Category Archives: So Much Stupid!

NH State Sen. Jeff Woodburn: Idiot, or pro-RKBA Mole?

Suddenly, I’m not sure.

Woodburn penned a column “explaining” his bump-fire stock ban bill, which was riddled with enough errors to prompt me to write to him. It was the usual tripe you see from the gun <i”people controlling victim disarmers: bump-fire stocks turn rifles into automatic weapons, Mandalaly Bay the deadliest shooting in history, the NFA banned machineguns…

It also prompted me to read the text of his bill, SB 492.

Oh. My.

Bump Stocks

159:27 Definition. As used in this subdivision, “multiburst trigger activator” means either of the following:

I. A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge 2 or more shots in a burst by activating the device.

II. A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.

First off, you’ll note that nothing in that definition evens applies to bump-fire stocks, which simply use recoil to bring the rifle into battery and engage to trigger finger for each shot. Oopsie; that’s what happens when folks who know zip about guns try to.. well, I’m not sure now what he’s trying. Look at II.

when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.

I think that was supposed to address trigger cranks. But, as written, it doesn’t. Because it can’t increase the rate of fire of the firearm. I hate to give them ideas, but if they wanted to ban cranks, it should have read activates the firearm’s trigger multiple times per manual cyclic operation of the device.” So if you’ve got three little teeth on your crank, turning it through one full cycle hits the trigger three times. Of course, you need only remove two teeth and crank faster. But then, I figure if you just want to waste ammunition, you can always pull the trigger real fast.*

Woodburn has submitted a bill to ban stuff that only bans stuff that doesn’t exist. Is he an idiot?

Or is he a closeted freedomista, an RKBA mole, merely diverting the real victim disarmers and wasting their time?

Judging by the other bills he’s submitted, I have to go with “idiot.” And reading further down in SB 492…

159:29 Exceptions. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to:

III. The sale to, possession of, or purchase of a multiburst trigger activator by any federal, state, or political subdivision of the state agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law for use in the discharge of its official duties.

IV. The possession of a multiburst trigger activator by any law enforcement officer of any federal, state, or political subdivision of the state or state agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, when the officer is on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of the officer’s duties.

Oh. My. Imagine, if you will:
Police in a standoff with an alleged perp in a house. Tired of waiting, the officers break out the bump-fire stocks and trigger cranks and hose down the house.

And the neighborhood.

Passing traffic.

Likely each other.

Did Woodburn ask any cops if they want to use “multiburst trigger activators” on the job? Did any say, “Yes”? Do those still have LE certification?


* Disclosure: Around 25 years ago, I bought one of those “Hell-Fire” trigger adapters just to see what the fuss was. Took it to a range one  day and tried it out. Not impressed. The guy with me tried it. Not impressed.

“That was stupid.” Took it off, and tossed in a box. Haven’t even seen it in at least 14 years; I figure it got lost in a move, and I haven’t missed it a bit.

I will admit to liking the gun show display of the trigger crank tripod with dual Ruger 10/22 actions. “You kids! Get offa my lawn!”


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



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

Huh. I thought assaulting anyone was already a crime

…including reporters.

H.R _____ Journalist Protection Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for assault against journalists, and for other purposes.

But I guess I was wrong. So unless/until this passes, I’ve got this little list…

But seriously: This makes so-called “journalists” a special protected class, somehow more important than the little serfs being educated informed by their betters.

How special? Read § 120 (d)(2) for the oh-so-carefully crafted definition of “journalists.” Bloggers need not apply.

I could’ve sworn I’d once read something about “equal protection of the laws”. Guess I was mistaken; my bad.

Feel free to tell Rep. Eric Swalwell [D-CA-15] (yeah, you knew it had to be a Dim… and from the PRK, right) what you think.

Email webform here
(Zip code required: 94505 should work)

Phone:
For Washington, DC, please call 202-225-5065.
For the district office in Castro Valley, please call 510-370-3322.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Thank you for that demonstration

So DemDimocratic state Rep. Charles Young Jr. wanted to protest pro-RKBA legislation.

Miss. lawmaker displays pistol to protest gun legislation
He told House Speaker Philip Gunn that he and others are violating a joint legislative rule that says no one but sworn law enforcement officers can carry a gun in the Capitol or House and Senate chambers.

So anti-gun rules and laws… don’t work, Rep. Young?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

[UPDATE] Oops: “Authorized Urinalists”

I originally posted this on my personal blog, Random Acts of Gibberish, but it’s too funny not to share with a wider audience.


Oopsie, someone has a little explaining to do

…to the ATF.

AJC.com, the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation just published a story claiming a reporter built an assault rifle.

I helpfully emailed authorized urinalist, Ken Foskett to explain that if that’s true, someone is going to prison.

Interestingly, it took some searching to find Foskett’s email address. AJC killed the link to the reporter staff directory. I guess they got tired of getting negative feedback from people who know they’re full of shit. Fortunately, they left the actual directory online; you should bookmark it.

Nice try, Foskett.

Yeah, you edited the article from this

to this

but you forgot to change the graphic.

I just had to send Foskett one more email.

Nice try.

But you forgot to change the graphic.

Fortunately, I kept screen shots of everything in case the ATF should ask.

I expect that graphic will disappear from the AJC site in 3… 2… 1…

UPDATE, 2/8/2018: They finally realized they still had the “assault rifle” image loading. It’s now gone. Further, they’ve set the original URL…

http://investigations.blog.ajc.com/2018/02/06/home-diy-project-build-your-own-ar-15-semi-automatic-assault-rifle/

..to redirect to this one, so “assault rifle” no longer appears in the address bar.

https://www.myajc.com/blog/investigations/home-diy-project-build-your-own-untraceable/GP69yaLThpUXrLeCLYYxKN/

But no mention that they edited the original story for content.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Math for Dummies

Mathematics is a logical discipline which some gun people controlling victim disarmers find difficult to master. To aid them in understanding, I’m providing a few simplified examples of how math works in the real world.

1.
Number of firearms homicides in 1993: 17,075
Number of firearms homicides in 2015: 12,979

12,979 is 4,096 lower than 17,075

2.
Rate of firearms homicides per 100K in 1993 6.56
Rate of firearms homicides per 100K in 2015: 4.13

4.13 is 2.43 lower than 6.56

3.
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999: 824
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 2015: 489

489 is 335 lower than 824

4.
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 1999: 0.29
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 2015: 0.15

.15 is .14 lower than .29

5.
Number of counties in US: 3,007
Number of counties responsible for recent jump in firearms-related deaths: 150 (5%)

150 is 2857 less than 3,007

6.
Estimated number of firearms in US in 1993: 150,000,000 to 211,000,000 (very vague estimate based on production/sales estimates)
Estimated number of firearms in US in 2015: 265-750,000,000 (basically, no one knows at all)

750,000,000 is 539,000,000 more than 211,000,000

7.
Estimated percentage of non-murderous firarms owners: 99.9978%
Estimated percentage of estimated number of murderous firearms owners: 0.0022%

99.9978 is 99.9956 more than .0022

Those suffering the disability of mathematical competence might think this demonstrates a reduction in homicides and accidental deaths at the same time that the numbers of firearms are increasing.

As I’ve said, math is hard for gun people controlling victim disarmers. As a result, they tend to rely upon Common Core “math” principles. To aid pro-human/civil rights advocates in understanding of their opposition, I’m also providing examples of how those people reach conclusions which seem to have little resemblance to reality.

1.
Number of homicides in 1993
Number of homicides in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

2.
Rate of homicides per 100K in 1993
Rate of homicides per 100K in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

3.
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

4.
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 1999
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

5.
Number of counties in US
Number of counties responsible for recent jump in firearms-related deaths

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

6.
Estimated number of firearm in US in 1993
Estimated number of firearms in US in 2015
Not needed.

7.
Estimated percentage of non-murderous firarms owners
Estimated percentage of estimated number of murderous firearms owners
Not needed.

Shriek “We haven’t covered patriarchal percentages in college, therefore it has no meaning!”

Bonus Points for newspaper editors:
Editorial claiming machineguns used in shooting minus 404 Page Not Found when you get caught equals Zero Embarrassment.

+5 points for deletion
-10 points for doing real math; this was Common Core for Tyrants Dummies gun people controlling victim disarmers, damn it.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



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

Are You Cultured?

Cultured, lots of things are. Yogurt, viruses, pearls, and other gems, and, people. When we were younger and growing up we wanted to be cultured because it meant we had manners, that we had education and knew how to handle ourselves in a variety of situations, depending of course on what the situation called for. Or, as my Aunt would jokingly say “Act like we had some druggin up”. I suspect most parents have hopes for how their children will turn out, they have certain standards that they teach us and hope we will adhere to, such as if we see an older person on a walker we would assist them in crossing the street as opposed to whacking them over the head and robbing them. That’s the culture I grew up in, you be kind helpful and nice if the situation calls for it. Serve proper sweet tea, appreciate fried okra, take care of your horse before you take care of yourself and don’t lie, stand up for those weaker or being picked on, and other than younger siblings (I am SURE this was in the handbook somewhere) don’t be doing the picking. These are parental and cultural expectations. Perhaps yours are similar, perhaps not. I’m guessing within most of the United States, the majority of these would be somewhat recognized.

Is this something to be appreciated and prized?

Those on the left, globalist, multiculturalists and the media, but I repeat myself, would disagree. From them we are told the joy and beauty of “multiculturalism”. How it enriches the county that is invaded enlightened. So, the government is currently shut down because the Demoncratic party is refusing to budge unless they are allowed to grant amnesty and citizenship to the DACA “children”. So let’s look at that a bit. First, the Demoncrats are perfectly willing to allow the armed forces to go without pay to bring more criminals into the United States. Ok, so they were children when the came, and while that tugs on everyone’s heartstrings let’s look at some reality. For me seeing some “dreamers” burning a United States flag or flipping it off does not inspire confidence in me that they love this country. So let’s look at the cost.

First, how many of these children, up to age 31, are we talking about? Well, that depends on which act we are talking about. Whether it’s obama’s illegal DACA or the piece of crap put out by Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. Just How Large of an Amnesty Are We Talking About?

In additional to the number of actual “dreamers”, there are other numbers that will be added in. Expert: DACA amnesty to increase illegal population to 14 million, cost billions

“According to the most reliable research, recent immigrants have sponsored an average of 3.45 additional relatives,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.

“I estimate that if 700,000 DACA beneficiaries receive lawful permanent residency status under an amnesty, then they can be expected to sponsor at least an additional 1.4 million relatives over time,” she told Congress this week.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she added, “In this scenario, the award of LPR status would result in a second, de facto amnesty for the parents of DACA beneficiaries — the very individuals who brought their children to settle here illegally, creating this policy dilemma. Ultimately, an amnesty for DACA beneficiaries likely would produce more than two million new LPRs over 20 years.”

Yep, the very parents that illegally came and brought the kids will likely get amnesty as well.

This just has the makings of a future “Falestinian refugee” crisis doesn’t it?

And if you enjoy myth busting on the same, here you go. Some very juicy ones in here. Myths & Facts

And the numbers do matter. Because of obamacare for one thing. Nightmare: DACA Amnesty DREAM Act Will Cost $115 Billion Thanks to Obamacare

The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending……

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a single person living in San Jose, California with an income of $32,000 would be eligible to receive a premium tax credit of $1,048 in 2017. The numbers vary by geography because health insurance costs vary widely by geography. A single person in Brooklyn with $32,000 of income would be eligible for an annual tax credit of around $2,666. But San Jose is likely more representative due to the high concentration of DACA aliens in California. Using the San Jose figure, current DACA aliens alone would likely be immediately eligible for around $838.4 million in Obamacare subsidies this year…….

The Dream Act of 2017, however, extends legal residency to far more aliens than the current DACA program. If we include 79 percent of the 1.8 million immediately eligible, the cost would rise to $91.5 billion over a decade. Including that share of the larger 3.3 million figure would push the 10 year cost of Obamacare subsidies to the DREAM households to around $167 billion.

You really should read the whole thing, but this gives you an idea of the monetary angle.

Then we have Truth on DACA: We’ve Already Granted Amnesty to These Illegals . Mr. Duke points out yes, they’ve been caught as criminals but no one is prosecuting them. They aren’t going to jail, nor are we forcing them or their parents to reimburse the country, county or city for the education or medical services or any other services from which they have benefited. He points out it is like coming home finding someone in your house chowing down on your dinner because his dad broke in and told him it was ok. You don’t call the cops, you feel bad for him, you just tell him to leave. Where upon your next door neighbor Rachel Madcow calls up the local #MSM #MediaBias TV station and rails you are a racist because you won’t continue feeding him and paying for his toothpaste. Ok, I paraphrased that last bit.

Contrary to this assertion, however, DACA recipients have considerably lower educational attainment than do American citizens. Almost a quarter are functionally illiterate, 73 percent live in low-income housing, and only four percent complete college, according to certain studies. Allowing DACA individuals — who range from high-school age to middle age — to stay, “is really the importation of an additional underclass,” as American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson puts it. (It’s also the importation of future Democrat voters.)

I wonder in how many languages classes have to be taught in California, and how does that affect the regular American students in the class?

If we can return to my example for a moment at the top about the dreamers who burn the flag and flip off things they don’t like, turns out, that isn’t so very bad a yardstick. While it is no doubt politically incorrect to point out that not all the dreamers/schemers are angels it is worth knowing the threshold they must cross to be considered a “criminal”. DACA: Granting Amnesty to Dreamers Committing Crimes While Abandoning Their Victims

Thus, the DACA guidelines give illegal aliens committing multiple felonies and significant misdemeanors a total pass as long as they have not been convicted of their criminal activity. This means that Dreamer gang-bangers, Dreamer identity thieves, Dreamer sexual predators, Dreamers who haven’t paid income taxes, and Dreamers committing a wide range of other crimes all qualify for DACA status as long as they haven’t been convicted of their crimes.

Huh, how about that. Shades of Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv activist: Suddenly the Supreme Court isn’t good enough Seems there are other places that the average citizen that is just living their life is forced to pay a high price due to social engineering.

So the U.S. is not the only country under invasion enrichment. How is it playing out for them?

Report: Immigration Crisis Causing ‘Unprecedented’ Shift in Italy’s Demographics

If current trends continue, the report states, by 2065, first- and second-generation immigrants will exceed 22 million persons, or more than 40 percent of Italy’s total population.

‘Nations Substitution’: Witnessing the ‘Biological Extinction’ of Europeans

Some European countries, namely Italy, Germany, France and the UK, are facing the so-called “substitution of nations,” where the national ethnical majority is disappearing physically and biologically, and is being substituted by migrants, according to a recent report. Sputnik Italy discussed the issue with Daniele Scalea, the author of the report.

Italians Will Become The Minority In Italy By 2080

The number of indigenous citizens in Italy is declining at an astonishing rate. According to a Eurostat forecast, within the next 60 years, or sooner, 50% of Italy’s population will either be of African or Asian descent. This figure is due to the diminishing number of migrants from other European countries and a prolonged economic crisis in Italy. Italian and European authorities are attempting to execute a re-population program in order to solve this issue.

Another source The Incredible Shrinking Population: By 2080, Italians Will Be A Minority In Their Own Nation

I hear it now. But Sheila, don’t be such a xenophobe, they will just become “Italians” “English” “French” “Swedish” “Canadian” “American” that came from __________. Really? Not necessarily. Remember I started by talking about wanting to live with honor, to be cultured? What got me started on this was a show I saw not long ago. Now I don’t watch a lot of television at all. But this one just floored me. This was on a series of deaths in Canada. The Shafia family lost three of their beautiful daughters and their nanny. The Shafias were from Afghanistan. You can read up on it, it really was quite horrific.

Inside the Shafia killings that shocked a nation

Shafia family sentenced to life for four counts of first-degree murder

Appeal dismissed in Shafia family murder convictions

Right, the girls were killed by their parents and their brother. They had brought shame and disgrace to the family by dating and wanting to be Canadian. They wanted to integrate into the society in which they lived. And the nanny? She was the father’s first wife (not ex-wife, first wife, still wife) who couldn’t have children. So they treated her horribly but kept her around. And I guess she really was good with the children by second wife and murderer. So she was a bonus kill. Remorse?

“My conscience, my God, my religion, my creed aren’t shameful,”Shafia told the others, back inside the van. “Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows, nothing is more dear to me than my honour. Let’s leave our destiny to God and may God never make me, you or your mother honourless.”

“There is,” he said later, “no value of life without honour.”

Guess that is a “no”. Compare that with how Susan Smith behaved when she drowned her children. Her society did not support that and call it honor, she knew she had done something wrong. Now, the Shafias knew they had done something illegal, they just didn’t think it was wrong.

It’s honor of a whole perverted notion according to American, or pretty much Canadian standards. Although it probably fits right it with the idea of honor in France, the U.K. and Sweden now. Their “Acid Attacks” are due to “mental instability”, not religion, of course.

From the always wonderful Daniel Greenfield The Acid Attacks of London’s Muslim No-Go Zones.  A splash from the acid test of multiculturalism

And in case you don’t know what victims of acid attacks look like, here are photos

MUSLIM ACID ATTACKS soar in countries like the UK, Europe, and even the U.S.

It’s THEIR culture. To them THAT was honorable. In the last few weeks on Twitter there have been a lot of pictures of women taking off their hijabs and waving them in defiance. Yep, while Linda Sarsour is over here convincing liberals it is “liberating” to wear them and the obliging liberals don them and smile at the camera in their enlightened embrace of “multiculturalism” women who have been forced to wear them since Jimmy Peanuts did his thing are taking them off and waving them.

A brave Iranian woman waves her hijab

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then they go missing. I don’t blame her for it though, I think she is amazing. I never did get an answer as to when Linda Sarsour was heading over there to support her oppressed sisters.

THIS is the traditional attire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These hashtags have been running on Twitter. #ForcedHijab #Where_Is_She #IranProtests #Iranprotests #FreeAllProtesters

Some lady responded to some of these that the hijab protects them. It protects them from men behaving lasciviously towards them like western men do towards women. I actually answered her that not all western men act that way towards women and that it may be partly due to some western women being armed, willing and able to defend themselves from such. Of course I may be blocked from Twitter now.

So will it ever reach this in the United States? Well, probably not all of the United States. California maybe. New California Law Will Automatically Register Illegal Aliens to Vote add in the vote fraud and who knows, maybe?

And that is a big part of the draw of DACA for Demoncrats, new reliable Demoncratic votes. To heck with the American citizens that pay their salary, they will use the money and power granted to them by American citizens to betray them and favor the illegal immigrants.

The Demoncrat draw

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently that isn’t even okay with some Californians. Golden State conservatives seek to form ‘New California’

“After years of over taxation, regulation, and mono party politics the State of California and many of its 58 Counties have become ungovernable,” the movement declares on its website.

Preston and Reed say the citizens of the state live “under a tyrannical form of government that does not follow” constitutional requirements.

Do you think the people coming from these countries are going to cherish our Second Amendment? Do you think they will see the value and the freedom it brings? They are coming from mostly corrupt or oppressive countries. I said mostly. But enough of them to tip the voting scales? Who know, add in vote fraud, and who knows. Do you think they will cherish our life and proper sweet tea? Who knows. It’s not working out so good in Italy, the UK , France or Sweden. No, they don’t all want to kill us, but if I show you a picture can you tell me the ones that don’t? Probably not. Even if none of them want to kill us, will it change the culture? How much? Can’t you just hear barry sotero saying “If you like your culture, you can keep your culture”?

So if we in America are going to look for a change in the culture, let it be something like this

New Gun Owners California guns

Women CCW permits Riverside CA

Number of women involved in shooting sport increases 200%

May I just point out Hanukkah was only a little over a month ago, and that the point of Hanukkah was to prevent the eradication of Jewish culture by the Hellenist Demoncrats of their time? Culture really does matter.

Because I can never see this enough.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“I’m going to jail.”

Not exactly RKBA, but too funny not to share.

Turn up your sound so you can hear everything.

“Oh, f##k, f##k.”

“I’m going to jail.”

“Please? Please?”

“Please? I’m sorry.”

“Help?”

But note: the clerk was on the phone as soon as she realized what was happening. And it took the police 10 minutes to arrive. 10 minutes can be a long time when you’re in danger and counting on someone else to save you. Fortunately, she had her act together and got everyone else out of danger.

Oh. And, uh, pro tip: shooting security locks open generally only works in movies.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Factually Challenged Keyboard Commandos

Bob Ault wants to ban…

Something.

Now is the time to discuss gun control: Letter to the Editor
We need sensible gun legislation now. We need to ban military style assault rifles, bump stocks and high capacity magazines now, and then move on to pass legislation for universal background checks for all gun sales, which is supported by 90 percent of Americas.

But he’s confused as to what. Is it insanely expensive, highly regulated, taxed, and registered assault rifles of very limited quantities? Or is is nonexistent “military style assault weapons“? If the latter, can he inform of us of what country in the world generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops?

He tells us that that 90% of Americas [sic] want unconstitutional prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right through universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence — PPYI (“background checks,” is his term). Can he tell us in what state such PPYI was actually approved by 90% of the population when put to a vote? I can’t help but recall polls predicting Jeb Bush would win the Republican primary, Clinton would defeat Trump, Moore ahead of Jones, or… heck, everyone knows Dewey beat Truman.

Can he tell us how PPYI would have stopped the Mandalay Bay murderer, who passed such checks; the Sutherland Springs killer, who passed such checks because the Air Force never reported his involuntary committal or domestic violence conviction; or the Sandy Hook murderer who bypassed checks by murdering his mother and stealing her guns? Can he explain how prohibited persons can be required to self-report their unlawful attempt to obtain firearms, which would be in violation of the Supreme Court’s Haynes decision?

Since Bob Ault believes there is no need for civilians to have weapons such as that possessed by the Sutherland Springs killer, does he believe the man who stopped the killer with his own AR-pattern rifle should instead have let him go to keep killing?

Can Mr. Ault explain, should a ban on semiautomatic rifles be enacted, how he expects to identify gun owners when mere estimates of their numbers range from 55 to 120 million; or to find the rifles when estimates of firearms in civilian hands range from 265 to 750 million?

If Ault’s solution involves kicking in the doors of 125 million households to search them all — in case they’re heavily armed — will he personally volunteer his jackbooted services?

[An abbreviated form of this column was sent to Cleveland.com as a Letter to the Editor in response to Bob Ault’s letter. It was not printed.]


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

MeToo

I’m sure most folks are familiar with the ongoing social media trend with the hashtag #MeToo. It began when allegations of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein began surfacing this fall, and continued to ever expand like ripples on a pond after a rock. Women who had been harassed,raped, and catcalled were all posting in response to an actresses’ request to respond to her tweet with #MeToo. The floodgates opened. More Hollyweird types, politicians and people of all walks were thrown in the arena for the lions of public opinion to devour. Now, lest you think I am defending Weinstein or something like Al Franken, I’m not, not at all. But some of the men thrown out there had no due process, it was just court of public opinion. Al Franken is an exception, Lauren Tweed had photos. It is reminiscent of what happens when conservatives run for office. Remember the allegations against Dr. Ben Carson that just faded away after he dropped out of the race? And honestly, I don’t understand why someone waits for forty years and then brings this stuff to the press when a politician has run for political office many times before. Yes, I’m talking about Judge Moore, and a few things that didn’t seem to make the national news. Hide your shock. Did Gloria Allred’s daughter offer to pay them as she did President Trump’s accusers? And so it seems #MeToo is becoming a stick to bludgeon men. I’ve had a couple of conversations about this in the last few days that have been interesting. One was a friend, he’s a white male. He’s stated before, “I’m not allowed to have an opinion, or express it”. He’s not the only white male co-worker/friend/Facebook buddy that has said similar. They feel if you are in those categories you don’t dare express a thought that isn’t politically correct or approved. Mayim Bialik, an actress ran afoul of the pack when she dared suggest that perhaps some of this is avoidable. If a known Hollyweird horn-dog invites you up to his hotel room to view his etchings the prudent answer might be “No, thanks”. She was not saying that there aren’t women who haven’t been harassed, just that in some situations, perhaps different attire or answers might yield different results. DISSENT, DISSENT from the party line, can’t have that. She tried to have a conversation about it. That went as well as you could imagine. A girl friend of mine posted something on Facebook, a video where a woman was making similar points, and suggesting don’t sleep with a man to further your career then claim you were harassed. And my friend was attacked for the video she posted. DISSENT, DISSENT, this will not be tolerated! You must stick with the party line. Women were powerless in these situations, and now all men must pay.

Are you tired of that sort of thinking? Especially from people who claim to be feminists and/or supportive of women?

#MeToo

And so, I’ve decided #MeToo needs a fresh purpose. Let’s take it for a test spin, shall we?

Murder

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

In 2016 there was a total of 16, 964 murder victims. 10,310 were male, 1,295 were women and 5,359 were unknown. In 2015 one of those statistics would have been Carol Browne who had applied for a concealed carry permit in her state of New Jersey. She was afraid of her ex and was doing what she could to protect herself. She also obtained a restraining order. She apparently had called to check on the status of her request for a concealed carry permit, but it wasn’t in yet and so her ex walked through the restraining order and stabbed her to death in her driveway.

Where was that Shannon T.Watts?  If it saves just one life? While you have hired armed bodyguard at your marches? Are ya’ll tired of the #hypocrisy?

#MeToo

Apparently the US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties and those would be urban, Demoncrat controlled. It seems the areas with a high concentration of gun owners do not see the high murder rates. Don’t you find that interesting?

#MeToo

In one of those high crime areas, Chicago, Concealed Carry Gets Boost from Black Women on Chicago’s South Side.

Think Mayor Rahm will be disconcerted?

#MeToo

Then we have Aggravated Assault

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury.

There were 803,007 of those in 2016. I couldn’t find a breakdown of how many male vs how many female, but I bet at least a couple of them were female.

And lastly we’ll take a look at Rape statistics.

In 2013, the FBI UCR Program began collecting rape data under a revised definition within the Summary Reporting System. Previously, offense data for forcible rape were collected under the legacy UCR definition: the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Beginning with the 2013 data year, the term “forcible” was removed from the offense title, and the definition was changed. The revised UCR definition of rape is: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

There were 130,603 rapes by the revised definition and another 95,730 by the legacy definition.

It’s a horrible crime, not about sex, and having to do with power and control. It brings out the worst in gnat brained politicians like Representative Joe Salazar who suggests Women use ‘Whistles’ rather than Guns to Defend against Rape. Besides which good old Joe, that self professed defender and respecter of women points out, women might not know if they’re REALLY going to be raped or just responding hysterically out of fear. Think he’s a bit patronizing?

#MeToo

Then there is the arrogant, ignorant AND gnat brained Evie Hudak. Yes, I can use the word in a sentence, “It’s Thursday so I need to clean the Hudak out of the chicken house”. Does it seem to you that Evie Hudak has irked me mightily?

#MeToo, sigh.

Why? Because the gnat brained Evie decided to try to tell a rape survivor that had a concealed carry permit that her gun would not have saved her. Amanda Collins was a well prepared woman on her “safe gun free zone” campus at University of Nevada-Reno. She knew martial arts and she went out with a group of people to the parking garage. However, her car was parked away from the others. Her car was parked 50 feet from the campus police department office. Which was closed. Her attacker went on to rape two more women and kill a third. The gnat brained Hudak proceeded to tell the victim (who was present at the rape) that she, THE Evie Hudak (who was in fact, NOT present at the rape) knew that she would not have been able to stop the rapist with her firearm. And then she proceeded to vomit out statistics that bear no semblance to the truth as we know it. Because to the all knowing Evie Hudak towing the Demoncrat party line is far more important than empowering women to defend themselves. In 2013 women made up 41% of the Colorado legislature. Why did you bother to run for office Ms. Hudak? The odds were not with you. Oh? You wanted a chance did you? And then you used that opportunity to legislate your sisters into defenselessness. You had a chance to empower them, instead you did chose to betray them. Anyone else think the self-important,lying Evie is full of hudak?

#MeToo

These hearings took place in Colorado in the spring of 2013. Here’s the helpful list of hints the University of Colorado provided to students:

1.    Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2.    Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead!  It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3.    Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
4.    Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
5.    If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6.    Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7.    Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8.    Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9.    Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10.    Remember, every emergency situation is different.  Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

Does reading the list of “helpful” suggestions from the University and legislators make you want to vomit or worse on them?

#MeToo

And that makes this February of 2013 column by the ever wonderful Daniel Greenfield even more interesting.

Colorado Springs University legalized the right to carry concealed firearms on campus in 2003. Since then, according to Students for Concealed Carry, the number of forcible and non-forcible sexual assaults dropped sharply, falling 90 percent from a high in 2002 to a new low in 2008.

Wait, what? Rape had dropped by 90% and now they want to make it a gun free zone all the while warbling on about what great respecters and defenders of women and women-rights they are?

Anybody going to call “B.S. or hudak” on this one?

#MeToo

Demoncrats, liberals, Hollyweird and the mainstream media (all different snakes on the deranged head of Medusa) keep saying they “want to empower women” they “respect women” they “support women”. But then when someone like Mayim Bialik, or the writer of the National Review column, or the woman who put the little video on Facebook offer a different take or dare to say in some of these situations that women had the ability to change the outcome or prevent them, well then, Katie bar the door. DISSENT from the party line! No, no, these women must be seen as helpless victims powerless to have changed anything. They could only accept what was dished out and they had no choices whatsoever in the whole matter.

Because the same cabal of flotsam is incapable of seeing people as individuals and can only see them as victim groups, race groups, gender identity groups, ethnic groups, grope groups. Pigeon hole city.

Now we Southern girls, at least ones of a certain era, have a different way of seeing how such things should be handled.

Think that might sort a few things and solve a few problems?

#MeToo

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

When liars figure

Possibly you’ve seen reports about the new study that showed a sharp increase in firearms-related deaths after the Sandy Hook shooting, attributed to the sharp spike in gun sales. If not, here’s a fine example:

Gun sales spiked after Sandy Hook. So did people being shot and killed.
Gun sales in the United States spiked dramatically after a shooter walked into Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012 and killed 26 people, 20 of whom were children. Now researchers say that as a result of that rush in gun purchases, 60 additional Americans — 20 of whom were children — were killed by accidental gunshots in the five months following the tragedy.

That’s… interesting, if really kinda vague. So off to the study itself. You can read it, or I’ll give you the TL;DR.

They used Google Trends to define the period of gun sales that they attribute to post-SH panic buying (you’ll giggle at their search terms), which they determined to be 5 months. They looked at firearms-related accidental deaths — concentrating on children 0-14yo –for that period and compared them to a 2008-2013 period and magically came up with this:

That’s… even more interesting. I happen to recall another gun buying spree in 2008 and 2009. If these folks really found a sales/accidental deaths correlation, I’d expect a bigger spike in those years.

Well, charts are misleading. What’s graphed there isn’t the number of children dead, but the anomaly in deaths; that is, they essentially figured the statistical average for a five month period for the years 2008-2013, and decide the period in question had 20 more than average.

Not having access to their undisclosed “restricted” data, I decided to use the CDC WISQARS online tool, which only breaks data down by year. For the researchers’ 2008-2013 time frame, I got this:

Right off, you — not being a grant-funded academic — probably notice, despite the apparent increasing trend in deaths, that 2013 wasn’t much of a spike. In fact, it’s five deaths lower than the 2011 “spike.” And the average annual deaths for the 2008-2013 time frame is 62.17. So the annual total for 2013 is only 7 higher than average.* Where did they find 20, 13 more in just a five month period? And haven’t we heard that accidental firearms deaths are decreasing?

That’s an oddly limited time frame, given that more data is readily available. WISQARS currently has data for 1999-2015.

And the rate per 100,000 for that age group:

The entire year of 2013 is only the sixth highest, both in numbers and per capita. And again –not being a grant-funded academic –you may have seen the trend: constantly down.

The researchers’ “spike” in their study appears to be largely imaginary, and what there was is more easily attributed to random variance. The lack of sales/deaths correlations with other known periods of increased buying (2008-2009, 2012) invalidates their Sandy Hook-related claim. The overall consistent decrease in child accidental deaths tells me that, rather than untrained newbies going out and slaughtering kids, more people are getting trained and demonstrating safety awareness. Remember: the number of guns are cumulative; if more guns really correlated with accidents then there be a constantly increasing number of accidents instead of the real decrease.

Researchers Levine and McKnight say, “No external funding was used to support this research.” It might be interesting to see what monetary resources are consider internal.

And just for info regarding that additional people of all ages killed?

In 2012, there were 548 people of all ages killed in accidental firearms-related incidents.

In 2013, it dropped to 505.


* The 17 year average for 1999-2015 is 64, meaning 2013 was only 5 higher than average.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail