Friday, June 30, 2006

The only ones vigilante enough

At least that's the way it seems with two recent incidents in which a Cannon County jailer and La Vergne Police officer, both off duty and out of their jurisdiction, allegedly tried to pull over two people on Rutherford County roads.

Instead of suspending or firing Foster, though, Cannon County Sheriff Kenny Wetzel said he will give him the benefit of the doubt until the case goes to court, allowing him to keep overseeing inmates. With a decision like that, we must ask: What does a person have to do to get fired from the Cannon County Jail?

At least La Vergne Police put a two-week suspension on Officer Santiago McKlean after he tried to stop a woman June 8 for reckless driving on Florence Road, then chased her for at least two miles, frightening her and endangering his own family. His wife and two small children were in his private car when he went after the woman, off duty and outside La Vergne to boot.

Because of their reckless behavior, these two individuals should probably be fired for the good of the people, those they've chased already and those they could hurt if they are allowed to stay on the job.

Wow. I don't have much else to say.

File under: Only Ones

Concealed gun law raises interest, worry

Topeka — While some Kansans are eager to get a license to carry a concealed gun, many businesses are anxious to get signs to prohibit guns on their premises, officials said Thursday.

I have an idea. Why don't shop owners just put up a sign that says, "No robbers allowed". That'd be just as effective at stopping criminals. As it stands, when they put up their "No guns" sign, they're just asking to be jacked by letting the bad guys know that they don't have to worry about anyone protecting themselves.

The latest from the UN gun conference

Via Cam.

A few more countries gave their opening statements on Thursday. The representative from the Solomon Islands said, “the commitment of the Government of Solomon Islands in implementing the Program of Action is so much so that it has even banned the selling of toys guns sold in shops including collecting licensed arms for the purposes of rooting out a gun culture from growing in a small country.” I suppose you can’t blame the government of the island chain for being a little nervous. After all, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army fought a war for autonomy not too far away in Papua New Guinea, and there’s been a lot of unrest in the Solomons as of late. Better take everyone’s guns just to be safe.

What do you do when the police knock on your door?

Well, two options come to mind. You can answer the door or not answer
the door. Both can be bad ideas.

Men posing as police officers break into home

A total of six people were inside the house when three men, who identified themselves as police officers, entered with guns drawn wearing vests with "Cicero Police" written across the back, baseball caps with "POLICE" written on the bill, and duty belts with gun holsters, Liakopoulos said. Two of the men were carrying handguns.

Hmm... That didn't go very well. I guess that to be safe, you should just not answer the door.

Man charged after gun incident

Police responded to the report of a male subject inside of a residence with a handgun, and the caller wanted him removed, according to Sgt. Frank Stearns. - WTF???

Officers attempted to make contact with the individual who was later identified as Davis. He refused to come to the door when asked by police. - Right, they "asked" him to come to the door.

It was found that Davis did not threaten anyone with the handgun. He was charged with interference with official acts for refusing to answer his door and speak to police. A 9mm handgun was recovered inside the Davis residence. - So the guy didn't do ANYTHING and he got arrested, charged with a crime, and his gun was confiscated.

Nice work, boys.

File under: Only Ones, Media bias/ignorance, Gun Laws

More on smoking, more from getliberty

Thanks again to getliberty for this look at the logical progression of smoking bans in CA. Next up is a ban on smoking in a car if there's a kid with you. getliberty points out that banning smoking in YOUR HOME is the next logical step.

Note that there's nothing in Sen. Ortiz's rationale that inherently limits its application to cars. If smoking in proximity to a child is bad in your SUV, it's just as bad in your home -- the busybodies just haven't mustered up the courage to take the next logical legislative step.

File under: Nanny State

Welcome Home

A guy comes home to find out that SWAT has tear-gassed his house and broken down the doors in a raid for a guy who he's never heard of. VERY professional...

File under: Only Ones

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Another "only one" shoots himself in the leg

Smoking bans

It's everywhere. The talking heads are all abuzz with talk about banning smoking here, there and everywhere. It's terrible. It's stupid. It's our government.

Look, if a restaurant wants to allow its patrons to smoke, who are you (big brother) to tell them they can't? If someone doesn't want to eat or work there because of the environment, let them go somewhere else. If everyone really thinks it's so dangerous, the place will soon be out of business. The bottom line is, you don't get to tell people how to run a business (yeah, I know they do already, and I disagree with that too).

Off duty police shooting/beating update

This is a pretty good wrap-up on the story of the off-duty cop on his motorcycle who got into it with a crowd in an alley. Both sides are presented.

My conclusion from these accounts is that neither side is innocent. The fact remains that the cop ended up shooting someone. There are only two scenarios:

  1. It was justified. The guy was in fear of his life and did not instigate the violence (most self-defense laws say something to the effect of "you can't claim self-defense if you're the one that started it). If this is the case, it's a good example of why all law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry.
  2. It was reckless. He started the whole mess and decided he was professional enough to end it with his Glock 40. If this is the case, it's a good example of why police aren't a special class of citizens who are holier-than-thou and deserve to be the only ones professional enough to carry guns.

File under: Only Ones

The call for "special schools"

Some day your free-thinking child won't be welcome at the local publik skool. He will be deemed as "disruptive" for his "radical ideas" about the constitution and limited scope of the government.
"These children should be taken outside of mainstream education and put in special schools to give the well behaved children a chance to learn."
Substitute "well behaved children" with "Hitler youth" and you get my feeling on the matter. None of this would be a problem if we didn't have State run "education". Kids who really are disruptive would simply be denied service. If you don't want to learn, you don't have to. If you want to, you and your parents (not me) have to work for it. All of the sudden I think you'd find people a little more interested in school because they'd have a vested interest. Plus I'd keep my tax money.

File under: Nanny State

House votes to overturn mandatory gun locks

What an idea! Instead of making more laws that further restrict citizens and businesses, let's focus on repealing existing restrictions.

The amendment overturning the requirement for trigger locks was attached to a larger law enforcement spending bill for next year that has not yet been considered by the Senate.

It's not much of a victory in the way of repealing restrictive gun laws, but I guess it's something. I'd rather see something that gives more freedom to law abiding citizens rather than manufacturers, but I that doesn't mean I can't be happy for them..

File under: US Politics, Gun Laws

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Global Warming

This came via Alphecca, and it's good.

While only a humble mechanical engineer (with 25+ years of experience in heat transfer and thermogoddamics…thermodynamics, sorry) I still must express my opinion that you have been seriously misled by the government/media hype of their crisis-de-jour, "global warming". Also referred to as GHG/AGW ("greenhouse gas/anthropogenic global warming").
Before I'll listen to anyone express their (usually woefully uninformed) opinion on GHG/AGW, I'll pose to them three questions, the Bezat Basic AGW Quiz. Please don't cheat by skipping down to the answers first.
1. What gas is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse warming effect on Earth?Enviro-twit answer: Carbon dioxide, of course.
2. Is the United States a net A) absorber, or B) emitter of carbon dioxide?Enviro-twit answer: Net emitter, of course.
3. Is the global climate today A) cooler, or B) warmer than it was about 1,100 years ago?Enviro-twit answer: Warmer, of course.
Anyone who responds with those answers, and yet still has (and is willing to voice) an opinion about anthropogenic warming, should simply be taken out and shot ignored. The real answers are:

1. Water vapor is the gas responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. While part of that is clouds, the majority of the effect is the simple water vapor content (expressed as pounds of water per pound of dry air, as in a psychrometric chart) in the air around us. CO2 is responsible for only about 1% to 1-/1/2% (depending on whose model you use) of the greenhouse effect on Earth. Methane has a far higher effect.

2. The US absorbs far more CO2 than we produce, largely through the effects of huge areas of croplands and forest. Did you know that the US now has MORE forested area than it did pre-Columbian? Another number that the enviro-twits love to trot out is that with only (x)% of the worlds population, we use 25% of the world's energy. The number they DON'T add behind that is that the US also PRODUCES about 30% of the world's GNP. We use more, but we're FAR more efficient at using it, and produce FAR more with it than anybody else.
As a bonus question, ask whether this same is true of 1) Germany, 2) France, 3) Japan? And then ask if there's maybe just the teeny-tiny possibility of a political/economic agenda going on?

3. It's cooler now. Remember, in 900 AD the Norsemen were raising trees and crops (!!!) of oats in Greenland, and had probably colonized Newfoundland ("Vinland", with the grapes), which at the time was fecund. The era is referred to in climatology texts (but only those written prior to the 1980's) as the "Medieval Climate Optimum". It was followed by the period referred to as the "Little Ice Age", from the 1,300's to the late 1,700's. We're still emerging from that era, so an overall warming trend (globally, and of minor import) is expected.

- Bonus question: What was the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1000 AD?There's a huge amount of speculation among climatologists about the strong correlation between the MCO and a period of almost zero sunspots referred to as the "Maunder Minimum", but as of now it's only a correlation, and not proof of causation.

For a while the GHG/Anthro-GW crowd was trying to claim that "Well, the Medieval Climate Optimum was limited to only the tiny part of the western side of the Northern Hemisphere", but they've pretty much given even that up now, with huge amounts of evidence that it was global. Unless, of course, the following areas are considered to be within the western part of the Northern Hemisphere:
Africa:Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126.
Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60.
Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Cooper, G.R.J., Lundblad, K., Partridge, T.C., Scott, L., Sithaldeen, R., Talma, A.S. and Tyson, P.D. 2003. Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over the past 25,000 years in Southern Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 2311-2326
Lamb, H., Darbyshire, I. and Verschuren, D. 2003. Vegetation response to rainfall variation and human impact in central Kenya during the past 1100 years. The Holocene 13: 285-292
I can cite studies like this for Antarctica, Asia, North America, Australia/New Zealand, and South America…but you get the point.
The evidence is that the solar cycles, both long- and short-term cycles, have a bigger influence on the global temperature than does GHG concentrations. Example:

- There's a planet in the Solar System that is currently suffering an apparent global warming. It's weather patterns are changing, and long-term patterns show that the polar caps appear to be shrinking.
- Only one problem: The planet is Mars, and we haven't got our fleets of SUV's emitting CO2 there yet.

The IPCC has systematically drummed out (or have had resign on them) anyone who dares to disagree with their orthodoxy. Since anthropogenic global warming is based purely on faith, it is essentially a religion, with adherents who cling tenaciously to it's tenets, regardless of what facts might step in their way. The IPCC is an almost purely political group, with an extremely strong collectivist agenda. Their program to control the worlds economy through coercion is simply using the excuse of GHG's to drive through their control agenda. Now, this probably doesn't bother your average sKerry/Gore worshippers, since their collectivist ethos fit right in with that world view Example:

- The IPCC's early report, 694 pages long, contained within the body of the report the comment (from memory, don't have time to go home and track it down): "No correlation could be found between global temperature increases and greenhouse gas concentrations". Did you read that report? I did, and have a hard-copy of it somewhere at home. What's difficult to understand about "no correlation"?

- But the 25-page political summary stated just exactly the opposite of what the scientific report said, and claimed that there WAS a correlation…which led to the mass resignations from the IPCC of hundreds of climatologists, who put their honesty and honor above the politically-motivated grant-withdrawal penalty. And they've been penalized.

- Guess which one the scientifically-illiterate reporters bothered to read?- Guess which portion of which report got all the publicity?

Let's ignore the fact, as admitted by even the IPCC, that FULL and COMPLETE implementation would have, as it's BEST possible outcome, according to their (shitty) models, a reduction in global temperatures of only 0.1 degrees C over the next 100 years…and that the Kyoto Protocols aren't even going to be considered to be signed by China and India, whose energy growth is (to say the least) prodigious. Or the FACT that they hypocritical assholes in the EU have missed their GHG emissions targets…and have actually INCREASED their CO2 emissions in the past year. So we'll cripple the global economy (and coincidentally, simultaneously condemn billions to death, and take control of what's left) for a literally unmeasurable difference. Hey, makes sense to me.

The latest release is a simple recycling of garbage from bad sources.
-------------It's utter and complete quote:Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
The "hockey stick" graph has been thoroughly debunked, and not even the IPCC is willing to stand behind it anymore. The statistical methodology used to create it by Mann et. al. has been demonstrated to take ANY data set, regardless of actual trends, and create the same shape. NO respectable climatologist even references it anymore, other than out of derision for the political science (as opposed to atmospheric science) that created it. As noted above, the current period of "global warming" started back in the middle-1600's or thereabouts. If you carefully pick a starting point for your data of around 1650 AD, you can safely say that it's the warmest it's been in about 350 to 400 years...but if you go farther back than that, the theory falls completely apart.

As for claims of consensus, a petition is circulating with more than 19,00 signatures of scientist and engineers (and more than 2,600 climatologists) which decries the current GHG/AGW pseudo-science. It's available on-line at

I apologize for the length of this e-mail, but I guess I just got on a roll. I'd hate to see someone that I regard as generally sensible accepting the Chicken Little "sky is falling" stuff. Many of the things proposed to help fight AGW, particularly things like conserving resources and improving efficiencies, are near and dear to an engineer's heart. But doing the right things for the wrong reasons generally leads to doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. We should be improving things and reducing pollution of all kinds because it's good to do so, not because we're terrified of an artificial bogeyman.--TB from the frozen north

File under: US Politics, International issues

You should read this.

Really. Go read the whole thing if you think the police are all "officer friendlies" and exist to "serve and protect". There's almost too much to quote, which I why I encourage you to read the entire account.

It started with this article titled, "Off-duty Seattle officer beaten"

Believe it or not, it appears that they initial account given by the police may not be entirely accurate. Where have I heard that before?

Now we have a new story, "Accounts of off-duty police shooting differ."

The eyewitness/victim stories go more like this:
  • Plainclothes officer is riding his personal motorcycle down a crowded alley.
  • He revs his engine to get a lady to move out of his way.
  • He tries to drive by her and bangs her arm.
  • Words are exchanged.
  • He dismounts.
  • His motorcycle is overturned (by who, we don't know)
  • "At that point, witnesses say Dornay jumped over the motorcycle toward the woman and tackled her and threw her up against the wall,"
  • The cop fired [conflicting accounts] of rounds in [conflicting accounts] direction but a bystander ended up getting shot [conflicting accounts] times in the [conflicting accounts] area of his body.
  • Bystanders rush the guy and beat the snot out of him (apparently think he was a bad guy - were they wrong?)

Just to make the story more interesting, we note the following:

Dornay already faces a separate federal lawsuit brought by an elderly man who claims Dornay and other officers beat him so badly on a Belltown street in 2003 that the man's spleen was ruptured.

According to the court documents, Seattle police conducted an internal investigation of the incident, but exonerated the officers of wrongdoing.

Yet, because of what the lawsuit describes as several "irregularities" with the internal investigation -- witnesses to the encounter were not interviewed, and the officers were able to "re-create" police reports about the incident that they said were "lost" -- the department's Office of Professional Accountability re-opened the case.

Kinda makes you go "hmmmm..."

File under: Only Ones

More machine guns

Officers were later able to determine that the rifle was, in fact, an automatic weapon modified into a machine gun.

An automatic weapon IS a machine gun.

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) - 1989

The UN conference on small arms

I haven't posted much on it because others are doing a good job. Check it out.

Rapid Fire Pistols!!

A thief broke into a popular gun shop in Seminole County, Fla., and stole 12 pistols for the third time in as many months, according to a Local 6 News report. The man was then videotaped stealing rapid-fire pistols, the report said.

Holy Sweet Bananas, what do we do!?! He's got a RAPID-FIRE PISTOL! Wait. You're telling me that there's no such thing as a "rapid-fire pistol" and that they almost all shoot only as fast as you can pull the trigger (except for sigle-action revolvers and certain... "modified" Glock pistols)? Hmm... Well, I'm going to go ahead and use the term anyway. [/sensationalist journalist]

"My guess is they would be used to commit other criminal acts on the streets of Central Florida," Casselberry police Lt. Dennis Stewart said. "So, it's a more than a probable guess that they're not going to be going into legitimate business but some type of a criminal enterprise."

We've got freaking Sherlock Holmes on our hands here. Denny, you're telling me that this guy did NOT drop in through the roof and steal these guns in order to use them in "legitimate business"??? Your powers of deduction are astonishing.

File under: Media bias/ignorance

The privileged class - Officer Jason Matthew Brown

File this one with the other "only ones professional enough" cases. Derek Butler is the victim.

On the night of the crash, Brown was rushing to the 2200 block of Cedar Street to help an officer catch a fleeing drug suspect. He had on his lights and siren when he drove the wrong way down Dr. W.J. Hodge Street (formerly 21st Street) and hit Butler's Mitsubishi at the Market Street intersection. Butler, 38, of the 1200 block of South Floyd Street, died at the scene.

Stengel also said grand jurors were told of Brown's past driving record, which includes several traffic violations and a wreck in 1999 that killed 74-year-old William O'Bannon. Brown, then 17, was attempting an improper lane change when his pickup hit O'Bannon, who was standing behind his truck after running out of gas in the space between the merging lane on Watterson Expressway next to Crittenden Drive, according to the accident report.

Before becoming an officer, Brown was stopped by police four times between 1998 and 2001. He was charged with reckless driving, running a traffic light, disregarding a stop sign, having expired plates, failing to produce his insurance card and speeding. Brown pleaded guilty to disregarding a traffic light and a stop sign in separate 1998 incidents, and speeding 18 mph over the limit in 2001. A reckless-driving charge in 1998 was amended on the condition that he attend traffic school.

I don't hate cops. I hate that they're treated differently than you and I, because they're so professional and all. I'm not the only one:
"It seems like (police) get away with everything," she said. "I guess if you have a badge, you're qualified to kill anybody by any means necessary."

File under: Only Ones

House GOP to Focus on Abortion, Guns

The article is mostly NOT about abortion OR guns, but that's beside the point.

Two measures relate to the rights of gun owners. One would prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms during national emergencies, barring practices such as the one that officials said arose in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit.

Sure, there's a good idea. We observe that sometimes officials ignore the Constitution, so we'll write a law that says they're not allowed to do that. Something seems amiss here...

Whatever the other "measure" is, it's not mentioned in this article.

On a side note, the article also mentions that:

House Republicans also said they would hold a vote on legislation to apply gambling laws to the Internet.

Yes! Please! Protect me from my own sinful nature! I have no control over myself! I need the State to be my nanny!

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Guns, Bar, Assault Rifle!!!

It's a MSM journalist's dream come true.

Let's see what happened:
  • Shortly before 3 a.m., officers saw a case they thought might contain a firearm in the back of the truck. - To the best of my knowledge, from researching here, there's nothing illegal about having a firearm in a case in your vehicle.
  • Officers talked to the men and then found an AK-47 assault rifle inside the case. - Wait, exactly what happened there? Why were the police allowed to search their personal property?
  • Two Kansas City, Mo., men, ages 20 and 22, and a 22-year-old Kansas City, Kan., man were issued notices to appear in court. - Was there even a crime committed (other than the confiscation of the guns by the officers)?
  • Police have confiscated several weapons found in vehicles in the same area over the past few months. - No mention is made of any law being broken, only property seized. Apparently that doesn't bother anyone in the press.

Now we have the dubious use of terms like "AK-47" and "assault rifle" to deal with. An assault rifle is defined as "a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition." So these guys were carrying a machine gun, and they weren't arrested? They were just asked to appear in court? Again, the term AK-47 refers to a specific model of assault rifle, which again is a machine gun and has been heavily regulated since 1934.

Which is more likely: The men were found in possession of an unregistered machine gun and were simply asked to appear in court, OR the journalist got all excited about getting to write a story about mean ol' assault rifles and throw around words like AK-47 willy-nilly with total disregard for factual integrity?

Update: Here is another account of the story. It adds: that "three Kansas City area men received notices to appear in court for having firearms near a drinking establishment."

Update II: Here is the Lawrence, KS statute that basically says:

(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a firearm within a drinking establishment or on publicly accessible property in close proximity to the premises of any drinking establishment.
(C) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a dangerous knife within a drinking establishment.

Of course, the devil is in the details. "Close proximity" is 200 feet. Folding pocket knives under 4" are exempt. Firearms in a case are exempt. Firearms unloaded without a magazine or other speed loading device are exempt.

So, unless the "AK-47" (or either of the pistols) was loaded in the case, the guys shouldn't be in any trouble.

File under: Media bias/ignorance, Gun Laws

Guns = Crime. What? What media bias?

City takes guns, crime off street
It's a simple enough premise: The more guns you take off the streets, the less violent crime occurs on the streets.
"Anytime you take 102 guns off the street, there's going to be some impact on violent crime," said Lt. Brian Russell, a supervisor in the task force. "We're just hoping it continues."

Think about what you just said, Brian. If there was a definitive causal relationship between "guns on the street" and "violent crime", why are you "just hoping it continues"? If you're so sure that guns cause crime, you should be confident that as you keep taking them away, crime will plummet.

File under: Media bias/ignorance

Create registry of gun criminals

This is from Canada, so temper your expectations.

It's an editorial response to a gun grabber's assertation that:
It's important that there are controls over civilian possession of guns if you want to stop illegal possession.
The part that's supposed to be the main point of the response:
Rather than blaming an intimate object for societies woes, let's go after the criminals internationally, create a registry of criminals whom we know misuse firearms and give the money saved to the only entity to combat crime worldwide - the police.
I think the guy's heart is in the right place, but his eyes just aren't totally open. First of all, instead of creating a registry of people who misuse guns, why don't you keep them in jail (assuming that the word "misuse" means "commit crimes with")? As I've said before, if a person can't be trusted topossess a gun, they can't be trusted to do anything without being supervised (ergo they belong inprisonn).

Secondly, this poor fella still thinks that the police are the only ones professional enough to combat crime. Go ahead and call 911 (or whatever you guys have up there) in the middle of the night when someone's in your house and wait for the professionals to rescue you. As for me and my house, we will "combat crime" as needed.

PS - does that make me a "vigilante"?

Monday, June 26, 2006


I've been out for a week, as those (both) of you who read here regularly have noticed. Here's a quick rundown of what's been going on that I'd blog about if I had the time or energy to comment on.

That's it for now. More as it comes to me.

File under: Nanny State, Gun Laws, Only Ones

Friday, June 16, 2006

If you think privacy isn't a big deal or that you actually have privacy...


File under: Big Brother

Good for you, but why not me?

Police say officer justified in killing

The officer was sitting in the vehicle at a stop sign at 109th Street and Wentworth Avenue about 7:45 p.m. Wednesday, when the man jumped onto the hood, police said. According to police, Lofton said: "I'm going to kill you! I'm going to kill you!"

I'm glad she was okay. She was attacked, threatened, and in fear for her life. She justifiably shot him in self-defense with a weapon she was carrying with her.

Why is it though, that you and I must remain defenseless in the same situation (seeing as how this is in Chicago)? The officer wasn't even on duty, so why could she carry a gun around for (obviously justifiable) protection when you and I aren't allowed to do the same?

I guess we're just not professional enough.

File under: Only Ones

The Double Standard

They don't need to bother with a warrant to bust into your house, yet even with a properly obtained warrant their own effects may not be searched.

Send the UNSmall Arms Conference a Message

Via oscarpoppa and from Kim's other side:

It started with Publicola suggesting that we “make June 23rd American Range Trip day” and Mr. du Toit took it a step forward by suggesting that we use the targets show the Useless Nitwits what we think about their Small Arms Conference. From Mr. du Toit’s “The Other Side”:

And just so that everyone can see that ART Day is not just a feelgood idea: let’s all send our targets to the United Nations Small Arms Conference the next day (they’ll get to NY on Tuesday or Wednesday).

One rule, and one rule only: No picture targets (of Kofi, the UN flag or anything like that). Just shoot up ordinary target circles or silhouette targets, and send ‘em in.
Here’s the address:

H.E. Mr. Prasad Kariyawasam (President)
UN Small Arms Review Conference 2006
UN Headquarters
First Avenue at 46th Street
New York, NY 10017

I like it.

File under: US Politics, International issues, Gun Laws

CA: SF Supervisor Says Gun Industry Should Be Liable For Violence

Bruce at KABA has a good idea in response to Daley's assertion that the Gun industry should be liable in civil courts for criminal misuse of their products:

Why stop there Chris? Why not call for the auto industry to accept civil liability for car crashes? The liquor industry to accept civil liability for drunken brawls? Oh, here's an idea, since you propose disarming your subjects, how 'bout if the police accept civil liability for crime?!?

File under: Gun Laws, US Politics

Where We're Headed

Of Arms and the Law gives us a glimpse of what's in store if we continue to adopt the socialist european way of life:

burglars are now being given warnings,

In an interesting contrast, when British police found a " large quantity of cartridges" (44, to be precise) in a home, the occupants were sentenced to 1.5 and 3 years imprisonment.

We're the only ones sleepy enough

Police officers assigned to protect Compton schools against vandalism and other campus crimes have been asleep at the wheel, quite literally, according to photographs and sworn testimony in a racial discrimination lawsuit. The photographs appear to show several uniformed school officers in the driver's seats of parked squad cars with eyes shut and, in some cases, heads leaning back.

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that these fine officers are the "only ones professional enough" to be in charge of your security?

We're From the U.N. and We Want Your Guns

The philosophy of these groups, LaPierre said, is that the right to own a gun should be solely the right of governments, and they despise the fact that the United States remains a country in which private citizens can keep a handgun at their bedsides.

Let's do a little mental exercise here. Picture the whole world's population the way it is now. Now let's imagine that somehow ALL guns are taken away from ALL citizens (the good and the bad). Of course, the proper "authorities" would keep their guns for "enforcement" purposes. You don't have to worry about being mugged on the street, right? There'd be no more crime, right? If you don't think that every single one of us would end up a slave in a situation like that, you're a darn fool.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

It's coming - the banning of toy guns

DALLAS -- Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle is joining parents in a push to
ban sales of toy guns.

"Police officers don't have the luxury of time to determine whether or not it's a toy gun or a real gun. They have to decide if they see a weapon. They have to make a decision," said Dallas resident Peter Jackson.

Well, if we should ban everything an officer might mistake for a gun in a quick "decision", I guess eyeglass cases would have to be on the list.

I told you this sort of thing was coming...

Mark my words, all of these stories are leading up to something. BB-guns and other "replica guns" or "look-alike" guns will either be banned or recategorized as firearms. You'll see legislation forcing manufacturers of these toys to change how they look or quit making them all together. You'll see laws that treat them the same as real firearms when it comes to purchasing, possessing, and transferring.

Bloomberg is an idiot

“If you go and buy 50 guns, you're not buying that to go hunting,” said Bloomberg. “If you're buying paint to paint your gun so it looks like a child’s gun, you're not doing that to fool a deer. If you're going out and you’re trying to buy a gun which is advertised ‘armor-piercing bullets,’ the last time I saw an elk wear a bullet-proof vest was an awful long time ago.”

Golly Mr. Bloomberg, you're so darn clever. In one fell swoop you managed to quash every single argument a person can make for the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I don't know why those rednecks would have a problem with your common sense proposals.

File under: Gun Laws

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The Nanny Society

Normally I talk about the State and how it limits freedoms. This is about the social mentality that leads to the State limiting freedoms.

It's also about football, which I like.

If you pay any attention to sports at all, you've heard about Big Ben's (quarterback for the Super Bowl winning Steelers) motorcycle accident. You've probably also heard a flood of people calling him irresponsible or selfish for not thinking of his "responsibility as the face of the franchise and leader of the team."

The guy gets paid to play football. He has a contract. If he abides by the contract, he gets paid. If either party in the contract decides they don't like the terms, they can quit. He has no responsibility to his employer other than what is outlined in the contract.

What gets me is that the mainstream media is always tripping over themselves to not appear "judgmental" and jumping down anyone's throat who they perceive to be that way. Yet for some reason, they feel the need to condemn Ben and his actions and wag their finger in his face.

Bad boy. You're in time out.

It could happen here, and it could happen to you

TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY officers storm a house that they suspect to contain some kind of "chemical bomb". They find two guys, and shoot one of them. They don't find any evidence of wrongdoing. They did not announce themselves. They drug one of the guys down the stairs and out into the lawn. When he asked what was going on, he was repeatedly told to shut the F up.

The police issued an apology.

Oops, I guess the intelligence was wrong.

Stuff like this scares the crap out of me. Even though it happened in the UK, there's no reason it couldn't happen here just as easily.

I do not think it means what you think it means

The Miami Herald tells us that "guns are the root cause" of the increased local murder rate. "Root cause?" That sounds like some kind of fancy scientific term; they must've done a study or something'. Well, either that or it's true because some police chief says so:
Chief Arthur Dawsey of Miami-Dade Corrections declared, ``We've got to get guns off the streets. We adults are the ones who have them in our homes or under the seats of our cars. Children aren't buying them. They're getting them from us.'' Former Miami Police Chief Don Warshaw also identifies guns as the root cause of this crime wave. 'There is `crime,' and there is 'violent crime with guns,' '' Warshaw told me in an e-mail. 'Two different problems with two different solutions. This outbreak is a `gun' problem, and it was bound to happen. Needs a specialized solution.''

Hmm... Where have I heard a term like that before? Believe it or not, no supporting information is given to shore up the "personal supposition" that guns are indeed the "root cause". We do have several other issues discussed in relation to the troubled youth, but none of them get their own "root cause" title.

All the victims are young and black, and so are the perpetrators. The shooters and victims are nearly all in their teens and 20s

Maybe we should ban gun ownership among that demographic. No? That would be discriminatory? It wouldn't solve the problem? No kidding, but it makes even less sense to say that banning guns would help.

These Haitian gang members may be beyond redemption, but thousands of other young black kids are not. The advice they got at the youth summit? Find a wise mentor if your parents aren't up to it or available. Stay in school and find a teacher or counselor who will help. Don't resort to violence because a police record can never be erased. If someone threatens you with violence, don't be afraid to ask police or another authority figure for help.

And then there was the issue of self-esteem, perhaps the most important one. Several kids asked about the widespread use of the ''N'' word by their black peers. ''We have to stop demeaning ourselves because it allows others to demean us.''

Wait a minute, I thought guns were the problem! Are you saying that maybe, just maybe, culture, upbringing, and personal choice have something to do with the problem? If so, guns can't be the root problem. If not, why are you talking about it?

I Get Scolded by ‘Anonymous’

You can see the whole thing posted in comments. I’ll respond bit by bit.


I write for me, not for you. If you find my site entertaining, great. If not, feel free to move a long. Calling me boring isn’t exactly the kind of intellectual sparring I’m looking for from commenters, especially anonymous ones.

another uninformed individual passing off media speculation and personal suppostion as fact.

To call me uninformed implies that you are in some way more informed. I comment on the stories as they come out. If an important part of the story turns out to be falsely reported (by the media), I'd be happy to change my outlook. My guess is that if any part of the media account was merely "media speculation" being passed off as fact, the professionals would have been all over them to get it corrected. If anything, I'd suspect the media of being overly soft on the po-po and giving them a generous benefit of the doubt.

was the lawful resident arrested? or, was he detained? do you know the difference? was he ever charged with anything??

The information that I have says that he was arrested, but does not make mention of a charge. Again, I pass on the information that is available to me, and comment on it. What do you want from me? As for whether or not I know the difference... Am I supposed to bow to your self-supposed superior knowledge after that kind of comment? The only kind of person who asks a question like that is the kind of person who would also say "If you don't already know, I'm not telling." According to the news, he certainly was arrested, since he was cuffed at gunpoint (I think that pretty much means his freedom to move about freely was restricted). He was probably detained until they found out that he was the resident of the place, but there I go with my "personal suppositions." I forgot, I'm not allowed to draw conclusions or have opinions.

did the male officer shoot the female officer...are you a crime scene investigator with intimate knowledge of the crime scene?

According to reports, the male officer's first shot grazed the head or ear of his partner, causing her to open fire as well. Once again, you ask a question to which you're obviously not looking for an answer, so I will make the "personal supposition" that you're just trying to intimidate me by being pompous. The real question is, do I have to be a "crime scene investigator with intimate knowledge of the crime scene" in order to comment about the undisputed (by the police) account of the events?

did the involved officers make statements to the media, which you called "lies"? do you really think those officers shot someone then ran out to the media trucks and made a statement?? pretty unlikely...more likely statements made by officers on the fringes who were not involved in the incident or, even worse, pure media speculation.

I really think that a, "department spokesman initially told reporters that Sullivan had fired at the officers through the attic floor, a version of events that police did not officially correct for more than 16 hours. Fong [the police chief] said the earlier story was based on a preliminary account." There you have it. I guess it depends on who gave the "preliminary account". Since only two officers responded to the call, I'm going to make the "personal supposition" that they're the one who gave that account. Your "personal supposition" that they are "more likely statements made by officers on the fringes who were not involved in the incident" seems to be much less likely given the available information.

was the attic only 2 1/2 feet high? again, you weren't there and you don't know.

Apparently you (Anonymous) think that having a detail reported in two separate accounts is no reason to talk about it or believe it. The only reason to ever believe anything you read in the news is to have first-hand knowledge. Should I start every post with, "If this is true..." and then proceed to give my take? If the media account isn't disputed by the agency it paints in a not-so-bright color, what reason would I have to doubt it?

please, reason, use your reason to realize that thorough investiations are good things.

I don't need to "realize that thorough investigations are good things." I WISH there could be real thorough investigations into events like this, Ruby Ridge, and Waco. If we had some honest, thorough investigations into instances of police abuse and misconduct, followed by some real consequences for those found to be negligent or irresponsible, then maybe stuff like this wouldn't happen as often. Until then, officers will continue to place their own safety high above that of those who they are supposed to "serve and protect".

question: reason is confronted by a man in a dark room....reason is threatened by the man in the dark room...the man tells reason that he is going to shoot him....reason doesn't see a gun, but reason doesn't know if the man is concealing the gun...reason has his gun on him....the man suddenly pulls out a dark object and points it at reason's face...spit-second or die???....him or you???

I honestly laughed when I read that. First of all, the officers weren't "confronted by a man in a dark room." First of all, they were investigating a scene where no crime had been committed. Instead of getting the facts straight and having a little talk with those they encountered, they went crawling into an attic to try to drag somebody out. Who is the aggressor? I'm all for self-defense, but aggressors have no right to use that argument. "Live or die? Him or you?" Give me a break. There was never such a choice to be made. Sullivan would have LIKED to have such a choice.

i'm thankful that there are "professionals" who are courageous enough to put there lives on the line everyday for the rest of us.

First of all, you're going to need to brush up on the difference between "their" and "there". There's nothing courageous about getting paid to catch criminals, and there's certainly nothing courageous about blindly trusting false information which results in the negligent killing of an innocent person.

Mr. (ETA: supposition!!!) Anonymous posted what he thought in response to what I thought. I don't have anything wrong with that, and in fact encourage it. If my response sounds harsh, it's because he treated me like a preschooler, not because I don't like criticism.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Engage Your Reason, Worded Well

Via Big Lizards, the following quote pretty much sums it up:

If you're a human being, you feel sorry for people who have suffered great tragedy. But if you're a reasoning human being, you don't allow empathy to leap up your throat and strangle your brain: you control it; you take a step back and ask whether We are the evidence ever means anything more than "Shut up," she explained.

Go read the whole thing.

Police run over, kill sunbather

Via The War on Guns, we se another example of the "professionals".

It's the usual jazz. Police do something stupid and/or reckless that results in the injury or death of an innocent citizen and...

their names are withheld and they go on paid administrative leave.

Another "BB-gun Scare"

WBEN's Tom Puckett reports cops had guns drawn when they entered the school, before discovering the gun was a replica of a police weapon.

Mark my words, all of these stories are leading up to something. BB-guns and other "replica guns" or "look-alike" guns will either be banned or recategorized as firearms. You'll see legislation forcing manufacturers of these toys to change how they look or quit making them alltogether. You'll see laws that treat them the same as real firearms when it comes to purchasing, possessing, and transferring.

Court strikes down San Francisco ban on guns

Big surprise.

Now that's a stretch

The title exclaims:

"Mass Teen Charged In Road Rage Gun Incident"

You might be thinking, "Road Rage Gun Incident? Oh great, someone finally gave the antis some ammo against concealed carry legislation."

Then you'd find out that the kid had a BB gun that of course is demonized as a "look-alike".

You can tell the MSM is just waiting to get that first case where a CCW permit holder goes off the deep end and does something crazy. Luckily those permit holders are statistically more well-behaved than the rest of us.

Monday, June 12, 2006

So which one's the perp?

(CBS) LOS ANGELES A suspected gang member was hospitalized after he was wounded when he allegedly pulled out a gun during a foot chase in South Los Angeles.

Maybe the victim was just a kid with an eyeglass case...

Regardless, it's a good thing the cop was professional enough to cap his ass.
"The suspect was struck twice, in the buttocks and leg."

What Bias?

Brazen burglars flood streets with stolen guns

Then there's a sub-title a little ways down:
Not required to secure their firearms

Except for the fact that the thieves had to:

  • Pry open a rear door
  • Drill out a deadbolt on another door
  • Destroy the (I assume locked) display case

To top it all off, this is what happens to participants who confess to the crime:

Although Alfonso L. Hanna, 14, was arrested after confessing that he participated in the heist, prosecutors eventually dropped charges against him, and authorities made no other arrests.

A professional job-well-done.

Officers John Keesor and Michelle Alvis

So the names are out, but not much else has changed. From this article, we get a feel for what it was like for one tenant to lie handcuffed while the PO-lice hunted down and shot his roommate.

Speaking publicly for the first time about the events leading up to the death of 25-year-old Asa Sullivan, Jason Martin said the officers who arrived to check on a trespassing report Tuesday night at a Villas Parkmerced townhouse never told him why they were there before handcuffing him on the floor.

"They banged on my door and said, 'SFPD,' " Martin said. "I seen guns and flashlights. They said, 'Get down on the floor.' I got down on the floor. They had guns on me."

"They asked if he had any weapons," Martin said of the officers. "I told them no. I think she panicked. I think both of them panicked."

"At first, when they got up there, they couldn't find him," Martin said. "Then the female officer screamed they found him. I guess he was in a corner, but he wasn't coming down. He was telling them to stay away from him."

"It was like, 'Boom, boom, boom, boom,' " he said. After that, Martin added, "I didn't hear Asa say anything."

That pretty much sums it up.

Lastly, we get a final clarification that the police definitely DID LIE TO TRY TO COVER UP THE "ACCIDENTAL" SHOOTING:
Police originally reported that Sullivan had fired on officers through the attic floor and that his gun had been found at the scene. They later said neither was the case.

That's the professionals for you.

Friday, June 09, 2006

We're the police, and we're here to help...

The rundown:
  • Police respond to a "report" that a door is open in a supposedly vacant apartment complex, and squatters are suspected.
  • The guy who lives there currently and legally is in the apartment with a guest (Asa B. Sullivan, 25)
  • Sullivan is on probation, and hides in the attic for fear of being arrested.
  • The officers arrested the lawful current resident right away and then went after Sullivan.
  • They found him in the attic and both officers shot him.
  • At first the officers lied and said that Sullivan had fired a round through the ceiling at the officers and then they returned fire.
  • Sullivan had only an eyeglass case, no gun.
  • 16 hours later, the professional ones come out with the latest account, which has Sullivan holding a "cylindrical object" and pointing it "right at the female officer". This happened while all three were in the 2 1/2 foot high attic.
  • (Continuing the officers' account) The male officer, "believing his partner was in danger" fired on Sullivan grazing his partner's head(!). The female officer then thinks she's being fired on, and opens fire as well.
  • Sullivan ends up dead, the officers are on paid administrative leave, and their names are not being released.

So here are two guys in a private residence. The cops storm in, arrest one, and shoot the other for holding an eyeglass case.

What do you think would happen if: You were in your own private residence, and an intruder forced his way in and "threatened you" by pointing a "cylindrical object" in your direction and you shot the intruder dead. Afterwards, you fabricate a story that turns out to be obviously false, and come up with another one 16 hours later.

Do you think you'd have your name withheld, go on paid administrative leave, and have people say things about you like:

  • ''They believed this individual was pointing a firearm at them''
  • "They took action they felt was appropriate at the time"

Somehow I doubt you'd get the same special treatment.

Then again, that's why they're the professionals.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

What is "anti-American sentiment?"

Whatever it is, it'll get you investigated by the FBI, and possibly entrapped until you do something illegal that they can bust you for. Links for the story:
Most recent
Another recent
June 6, 2006: Jurors Get Firearms Case Of Denver Firefighter
November 23, 2005: Denver Firefighter Arrested For Allegedly Selling Machine Guns
Read complete arrest affidavit (PDF File.)

The affidavit is what I found to be the most interesting. Here's a synopsis from the FBI's contention:
  • Man has "anti-US sympathies and ties to an unknown domestic terrorist organization".
  • Over the course of a year, the FBI gets a "cooperating witness" to solicit the sale of machine guns (a Sten and a G3) from the man in question.
  • FBI busts anti-American bad guy.

So, whether you like it or not, the NFA is law, and if it went like the feds say it did, the guy committed a crime. Here's what I want you to take note of though:

The things that got him investigated in the first place WERE NOT CRIMES (that I know of).

  • Holding "anti-US sympathies". Holding that certain aspects of the current government are not constitutional does not make someone anti-American. The reverse is true.
  • Having "ties to an unknown domestic terrorist organization". WTF does that mean? How can you suspect someone of being tied to an unknown entity? My guess is they just wanted to get the word "terrorist" in there.
  • "Ford and his associates allegedly obtained Chinese military weapons". What, like an SKS?
  • Ford also sold some guns. He sold them as one private individual to another. His name didn't show up on the list of FFL's, so he was suspected of illegally being "engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail".

One last bit of irony: One of the things that made Ford "anti-American" was that he thought the government would use his driver's license to track him. The affidavit details how the FBI obtained Ford's picture from the DMV and used it to ID him during the sting.