"THEY" find nothing wrong in Crystal Nacht variations

Letter: Was gun-zone letter just a bad joke?:

I find little to laugh about in J.W. Austin's letter ["Try certain registration zones for gun carriers," voices, Sept. 13] but pray it was a bad joke. Austin recommends that citizens in "high crime" areas (determined by government officials) relinquish not only their Second amendment rights but also their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Second Amendment Scholars might find something to object in a proposition that certain geographic areas might be subject to closer scrutiny ... along with more stringent rules of weapons confiscation.

Especially in that a "government official" would define these "areas", or gun zones.

The rest of us find the proposition to be a horrible example of an attempt to bypass constitutional rights by neighborhood.

I'm resisting the temptation to list the 'wrongs' here, so save yourself from having to read a deplorably LONG blog-post and make up our own neighborhood rules for firearms confiscation.

Assuming that you have "drilled down" to this article (which as apparently the genesis of all the other 'opinion" responses:

Katie Coombs said she wants suggestions ["I want your suggestions, not your guns," Voices, Sept. 6].

I'm sorry: this is the response to a response to an original article; As such, it would to be a little complicated.  I'll also resist the temptation to fisk that article

The Original Katie Coombs article is here: "We Need To Stand Up to The NRA".

I'm not sure how the NRA needs to be "Stood up To", but apparently the NRA is some kind of fiendish plan to make America less safe.

Excuse me .. AMNESTY INC accuses Hamas???

Amnesty International accuses Hamas of torturing, killing Palestinians in new report on Gaza conflict | Fox News: 

Amnesty International accused Hamas militants Wednesday of abducting, torturing, and carrying out summary executions of Palestinians during last year's conflict in the Gaza Strip.

We have never before seen AMNESTY point the finger at anyone but Israeli's in the Mid-East Conflict.   Those  "Hamas Militants" must have done some seriously Bad Shit to be cited by A.I.

Or is there some dissension in the TransNational Progressive Love-Fest?

 (Enquiring People want to know.  *_I_* want to know!)

It's extremely rare for the Transnational Liberal Progressive Community (hey, they chose the label, not me!) to target people who actually choose to unibomb buses and schools and places of worship in non-combat moments to be The Bad Guys.  Usually, AMNESTY INC points the fingers at the Israeli's because they are mean to Palestinians.

(You know, the Israeli's allow Palestinians to become citizens, and vote, and not get their women whipped because their burkas are too short, and all that oppressive shit?  Unlike HAMAS Dudes.)

So when Amnesty, Inc. accuses Hamas of the same stuff that Amnesty, Inc. has been accusing the Israeli's of for decades, it's like .....
.. uh ...

I don't know.  My mind is too boggled to present cogent thoughts.

You think it through.  Let me know if you can figure it out, okay?

More Guns/Less Crime: Confirmed

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet:
(May 14, 2013)

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

(H/T: The Hobo Brasser)

I had heard this claim parenthetically, but not having the gumption to do my own research I have never bothered to confirm it for myself (although I have bought, and read, John Lott's book).

Now I am informed of a May, 2013 Forbes article which provides links to the source material. (There is an accompanying May, 2013, CNN article which addresses the PEW report.)   The study covers the 20 year period between 1993 and 2013.

Something that surprised me;  the report also discusses briefly a few sociological issues which are parenthetical ... but vitally important ... factors in the murder/suicide rates which are the key elements:

Home Invasions: "THE FEAR IS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE THREAT"

Two Home Invaders Shoot Mother and Son, Dad Grabs His Gun and Shoots Them Both:
(June 18, 2014: Guns Save Lives)

It must have been a terrifying scene in the Valdosta, GA home. A 56 year old mother and her 15 year old son were home for the night when two men kicked in their front door.
One of the men was wielding a rifle, the other carrying a handgun. They opened fire on the pair, striking the son in the leg and the mother in the arm as she tried to run towards the back of the house.
Hearing the commotion, the father, who was in the back of the house, armed himself and went to investigate. When he got to the front of the house, he opened fire on the home invaders, striking them both and sending them fleeing

Of course, this is impossible.  We know it never happened because the Gun Control Advocates tell us that the whole concept of "Good Guy With Gun Stops Bad Guy With Gun" never happens.

While the NRA claims that a more armed population can prevent these types of mass killings, we know this is not true...  (NY DAILY NEWS, June 15, 2014)

Also, Gun Control Advocates reassure us that "Home Invasions" are so rare as to be statistically meaningless:

Professor Harold Pollack, who (among other things) co-directs the University of Chicago's Crime Lab was kind of enough to send along the following note:
I enjoyed your conversation on Up with Chris Hayes. You mentioned the risk of home invasion, and the realistic fear that the cops just wouldn't get there in time. That's obviously a primeval  motive to have a gun by the bedside or whatever.  [My note: "primeval"?  As in "outdated" or "Neanderthal"?]  But the fear is also easily out of proportion to the threat. I had the Chicago police run the number on homicides. In 2011, precisely one homicide listed "burglary" as the motive ... [My note; perhaps true in Chicago, where  they shoot each other on the street and on their porch]  ... Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious.

"Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion":
            (The Atlantic, December 23, 2012:  by Ta-Nehisi Coates)

We are all grateful for their reassurance that, if we just give up our fears and give up our guns, or at least stop TRYING to stop random shootings or protect ourselves, our family and our home with guns, all would be peaceful and beautiful here in Never-Never-Land.

After all .... "the conclusions are pretty obvious"!

(Unless, perhaps, you are one of the unfortunate victims of "... about 100 burglary-homicides...).

The Lamest Anti-Gun Article EVER!

Google Glass Guns=Disaster - The Daily Beast:

If you've ever seen an inexperienced "sportsman" try to shoot a sitting bird ... and miss .. then you will appreciate the total gigglement elation I felt upon reading this very inexpert attempt to criticize an industry, a culture and sporting venue which seems ENTIRELY outside her experiential background.

TrackingPoint, a company manufacturing precision-guided firearms—or firearms designed to turn even mediocre shooters into the best of crack shots with the help of embedded digital technology—is apparently ushering in a “new era in augmented marksman ability,” according to their concept video. In the video, a bearded man wearing Google Glass combines the nerdy with the deadly by shooting with a massive firearm at orange targets, while making it a point not to look at them.

Um ... okay.

Originally, I started a lengthy rejoinder based on what I though was the point of the original article.

And I realized .. the article had no point.  None at all!

The Author (one "Jamelle Dumalaon" ... which was not attributed on the article,  but in a sidebar which will probably have been deleted when you read this) managed to write a 500+ word article which had no point, but only a theme:  anything having to do with guns is "bad".

How can we tell?  Let me quote, briefly:

Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates are not amused—and it’s not just because deliberately not looking while shooting is in itself a very uncomfortable concept, and not just because it might be too soon to introduce ideas on how to make guns cooler. Rather, some say gun manufacturers apply a double standard when it comes to applying technology to guns.

("... uncomfortable concept; make guns cooler"... wait, it gets better!)

then .. no segue at all, the next paragraph reads:

“Gun companies have no problem with 21st-century technology if it’s used to enhance the lethality of their products,” says Ladd Everitt, communications director at the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “But if you try compel them to use technology to improve gun safety, they turn around and sue you.”

WTF?
We have no idea what point the author is trying to make, but she does  (somehow) work in the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.whom she manages to depict as being more concerned about being sued, than Stopping Gun Violence!

[You Go, Girl!]

The two next paragraphs cite the NSSF (bad!) lawsuit against Microstamping laws in California, and then that "... smart handguns ... have been criticized as well".

You'll have to work it out for yourselves, because I couldn't manage to determine which issues the author determined were GOOD or Bad:

• Microstamping  (whatever that is)
• Smart Handguns
• Criticing Smart Handguns

I have never heard of this writer before (and why do I think I'll never hear of her again?) ... but please, Daily Beast ... do keep her on staff.

I need a reason to continue reading your stuff, and she is the most refreshing writer I've ever seen there.

Another case for "Stick and Rock" Control?

Couple assaulted, robbed in downtown Corvallis:
(May 13, 2014)

 A 27-year-old man was arrested Monday evening in downtown Corvallis for allegedly assaulting a man, his wife and their dog with rocks and a stick, then leaving with the woman’s purse and bicycle. Dennis Richard Becker was booked Monday on charges of robbery, theft, assault, animal abuse, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and attempted escape. Becker, who doesn’t have a fixed address, provided authorities with identification from California, according to Capt. Dave Henslee of the Corvallis Police Department ...

Op Ed from the Brady Bunch to Ban Branches:

The attacker (a member of the local "Living-Under-A-Bridge" community) used unregulated, unlicensed weapons in a classic stick-and-rock attack.
It was a horrendous attack.  Something should be done. Why aren't Sticks and Rocks licensed in Oregon?

It could have been worse.  The attack might have taken place in a gravel parking lot or a forest, where multiple rounds are immediately available. 

Who knows how many lives might have been placed at risk when a single handful of gravel might contain more then ten rocks, and reloading is easy and immediate. 

And have you noticed how many sticks are immediately available in a forest?   Remember, there is no law which requires universal background checks on purchases at stick-shows.

OP-ED from the New York Slimes:

Our hearts go out to the victim, Dennis Richard Becker, who was unjustly unceremoniously incarcerated for the simple need to make a living in a cruel world.   At the tender age of 27 years, he was turned out of his family home by an uncaring, unfeeling father who refused Dennis's unspoken (or at least incoherent) cry for help.

Tongue-tied; and "Gun Industry Blood Money"

Gun Owners of America | Facebook:
Gun Owners of America GOA's Larry Pratt leaves MSNBC host tongue-tied

(H/T David Codrea and Gun Owners of America)

There are SO many quotable quotes here, I'm not even going to try to cite them here.  You must go watch-the-whole-thing.  This is perhaps the most productive interview that Larry Pratt has ever given.  He was entirely on-point during the too-short episode.  Including that:

• ... George Washington understood that citizens must have access to firearms available
• ... matching firearms currently available to the military
• ... and citizens have the right to use firearms to protect themselves from both personal assault
• ... and to protect themselves against their own government
• ... and that the Second Amendment Rights are equivalent to the First Amendment rights!

Any argument about the first two amendments to the Constitution must be taken hand-in-hand.

The First Amendment has been ruled by the Supreme Court to include speech which was not available to Americans in the 18th Century, including email and the Internet in general.

These speech platforms were not available in the 18th Century, but the Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech extends to all currently extent speech platforms.

Since the First and the Second Amendments specifically speak to individual rights, many rulings on the 1st Amendment apply equally to the 2nd Amendment.  (The third to the tenth amendments generally apply to impositions of the government upon its citizens.)

When Pratt changed the direction of the dialogue, and began speaking of the First Amendment Rights, the moderator interrupted him:  "You mean the Second Amendment."

Pratt replied forcefully:  "No, I mean the First Amendment!"

That simple statement, equating the two Amendments, completely changed the dialogue.  Neither the Moderator nor the Opponent knew how to respond to the realization that individual rights were equivalent.  And so the discussion was terminated before anyone had a chance to respond to the canard about "Gun Industry Blood Money".

I'm loving it, when the mild-mannered Pratt brings opponents to their knees.

In the background, if you listen closely, you can hear "the lamentations of their women".

John Lott: NRA did NOT influence FED decision to minimize Firearms Research

Don't believe mainstream media mistruths about firearms research | Fox News:
 (February 27, 2014)

If we are to believe the mainstream media, the powerful NRA has used its political muscle to keep people ignorant of how guns impact our safety. They are supposedly to blame for the elimination of firearms research. This is all a result of a 1996 amendment to the federal budget stating “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Dr John Lott recently commented on a MSM trend to blame the NRA for a Federal decision to minimize grants for Researchers on the societal effects of firearms ownership.

According to Lott, the 1996 decision to cut funding for research on firearms-related injuries was made independently of any input from the NRA.

However, both ABC News and WAPO have published articles which specifically point the finger at the NRA:

He specifically cites the January 31, 2014, article from ABC NEWS "Unanswered Questions Gun Violence Researchers Would Tackle If They Had The Money" which focuses on "kids and guns"; and the January 17, 2014, Washington Post opinion article by Joe Davidson "Federal scientists can again research gun violence", which includes a graphic titled "How the NRA exerts influence over Congress".

[This graphic is especially telling, as it demonstrates that in 2012 NRA spent most (almost 90%) of its donative funds to Republicans, and very little of those funds to support Democratic members of congress.  Which should come as no surprise, except that nobody really expected that as many as 10% of congressmen supported the Second Amendment.]

 

Lott's article appeared on the same day in which the Crime Prevention Research Bureau posted an internet article stating that, although federal funding  for "gun violence" research has been increasingly difficult to find during the past 17 years,“Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased”.

Media Slant: I have no respect for "The Media"

Aaron Hernandez leased secret ‘flop house’ with boxes of ammo found by�police | SI Wire:

The evidence continues to mount against former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez.
 After being charged with first-degree murder in June for the execution-style shooting of acquaintance Odin Lloyd, and subsequent findings of links to other shootings and incidents, the 23-year old Hernandez is now reported to have rented a secret “flop house,” a place typically reserved for minimal services such as storage.
SI Wire: Report Aaron Hernandez involved in domestic disturbance incident last year
According to a report Wednesday from the Associated Press, Hernandez, who is now one of 29 NFL players arrested since the Super Bowl, had reportedly leased a $1,200 per month apartment in Franklin, Mass., where state police found boxes of ammunition, a sweatshirt and a baseball cap, among other items.

I don't really know what the facts are behind this story.  I don't care for spectator sports (such as football) and certainly I don't pay much attention to sports stories.

But this story caught my eye, because of the way the media instinctively slants news stories to support their preconceived notions.

Primary in their first three paragraphs are the words "flop house" and "boxes of ammunition".

First ... a $1,200 apartment isn't a "flop house" to most of us.  I recognize that Hernandez (about whom I've never heard before this week, and I know absolutely nothing about .. what's his first name?) is probably making more money in a month than I make a year.  But $1200 a month isn't chump change to most of us.

The use of words to make a point is the definition of  'yellow journalism'.  The author is painting a picture which exists in his mind's eye.  It doesn't exist in mine.

Second, the use of the phrase "boxes of ammunition" is vague ...

• Five boxes of .45 ammunition (the caliber of the shells found on Lloyd’s body), five boxes of rifle ammunition, and one box of .22-caliber ammunition.

Let's interpret:

1.  ... five boxes of .45 (one assumes that's ".45 ACP") is at 50 rounds per box ...  250 rounds of .45 ACP ammunition.  I take that much ammunition to a single IPSC match, because the minimum round count at even a club match is ~130 rounds, and you never know if you're going to have to reshoot a stage or two.  For some people, that may constitute "an arsenal"; for others of us, it's the Minimum Daily Requirement for "A Day At The Range".
2.  ...  five boxes of rifle ammunition.  That's also the MDR for a day of varmint shooting. At 20 rounds per box, it's 100 rounds.  A bit more than I would usually carry for deer hunting, I admit.  But when you add in sight-in days at the range before the start of season, it's ample for the entire annual season if you want to be sure that all of your ammunition will perform at the same level of expectation.
3. ... one box of .22-caliber ammunition.  Again, that's at 50 rounds for box.  (NOTE: a "BRICK" is ten boxes, for a total of 500 rounds.  The article said "Box", not "Brick".) Generally speaking these rounds are appropriate for plinking, or small-size varmint hunting, or for target shooting.

Given the level of hype which The Media has apparently applied to this story, it's impossible to tell what the kid was planning to do  with this ammunition.  And  that's The Point.

The Point is that the news story presents the possession of less ammunition as "A Bad Thing" .. by strong inference, since it's the main issue of the story.

NOBODY has been convicted of a crime in court, as well as I can determine.

NOBODY has even charged with the egregious  attempt to overthrow the government with (at my best guess) 400 hundred rounds of mixed ammunition.   Somebody died in relation to this individual, the "Hernandez".

Here, the Media in the person of Sports Illustrated Wire has not-too-subtly insinuated that this individual must have had nefarious intent when he accumulated 400 rounds of ammunition in a "flop house" .. the inference is that he kept the ammo in a throw-away residence for the purpose of nefarious activity.  Yes, I know know I used the word "nefarious" twice;  that's the effect of the article in it's yellow-journalism phraseology.

I have no views on the Hernandez meme in terms of the presentation .. which is hypothetical at best, and misleading at worst.  As I said, I don't know the facts of the story and I don't much care.

What bothers me more (with apologies to Hernandez, if I seem to be ignoring the main point in HIS life story) is the careless use of inference that mere (legal) possession of (legal) ammunition somehow infers or implies guilt.

After all, if he was an "Honest Citizen", why would he need to own 'so much ammunition'. And why would he 'hide it' in a 'flop house'???

The answer is .. the man has broken no laws here.   IMPLYING that he has done so, or that the mere possession of ammunition suggests that he had nefarious intent, is entirely irresponsible for a publication which purports to be about sports; not about politics.

THAT, my friends, is the very definition of Yellow Journalism.

And it sucks.