Friday, January 05, 2018

NY Assemblyman: " Limit gun owners to one gun, one bullet"

"That does not repeal the Second Amendment!    It just makes it work for everyone."
[Video] NY Assemblyman Thomas J Abinanti: Ban guns with military origins, register all guns. - The Gun Feed: [Video] 

Um ... no.
That doesn't work to reduce gun violence; it only serves to impose arbitrary restrictions on the law-abiding ... who aren't part of the problem, but are part of the solution.

"Whether it's guns on the street, or people with mental problems ... " does a good job of defining the two most likely sources of gun violence; but doesn't address the question of how he plans to make these progenitors of gun violence abide by gun-control laws.

I challenge you to put more money into mental health facilities, rather than cutting the services which are out there today.
Um ... yes.   

Nobody doesn't think this is important, but even this doesn't shield us from people who are just evil, or politically motivated.    Or are just all "I'm Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This any More!"   Against these classes, there is no defense except retaining our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our communities.

As for the mentally ill, Psychologists and other mental-health practitioners will be the first to state categorically that it's impossible to predict when someone will reach his tipping point and rampage.

Which rather obviates his original thesis, which is that gun control can limit rampage.  It can't.

The criminals, the crazies, they will find a way.

And then you're all on your own, cursing the New York Assemblyman who has a plethora of ways to keep firearms out of the hands of the innocents, but knows better than to suggest a way to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers.

OH!  And about that ... if he REALLY want's to minimize firearms violence, he should be campaigning to impose the maximum sentence against those who commit violent crimes while in possession of a firearm.

Crooks understand "added time in prison".

Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Ring Ring!

Ring Ring:
"Allo, Mamacita?  I am sending you some money.  Use it to pay los coyotes to bring Pablito to San Diego.  Next month we can bring Estevez and his sister to El Norte".
Cash Remittances to Mexico Set $26B Record in 2017, Says Central Bank:
The latest figures from Mexico’s Central Bank (Banxico) show 2017 being a record-breaking year for receiving remittances by Mexicans abroad. From January to November 2017, Mexicans sent $26,167,00,000, the highest figure to date. In 2016,another record-setting year, Mexicans sent $24.1 billion. Banxico reports that 97 percent of the funds sent to Mexico came through wire transfers. Mexico’s second largest source of income was the export of oil for $18.5 billion in the first 10 months of 2017.

"A billion here, a billion there ... pretty soon you're talking Real Money ..."
(Everett Dirksen apparently didn't say that .... exactly)

A gun in your home increases your risk of death

A 2014 study by the American College of Physicians has "determined" that having a gun in your home increases your risk of violent death.

Well, we're all going to die ... that's a 100% data factum which has not been addressed by this study.

Drum roll, please:

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians:
 Background: Research suggests that access to firearms in the home increases the risk for violent death.
 Purpose: To understand current estimates of the association between firearm availability and suicide or homicide.
Firearm accessibility was determined by survey interviews in most studies;
misclassification of accessibility may have occurred. Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death.
 Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.
Keep an eye on that balderdash-ish statement about "misclassification", because here's the punch line, where the authors list their data sources:

The "Kellerman Studies" of 1992 and 1993 are listed among their primary sources.

The Atlantic ("The False Promise of Gun Control": March, 1994) provided a long-winded (and generally incomprehensible) explanation of why Kellerman's conclusions ("a gun in your home creates a 43% chance that you will die a violent death", or words to that effect). don't prove the point that he .... and this later study ... were trying to make.

Invester's Hub provides a much more to-the-point explanation of why Kellerman has been debunked.

(There are other sources, but this one hasn't been referred to before here, and it seems to be a more legitimate source than the gun-websites I've linked to previously.)

It has been said that "The Best Way To Tell A Lie Is To Tell The Truth Unconvincingly".

The corollary is equally valid; the best way to tell the truth is to tell the lie unconvincingly.

Any study which cites Kellerman as a reference source is readily identifiable as a lie.

The mere fact that you have a firearm in your home is not a sound basis for the conclusion that you will die a violent death ... unless you are a criminal and have a gun in your home to defend yourself against your rivals in crime, which typifies Kellerman's study subjects.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, the presence of a gun in your home only provided you with a valid means of defense against home-invasion. 

If you use that gun to attack family members, it only proves that you are already the victim of your own flawed personality.

Nothing more.

Oh, and the quote about "Pooled odds of Death"?  That's just bullshit.

Monday, January 01, 2018

Registration = Confiscation

Joe presents a frightening (and real-life) scenario illustrating exactly the reasons why firearms owners are so adamantly opposed to Registration:

Miss a deadline, lose your gun rights forever | The View From North Central Idaho:
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
The state of New York wants to .....
This (click on the link above) logically feeds back to Universal Background Checks, where both the buyer and the seller are required under force of law to provide information (to either a state or a federal "clearing house") about both the firearm and the buyer ... and incidentally, about the seller as well.

The New York "SAFE" Act requires a level of reporting all details of an otherwise-legal transaction to the level where it's difficult to believe that the laws might have any other goal than to quell an otherwise legitimate firearms transfer between private citizens.

That the failure to comply with every jot and tittle of the regulations will result in penalties which are not only burdensome, but would deprive participants of their civil rights "forever" ... not to mention the confiscation of private property ... makes it apparent that the goal is not to regulate, but essentially to ban legal transfer of firearms between private citizens.

It's a "Witch Hunt", where civil rights are abrogated and the possibility probability of prosecution because of a simple  misunderstanding may cause the imposition of punishments which are too drastic to risk.

The Constitution was specifically designed to prohibit any level of government to threaten private citizens for exercising their rights.   While the state of New York may smugly continue to brow-beat its citizens, it is unbearable for the rest of us to watch The Lawyers work their sneaky wiles.

The consequences of such a law are that both buyers and sellers will be disinclined to submit to the law.  Honest people may lose their property and their freedom because they have not done anything wrong, in their opinion, than to oppose an unjust and burdensome law.

Any law which will not be obeyed is not a law, but a cause celebre.

It's a publicity stunt, and New York State should be ashamed of itself for imposing such a burden on its citizens.

Sunday, December 31, 2017


I admit that I've blogged some posts which didn't make the point I intended, over the years, but this author published one post that I absolutely don't understand.

Perhaps someone can explain it to me; I'm old, so my friends tell me, but I didn't think I was mentally feeble until I read this.

View From The Porch: Proof I don't understand Kel-Tec's target demo:

Proof I don't understand Kel-Tec's target demo I mean, I've had a few customers I've thought were piss-drinkers over the years, but I don't know as I'd have called them that to their faces. Maybe I was doing it wrong. Bold strategy, Kel-Tec.

See the link above for the appended photo.