Thursday, February 04, 2016

I'm not believing this, any of it.

Stairwell shooting cop trained to have gun drawn: fellow officers | New York Post:
(January 29. 2016) (posted February 04)
Two cops, including one who worked the same beat as rookie Officer Peter Liang — now on trial for fatally shooting an unarmed man in a Brooklyn housing project — said Thursday they were taught to have their guns out at times for fear of possible “ambush.” 
Okay, I believe that ...
Defense attorneys have argued the gun was faulty, saying in opening statements that Liang’s finger was alongside the trigger — not on it — following police protocol. 
... but I do NOT believe that!
But Detective Marc Acevedo told jurors Liang’s gun was on the high end of the NYPD’s acceptable range for trigger-pull — the force required to fire the weapon. The Glock needs 11¹/₂ pounds of pressure to fire, out of a range of 9 to 12 pounds.
AND if that statement was intended to support Liang's testimony, it's the second miss-fire in this whole sad New York Tale.

The gun did not just 'go off'.  There was no malfunction of the Glock; there WAS a malfunction of the Liang.   Why don't the cops just admit that the kid fucked up, and take it from that point?  It's a high stress situation, and it seems obvious to the casual observer (who was not there) that the cops were jumpy and when the guy suddenly appeared at the head of the stairs the cop plugged him.


Well, he probably wasn't intending to do that, but when you have a 11+ pound trigger-pull, that Glock isn't going to shoot unless you really, really mean it!   And Liang really, really meant to pull that trigger.

I shoot pistols in competition that have a 3# or an 8# trigger pull weight, and there's a huge amount of difference between the two.  But an 11# trigger pull?

Has anyone asked WHY the NYPD mandates a "9 to 12 pounds" trigger pull weight?

It's because in times of stress, people tend to grip the pistol really hard, and if your finger is on the trigger that can translate to a jerk of the trigger finger.

This 2010 Las Vegas Negligent Discharge (ND) video  illustrates the problem: *

* (yes, you've seen this video here before; it's one of my favorites)

Fortunately, the Las Vegas ND only frightened a couple of people to the point where they wanted a costume change, right now.

But the New York situation was a whole different, and more fatal, scenario.  Obviously in New York the officer was pointing his pistol at the man looming above him (which is a 'dominating' position, and generally tends to make people feel more ... defensive) or else his round wouldn't have HIT HIM!

Not a strike against the officer; that's where the gun is suppose to be pointed.

Still, when testimony suggests that the officer's finger was NOT on the trigger; that the pistol 'may have' bumped the wall of the stairwell, which 'may have' been a contributory factory ... I'm dubious.

When they (NYPD) assert that the ND was due to a malfunction of the gun, I'm calling

Even I, who don't like Glocks, am not ready to swallow that spew of bovine excreta.

And that's all I have to say about that.

The LIE that won't die

Americans 'much likelier to be killed by guns' than people in other countries | Americas | News | The Independent:
Funding for gun-related research was decimated after it was targeted by the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress, a decision that reverberates two decades later. “We have to understand what the problem is, how to approach the problem, and do our approaches work,” Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told the Trace last year about the problems involving funding for gun research. “And we just don’t know anything.”
(H/T: War on Guns)

Liberals and other control-freaks will say anything to make their point, and when that's not enough they just hide the truth.

In this case, the lie is that the NRA "decimated" funding for gun-related research.  Well, in a sense that isn't so much a lie as it is an obfuscation.

Truth is the Center for Disease Control (a federal agency) took it upon itself to define guns as a "disease" and through a process of addressing firearm deaths as the consequence of a disease, declared:


... or words to that effect.

The NRA pointed out that the 'research on guns' at CDC was biased, in that it ignored the benefits of firearms ownership ... not the least was that guns are very often used by honest, peaceful citizens in defense of themselves, their family, their homes and their property.  And oh, by the way?  Guns are inanimate objects.  Sometimes the people who pick them up do bad things with them, but that's no reason why you should be calling them a "Bad Dog!"

Part of the "research" at CDC was a reliance on the flawed data from the "Kellerman" study.  The CDC didn't bother to evaluate the data in terms of the way it was gathered or the questions it asked; they just took the whole thing and painted it with a patina of legitimacy.  The pre-determined conclusion was scientifically flawed from the beginning.

In a word, the CDC took a lie and gave it legitimacy, with malice aforethought.
Because they don't like guns, and they don't think people should have them.
(Damn the Constitution, we're the CDC and we know what's best for you!)

As a consequence, when the government (probably the Office of Management and Budget) investigated NRA's complaint, they discovered that it was factually correct and as a consequence CDC got it's wrist slapped.   They (CDC) could research anything they wanted, but when they openly promoted "gun control" based on fallacious assumptions, they had exceeded their mandate.

Essentially, CDC was told "say anything you want, but we're not going to pay for it and you can't release findings as a federal agency".

Yes, in this specific instance, the NRA did take an active role in reining back an out-of-control federal agency.  And if the funding which the CDC applied toward "gun control" research represents ten percent of the entire amount spent on that subject through-out the country, that would be defined as a 'decimation' in the strictest sense of the word.

However, "gun control research" continues unabated in this country.

The quote which begins this screed comes from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center ... which is funded 'differently' from the CDC.

To paraphrase the gun-control crowd:
"Nobody wants to take your research grant from you; we just want to make sure it's used wisely."

(may I smirk now?)

Post Script:
In the new study, Grinshteyn and Hemenway wrote that their research shows that the country “suffers disproportionately from firearms,” ultimately coming to this conclusion: “These results are consistent with the hypothesis that our firearms are killing us rather than protecting us.”
Actually, this country does not suffer from firearms at all ... firearms are just sitting around waiting for someone to tell them what to do.  Much like "immigrant laborers" at the corner of First and Main waiting for a guy with a pickup who needs a bunch of grape pickers.

Except, of course, that the guns are legal.
Which is not the case in most of the other 49 countries in the original study, where guns are highly regulated so that only bad guys can have guns.  Which they use to kill good people who are unable to defend themselves; while in America good guys with guns sometimes kill bad guys with guns, and we have a lot of  THEM here, just like everywhere else.  The difference is remarkable, but not recognized in statistics.
Just saying.

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

The Addict Is all For Gun Control

▶ What Do Most Americans Agree On? with Dennis Quaid and Amanda Peet from lauren, Michael...

What do most Americans agree on?

Addicts are not the best judge of gun control.

Signe Tolson .. Death Chant

Jefferson Airplane "Tobacco Road" - YouTube: Uploaded on Jul 16, 2008 From the first Jefferson Airplane album 1966 Category Music License Standard YouTube License

Anderson died Thursday at her home in Beaverton, Oregon, according to her daughter, Onateska Ladybug Sherwood. Anderson was 74 and had been suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Anderson, who survived cancer in her 30s, died on the same day that another Airplane member, Paul Kantner, died.
I've loved Signe's contribution to 'modern' American music for 50 years.
I have little more to say about her passing, except that for me she was a significant contributor to American popular music in the 60's.

After Signe left the band, they created the album "Surrealistic Pillow" with Grace Slick taking over the Lead Female Singer role, and the band went on to ... well, obscurity in the next decade.
(NOTE: the conversion of the band from "Jefferson Airplane" to "Jefferson Starship" was no great improvement!)

Slick was an exemplary member of the band, but Signe made the band the popularly iconic part
of the 1960's culture.

Signe  made Oregon proud.  And we will miss her.

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Monster Bash: Safety For All Act

20160201 PRA - Safety for All Act

For those of you who haven't followed this act (which includes me, until tonight)
you might want to be aware of some of the proposals behind this monster.

(I'm sure I owe somebody a "Hat Tip" for this, but I got so interested in following the link that I lost track of the ... er ... monster.)

Here is ONE of the provisions included:

(A PDF version is available at smart gun laws)

6. We know background checks work. Federal background checks have already prevented more than 2.4 million gun sales to convicted criminals and other illegal purchasers in America. In 2012 alone, background checks blocked 192,043 sales of firearms to illegal purchasers including 82,000 attempted purchases by felons. That means background checks stopped roughly 225 felons from buying firearms every day. Yet California law only requires background checks for people who purchase firearms, not for people who purchase ammunition. We should close that loophole.
[emphasis added]

So, for the "safety of all", you should not only be required to undergo a background check when you purchase a firearm, but you should also be required to undergo a background check when you purchase ammunition.

(NOTE: The PRA version ends there:  the SMART GUNS LAWS version ends slightly differently:
We should close that loophole so that people who are unable to buy a gun are also unable to buy the ammunition that makes guns deadly. 
The Charleston Loophole:

When NICS cannot respond with a "you can't buy that gun!" decision within three days, the default is to allow the transfer of a firearm.  That's current law.

And that's how Dylan Roof was able to obtain a firearm and kill people with it in Charleston.

This was when the NICS system was only required to vet people who are trying to purchase a firearm.

How many firearms are purchased each year?  Not sure ... but certainly firearms purchases are transacted less frequently than ammunition purchases.

Now the Liberal Nation proposes that we add to the burden of the NICS system to also approve purchases of ammunition?


So, will the Liberal Nation tone down their rhetoric to the point where they only require that 'ammunition purchases" be vetted at the state level, rather than the national level?

Unlikely.  State budgets are notoriously thin, and in fact while it was at one time proposed that the majority of NICS checks be conducted at the state level, that pie-in-the-sky dream lasted about ten milliseconds when the states considered how it would affect their budgets ... and their legal exposure when they allowed a purchase which later turned into a tragedy.


That's what we're looking at here, you know.  If a state is required to either allow or deny an ammunition purchase,  it must respond within 3 days, the same as a request to purchase a firearm.  If it denies a request (and cannot deny it within 3 days), and someone dies because the request is denied .. is the state liable?   Perhaps ....

No.  That's not going to happen.

And if it approves a request, and someone dies because the request is accepted?


No state in this union is likely to allow itself to be caught in such a no-win legal bind.    (And it's not as if the Federal Government is willing to allow itself to be caught in a Catch 22 situation, either.)  This proposal will never be accepted at the national level.  Nor at the state, county, local or municipal level.  NOBODY wants to be responsible for deciding whether someone should be legally allowed (or disallowed) for ammunition purchases.

The ONLY outcome of this faulty Liberal proposal would be that the folks who are required to approve or deny such transactions will find themselves at fault because they approved ... or denied ... the sale of ammunition; probably the states, and they would be understandably reluctant to accept the responsibility.

IN THE MEAN TIME, the entire NICS would be so tied up in trying to evaluate 'ammunition purchase' requests that (a) the purchasers AND vendors would be outraged, and (b) the state or feds would find themselves liable for the outcome of denial or acceptance of approval.

And evaluation of requests for firarms transactions would be lost in the firestorm of ammunition purchase requests.

Other than that ... what value is there in vetting ammunition purchase requests?  Except for the validation of anti-gun proponents who what only to make it more difficult for honest citizens to purchase ammunition ....... there is no redeeming value to it at all.

Besides, for many of us .. we load our own ammunition.  Are we looking at future licensing of home reloaders?

That IS the next step, you know.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

" .... BUT ....."

Yes, The Australian Model On Gun Control Means Bans and Confiscation - Matt Vespa:
Nobody wants to take your guns. That’s what most mainstream pro-gun control Democrats say ad nauseam at various rallies. There’s also the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” that advocates of gun control say prior to offering some pie-in-the-sky policy proposals that usually venture into bans on so-called assault rifles, limiting magazine sizes, or an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms. That’s essentially a gun ban.
I challenge you to quote any declaration about Gun Control which the liberals will proffer, which does not include the word "but".

BUT means that they don't want to take  your guns away, "BUT ...."   they really do.

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't like scary rifles.
They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't like "high capacity magazines".
They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't see any reason why anyone would want to have a (fill in the blank)

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they think that a 30 round magazine has no redeeming qualities (fill in the number ... either over or under "30 rounds").

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't understand why anyone needs an automatic weapon?  (and By The Way, they don't really have a clear understanding of the difference between "Automatic" and "Semi-Automatic" weapon;   it doesn't really matter, though, because to them they're all the same and they don't want you to have them!)

They keep asking for legal firearms owners to "compromise" on gun control issues, but they don't often suggest compromises which they are willing to offer.

That's because they don't  have to offer anything ...  the Second Amendment already acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms, and there's nothing left for them to give which will expand the rights which WE already have.

All they can do is to chip away at our constitutional rights with niggling little dings and dents, until all we have left is the car-wreck which they will allow us ... and then they want to take the hubcaps and the chrome off the fender, too!

It would serve no purpose to identify "they" or "them".  You know who they are.

THEY are the people who think that 'guns' are so bad, there is no legitimate purpose for anyone to own one.   They think that guns have no redeeming value, and guns are the source of mayhem and destruction.

They forget (or choose not to remember) the Watts riots , and armed Korean shop owners standing guard on the roof of their stores .... those stores which, after the riots were over, were the only commercial establishments left standing, unlooted: and those businesses were where the local residents calmly went to shop when the riots were over.

So when somebody tells you that you're over-reacting about your second amendment rights, and "nobody wants to take your guns", you might think about their lying eyes and remember that they either intend to stab you in the back, or take away your means to defend your self, your home, your family and your property.

Everybody wants to take away your guns.   Anybody who says different is not your friend.

The Kid With A Bat

Police officer to sue family of teenager he shot  Hot Air:

,,,, there is the larger battle taking place in the court of public opinion. I realize that Officer Rialmo and his attorney have to look out for his best interests, but is this really helping? In an already tense atmosphere around Chicago I can’t imagine there being much sympathy for a cop who tries to sue the family that just buried their son, disturbed and/or violent as he may have been. This just sounds like an ill considered plan.
Cop responds to call ...  aggressive teen with a baseball bat.
The "The Kid With A Bat".


FIRST:  The Kid With The Bat --

Oh, I don't know what was going through his head.

As much as I would like to be able to analyze what he was thinking when he used a baseball bat to confront a cop, I cannot.  My best guess is t hat there were drugs, or alcohol involved; but I can't even say that, because I don't know.

SECOND: The Cop with the Gun

Cop sees a kid with a bat, the kid is aggressive and unwilling to disarms himself.  Cop tries verbal domination techniques, the kid responds aggressively and the cop is left with "limited options".

 Cop shoots The Kid With A Bat., bullet passes through and kills neighbor behind the teen.

THIRD:  The Woman Behind The Kid With A Bat

Cop sues family of The Kid With A Bat.  Cop's options are limited, and at this point (since a person who was apparently seems too have been  uninvolved died as a result of the cop's actions, all he ("The Cop") can do is to swing the blame toward the Aggressor .. "The Kid With The Bat".)

Who's to know that the woman was behind the kid swinging the bat?  Is this a call for Baseball Bat Control?  In the middle of a firefight, the Tunnel Vision thing happens, and all you can see is the target.

An "uninvolved" person has died, she hs the cop's bullet in her, it's obvious who was the instrument of her death.

Now, we're talking about who was RESPONSIBLE for her death!

The cop has responded by suing the family of The Kid With A Bat., who is identified as the person who caused the whole thing.

I don't know, maybe so.  But one thing is sure;

The cop didn't know that the woman was behind the kid, had no idea that there was an Innocent involved, and is completely innocent of any death resulting from his response.

So the cop sues the estate of the kid with the bat.  What else was he to do?  Admit fault when no fault was possible to define?

Okay so I'm prejudiced in favor of the policeman.  I don't blame him (the cop) for trying to shift the blame, because it wasn't HIS idea to get into a gunfight!

His best game plan was to go home at the end of his shift.  NOBODY wants to get into a gunfight .

Well, except for The Kid With A Bat.

Tragedy or Collateral Damage?

At this point, we have no idea whether the Woman was a partner with The Kid With The Bat, or an Innocent Bystander, or something in between.    My guess is that she was an innocent, one way or the other.  But we don't know that, and I'm waiting to read about the results of the investigation which mus surely ensue./

It doesn't really matter, though.  Whatever The Kid With The Bat had going on for him, it would be impossible under all but the most arcane circumstances to blame The Woman for the tragic outcome of this confrontation.

Well .. maybe.  Usually.

We'll find out more, in the weeks to come.

In a moment of angst, Sanders throws the baby from the Troika (Mamma Under The Bus Version)

Sanders to co-sponsor bill repealing gun industry protections he supported:

Sen. Bernie Sanders completed his walkback on guns Thursday with a move to co-sponsor a bill that repeals gun industry protections he backed in 2005. Tad Devine, his senior strategist, confirmed that Sanders will sign onto repealing a bill that gives gunmakers and manufacturers unusual immunity from liability. Hillary Clinton has hammered Sanders for his 2005 vote in favor of the measure, arguing that he caved to the firearms lobby at a time when Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly back more gun control.
Throw mama from the train.

He was "On Walk-About"

Brockton man arrested a third time in 15 months on gun charges | Local News - WCVB Home:

BROCKTON —For the third time in 15 months, a Brockton man with gang ties is facing gun charges after being arrested for leading officers on a car chase in the city Friday afternoon, police said.
 The Enterprise said members of the Brockton Police Major Crimes Unit and undercover detectives were conducting electronic and visual surveillance of Patrick Brandao, 24, of 85 Tribou St., Apt. 27. Brandao was wearing a court-ordered electronic GPS ankle bracelet.
 Brandao is a person of interest in two recent incidents of gun violence in the city - on Jan. 6 around 1:30 p.m. on David Street and shortly after midnight on Jan. 12 on Carroll Avenue, Brockton Police Lt. Paul Bonanca said. As of Saturday morning Brandao had not been charged in either incident.
Massachusetts police might consider locking the bastard a$$hole person up.

But then that would be to obvious.

Blatant Firearms Confiscation bill in GEORGIA?

Law Enforcement Could Seize Semiautomatics Under Ga. Bill:
By Eric Scheiner | January 29, 2016 | 11:57 AM EST
Georgia lawmakers have put forth several gun control bills this year, including a measure that would call on law enforcement to seize and destroy what the proposal deems “assault weapons” from gun owners. A major purpose of HB 731 is “to designate certain weaponry and ammunition as contraband and to require seizure of such by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.”
This is a surprising ... suggestion ... in Georgia, which has recently been the subject of much controversy for their firearms-friendly legislation.
The measure requires “assault weapons” and “high caliber weapons” not turned in by owners to be seized by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
Under the bill, “Any selective fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the option of the user” would be banned.
“I’m not wedded to the specific principle of confiscating guns,” bill sponsor state Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur) told WXIA-TV. “I am open to an honest discussion – if I’m allowed to have an honest discussion – if there’s a better way.”  [emphasis added]

Is it fair to assume that Mary Margaret has no plans for a career as a Georgia state legislator?

Reading the comments on the article, there are more than a few Georgians who do not plan to vote for her in the immediate future.

Comment:  Mary Margaret, it seems that the 'honest discussion' you seek might better have occurred between you and your constituents before you proposed this bill.

This is especially surprising when you consider that Virginia (under the leadership of Terry McAuliffe) has announced the complete turn-around of the previous reluctance to accept reciprocity of concealed carry courtesies with 25 states.

The Lords Giveth, and The Lords Taketh Away.

We need fewer Lords, and more representatives of the people.

LAPD: "When seconds count, police are only hours away"

Only On 2: LAPD Officers Say More Patrol Needed In Times Of Emergency  CBS Los Angeles: LOS ANGELES ( —
 Officers with the LAPD tell CBS2 that in the event of an emergency, you might have a long wait. It’s a story that is Only On 2. CBS2’s Randy Paige reports that many officers believe there aren’t enough of them to go around — especially in an emergency. “The citizens need to know they need to be able to protect themselves because if they call 911, we can’t guarantee we’re going to get there in time to help you,” says Police Protective League President Jamie McBride....
(emphasis added)

This is particularly poignant considering that California politicians have spent the last 20 years making sure that their citizens have limited access to firearms.

Now the police are admitting publically that they can't protect the public?

This comes as no surprise to anyone except for the elected officials ... many of whom have armed bodyguards, so it's not THEIR problem!

Now that the police have admitted that their job is to pick up the bodies and not much else, what is the Average Citizen of California to do?

Well, the first step might be to change their political affiliation to "Republican", because the Democrats who run the state aren't don't much to protect their constituents ... and the police are admittedly over-extended.

Not that I have much room to talk; I live in Oregon,  I haven't voted for a Democrat for 30 years, but you know how it is when the major population densities are all in 'the big cities' where the welfare state rules the geopolitical state.

These Guys Can Deliver The Mail

FED EX at its best:  "When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight" has nothing on these Texas Lawmen.  

BOOM, HEADSHOT! Texas Hostage Taker Smoked In Irving:

A man attempting to rob a check-cashing store in Irving, Texas, had his robbery thwarted when an employee triggered the alarm. Police quickly responded to the robbery in progress, and the handgun-armed robber decided to take a hostage. This turned out to be the worst decision of his day, and the last decision of his life. The officers simply could not let the armed robber leave the scene with his hostage.
In the unlikely chance that you haven't seen or heard about this by now ... never let anyone tell you that "First Responders" (police) are all ineffectual twits who don't know how to handle a hostage situation, or that they can't shoot.

This is one of those days when it feels really GOOD to be an American.