Search Results for: node/tsa the children

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?

SSCC #474 & #475: Franklin County

By | | ,
1 Comment

According to court documents, 28-year-old Brandon Gibson said that two law enforcement officers stormed into his home one morning in August 2011 and alleged that Gibson had given a false name on an earlier complaint call from a neighbor.

Gibson said that the deputies entered his home illegally, used excessive force and arrested him without probable cause, after tackling him to the ground in front of his two young children.

Here’s the kickers though.  He was never charged with what they claimed he did upon entering the house and the charges used to cover the actions of the police officers were dropped.

So what we have evidence of is two officers were bored did some stupid crap violating the rights of a citizen and attempted to cover for it.

State Sponsored Criminal #474: John Doe

#475: John Doe

Because law enforcement is allowed to storm into someone’s house, use force to arrest them, and then make up charges to justify what they did.

SSCC #476 – Berry Hill

By | | , ,
1 Comment

A Berry Hill Police Officer has been arrested in Murfreesboro on five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor charges. The 56-year old was arrested on Friday afternoon. Originally when the story first aired, WGNS only told you about one charge of sexual exploitation, it was later confirmed that White faced five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor charges.

Often children are told to trust police officers to the point of unquestioned faith.  People forget that sometimes the most evil monsters find ways to hid in plain sight.

State Sponsored Criminal #476: Robert White

Because there could be no way that evil could hide among the good.

 

Quote of the Day – Robb Allen (11/23/2011)

By | |
Comments Off on Quote of the Day – Robb Allen (11/23/2011)

At what point does ‘being a complete and utter dick’
go beyond peaceful assembly? Blocking a sidewalk on campus that
requires non-participating students to be forced to travel well out of
their way to get to where they need to go is one thing, but what happens
when these infants decide that blocking traffic on a major thoroughfare
is a ‘valid form of protest’? What happens when I cannot get to work or
home to take care of my family or when an emergency vehicle is impeded?
At some point, you have to say “Enough” and use force to remove the
blockade.

Even the blockade thing I have a hard time believing
is ‘peaceful’. When a country blockades another country’s supply line,
it’s understood to be an act of war. Doesn’t matter which country is in
the right. Getting in my way and saying “I will not let you pass because
I believe what you are doing is wrong” is a form of violence; it’s
restraining someone against their will. The issue is that most people
don’t see it as violence and thus when someone has to use force to make
it to work / class / church / whatever they’re called the aggressors
when that is truly not the case.

Robb Allen – A cornucopia of thoughts, complaints, and rants

Bold is my emphasis.

[Last night I went on a similar rant describing exactly why I cannot and will not support the Occupy movement.  My closing statements actually came down to this exact issue above and Robb made a comparison I wish I had thought of when I wrote it.  That is exactly right, blockading traffic is a form of violence and internationally is construed as an act of war.  An act of war is not something that should be taken lightly and it is quite serious.  While it may be possible to do without inflicting injuries, it is still forcing your will upon another human being.  In doing so you are violating that persons rights.

Occupy is a bunch of spoiled rotten children who think that obstructing and preventing people from free travel and free trade.  What they are doing is NOT peaceable and to claim such is to ignore the facts of what they are doing as well as it’s effect on those who are uninvolved.  As I said last night, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  -B]

SSCC #491-Ogden

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #491-Ogden

But Hill opened his front door and was met with six men who he said were dressed in black, with no police identifiers that he saw. Three had assault rifles, Hill said; two were carrying tactical shotguns.

It’s worth noting that the home owner had to ask more than one before anyone on the other-side of the door identified themselves as police officers.  Then after he opened the door they promptly arrested him, and then they informed him his name was Derek and he was AWOL from the military… None of that information was correct.  The officers then refused to listen to the homeowner and then harrassed and intimidated his wife and children.

The money quote that put these guys on the count:

Melanie Hill said one of the officers made a comment about her husband coming to the door with a bat, saying that had it been a gun, the officers would have “blown you away.”

Because that is a lawful justification for the use of lethal force?  Merely being armed when answering a suspicious knock at the door by unresponsive people in the middle of the night is a reason to be shot?  Good to know.  Guess these guys went to the same training classes as officer roid-rage.

And remember folks, this was all over someone who was AWOL.  Not someone who is actually an immediate threat, but because they were AWOL.   This is your government and how they view the people.  Had they shot this man in cold blood, qualified immunity would protect them.  As far as I’m concerned, start shooting the bastards, period, end of discussion.  They can show up at the door and act reasonable or they can die.  Their job isn’t safe, that’s a given, but it shouldn’t be made safer by endangering those who are innocent.

Not to mention this classic line occurred as well:

Eric Hill said he received a phone call from police Chief Mike Ashment several days ago, explaining that the warrant was served at his house because it was the last known address of the man facing the arrest warrant.

The Hill family bought the house six months ago, Eric Hill said, but added that his neighbor told him the man police were looking for was the previous homeowner’s nephew, who had never lived at the home.

So in other-words they endangered the life of a family because they were too lazy to properly do their job.  In my world that’s negligence.

State Sponsored Criminal #491: John Doe

Because when you show up at someone’s house wearing all black with guns, you have a right to shoot the property owner for merely being armed.

Attempting to Further Tax a Right

By | | , ,
2 Comments

The email I got this morning was regarding this bill:

AN ACT Relating to promoting firearm safety through an education program funded through fees on firearms and ammunition and creating a sales tax exemption on gun locks; adding a new section to chapter 82.08 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.12 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 9.41 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 43.70 RCW; creating a new section; prescribing penalties; and providing an effective date.

The bill aims to do the following:

  • 1 cent tax per round of ammunition.  Buy 500 rounds pay an extra 5 dollars in taxes on top of the existing taxes.
  • 25 dollars in tax for every firearm sold at retail, 15 if the firearm includes a gun-lock.
  • An account of every round of ammunition and firearm must be maintained.
  • Creates a firearm-related injury and death prevention account to fund a program through the Department of Health.
  • Basically create a government program much like the NRA’s safety programs.

So overall they want to tax us more because the government is going to somehow do something that the private sector already does.  Last I checked, people were funneling money into the NRA in droves, mainly for the legislative reasons currently.  I would think if our legislators were smart they would leave our rights alone so the NRA could focus on safety and youth programs.

Now I mentioned that there were other taxes.  The bill as written just says it will add new sections meaning current taxes will remain in place.  Washington has a use tax which is equivalent to your local sales tax.  So if you buy a firearm off of gun-broker, technically the FFL is supposed to collect a use tax of fair market value at the sale and the 25 dollar fee would be then added to it.

A note on that fee, due to federal law, all new firearms sold must come with a gun lock, so for any new firearm the default fee will be $15.00.

Gun safes however will remain tax exempt in Washington.

Moving forward, we have Federal Excise taxes on firearms that applies up the food chain instead of directly to the consumer.  These rates and affected items are fully defined here.  Here is a small table to give you the outline:

  • Pistols – 10%
  • Revolvers – 10%
  • Other Firearms – 11%
  • Shells and Cartridges – 11%

Remember these are taxes that are applied to the manufacturer or importer.  They are already integrated into the price of your item before you get them. 

So lets look at an example firearm, the Springfield XDm.

Lets say the firearm is sold to the distributor at $490 dollars.  The need to however collect a 10% excise on that so add an additional $49 dollars to the price.  The distributor then marks up 6% to turn a profit making the sale to the retailer $571.34.  Then the retailer to make a profit for himself will give himself some percentage, lets say 6%, making the price to you the consumer: $605.62.  But now under this new law we need to add in the 15 dollar fee, plus the state sales tax.  It isn’t clear which side the fee goes on, but knowing it’s the government sales tax will be the last thing computed.  This makes the final price out the door just for the firearm at a sales tax of 7.8%: $669.03.

Lets break out how much of that goes to the government shall we?

$49.00 in Federal Excise tax.  In the end yes you the consumer does pay for it, don’t be fooled.

$15.00 in the new Fee.

$48.41 in sales tax.

So if you pull all those fees and taxes and recalculate up the chain, (your distributor cost will shift), the actual price without government interference is: $550.57.  But lets go ahead and ad sales tax back in, that’s applied to everything else you buy.  Your total comes out to be: $593.51.

Think about that, you’re paying damn near an extra $80 bucks in taxes and fees on a relatively low priced gun.

But now you need ammunition to go in that gun, two 50 round boxes of 9mm.

Lets from manufacturer sells the ammo at $0.30 a round.  So for a 50 round box it’s $15.00 plus the 11% excise tax.  Bringing the total to $16.65. Then we have distributor and dealer markup bringing the total to $18.71.  But, you need to also pay an extra 50 cents per box for the new fee.  Then add in sales tax, it’s $20.71 per box.  Given it’s two boxes that’s $41.42 in ammo, or $0.41 cents a round.

So what are the cuts for taxes:

Federal Excise: $1.65

New Fee: $0.50

Sales Tax: $1.50

That’s an extra $3.65 per box.  Per round it’s an additional $0.073 per round.

Tell me, why do we keep piling taxes on a right?  Is it to try and cause people to not want to exercise it due to financial burden? 

This bill needs to get shut down.  It is nothing more than an additional burden on gun owners and for what?  A government run program which will be an unsuccessful knock off of a program many of us already fund through the NRA.  Thanks but no thanks.  I’d rather just keep sending that money to the NRA to help support gun safety and gun rights.  It’s an additional unnecessary burden veiled as doing something good.

If our representatives really want to improve safety, they would write legislation to encourage, not mandate, things like Eddie the Eagle in schools along with other programs to teach children how to safely and responsibly handle firearms.  The wouldn’t threaten our rights allowing us  to focus funds and effort on safety programs.

Now, yes you should contact your state representatives about this bill.  While doing so, also encourage them to support this bill.

AN ACT Relating to adopting the Washington state firearms freedom act of 2013 and establishing penalties; amending RCW 43.06.220; adding a new chapter to Title 19 RCW; creating a new section; and prescribing penalties.

If your representative is one of the sponsors, I have noticed one flaw with this bill, there is not a “Severability Clause”.  This means that if part of the act is struck down as unconstitutional the whole act is struck.  That’s bad.  Call their attention to it and ask them to amend the bill.

Let’s multi-task folks.  If we’re going to have to spend time contacting our legislators fighting against one bill, we might as well call for them to support a different one at the same time.  This will help force our opponents to also actually have to expend resources as bills gain traction.

Currently I’m reading through all 58 bills introduced this year pertaining to “firearms”, as I find more I’ll give a heads up.

I see a business opportunity…

By | | , ,
4 Comments

So it appears that the powers that be think that it is necessary to train with the following types of targets:

LET-1LET-5LET-7LET-6

Sadly this type of crap isn’t a joke and it’s down right real.

I just had an epiphany though.  Someone needs to make some Jack-Booted Thug targets.  Not just jack-booted thug targets but also some generic corrupt police officer targets.  Targets such as:

urlimgres

We can keep moving forward though.

urlurl

The state keeps working on increasing the rift between us and them.  They apparently feel the need to train to shoot pregnant women and children, so why not train for the reality that you may need to shoot a corrupt police officer that has no problems with killing you.  Doubly so since he will be protected by “qualified immunity”.

Remember how often they use force when it’s unnecessary.  Just look at the recent incident with the LAPD.  Why are they training to be more willing to use force against the weakest in society?  If they seem to think that everyone under the sun is their enemy, why should we think that any of them could still possibly be friendly?

If they’re going to train to kill us all and let god sort it out, why aren’t we doing the same?**

h/t Kevin Baker.

**Note I’m not condoning violence against police officers, but they sure are condoning violence against us.