Observation O’ The Day
The problem with the climate cult isn’t even trying to fix a car while it’s running. It’s trying to fix a car while it’s running and they have no idea how a car runs to begin with. We don’t know enough to “fix” anything. We don’t even know enough to know if anything is wrong. And chances are our influence on the climate is much smaller than they wish to think.–Sarah Hoyt

The Ocean Is Still Sucking Up Carbon—Maybe More Than We Think.

Recent studies looking at carbon-sequestering microbes suggest we still have a lot to learn about the ocean’s biological carbon pump.

By Nancy Averett 3 May 2022

A newly discovered marine microbe has a “mucosphere” that chemically traps other microbes and their nutrients—including carbon. Credit: Nature Communications, CC BY 4.0

The ocean plays a critical role in carbon sequestration. Phytoplankton, which live on the warm, light-filled surface, suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for food. They also need nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from colder, heavier, saltier water that upwells into warmer layers. When phytoplankton die, they sink, bringing some of the carbon and other nutrients they consumed with them back to the ocean depths.

Key to this circular process, known as the ocean’s biological carbon pump, is the vertical mixing of the surface and deeper water layers, which occurs through such mechanisms as currents, winds, and tides. However, because higher ocean temperatures cause greater stratification of these layers, traditional scientific models have long predicted that as the planet warms, this process would be disrupted, phytoplankton would be unable to thrive, and the ocean would sequester less carbon.

Now, two studies have shown the limits of such models. One found evidence that phytoplankton may become more efficient as the ocean warms. The other reported the discovery of a new, widely distributed ocean microbe species that also has the potential to sequester carbon.

​​“We often view the response of ocean carbon cycling to global warming as an on-off switch, but these results show it’s a dimmer switch and has some flexibility to take care of itself,” said Mike Lomas, a senior research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Maine and lead author of the first study, published in Nature Communications.

Continue reading “”

First prosecution of San Diego’s “ghost gun” ban shows how worthless the law really is

San Diego, California is one of several cities in the state that have banned the possession of “ghost guns” in recent months. Anyone caught with an unserialized firearm in the city is now subject to criminal charges, but the first case to actually get to the sentencing phase is a perfect demonstration of just how useless the new ordinance really is.

The ordinance, authored by San Diego Councilmember Marni von Wilpert (a name that sounds like it would also be good for a Disney villain), in essence mirrors existing California law, which already prohibits the possession of an unserialized firearm. The San Diego ordinance specifically creates a misdemeanor offense to possess or sell any firearm that does not have a serial number on it, which is supposed to make criminals think twice about carrying a home-built gun around. As of March of this year, the law wasn’t having any impact on violent crime, with homicides up 80% compared to the same time period in 2021 and 77 unserialized firearms seized by police. There were also 295 serialized firearms seized by police, which is another sign that going after “ghost guns” isn’t going to stop the individuals committing the shootings in the city.

But none of that matters to the virtue-signaling politicians in San Diego, including von Wilpert, who are instead now eagerly singing the praises of the “ghost gun” ordinance now that someone’s been sentenced for violating the law.

“The city’s novel ghost gun ordinance is an effective tool for removing untraceable firearms from the hands of criminals,” City Attorney Mara W. Elliott said. “We thank Councilmember Marni von Wilpert for bringing forward this ordinance, which keeps San Diego at the forefront of our nation’s battle against gun violence.”

… “It’s clear from this conviction that San Diego’s landmark ghost gun law is starting to work to stop the proliferation of dangerous, untraceable firearms in our community,” said von Wilpert.

Is it though? I realize I haven’t actually said what the sentence the defendant received here, so let’s delve a little deeper into the events that led to 23-year old Rene Orozco having the dubious distinction of being the subject of a press release by the city attorney.

Orozco’s arrest apparently didn’t make the news at the time, but according to the Elliott’s account he was arrested after fleeing from police and leading them on a car chase through San Diego’s City Heights neighborhood, allegedly tossing the unserialized gun as he then continued to try to elude officers on foot.

Would Orozco would have avoided arrest and prosecution if the gun he’d been caught with had a serial number? Of course not. So what exactly is the point of a misdemeanor charge for possessing a “ghost gun” when he could already be charged with illegal possession of a weapon for simply having a gun in the first place. Then there are the charges of eluding police, tampering with evidence, and any number of traffic misdemeanors that were committed during the police pursuit. But the City Attorney needs to show that this new ordinance is working, and so Orozco was charged with having a ghost gun, and now gets to experience firsthand the draconian punishment that will surely cause him to rethink the decisions he made.

He was sentenced last week to 45 days in custody and one year of probation. As a result, his driver’s license will be suspended from six months and he is prohibited from owning firearms for a year.

45 days in custody with good credit time means that Orozco will likely spend about three weeks in the county lockup, which doesn’t sound like much time considering how scary “ghost guns” are supposed to be. And again, he could have gotten that same sentence just by charging him with misdemeanor crimes in California state statute that have nothing to do with unserialized firearms. What’s the point?

San Diego’s “ghost gun” ordinance is pure political theater; designed to have an impact on the electorate, not armed criminals. As long as politicians like von Wilpert can convince constituents that she’s “doing something” to address their fears about violent crime, she doesn’t have to bother coming up with doing something that actually works. And in California, “doing something” means putting another gun control law on the books that at best is worthless, and far too often ends up harming the law-abiding instead of curtailing violent criminals.

Pointless Red Flag Laws

“Red flag Laws”, which allow police to seize the firearms of people accused of being at risk to misuse them, have been passed in 19 states. Do they do what proponents say they do? A recent study by Veronica Pear, PhD and Garen Wintemute, MD, and co-authors says the answer is clearly, “No”. It appeared as “Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law” on JAMA Network April 5.

In looking at California’s Red Flag law they used methods that are better than those of earlier similar studies. They focused especially on San Diego, whose city attorney was a strong proponent of Red Flag Law use and looked at what changed when California’s Red Flag law went into effect. Using data from hospital reports they studied injuries due to aggressive use of guns. They looked as well at self-harm using guns, again reviewing hospital reports.

Based on data from a number of California counties, trends through the years 2005-2015 were determined regarding aggressive use and self-harm. The authors wanted to see If adopting California’s Red Flag law was followed by a reduction in these incidents below the trends predating the law’s going into effect, which occurred in 2016. Examining 2016-2019 they found that neither aggressive use of firearms nor self-harm from gun use was reduced by the new law. In fact, they found that after the introduction of the law the number of acts of self-harm involving firearms exceeded the prediction, although this result was not statistically significant.

The authors say that their methods were more rigorous compared to others who have examined these questions. Another strength of their study was that itincluded injuries rather than just deaths. They emphasize that one factor in finding no change following the new law may be the availability of illegal guns: if the government takes away guns held legally, those who want to harm themselves or others may seek to obtain guns illegally.

Different states have adopted these laws under different labels, including: Extreme Risk Protection Orders, Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Orders, and Risk Protection Orders. Gun Violence Restraining Orders is the term used in California. “Red Flag Law” is a general term that encompasses all these.

Proponents stress their potential to prevent harm although, as this study by Pear and associates indicates, this is highly questionable. At the same time, the threats to Constitutional rights are minimized or ignored, which go beyond just threats to the Second Amendment. These threats include undercutting the right to due process. Is the person whose gun may be seized entitled to the presumption of innocence? What is the standard of proof – clear and convincing evidence? Or just a preponderance of the evidence? Is the subject entitled to legal representation? Shall rules for the admissibility of evidence be followed?  Readers can no doubt think of other similar questions.

Strangely, if a Red Flag process leads to your losing your guns in Indiana, they may be destroyed! If you lose your driver’s license, is your car crushed? If you’re disbarred, are your law books burned?

Throughout their report Pear et al stress the shortcomings of laws in preventing violence, and with regard to aggression the authors pay little attention to the perpetrators.

The NRA has seemed to tread cautiously on Red Flag Laws. This may involve not wanting negative press regarding this issue to contaminate efforts to support the Second Amendment in other ways. The NRA has at least called attention to the due process issues, some of which are noted above.

The bottom line: There’s little to recommend Red Flag Laws. The findings of this study reinforce what gun owners have been saying all along. The surprise is that it comes from Wintemute’s group, which usually finds ways to endorse firearm restrictions. 

.

Russian warship Admiral Makarov ‘on fire after being hit by Ukrainian missile.’

Russia’s massive Admiral Makarov warship has reportedly been hit by Ukrainian missiles causing it to burst into flames.

The Admiral Grigorovich-class frigate was on fire this morning in what would be a fresh blow for warmonger Vladimir Putin, a number of unconfirmed reports suggest.

It was said to be close to Snake Island in the Black Sea, where a rescue operation was underway involving multiple aircrafts and rescue boats.

Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko took to his Telegram channel to report the ship had been hit by Ukrainian neptune missiles.

He said that the ship had been hit by Ukrainian attacks and was “badly damaged”, but remained afloat for now.

In his post, he wrote: “Yes, yes, you understood everything correctly! The God of the seas takes revenge on the offenders of Ukraine.

The Russian Navy's frigate Admiral Makarov

The Russian Navy’s frigate Admiral Makarov (  Image: REUTERS)

“The Admiral Makarov frigate was laid down in February 2012 at the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad, launched in September 2015. And in 2022- oh, when he took part in the murder of Ukrainians, he went towards the cruiser “Moskva”, where he was supposed to!”

His reports were backed up by Ukrainian official Anton Gerashchenko who said: “Admiral Makarov frigate is on fire off the coast of Snake Island.

“According to preliminary data, the ship was hit by Ukrainian Neptune missiles.

“Now enemy aviation is operating in the ship’s disaster zone, and ships of the Russian Navy have come out of the temporarily occupied Crimea to help the sinking ship.”

Alongside that, a number of unconfirmed reports said the warship was hit by Ukrainian missiles near the Sevastopol naval plant in Crimea, on the Black Sea.

The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine added a ‘+1’ to their boats column in their daily report on Russian losses this morning, which they tweeted out.

Early reports suggest these images show the burning frigate

Early reports suggest these images show the burning frigate  ( Image: Twitter)

Continue reading “”

Clare police investigating home invasion, where homeowner shot and killed alleged intruder

CLARE, Mich. (WJRT) May 5 – The Clare Police Chief is one of the witnesses of a shooting, as an alleged suspect in a home invasion is shot by the homeowner.

It was around six this morning in Clare when a 911 call was made from a homeowner saying someone broke into his house.

The home is attached to a popular business in the city and police say they got to the home in about two minutes.

Clare Police Chief David Saad was just getting to work when the 911 call went out that there was a home invasion in progress on McEwan Street.

McEwan Street runs through the heart of the city of Clare, population of about 3,200

It was six o’clock in the morning when police chief David Saad was just getting to work and was called to this home for a reported break-in.

“My officer and I arrived at the scene, it was six am so I was just coming into service as well as him, when we responded down over here, we received the call, and as we were making entry into the residence that’s when the shots went off,” says Saad.

Saad was in the home and saw the gunshots being fired.

He says the suspect in the home invasion was shot to death. The male homeowner, Saad and the officer were not injured.

The Michigan State Police Crime Lab was on the scene collecting evidence throughout the afternoon. The shooting happened in a home connected to the popular Dairy Phil restaurant.

“A separate residence is in the back, but the individual that owns the Dairy Phil also lives in the back residence,’ he says.

Saad confirms it was the owner of the Daily Phil that shot the man. He did not want to comment on whether the home invasion suspect had a weapon of any kind.

“To my knowledge they are not acquainted to each other,” he says.

He says gun used in the shooting was registered to the homeowner. Saad says its not typical for a home invasion to occur at that time of the day.

“Pretty uncommon around 6 am, most of the time they occur in the middle of the night,” he says.

The chief did not release the name of the man who was shot and he says once their report is done, it will be sent to the prosecutor’s office to review.

While I don’t agree with the premise that possession stats should be publicized, the fact that ‘more guns’ means ‘more safety’ is undeniable.

More guns, more safety

Late in 2008, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, a leading Tennessee newspaper, unleashed a whirlwind of controversy when it decided to publish a database of all state residents with permits to carry handguns. The information was already available through the Tennessee Department of Safety, but the state website wasn’t especially user-friendly.

With the publication of the newspaper database, however, it became easy to search for people with gun-carry permits by name, ZIP code, or city. For a while, the database was the most viewed item on the newspaper’s website, with more than 65,000 page views per day.

Firearms owners and their advocates were furious, as WMC-TV reported at the time:

Some Mid-South gun owners are outraged over a website that lists handgun carry permits, claiming the site gives away too much personal information.

Tom Givens, who runs the Range Master pistol range, said the database, published by the Commercial Appeal, has many of his clients upset.

“First, it’s an invasion of privacy,” Givens said.

Using the database, a visitor to the website can look up the name of anyone who has a permit to carry a hand gun in the state of Tennessee.  Information listed includes the owner’s year of birth, along with his or her city, state, and ZIP code of residence.

Givens said his phone has been ringing off the hook from clients upset about their personal information being so accessible.

“By publishing this database your employers, your co-workers, church members, even relatives that may not know you have a permit, now know that you’ve got one,” he said.

On gun owners’ message boards, complaints abounded. A common concern was that residents with carry permits would be put at particular risk, since the paper’s database enabled any would-be thief looking for a gun to steal to know exactly where to find them. “I’m not happy about it at all,” fumed one resident on the City-Data web forum:

I’m not a criminal — just a law-biding citizen who has a clean background and has undergone background checks in order to exercise my right to protect myself from all the thugs in this world. I could see the database used to “shop” for homeowners to rob who probably have guns in the house. I see no legitimate reason to have this information online other than to demonize permit holders in some way.

The National Rifle Association’s CEO and executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, denounced the Commercial Appeal for engaging in what he called a “hateful, shameful form of public irresponsibility.” Added another NRA official: “What they’ve done is give criminals a lighted pathway to [burglarize] the homes of gun owners.”

But the paper’s editor, Chris Peck, argued that newspapers should be a comprehensive source for community information, and that it was neither illegal nor unethical for the Commercial Appeal to make public records more accessible to the public. In fact, he pointed out in a lengthy column, the Commercial Appeal eliminated street addresses and birth dates from the Department of Safety data it published. That meant that the “posted list of permit holders for concealed weapons has less information about individuals than the phone book, your voter registration form, or the credit card you use to buy dinner at a restaurant.”

As for the potential danger to gun owners from burglars looking for weapons to steal, Peck turned that argument on its head:

Think about it for a minute. Many, if not most, households in Memphis possess a firearm. So you don’t really need a list to find a house with a gun.

And, if criminals were checking the permit-to-carry list before picking a target, would they likely choose a house where they know the owner could be carrying a gun, or would they more likely steer away from that house to avoid a possible confrontation?

Neither logic nor common sense is carrying the day on this issue. It’s emotion.

Peck went on to explain why, in his view, there was “a powerful case to be made both for a permitting process to carry concealed weapons and for keeping that permitting process public.” The Commercial Appeal, he insisted, “isn’t anti-gun” but “pro-news and -information.”

I thought it was a good column, though I doubt it changed the minds of LaPierre and the gun owners who were certain the Commercial Appeal’s reasons for publishing the database weren’t benign. I’d guess, too, that they didn’t buy Peck’s contention that, far from endangering them, the database would lead criminals to avoid their homes.

But now we know: He was right.

After Memphis-area gun permit data was published, districts where more residents were licensed to carry saw a decrease in crime.

Continue reading “”

FPC responds to Duke Center for Firearms Law article on test courts should use on Second Amendment cases

A rebuttal in response to criticism of a scholarly paper authored by FPC Action Foundation director of constitutional studies, Joseph Greenlee, was published today by the Duke Center for Firearms Law. In its April 27 article, “Ghost Guns, History, and the Second Amendment,” the Duke Center called into question an argument Greenlee makes in “The American Tradition of Self-made Arms” defending the test of text as informed by history and tradition (THT) as being the correct methodology for Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Duke Center criticizes THT for “transform[ing] nonregulation into a right,” suggesting that history is only useful in Second Amendment analyses if it proves that “a past practice was protected as a right, not simply that it existed without regulation.” This loose constructionist’s view of the Constitution’s explicit placement of limits on governmental power has it backwards. The People don’t need to prove their enumerated Constitutional rights are protected; it is incumbent on the government to prove it has the authority to regulate or restrict the rights of the People. This is why history and tradition matter.

Continue reading “”

Text, History, and Tradition: A Workable Test that Stays True to the Constitution

Last week Professor Charles highlighted the burgeoning legal controversies involving “ghost guns” (homemade firearms that have no serial numbers) to illustrate what he perceives to be problems with a judicial test based on text, history, and tradition (THT). As an advocate of the THT Test, I offered a response, which Professor Charles graciously accepted. I thank him for presenting my opposing view.

Continue reading “”

Ghost Guns, History, and the Second Amendment

The Biden Administration recently pushed out a new rule to restrict “ghost guns”—firearms without a serial number. The rule would require that kits for homemade do-it-yourself firearms are manufactured only by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) and that the kit’s frame or receiver be marked with a serial number. It also requires that any FFLs or gunsmiths who come into possession of an unserialized firearm  affix a serial number before selling it. As the administration notes, “[t]his requirement will apply regardless of how the firearm was made, meaning it includes ghost guns made from individual parts, kits, or by 3D-printers.” The rule is almost certain to be challenged by gun-rights advocates and, whatever other arguments there may be against the rule (such as the administrative law challenges that have been raised against the bump stock regulation), the Second Amendment is likely to take center stage. And if the Supreme Court in Bruen declares text, history, and tradition to be the guiding methodology for evaluating Second Amendment claims, courts are going to face serious challenges in evaluating the ghost gun rule.

Continue reading “”

We Can’t Let Ourselves Be Oppressed by Weirdos, Losers, and Mutations

Have you noticed the absolute freakshow quality of the people who want to keep us in chains? Perhaps it’s one thing to be repressed by people who are at least nominally badass, like Romans or Mongols. But these geebos who make up the Democrat Party’s loudmouth wing? The sexually hopeless toads outraged because other people who might someday know the loving touch of another human can’t whack their babies? No. Not only does their tyranny fail the freedom test, it fails the aesthetic test.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to be serfs toiling in the fields of a bunch of people who, in any just and sane society, would spend their lives living in fear of getting wedgies for being so bizarre.

Look, I’m not saying that our society should bring back bullying nerds. I am simply observing that when nerds were busy trying to avoid swirlies in the boys’ room, they did not have the time to devote to getting their groomer allies access to Kindergarteners. If Melvins and Pointdexters living in fear is the price of little kids not getting chatted up by pedo-adjacent strange-os, I say that’s a bargain.

All leftists are insufferable, but this current crop is insufferable in many diverse ways. It’s not just the ones who defile or mutilate themselves to get their parents’ attention. It also includes ones that don’t tatt up, who appear normal until they open up their kale holes. Think Nina Jankowicz. On the surface, she looks like any other childless, middle-aged Chardonnay-guzzler who is pushing 40 but has failed thus far to earn the love of a man. But when she starts talking, yikes. And just look at the antics of that fascist disinformation girl. She sings show tunes. She’s into Harry Potter – non-threatening sensitive and magical boys are sooooo dreamy. She’s also eager to shove you into a train car headed to a gulag, and as it pulls away from the station she’ll be shouting at you ruffians to use your inside voices.

That’s right – the mediocre girl who played the lead in your high school’s production of “Hello, Dolly!” – which you skipped to go pound Buds with your pals like normal people – is the harbinger of tyranny.

Ugh, that’s so sad. Tyranny is intolerable even if you are facing a worthy foe. But tyranny by this kind of over-credentialed, shame-free dork? No way. Never.

And that’s true of the rest of the salty commie crew. Pierced beings with blue hair. Fat-positive behemoths in spandex. Daddy-issue goofs of all genders who can’t do a push up. If we are going to lose our country and our freedom, it can’t be to this gallery of goblins. At least with proper enemies – like, say, the Hessians – you could get some satisfaction shoving a bayonet into their guts. With these weebles, you fail to call them by their bespoke pronouns and they collapse into a sobbing heap. Where’s the challenge?

We simply cannot lose to these people. It’s undignified.

And it’s unnecessary. The only way they win is if we let them win. They can’t take a punch, and the whole caste of them – which probably numbers a couple million across the country – collectively probably has access to about as many guns as the average Trump voter. The only threat they pose is to fetuses, and pretty soon only in Moloch-friendly states like Cali and New York. They talk big about revolutions and insurrections, but they have neither the cold steel or the upper body strength to pull it off.

What are they going to do – pester us into submission? Yes, that’s actually their plan. They really think that if they call us “racist” enough, if they moan enough about patriarchy, if they bleat enough about how us saying what we think is “unsafe” we will simply give up. And they have a point – a lot of those from the Miracle Whip faction of the GOP have prioritized politeness over freedom and tried to treat this coterie of creeps with respect.

But here’s the thing. These weirdos have not earned our respect. Instead, they leveraged our courtesy and tolerance, often amplified for the fact that we feel sorry for these failed humans, against us to neutralize our resistance. “Oh no, don’t point out how that show tunes girl is a ridiculous adolescent fetishizing children’s books and singing kiddie songs in her affected drama geek voice.” No, we’re supposed to pretend that she’s not a joke, and that we should take seriously her insights into how it’s dangerous to allow us the free speech rights God invested us with upon our creation.

But we’re done pretending. We’re done being nice. We tried being cool, live and letting live, and then we noticed the lack of reciprocity. It’s live and let submit, and that’s a bad deal. Hard pass.

You weirdos, losers, and mutations could have been cool. You could have done your own thing and ignored us like we ignored you. But no. No, you wanted more. You wanted to be the Big Non-binaries on Campus. Except you don’t get to, because you suck and we’re not going to be ruled over by theater dorks, infanticide fetishists, and bitter fringies.

We’re going to rule ourselves, and my advice is to keep the hell out of our faces lest you figuratively end up hanging by your Fruit-of-the-Looms from the flagpole.

Just how many defensive gun uses are there each year?

Gun control will be a hot topic for a very long time. However, one area that doesn’t get discussed nearly enough is the total number of defensive gun uses.

While the media spends a lot of time talking about how many people die from gunshots each and every year–typically conflating suicides with homicides–in an effort to advance a gun control agenda, they ignore the many times law-abiding citizens use firearms defensively every year.

But just how many defensive gun uses are there?

How often are firearms used defensively in the United States? According to the most-recent study, about 1.6 million times annually. Over a lifetime, about a third of gun owners will use a firearm defensively at least once. This recent data is broadly consistent with decades of social-science research.

The first pollster to ask about defensive gun use (DGU) was the Field Poll in California in 1976. Over the subsequent 18 years, polling companies such as Gallup, Hart and Tarrance, as well as scholars and media, conducted their own surveys of DGU. They reported results as low as 764,000 annually (Tarrance, 1994) and as high as 3.6 million (Los Angeles Times, 1994).

In 1993, Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck conducted a survey that was much more methodologically sophisticated than all the above polls. Kleck included safeguards designed to weed out respondents who might misdescribe a DGU story. Kleck and his coauthor Marc Gertz found a midpoint estimate of 2.5 million DGUs annually, with a possible range of 2 to 3 million. Their study is described in the Kleck and Gertz article, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (1995), which is available on the web, and is further described in Kleck’s 1997 book Targeting Guns. The book and the article also examine all previous surveys.

Oh, but some claim, Kleck’s work has been debunked.

Has it, though?

The same journal issue that published the Kleck & Gertz study also published a response by Marvin Wolfgang. He had long been the most-influential criminologist in the English-speaking world, and he was past president of the American Society of Criminology. Wolfgang wrote: “I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country … . I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns … .

Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear … . The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”

Wolfgang isn’t exactly an NRA supporter.

Of course, most of us have long known these numbers. We knew how many millions of defensive gun uses there are each year. It well outstrips the number of lives claimed by gunshot wounds, that’s for sure.

However, it’s interesting how even the smallest estimates for defensive gun use outstrip those numbers as well. Literally no credible study shows otherwise. Even the more heavily biased studies that put defensive gun uses at 100,000 each year still argue there are twice as many lives saved by guns than taken.

Why is the media ignoring this reality?

We all know why. They can claim they are simply neutral parties in the debate all they want, but they always seem to miss this. Even if they report the studies themselves, they never seem to make it into later stories about guns and gun control.

But the number of gun deaths always does.

Funny how that shakes out, isn’t it?

Tacoma hotel employee shoots man who threatened 3 employees with a knife

TACOMA — A hotel employee shot a man who was threatening three employees with a weapon Tuesday night in Pierce County.

Police say a 45-year-old man, who brandished a knife, threatened workers at the Quality Inn and Suites Tacoma in the 8800 block of South Hosmer Street around 11:45 p.m.

A 32-year-old female employee shot the man, who was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. He was shot in the left abdomen, according to the police scanner. The woman called 911 claiming she shot someone outside and the victim was still moving on the ground.

The man was booked for three counts of assault upon being released from the hospital.

Homeowner justified in fatal shooting of armed intruder, Kent County prosecutor says

KENT COUNTY, MI — A Kent County homeowner who traded gunfire with an intruder trying to steal his truck keys, killing the man, was justified in using deadly force, prosecutors have ruled.

Kent County Prosecutor Christopher Becker issued a ruling Tuesday, May 3 on the March 30 shooting at a Byron Township home on 108th Street just east of Wilson Avenue.

He ruled that homeowner Alan Lenhart was within his right to shoot and kill 39-year-old Christopher Carl-James Worth of Middleville…….

Los Angeles armed suspects scramble for cover after employee whips out his own gun
Gunfire erupted when four suspects tried committing an armed robbery in the Compton smoke shop, authorities said

Two suspects are wanted in connection with an armed robbery in a Los Angeles smoke shop that resulted in a shootout between a security guard and four others in which one person was killed, authorities said.

The gunfire broke at the “Smoke Shop” just before 7 p.m. in Compton, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department said. Four people entered the store and pointed handguns at an employee behind a counter.

An employee appears to be wearing a ballistic vest with “SECURITY” written on it, according to security footage released by authorities Wednesday. One suspect can be seen taking out a gun and pointing it at him.

Four suspects got into a shootout with a smoke shop employee in Compton, California during an armed robbery. One suspect later died, authorities said.

Four suspects got into a shootout with a smoke shop employee in Compton, California during an armed robbery. One suspect later died, authorities said. (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department)

The employee pulls out a gun and a gun battle ensued. The suspects trip over each other as they try to flee and fire several rounds at the store employee.

He was shot in the neck and face but was later released from the hospital.

A half-hour after the gunfire exchange, deputies responded to Martin Luther King Hospital for a gunshot victim. Investigators said the victim was one of the four suspects at the smoke shop who had been wounded.

The sheriff’s department told Fox News that suspect later died. A second suspect was arrested the following day on April 4.

Keith Rachel and Kahlel Lundy.

Keith Rachel and Kahlel Lundy. (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department)

Kahlel Lundy, 23, and Keith Rachel, 21, were identified as the other two participants in the robbery and are wanted for murder, authorities said.

Just in case it has never crossed you mind.

Dealing with Dentists, Endodontists and Maxillofacial surgeons sucks

Nothing personal, as many of them seem to be kind people and provide relief from pain.

It just sucks having to deal with so many of them to finally get to the specialist that will finally pull the tooth everyone else has said they can’t fix, and can’t do anything else about it.

Oh, before I forget.

Thank God for Papaver Somniferum, more commonly known as the Opium Poppy.

We now return you to our regular programming.

Befuddled Biden: Russians, Hungarians, Ukrainians Are All the Same to Joe

Joe Biden gave some remarks on Tuesday at Lockheed Martin in Alabama about his desire to send more aid to Ukraine.

Biden has asked Congress for $33 billion additional in aid. This was after already getting $13.6 billion last month. Biden claimed that they already had spent that money. Not only that, but he wants to make it a continual thing — to preserve “democracy.” No end in sight as to how much money that might involve. Great concern for Ukraine’s borders, but very little for our own.

But in the process of giving mostly his standard memorized shtick, Biden managed to fumble the delivery in a couple of significant ways.

At one point, Biden claimed that he was arming the Russians before Russia attacked. Yes, he said that.

 

But, that wasn’t the only glaring mistake Biden made when talking about Ukraine. He also confused Ukrainians with Hungarians. During his State of the Union address, Biden confused Ukrainians with Iranians. No, Joe, they’re not the same.

I’d also like to point out another interesting confusion he seemed to have in his remarks made on Tuesday.

In his official written statement, Biden said that the draft opinion meant they needed to get out and vote for pro-choice (Democrats).

Third, if the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.

But then, in his off-the-cuff remarks that he made hours after that statement, he was asked, “What does this mean for the midterms? What does this mean for the Democrats’ argument in the midterms?” His reply? “I haven’t thought that through yet.” So he had some thoughts about it earlier in his official statement but hadn’t thought it through when he was asked about it later. In other words, they’re issuing statements about what “he thinks,” when he can’t even say what he thinks later in person.

It was bad enough when he said that there hadn’t been any senators from Delaware on Monday. That prompted more 25th Amendment talk. But it’s continuing to get worse.

Politics vs. Reality: Iron Sharpening Iron ~ or Not

There’s nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it, and it hasn’t been re-written or redefined by “the gun lobby” in recent years, as our opponents like to suggest. Writers going all the way back to the founding have supported our interpretation that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says and is enforceable against the states as a fundamental right.

I think we can all agree on this, so where’s the problem?

Just because we agree on the basics, doesn’t mean we all agree on the details. Some will loudly proclaim that the right to arms is absolute and limitless. They advocate for no limits whatsoever on any sort of armament whatsoever, from machine guns to missiles, to nukes. If it’s an armament, they say, then it’s covered by the Second Amendment. Others draw a line at typical, man-portable arms commonly found in an Infantry squad, while others draw a wavering line at the typical arms of an average, individual Infantry soldier, sometimes excluding “crew-served” weapons systems or man-portable missiles.

It used to be pretty common to run into “gunnies” who would argue against civilian possession of any full-auto or other NFA items, and some who would defend laws against those “ugly, black guns.” Thankfully most of those folks have now realized their error, but there are still folks who see themselves as on our side, who draw lines and/or limits that you and I would strongly disagree with.

That doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them wrong, misinformed, ignorant, or even possibly, more thoughtful and better educated than you and me. We can’t rule out that possibility until we’ve thoroughly studied their position and their rationale for holding that position. Then there’s the Supreme Court’s tortured definition of the right applying only to arms that are “in common use” among the populace while failing to account for future innovations and the decades of restrictions that kept certain arms and accessories out of “common use.”

Beyond the debate over how far, or not, the Second Amendment extends, there are debates within the community over whether certain, specific policy proposals are justifiable under the Second Amendment, or whether the “obvious good” (as some people see things) of certain policies might outweigh the constraints of the amendment. Then there’s the issue of incrementalism. Some among us will argue that repealing or reforming a portion of a bad law, is still supporting the erroneous foundation the law was originally based upon. For example, under this argument, support for legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them as firearms under the GCA, would be a traitorous compromise, because, they say, it is unconstitutional to regulate suppressors at all. This sort of “principled opposition” represents a minority, but it’s enough to throw a monkey wrench into efforts to undo restrictions piece-by-piece, the way most of those restrictions came about.

The point is, there are a wide variety of beliefs and opinions among, even very dedicated Second Amendment advocates, and disagreements are unavoidable.

The critical question though, is how do we handle those disagreements?

Continue reading “”

Hmm. I’ve never been ‘reasonable’, and I’ve never been sorry about that either.

Sorry, but gun owners are done being “reasonable”

As gun owners, we often find ourselves as something of a political football. We’re the group that has the most at stake when it comes to many gun control laws.

By and large, we don’t support them. After all, we know that it’s not as easy to buy a gun as it’s often portrayed in the media and we know how criminals actually get their guns.

Many people know that we don’t support these laws. That doesn’t stop them from thinking we should.

I’m not even sure why this is an issue that continues to be debated, argued and defended. Background checks and time limits are not taking away anyone’s rights. To own muskets and flintlock pistols is your right. Even a dueling pistol could be tucked away should the need arise to awaken at dawn for a meeting with your wife’s lover in a field. This event would need to be planned and witnessed, with the winner going to prison of course.

I can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled by what has occurred repeatedly at the hands of the irresponsible few. It seems to me the responsible gun owners would support stricter controls knowing that, if the gun violence continues to play out, severe gun laws will be inevitable for all.

Taking guns out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters would save some of the 38,000 Americans who die from gun violence every year in the United States. That’s worth more than a thought and a prayer.

And yet, how would you take guns “out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters” universally? We already have numerous laws on the books at both the federal level and state level that are meant to do just that, and yet, nothing.

But then again, the author can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled at what happens. Well, we are appalled. No rational human being could look at something like a murder and not be appalled.

Where she goes off the rails is the idea that we should somehow support stricter gun control because of it.

The truth is that we were reasonable in 1934 and in 1968. We set aside our rights for the greater good and gun owners watched as the gun they bought at a hardware store in 1930 become a heavily restricted weapon that they had to get permission to buy. They saw laws passed in 1968 not only not reduce violent crime but seemingly encouraged it to skyrocket.

Time and time again, we played nice. We gave a little ground so that we would seem reasonable. Now we have background checks when we go to buy a gun and we’re told that simply isn’t enough.

Well, you know what? We’re done being “reasonable.”

We’re finished with it because none of this is reasonable. No one wants to stamp out advocacy for communism, despite all the unmitigated evil that philosophy has illustrated and the untold suffering it has dropped on the human race, all because free speech matters. Yet we’re supposed to step aside and allow our right to keep and bear arms to be ripped to shreds in the name of appearing reasonable?

This from someone who still equates the Second Amendment to muskets?

And where’s the fact that none of this stuff has actually worked? We watched gun control be passed at state levels for decades as violent crime soared, yet when gun laws started being liberalized, we saw the rates decline. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, the truth is that if the lack of gun laws caused crime to increase, we should have seen the opposite.

We didn’t.

The truth is that this demand that gun owners acquiesce to every demand by gun control advocates is what is truly unreasonable and we’re done. We’ve long been finished.

Hypocrites
Leftists change their minds so quickly it’s a wonder they don’t  have whiplash

Suddenly the Left Remembers That Men CAN’T Get Pregnant

Reaction to the leak of the draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson came in swiftly Monday night. Liberals haven’t been this outraged since Elon Musk bought Twitter. Pro-abortion activists quickly formed a protest outside the court, and politicians released statements that featured fresh new takes on the usual tropes and slogans we’ve heard for decades.

“A woman’s right to choose is not up for debate. A woman’s right to make her own health care decisions is not up for debate,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “We can’t go back. We must not go back. We won’t go back.”

“This is at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said .

“If you think they’ll stop with a women’s right to choose, you haven’t been paying attention. We have to fight like our lives depend on it, because clearly, they do,” tweeted Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the packing of the Supreme Court, insisting that overturning Roe would “put the lives of women across the country at risk.”

“I’ll always fight to protect a woman’s right to choose,” insisted Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.). “And that will never change.”

Women. Women. Women.

That’s funny. Hasn’t the radical left been telling us that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant, too” suddenly have such a narrow view about the abortion issue that they only see it as a women’s rights issue? Weird, since less than a month ago, the pregnant man emoji was made available on my iPhone. Before the draft opinion leaked, if you asked a leftist to define what a “woman” is, they couldn’t tell you. Now, these non-biologists know precisely what a woman is.

For most of my life, abortion has been framed as a “women’s rights” issue. Yet on plenty of occasions, Leftists typically didn’t even recognize my right even to have an opinion on abortion because I’m not a woman. As Jennifer Aniston put it last year, “No uterus, no opinion.”

It’s impressive how quickly and easily progressives who have long insisted that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant” showed us that even they know deep down that radical leftist gender theory is nonsensical. It may be fashionable in their circles to buy into it, but they know it’s nonsensical.

Sure, when the outrage cools down, they’ll probably go back to saying “men can get pregnant” and refer to biological women as “birthing people,” but that won’t change the fact that, in the wake of this Supreme Court leak, so many said the quiet part out loud about transgenderism.