 66% decline in assault weapons’ share of total crime gun traces from the pre-ban period to the post-ban period.

The difference is that in your statement you said the 66% decline was in the USE of assault weapons.  Whereas what they actually said was there was a 66% decline in the assault weapons’ share of total crime gun traces.  “Crime gun traces” does not mean the gun was used in a crime.  Those traces include guns that were stolen and the trace was done to find the true owner.  In fact if you read the actual report the Brady Center bases their talking points on (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf) you will find (section 6.1) “…up to a quarter of the guns confiscated by police are associated with violent offenses or shots fired incidences”.  Furthermore the traces are at the discretion of the local police who confiscated the firearm.  Any changes in their policies regarding traces will affect those numbers.  Hence, the trace data is unreliable and to the extent it is reliable it does not reflect the use of that gun in the commission of a crime.

You also state:

Just prior to the assault ban being enacted it was noted that there were approximately 15 people killed per 100,000 in gun related deaths. By 2002 the death rate due to guns was down to 10 per 100,000 or 30% less. (www.inasa.org) I don’t know about you but that looks pretty effective to me!

Aside from the fact that you include ALL people killed with firearms, including those that are justified or even praiseworthy shootings by the police and private citizens using them in defense of innocent life if you read the National Institute of Justice report rather than the Brady Campaign talking points you get still more concerning errors:

AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

Therefore it is simply not possible that a 30% decline can be attributed to the banning of something that was only used in, at most, 8% of the crimes.  That doesn’t even include the effects of criminals substituting other weapons to commit murders if the banned firearms are unavailable.

In short your article only focuses on the adverse effects of firearms ownership and use and relies on Brady Campaign talking points rather than actual criminological results.

Regards,

Joe Huffman
—-
https://blog.joehuffman.org
http://www.boomershoot.org

Update: Fixed some format errors in the blog post version, and a couple of typos that were in the letter I sent to the author.

Looking over the requests for proposals from TSWG today I ran across this one:

R2016 Rapid Threat Assessment Screening

Develop a capability for the rapid, real-time threat assessment of an individual’s potential terrorist threat at ports of entry or other sensitive entrance areas. This proposed system must integrate physiological signals with biometric information. Preferred procedures are real-time and rely on non-invasive measures and on proven psychophysiological indices and psychometrically sound criteria. System performance must balance the risks associated with the threat environment. The capability must provide for the processing of large numbers of individuals at airports, embassies, border crossings, or other ports of entry where the base rate of intent to do harm is very small. The pre-screening device must be be portable and easily operable for use prior to a more in-depth interrogation.

Very cool if it is actually possible, some parents would love to have it for dealing with their teen-agers, and George Orwell could have used it in one of his novels.

I found the bit of information I was waiting for.  The security guard at the school in Minnesota was unarmed.  It took men with guns (the police) to stop him.  The teachers (and probably the security guard) were disarmed by law and were unable to provide effective protection.  How long will it be before the lawmakers in this country figure out what others already know about how to prevent or at least drastically reduce the damage of, these type of events?

I’ve been exploring ways to get internet access to Boomershoot 2005.  I don’t know how much it would cost yet but I found the SpeedRay 3000.  It’s not quite available yet anyway.  But it’s very cool.

I went in to have my teeth cleaned this morning and was pleased to have LeEllen as the hygienist. She is incredibly bubbly and friendly. She makes me smile–as much is possible when your mouth is full of hand tools and portions of her hands. She and her husband are also students of mine. They took a handgun class from me a few years ago and we frequently talk a little bit about guns when I see her. This time when she introduced me to the new dentist she told him about my being her instructor and that I was “a really good teacher”. That made me feel good and caused a real smile since she had temporarily removed the tools and her hands from my mouth.

The thing that made me smile, to myself, the most was something she surely didn’t intend to be funny. She talked about the new dentist and how he liked to “do everything” in dentistry–just like Dr. J that we have been seeing for the last dozen years who is the primary owner of the clinic. She then went on and on about “Dr. J. likes to do root canals and he likes to do extractions, everything!” My mind immediately thought of a sadist getting pleasure from causing pain to someone else. Not at all what she meant and certainly not what my experience with the good Dr. J. has been. But my mind twisted her words to give me many minutes of pleasure on my long drive to work this morning.  I thought of her, so cheerful and bubbly, and the gentle Dr. J. in some sort of Monty Python like skit where they do root canals and tooth extractions because they enjoy them so much.

I finally updated numbers of the referrals from the various bloggers.  My ISP had some problems for a while and I didn’t have any log files for several weeks.  That has been corrected.  I also changed the target size information.  I may change the target number (up, not down).  I need to run some numbers first.  But my guess is I need more targets now.  The new targets are four and six inch squares instead of four and six inch circles.  The rectangles will be easier to hit.  The largest target is now a 7 3/8 x 7 3/8 rectangle compared to the old 8 inch circle.  So that will be just slightly larger.

I also updated the general information page on what to bring.  The biggest change there is I removed “tarp” from the options to shoot off of.  Shooting off a slick tarp on the built up shooting positions can be “challenging”.  A non-skid shooting mat is preferable.

My family, from the farm, showed up for Barb’s birthday party yesterday and I found out there have been several grass and brush fires in the neighborhood recently.  Most years there would still be snow on the ground.  But this year they are having fire problems in mid March!  I probably will have to take special precautions to reduce the chances of fire this year.  Unless of course it snows on us–which has happened.

I found some more pictures in my camera, browsed through the pictures that were in Xenia’s camera and put a few more up.

Barb’s sister Susan asked me to do this.  Xenia helped with scanning the older pictures.