The Minuteman » Tag » War on Nouns

Tag Archives: War on Nouns

Zero Tolerance is Really Zero Brains

By | | , , ,
1 Comment

Via A Girl comes this wonderful bit of idiocy.

A Nebraska preschool is asking a three-year-old deaf boy to change his name because it violates the school board’s weapons policy.

Hunter Spanjer signs his first name by making what looks like shooting gestures with both hands. He crosses his fingers when he does it – a modification to show it’s his proper name.

Think about that.  They are so intolerant of people and cultures they are insisting that a deaf child change his name.  This is what our opponents are like.  They don’t hate guns, they hate us.  They hate our culture, they to destroy it.

Speaking of zero brains was this wonderful individual on twitter today:

image

 

Remember my rant yesterday?  Yup, he was another delusional individual of from that bunch.  How delusional?  You’ll be glad to know that JayG does not have a series on defensive gun uses.  Evidently none of those incidents were justified use of a firearm.  (Remember read bottom up)

image

Note that bottom tweet links to JayG’s DGC.  I then also link to this story about a man defending a police officer with a firearm.  To which he has no reply and starts stating how he wants to make all guns disappear.  Because some how that’s going to stop violent criminals from being violent?

I ask again, why are these people so insistent on disarming and preventing citizens from obtaining arms?  It’s like they need us disarmed so they can more effectively redistribute our wealth without our consent.

I keep trying to restrain this comment but I can’t any more.  After Amy’s comment I think it makes perfect sense.

The reason Beta Males support gun control is because the only way they can effectively attempt to reproduce is by means that would usually result in a case of lead poisoning.

I state the above because often anti-gunners talk as if it is going to be me shooting them.  That I am going to shoot them at any point.  As I have said though, in the words of Malcolm Reynolds:

If I ever do kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.

The solution to not getting shot by law abiding citizens is simple.  Don’t try and victimize them.  Don’t steal, wrong, defraud, assault, rape, or otherwise attempt to do harm me or my family and my gun is going to stay right in it’s holster where it belongs.  Get it?!

The real kicker though is this bit of PSH:

image

Why I Get Angry…

By | | , , , ,
10 Comments

Recently I had an individual engage me in debate on twitter and he couldn’t understand why I felt like I was being victimized for him saying firearms should be taken from law-abiding citizens.

Today I stumbled across something that put it oh so well. (Emphasis mine).

There is a perception that a gun will turn a sane man, or woman, into a crazed, trigger-happy criminal, or that a gun is a gross over-reaction to the threat of rape. I contend that the gun is a great equalizer. Why do only criminals, police and nut-cases get to have guns? Do we, the potential victims, not get access to these same implements, so that we might properly defend ourselves? In fact, might we have these tools so we no longer have to be victims? Maybe we can take some action in preserving our own safety instead of just staying in well-lit areas and hoping for the best.

The other side of this debate doesn’t seem to understand that they are forcing potential victims to have to be complicit in their own attack.  The arguments are “for the greater good”, often because they think that crime merely exists because of the firearm.  First it assumes that the limitation on access will have an effect on criminal access to arms.  That’s impossible and history in both England and Australia both have proven that. Also it ignores the truth about collective punishment and responsibility.

Further, how do you effectively ban something that can be made from simple materials available at Home Depot and soon will not need much more than the ability to hit print?  What effect does gun control accomplish other than provide methods to prevent the law-abiding from carrying defensive arms?

Honestly, those who support gun control, answer the question, criminals and crazy people can obtain a weapon if they so feel like it, what good do gun laws do?  If someone is intent on killing someone else, they have numerous weapons to substitute even if they cannot get a firearm.  I also love how some people call for “reasonable restrictions on firearms” and then compare it to cars as if they are some how more regulated.

So, let me get this straight:

I could continue but why bother?  The fact is there is law after law that does nothing to stop criminals, but does everything possible to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining effective arms for their own defense.  The idea that cars are some how more regulated than firearms is false.  While they are “registered” that is done as a tax measure as the vehicle is considered titled property.  Further obtaining a license is simple and easy and it is recognized in all 50 states.  I am required by law to muffle my vehicle, however the law prevents me from muffling my firearms.  My license is recognized in all 50 states without question while my CPL is not.  My vehicle is required to meet a minimum standard of safety requirements, read headlights, tail lights, blinkers, seat belts, but the remainder of the car can be left up to my imagination.  Further if I buy an old car frame, some of the safety requirements are lifted.

The fact is, guns are extremely heavily regulated and it is the law-abiding who is on the short end of the stick.  It is the law-abiding who’s access is restricted.  Think I’m pulling your leg?  Let’s as some members of a gang in Chicago (h/t Sebastian).

Another source of stolen guns is “the freights,” Chris said.

He was talking about the freight trains parked on easy-to-access rail yards on the South Side.

“You bust the lock,” he said. “Once you get in there, you may get the wrong thing. You may get shoes or something. You feel me? But you keep trying. We tried it before and we know what kind of containers they in. They’re carrying all type of handguns — in crates.”

Consider that, with my comments from above.  Then consider how hard it is for a law-abiding citizen to get a firearm within the City of Chicago, even post Heller and McDonald.

You can not look at these facts and then tell me with a straight face that gun control has anything to do with “public safety”.  The public is in no way safer disarmed while the criminals are still able to obtain weapons.  You cannot stop them.

So yes, when you go off spouting your mouth about how gun control would help the world, yes I take it personally and yes I will call you on it.  Because the day may come where my wife, my daughter, my son, any of my friends, and lastly even myself may have to call upon my firearm to defend ourselves or our families.  And no one has any business telling me, my family, or my friends what tools we should or shouldn’t be using to defend ourselves.  Firearms and this community do something no other tool or group can.

Most importantly, the act of shooting and owning a gun has a profound impact on the way most women see themselves and the world around them. Shooting a gun is empowering, energizing, stress-relieving and confidence-building. In my experience, women who shoot walk taller and apologize less. They are also sensitive, caring and protective of their loved ones. Women who carry guns have already decided that their lives and their bodies are valuable enough to protect.

To which Mom With A Gun adds the following:

To this I would add only that the above is doubly true if you’ve already been a victim of rape or other violence and you’re trying to reclaim your sense of empowerment, energy, confidence and competence. For twenty years after I was raped, I became meek, submissive, withdrawn, terrified. The worst thing my rapist took from me on that terrible July afternoon was my sense that I was worth defending, that I was worth fighting for. That I was worth the space I took up in the world. That I was anything other than prey.

To which we then look at the comments made by A Girl about this community and the start contrast to our opponents.

You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.

No hope.

No tools.

All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependance…

The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.

They have taught me to have belief in myself.

They have asked nothing of me in return and, yet, I would give them my life.

Funny thing is, they would never ask me to.

This is where I belong.

These are my people.

So yes I take it personal, yes I get angry, and yes the mere suggestion is an insult and a disgrace to humanity.  Only a cold-blooded animal would wish real victims to continue suffering after an attack.  We see how each side of this debate treats victims of violence.  One wants to rebuild them, make them stronger, and faster, because we have the technology.  The other side would rather bury their heads in the sand and use the force of government to make everyone else do it too.

*For those who don’t know, a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and pistol grip are actually safety features.

  • A barrel shroud protects the user from burns from the hot metal of the barrel.
  • The collapsible stock allows the weapon to be easily modified to properly fit the shooter, especially handy when you regularly deal with new shooters of different sizes.  The wrong size can result in injury to the face and shoulders.
  • The pistol grip allows disabled shooters to more easily and effectively hold and use a weapon and depending on the disability prevents injury.

Quote of the Day – @JeremyAllan (8/24/2012)

By | | , , , , , ,
3 Comments

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I want her disarmed, yep. I don’t want her to be prey.

@JeremyAllan – Tweet
August 24, 2012

[Those two statements are mutually exclusive and I tried multiple analogies.  He also couldn’t understand how group punishment wouldn’t serve any purpose and is unfair.

That “conversation” on twitter was long and drawn out in the end three things were blatantly obvious.

First he suffers from Peterson Syndrome.  He would gladly have a higher overall crime rate for fewer “gun deaths”.

Second he cannot comprehend that disarming the law-abiding public makes them prey.  To most illustrate this point here was his final tweets:

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I truly hope you’re never in a position where you would feel the need to use your guns for defense.

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc Because I don’t wish you or any of your loved ones harm. The opposite. Rather, prosperity.

Yet he admits he would prefer my wife who has a physical disability to be disarmed unable to effectively defend herself.  How can you be prosperous when you’re dead because you weren’t able to effectively defend yourself?

This also completely ignores the analogy I made for group punishment for alcohol and holding everyone who drinks responsible for the actions of others.  He dodged the question at first.  Then when he came back around, he said he would give it up if the law told him to.  Except history says that prohibition doesn’t work and any attempts to outlaw “insert noun here” always fail.  His solution was to say that didn’t matter and my argument was invalid.

Lastly he lives in a world of complete denial.  How warped is his denial, I linked to the Harvard study I talked about yesterday.  This was his response:

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc @dthurstonHarvard is not infallible. This is propaganda.

When presented with facts and evidence, that has been peer-reviewed mind you, his response is to dismiss it as propaganda.  When someone is so ready and willing to dismiss any facts brought before them without a second thought what else is there?

I will add that throughout that entire debate, Linoge, Miguel, and I were the only ones backing our statements with examples and evidence.

All they offered was that guns should be banned and that would solve the problem.  What they don’t realize is that option has been examined, and the conclusions have been proven false, and the adults in the room have moved on in the conversation.  Their solution is to bring new people to the debate to scream for the same old thing as if some how doing it again, this time only harder will work.

I have some bad news to our opponents though.  No matter how badly you outlaw guns, people will have them.  Especially when it’s as easy as pressing the print button.  The debate is over, we’re merely still here because you’re currently grieving. -B]

I’m totally doing this…

By | | , , ,
3 Comments

So on my way to a meeting this morning I was talking with some coworkers and the subject of these stupid decals came up.

I said it was stupid, explained why and hit the end with the classic comment of,

My family walks single file to hide our numbers.

I am not the only one to agree with that sentiment.  Then I had an epiphany and said the following immediately there after.

Me: You know something though, they have those zombie decals and I would totally put those on my rig….

Coworker: But you just said it was stupid and listed off numerous valid concerns.

Me: I never said it would be representative of my family.

Coworker: What the hell would it be then?

Me: Confirmed Kills.

Considering CSGV’s current decent into PSH over the zombie meme(link safe), I seriously will put them on my truck once I get my hands on some.

The Plot Thickens – Unpossible I Tell You!

By | | , , , ,
2 Comments

So last Friday I made a post regarding an incident of an unpossible nature.  Well today the plot thickened!

A man was arrested Thursday morning in Pullman for assault in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm.

For those who aren’t aware, here is the beginning of RCW 9.41.040:

(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.

It continues on this way throughout the entire law.  This is basically the state equivalent of “felon in possession” and would be listed as prohibited by the state of Washington.

So it begs the question where did he get the weapon?  Not that it really matters because it is yet another nail in the coffin of “laws controlling criminals.”  The fact is criminals don’t care about the law, it is only the law abiding that actually pay attention.

So here’s the skinny, we have a college bar, next to a college campus that forbids concealed carry.  When I say next to, we’re talking a block from the WSU Presidents house, 2 blocks from the WSU Campus Police station and the main bust stop for campus, 2 blocks from numerous on campus dorms, and centered smack dab in the middle of Greek housing.  The state forbids carrying firearms into bars, as well as being intoxicated while carrying a weapon.  Lastly this individual was a prohibited person under Washington State law.

Tell me, what in the name of god would another law have actually done in this instance?  All those laws have effectively done is ensure that any responsible person that would be in that area would be disarmed and lacking the most effective tools when criminals don’t bother to play by the rules.

That’s right, not a damn thing.

(Misc Rant/Story/Joke)

As an FYI, that area on campus is by no means my favorite.  I had friends that went to many of the bars in the area but for the most part I just went to friends places when they had parties.  The reason being is because one should avoid dangerous situations and those bars are exactly that.  When I spent some time with Pullman PD and did a couple ride-alongs I found out how bad that little part of campus really is.  There are numerous people who hang around the area to prey upon people leaving the bars.  Now I’m going to leave the user to apply the term prey how they would like because it applies to both genders.  Assault is the main issue, but other incidents abound as well.

About the only way I’d go in those dives is with a bunch of buddies from back in the unit, mainly two particular Sergeants come to mind.  One of whom is the only man that has ever really intimidated me.  That man made our Gunny look like a baby and that’s just not right!  The other one got kicked out of Burma while he was a Embassy Guard.  Yeah, I had some awesome friends going through my college career.

Though me and some other friends did think it would be funny to come out of some of the college hill bars acting drunk and kick their ass.  We just realized it would be pretty hard to explain it all away after.

Cop: So why were you all at the bar?

Us: Because the food is that awesome!

Cop: This is a campus bar, wanna try that again?

Because: We were studying human physiology?

Cop: You’re all stone sober yet everyone said it looked as if you were drunk as you all left?  They also said you left one by one headed in the same direction with regular spacing, why?

Us: Well we wanted to blend in!

Cop: Why?

Us: Umm, would you believe us if we said so you’d follow us instead of our drunk buddies driving away?

Cop:Wanna try again?  Besides, you were all armed in different manners as to remain legal, why?

Us: Because we were playing a game!

Cop: And what game is that?

Us: Induced Victim Selection Failure

Cop: What the hell is that?

Us: It’s where you try and get a wolf to go after a sheep-dog thinking it’s a sheep.

Cop: What happens to the wolf when he bites?

Us: Well that’s his own damn fault, should have just stayed his ass out of the kitchen if he can’t take the heat!  All he had to do was let us walk on by!

Yeah, I don’t think I would have been able to stay out of a jail cell if we tried that.  I have a feeling it would be treated as hunting over bait.  Not to say it wouldn’t have been worth it.*

*As an extra note, these assaults were done predominately by 3 to 4 individuals with one person leading the attack.  As one group leaves Pullman another one usually fills its place.  Seriously the group could be considered along the misfits from A Clockwork Orange and for that reason if we did it, I wouldn’t have shed a tear.  Again, that wouldn’t have been good for my court appearance.

The Numbers Say Fight Back and Do Not Worry

By | | , ,
4 Comments

So through various posts there has been a smattering of information that honestly should be stitched together so it’s more easily found.

First up is this number which reiterates what many of us in the pro-rights community already knew.

Like Linoge I feel the sample size is a bit on the smaller side but there are a couple of reasons for that.  First he made sure to only include data points that are relevant and applicable.  Second though is better explained by this piece from Chicago Magazine.

This has to be weighed against perceptions of crime which, as Matt Yglesias has written, have in recent years become “unmoored from reality.” Crime has dropped; the perceived rate of crime has not. Is the same possible for rare cases of mass murder? Grant Duwe, research director for the Minnesota Department of corrections and author of (to my knowledge) the only longitudinal book-length study of mass murder in America, suggests it is: “the 1966 massacre committed by Charles Whitman in Austin, Texas marked the onset of a wave of mass public shootings that lasted until the end of the 20th century. Although it may seem that mass public shootings are still on the rise, the data show that 26 occurred between 2000 and 2009, a significant drop from the 43 cases in the 1990s.”

It causes an extra realization that validation needs to be performed on the actual numbers as appearances can be deceiving.  The media blasts about any and every incident because it does well for their ratings as well as a decrease in frequency makes them more news worthy.  (You watch the news not to know what is constant, but what has happened that is unexpected.)  Reporting on a decrease in the frequency doesn’t bring ratings or viewership.

Further someone has examined the odds of dying in a mass shooting.  Unsurprisingly they aren’t high.  Here are the conclusions but I suggest reading the whole thing, it’s definitely worth it.

We should always strive to continue to reduce all risks of death, especially the preventable risks of other humans, wherever possible. But the risks will always exist. If your chance of dying in a mass shooting is 0.000003% and your chance of dying in a car accident is 0.9%, with a whole lot of other risks in between, I think it’s reasonable to ask if there aren’t a lot of easier and more effective ways to try to use the government’s limited resources to save lives than trying even harder to prevent the next shooting tragedy than we already are.

The odds aren’t quite as low as say being struck by lightning within a year, except that his numbers are for lifetime odds.  In which case your lifetime odds of being struck by lightning is 1/10000 or 0.01%.

So why is it that mass shootings appear to be such a common occurrence?  The answer is simply visibility.  The media made terrorist attacks look unbelievably common despite the fact that again lightning is a bigger threat to your personal well being.  The media can scream so loud and for so long on the same topic that it often seems like the problem is worse than it actually is.

There are those of us who will take our time, do our research, and find the facts on a topic before moving forward.  Our opponents on the other hand want the media to scream and yell.  The more the media makes this look like a common occurrence, because it makes them look relevant.

The facts are in though.  Our opponents are irrelevant and those facts are becoming obvious to all the adults in the room.  The adults in the room are having a conversation and we all wish the children throwing the tantrum would shut up so the adults can continue speaking.  It’s not worth spending time worrying about a statistically unlikely event.

Is life, is not safe.  I know that, most everyone knows that.  Frankly I’d rather go out, live and enjoy my life without some nanny trying to control my every action.  Even if they do, I could still be struck by lightning, is congress going to ban lightning?

Unpossible – That’s against the law don’t ya know?*

By | | , , ,
5 Comments

Let me start off by pointing out this is probably the most dangerous time of year in the area.  All of the following dangers increase greatly: the road, general stupidity, and criminality.

Students have been coming back into town since early last week, school doesn’t start until next Monday meaning idle hands.  Further you have people who are transiting through the area while dropping friends off, other people just generally unfamiliar with the town, as well as other things.  Not to mention the rush coincides with the University of Idaho which is merely 10 miles away.

The population grows by 30,000 in a matter of a week and with it goes a shift in demographics.  It also means we start seeing stuff like this again.

A 29-year-old Pullman man was arrested early Thursday morning after he allegedly put a firearm to an acquaintance’s head near Stubblefield’s on Colorado Street and pulled the trigger.

Pullman Police Cmdr. Chris Tennant said the Ruger semi-automatic pistol didn’t fire when Joseph Hopkins allegedly put it to another man’s head following a drunken confrontation around 3 a.m.

Umm, didn’t you get the memo, carrying a concealed weapon, or even an open weapon is illegal while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Not to mention the fact I’m reasonably sure the individual in question was within a bar consuming alcohol.  This is significant because in the state of Washington:

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

…

 (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age;

That right folks, unsurprisingly someone violated the law, and then topped it off with what ultimately could be considered attempted murder.  Last I checked, murder was still against the law right?

Yup, still is.

As always, what would have another law done in this case?  Not a damn thing.

So how many laws does it take to restrain a criminal who has no will to follow them?  Who is really affected by all those laws?

The answer to that second question is honest law-abiding citizens.  See often I go into bars but not to drink, but to pick up a friend who called for a ride, or meet up with old college friends for a bite to eat.  According to the state I can’t carry because walking through that door will make my brain go off its rocker and start shooting people.  Being around those evil spirits will cause me to want to drink and lose my judgement.

Never-mind that people are ultimately responsible for their behaviors and actions. If I get drunk it’s my responsibility not to get behind the wheel of a car.  If I’m carrying a gun it’s my responsibility not to get drunk and hinder my ability for sound judgement.  It all comes back to the individual and responsibility.

I want to be respected and treated like an adult.  The CSGV and Brady Bunch would prefer that I be treated like a child.  Pardon me, but f-off, I prefer being an adult and having responsibilities, it results in the ability to have fun and create awesomeness.

*Make sure to read that title with a nice thick “Fargo” accent.

Why statements to create FUD aren’t an argument…

By | | , , , , ,
3 Comments

First for those who don’t know, FUD, is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  It is significant because honestly it is the only thing our opponents in the gun control debate can argue with.  Facts and statistics are not on their side and we know it by the rants about “blood in the streets” that never actually seem to happen.

The thing is, guns are by no means the only place where Puritans use FUD to attempt to destroy freedom and liberty.  The best recent example was I-1183 which privatized liquor sales in the state of Washington.

This was a giant exaggeration. The initiative limited new licenses to stores of at least 10,000 square feet unless there are only smaller stores in a trade area. It left “trade area” to be defined by the Washington State Liquor Control Board, which has not yet done it. As a result, no store of less than 10,000 square feet has been given a new license, though some of the stores grandfathered from the old system are minimart-sized. There may be some new minimarts licensed to sell spirits, but not 1,000 of them.

The No on 1183 campaign argued the state was better at verifying that buyers are old enough to buy alcohol. Before liquor privatization, state stores had a tested compliance rate of 94 percent, while private stores selling beer and wine had a rate in the 70s. But the liquor board has just tested the new retailers, and the compliance rate in July was 92 percent.

He continues to point out that the statements made by the pro-side have held true.  Most importantly was this quote from a distiller within the state:

At the state’s oldest craft distiller, Dry Fly Distilling in Spokane, co-owner Kent Fleischmann says, “Our production is way up.”

Imagine that, you get the government out of something and sales go up, creating jobs, and wealth.  Isn’t it amazing what happens when people finally get over the FUD and the government is forced to get the hell out-of-the-way?

Here’s a tip, if someone’s main argument is the equivalent of “think of the children”, “I feel ‘x'”, or any variance like it and they are arguing that government involvement is the cure tell them to go screw off.  Move on and don’t bother arguing because they are currently suffering from PSH and are irrational.  Further their only argument is to attempt to pluck your emotional heart-strings, yeah I feel empathy, but what about the empathy for the innocent person whose rights you’re violating to make yourself feel better?

FUD is a huge red flag in any argument and it should be drug out into the middle of the square and exposed as such.  It’s good to see all the horror predictions fall down so that those who were against I-1183 can become the modern social pariah equivalent of: