Category Archives: Uncategorized

Chicago sez: “Do as we do, because it works so well.”

Chicago mayoral candidate Gery Chico has a plan to fix Chiraq’s little “gun violence” problem: Force Indiana and Wisconsin to inflict Illinois-style victim-disarmament laws on their citizens, suing them if necessary.

‘If we can’t get Indiana and Wisconsin to work with us, we sue ’em’
Chico said more than 60 percent of guns recovered from crime scenes in Chicago arrive from out of state. Previous reports have attributed the largest share—19 percent—to Indiana, which allows gun owners to sell their weapons without background checks or a record of the sale.

I wonder what percentage originated in-state, from felons equipped with FOIDs?

I mean…

A federal class-action suit filed here last fall said 40 percent of firearm-related crimes in Chicago involved guns imported from the suburbs.

The number crime guns originating in Illinois — immediately around your bright shining city — is more than twice as much as those coming from the next leading state?

Let’s jump down that rabbit hole.

According to that report, 40.4% of Chicago’s crime guns do come from a single state: Illinois. The next closest is Indiana at 21.0% almost half IL’s contribution. From there, the next state is Mississippi at 5.1%, ahead of Wisconsin’s diminutive  4.0%. I wonder why he ignores MS? That state doesn’t have deep enough pockets to pick?

How much will the Indiana numbers jump if they were to adopt Illinois’ oh-so-successful model?

Chicago’s problem is Illinois. Maybe Chico should sue the State Police for giving felons FOIDs so they can buy those guns.

He passed the background check when he bought the gun, so I guess his felony was never properly entered into NICS.

What it looks like is that Illinois has created a a system for felons (or other prohibited persons) to verify whether or not they’re in NICS for just 10 bucks and no consequences.

“Hey, look, Jaquan. I got my FOID. My record didn’t make it into NICS. I’m clean.”

“Cool, bro. Here’s a grand. Go buy guns for the gang.”

 

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Stupid Enemies, Part II

Last week, we saw an idiot enter a bill to make violating the Undetectable Firearms Act illegal. Now I think I need to add a “Department of Redundacy Department” category to our Gun Culture Primer.

Illinois state Sen. Julie Morrison has filed an “assault weapon” ban bill, SB 107. It’s the usual, with grandfathering of registered “assault weapons,” which can then be transferred only to an heir or out of state.

I always like to see just what gets defined as an “assault weapon.” This one includes a doozy.

(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
[…]
(ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;

Most folks call that a short-barrel rifle (SBR), and it’s an NFA item that already has to be registered. And Illinois regulates the heck out of them.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

CDC is at it again: School Homicides

On January 25, 2019, the CDC released a report on school homicide trends.

Characteristics of School-Associated Youth Homicides — United States, 1994–2018
The overall 22-year trend for single-victim homicide rates did not change significantly. However, multiple-victim incidence rates increased significantly from July 2009 to June 2018.
[…]
Overall, media reports were solely relied upon for coding demographic and circumstantial details for 80 (18.6%) of 431 incidents.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But…

First off, their own Table 2 gives different incident numbers. In text, they claim 431. Table 2 says says 393 single-victim incidents and 33 multi-victim incidents. That’s only 426 total incidents. So right from the start, I take issue with their “data.”

Moving on…

In fact, eyeballing that chart, single-victim incidents/deaths… appear to trend downward, from roughly .052/100K to around .034/100K; a difference of .018/100K. That’s a drop of almost 35%, which strikes me as significant.

Multi-victim incidents — over the entire period — have increased (eyeballing again) from the neighborhood of .004/100K to .010/100K.

Deaths in multi-victim incidents definitely seem to have increased significantly, from around .002/100K to .048/100K.

Now allow me to explain why that is absolutely meaningless.

By their own admission, at least 47.42% of these school incidents did not occur at school or at a school-related event. I have to guess at the number of non-school incidents. They tell us that there were 33 total multi-victims incidents. They tell us 10 people died in non-school multi-victim incidents. But they never tell us. How many non-school incidents there were. To be “multi-victim,” I’ll assume a minimum of 2, so there may have been 5 multi-victim non-school incidents. Or it could be as low as 2 incidents. Either way, nearly half the “school homicides” weren’t at school.

By their own admission, 210 people –40.85% — of the victims were not killed at school or at a school-related event.

I was hoping to find a breakout of weapons type by incident location. They don’t do that. So I went looking at their references to see if I could find the data myself. But when I saw this…

2016–17 and 2017–18 multiple-victim cases were identified through manual Internet searches using phrases such as “school shooting” and “multiple victims and school,” as well as supplementary review of web-based firearm injury data sets (i.e., Everytown for Gun Safety and the Gun Violence Archive) to identify cases matching the School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System case definition for multiple-victim youth homicides.

Everytown for Gun Safety. Regular readers may recall that I like to play find the school shooting with Everytown’s alleged school shootings list. When I started almost a year ago, only 71% of their “school shootings” were in fact school shootings by their own definition. The last time I checked, only 40% of the listing met their own definition. At least one “shooting” hadn’t occurred at all; anywhere.

Since the CDC compiled their “school-related” homicide data from a source which gets that wrong 60% of the time, I am forced to assume that the numbers I get from this report are worse than we thought. Nearly half of these researchers’ school incidents aren’t. And the one’s that they do claim happened at school… come from sources that invent fake listings.

Dear Bog: a fake report based on fake stats based on fake news. This error-ridden CDC report on school homicides really needs to be retracted. Their discussion cites numbers that differ from their own tables, they claim one trend is insignificant when it’s actually a 35% reduction (by their own numbers), nearly half their “school-related” incidents aren’t school-related by their own data, and they used a source known to have an error rate of as much as 60%. We paid Holland $106,380 a year for this garbage?

There was a reason for the Dickey Amendment, and we obviously need to keep the CDC out of this.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Let’s look a little closer at my “Baker Act” suggestion

Tuesday, I wondered why the VNRA was pushing “red flag” laws with “due process” instead of a Florida style Baker Act. After all, the Baker Act allows due process before the subject’s Second Amendment right are suspended.

In comments, JdL asked a very reasonable question.

But I’m not crazy about your proposed substitute. Why do we need any law that snatches someone off the street who has not committed any crime?

It’s a trap for the VNRA.

Proponents of red flag/ERPOs claim their only concern is getting guns away from dangerous people.

The VNRA — who backtracked slightly after the uproar over their support — claim they don’t want dangerous people to have guns, but that due process is needed. Except when it isn’t.

“I have been working with members of the Assembly and Senate to ensure they fully understand the dangers of poorly drafted red flag legislation and the due process violations that come with.”

If safety is the real motivator for these laws, “Baker Act” type laws would seem to be a better fit with the Constitution, although still problematical in its preemptive (“pre-crime“) aspect.

And therein lies my trap. For victim disarmers, whether Giffords Law Center or the Vichy National Rifle Association.

Every state and the District of Columbia already has Baker Act or equivalent laws on the books. And they’ve survived judicial scrutiny. They allow due process before permanent (or long-term) loss of rights. They provide tools to take people into custody, with probable cause as opposed to anonymous complaints, to determine if they are a danger to themselves or others.

I’m proposing nothing more than using existing laws that allow due process and do what these people claim to want.

The only thing ERPOs do that current laws and tools don’t do is violate human/civil rights without due process, with no notice. Anonymously. And then leave the possibly now angered subjects on the loose with access to other lethal weapons.

“Baker Act” style laws require probable cause for someone to be taken in evaluation (officer called, notes person behaving strangely), then a doctor establishes probable cause for committal hearing (yep, he’s crazy), then a due process hearing is held for a judge to make the determination, at which point 2A rights can be suspended.

ERPOs skip all the probable cause and due process and go straight to rights violation. As others have noted, ERPOs are just legalized SWATting.

There’s a reason they call them “red flag” laws.

So, please NRA, explain again why you back unconstitutional new laws when these tools are already in every states’ toolbox?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Expropriation”

I was cruising the usual gun bloggers for newsletter fodder last week and came across this.

“Expropriation Without Compensation” is Theft
There is no voice of reason. One guy is worried it will stop foreign investment. (Really? Just because you steal things that have been in another’s possession for generations, you think people might be turned off by that?)

When I saw the post title, and knowing that a big expropriation is coming, I initially assumed this was the bump-fire stock ban, in which a minimum of hundreds of thousands of people will theoretically lose anywhere from 280,000 to 520,000 pieces of property to corrupt government acts.

But no.

South Africa is just about set to steal land from white farmers because whites are not allowed in SA anymore. (Almost) South Africa white farmers crisis: This IMPORTANT date could change South Africa FOREVER.

The date in question for South Africa is March 31, 2019, which might add to the confusion, since our ban was formally published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2018. 90 days after that (when the ban proper goes into effect) is March 26, 2019.

Pretty close coincidence. And yes, I do equate the South African and American government thefts. Both establish precedents that the government can take whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and doesn’t even have to make a token payment. In South Africa, it’s farms. In America, it’s toys.

For now. It’s a precedent. What might our benevolent government decide we don’t need next? Yes, a semiauto ban could be on the horizon. But why limit the precedent to firearms?

Anyone remember a guy named Gore, who planned to outlaw internal combustion? Take a look at the Green New Deal being pushed by incoming Democrats.

I will admit that the SA and American thefts differ in a key aspect. The South Africans formally (if rather corruptly) amended their constitution to make their theft “legal.”

In America, the ATF simply (and rather corruptly) wrote a new rule. No amendment, legislation, or rational rationale required. Just language games.

How crazy is it that the South Africans stealing land are paying more lip service to law than the United States?

Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Bump-Stock-Type Devices now banned

Acting AG Whitaker signed the rule today.

I will be posting more, after I’ve read the entire 157 page document.

So far, the ban appears to rest on this:

The ruling determined that the phrase “single function of the trigger” in the statutory definition of”machinegun” was best interpreted to mean a “single pull of the trigger.”

They transferred the “definition” of machinegun from the device to the user.

More later.

ADDED: 12/18/2018, 17:27ET: I am working on a detailed analysis, which I’ll publish later as a separate post (there it is). It’s bad, but there’s some mildly amusing — to me anyway — stuff in there.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Someone at Gallup is getting fired

For approaching the truth.

In a few media outlets, the latest Gallup poll on weapons bans is getting traction.

Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose ‘Assault Rifles’ Ban
A Gallup poll released October 19 shows that a majority of Americans oppose passing a ban on “assault rifles.”

According to the poll, 40 percent of Americans support such a ban but 57 percent oppose it. Gallup notes that the 40 percent “support for an assault rifles ban is below the historical average of 47%.”

The numbers are news because they invert years of alleged surveys which indicated massive support for such a ban. For instance:

And yet, here we are in October 2018:

Gallup: In U.S., Support for Assault Weapons Ban at Record Low
In Gallup’s 2016 Crime poll, conducted Oct. 5-9, opposition now exceeds support by 25 percentage points, 61% to 36%.

“Damn it, Swift! Any time the numbers are pro-RKBA, you’re supposed to flip the chart over before releasing it.”

This may be the closest-to-honest poll released by Gallup in years, if not decades. I never believed the previous counter-polls because they never approached the reality expressed in actual popular votes, referendums and initiatives. This new Gallup poll comes closer to matching real-world voting by the people.

People “vote” in other ways, as well. Earlier this year, California reclassified crippled “bullet-button” rifles as “assault weapons” and required they be registered. It’s been estimated that only three percent (3%) were actually registered.

One might expect that registration compliance rate to be a little higher if even 36% percent of folks think they should be banned.

Gallup seems to have stumpled up, and accidentally released, the partial truth of majority opposition to confiscation schemes. But they still haven’t grasped the magnitude of opposition.

Three percent. Compliance. Consider that California laws essentially required every lawful gun owner to be licensed (thus registered), and all firearms sales to be recorded. 97% of registered owners with registered suddenly-assault-weapons blew them off this year. In California.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Tammy Baldwin: Idiot, or 18 U.S. Code § 241/242 conspirator to violate rights?

Tammy Baldwin: Middleton shooting shows need for gun restrictions ‘consistent with the Second Amendment’
The Middleton workplace shooting that injured four people Wednesday shows the need for gun-control measures “consistent with the Second Amendment,” such as requiring universal background checks and banning so-called “bump stocks,” U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said.”

Starting with “bump stocks”… the asshole didn’t use one. In fact, he didn’t use a rifle, much less a semiautomatic rifle.

He used a handgun. And if he tried to mount a stock on that, he’d either need a tax stamp, or be breaking another existing law.

Getting the tax stamp would be problematical since he was a prohibited person, having been involuntarily committed.

As for universal background checks preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint, there seems to be another problem.

Officials say ATF has “run into roadblocks” about the weapon used in the shooting at WTS Paradigm. Chief Foulke said aspects of the weapon are making it difficult for them to trace. The chief said there is “something unique about that weapon” and whose hands it has passed through.

Something about the weapon itself that makes it untraceable? Sounds like the serial number was removed. Obliterating a serial number is unlawful under existing law. Transferring a firearm without a serial number is unlawful under existing law. At a guess, it’s stolen; whether he stole it himself, or bought the stolen weapon through a black market sale.

Either way, I doubt he would have submitted his prohibited self for a background check. 90+% of criminals using firearms in the crimes don’t.

Baldwin, when you figure out a way to get the criminals to obey your gun-control laws, let me know. Until then, STFU about further violations of the rights of people who didn’t do it.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Munich 1972

I’ve been watching all the memes and the news about some spoiled overpaid, loser becoming a model for what I feel is an over-rated shoe. If that’s what passes for an athlete and man of valor these days we’ve sunk quite a bit.

Munich, 1972 Athletes

If you want a refresher on what happened,

Remembering Munich 1972

Munich 1972

 

They believed in something and sacrificed everything

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May their memory be for a blessing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

הי״ד  השם ינקום דמו  HY”D

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

3D Nukes?

The case against 3D-printed guns goes… nuclear?

3D plastic firearms in the bull’s-eye
What do a hydrogen bomb and 3D guns have in common?

More than you may think.

I’ll give Harris this much: they both explode.

“One famous case that raises — but does not resolve — the difficult issues here is The Progressive case from the late 1970s,” said Robert WT Martin, a Sidney Wertimer professor of government at Hamilton. “At issue was the proposed publication of a possible design for a hydrogen bomb. In this instance, a temporary injunction against publication was successfully maintained by the judge for many months. During that time, however, another publication printed information about another design and the government eventually dropped the case (and the original article was published).

I’d say that United States v. Progressive, Inc.‘s precedent does apply, legally and practically.

The Morland article made it into the wild, so the government dropped the case as being moot. DefDist’s files are also in the wild. I have them myself, and have for years.

And I’ll note that in the 39 years since the article was published, not single nuclear weapon has been detonated by a nongovernmental entity anywhere on the planet. Likewise, No crime committed with a plastic Liberator has been reported.

Where the cases differ is this: to the best of my knowledge, the first working nuclear weapon of any type was detonated just 73 years ago. Every nuclear weapon detonated has been a major government project.

But people have been making firearms themselves for nearly a thousand years. Commercial mass production is a rather recent development.

Successful firearms have been made from fairly simple castings, drilled out bar stock, common pipe, manually machined castings, CNC machined castings, and metal-powder deposition. That was never much of a problem.

Suddenly someone has come up with a plastic gun (except that it actually requires metal parts to function, and incorporates even more metal to comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act), which doesn’t work well, is under-powered when it does work, and has a disconcerting tendency to explode. It’s too bulky and awkward to conceal worth a darn. It’s a single shot (even when it doesn’t explode). It’s inaccurate.

And suddenly homemade guns will cause the nuclear end of civilization as we know it.

[Lt. Bryan Coromato, public information officer for the Utica Police Department], who would like to see the guns regulated, noted that the 3D guns are on the newer side and he is not well versed on the subject

One, don’t spout off on the subject when you know nothing about it. Two, All guns are regulated, whether they come from an FFL’s factory, are assembled from plumbing supplies, or are 3D-printed. See above about people making guns for the better part of a millennium.

So, Lieutenant, why does this make you pee your pants, and not this?

By the way, Mr. Harris:

According to published reports, Wilson already has stated he would ignore the judge’s order and said he has begun taking orders.

Wrong. Wilson said he would comply with the order, which specifically allows direct distribution within the United States.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail