tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post75244158546752191..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: Public Shooting MusingsBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-56558423405786121772013-01-26T16:44:41.829-08:002013-01-26T16:44:41.829-08:00harry, millions of Americans killed by guns? real...harry, millions of Americans killed by guns? really? when and where?<br /><br />skpper, prohibition was a blanket take-a-way of booze, not a license to drink responsibly for people who would lose their privileges for even one infraction. that would work for any debilitating substance.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-69252564164990332912013-01-24T10:40:38.507-08:002013-01-24T10:40:38.507-08:00The argument for pot and licenses could be made te...<i>The argument for pot and licenses could be made ten times over for drinking and licenses. </i><br /><br />There, in a sentence, is the other unacknowledged problem for confiscationists.<br /><br />(The first being their eagerness to "control" guns "for the children", in contrast with their acceptance of more dangerous swimming pools. Difference? Collectivists like pools.)<br /><br />By any imaginable measure, alcohol causes far more mayhem than guns -- ignoring for the moment whether guns truly cause anything. <br /><br />So why not confiscate alcohol, or do background checks and provide alcohol licenses only to those who can use it responsibly? Or put alcohol under government lock and key, where it can be consumed only under supervision?<br /><br />One answer is the pool answer: collectivists like alcohol.<br /><br />The other is that prohibition was a profound failure, and the other schemes would get no electoral traction.<br /><br />Oddly, in areas where there are no constitutional limits, collectivists are happy to accept the status quo, no matter the harm to the children.<br /><br />But where there is a limit on government power, they want to step all over it.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-9904407427852889022013-01-23T22:26:09.984-08:002013-01-23T22:26:09.984-08:00The argument of the county police for rearming was...The argument of the county police for rearming was that they had to counter the (imaginary) arsenals of the new-era criminal.<br /><br />They have now shot to death about 6 people in 15 years (v. 0 in 80).<br /><br />None was armed with a modern firearm. In fact, none was armed with any firearm, and it is arguable whether some were armed at all.<br /><br />Most were using a deadly weapon (a car). One had a sword.<br /><br />No local cops have been shot, or even shot at. Several have been killed by being run over at traffic stops.<br /><br />There are exceptions, though not in my county. In Honolulu 20 years ago, an experienced sergeant pulled a truck on the freeway early one Sunday.<br /><br />As nearly as could be guessed, the driver was on his way to murder his girlfriend and his agitation led to conspicuous driving.<br /><br />He had an Uzi and came out firing. The sergeant had a .38. The sergeant was hit 9 times, all in non-vital places. He killed the machinegunner with one shot.<br /><br />An unusual performance all around and the last time, I believe, anybody tried using a submachine gun to complete a crime in this state.<br /><br />While interesting from several points of view, these vanishingly rare events don't matter much compared to the millions of Americans shot to death or wounded thanks to the oversupply of guns.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-75214838445462411082013-01-22T13:46:44.995-08:002013-01-22T13:46:44.995-08:00That would work for me too.That would work for me too.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-1604732820636080762013-01-22T11:38:17.090-08:002013-01-22T11:38:17.090-08:00The argument for pot and licenses could be made te...The argument for pot and licenses could be made ten times over for drinking and licenses. Probably not the best path to go down.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-15038871788995014912013-01-20T07:43:06.473-08:002013-01-20T07:43:06.473-08:00Skipper, diving boards have been banned from back ...Skipper, diving boards have been banned from back yard pools for decades now. I wonder how many lives have been saved by that daring move to protect drunks from jumping off the high board?<br /><br />As a long time observer of the human comedy, I find one of the most hilarious hypocrisies of the left is their manic attempt to legalize marijuana, no doubt, for the "children" while simultaneously using the same hysteria to ban guns also, need it be said, for the children.<br /><br />Also, as far a pot goes, let it be legal, but also force users to register and give up their drivers' licenses. Stoned drivers are lethal, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are as harmless as potheads nodding off on the couch.<br />erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-52908785719261595912013-01-18T18:05:12.071-08:002013-01-18T18:05:12.071-08:00Well, in my county, the police force was armed wit...<i>Well, in my county, the police force was armed with .38 revolvers for 80 years and never once fired one seriously.<br /><br />Some years ago, they decided they had to have 9mm automatics. A gun nut friend of mine argued strenuously that they didn't need 'em but if they had 'em they'd use 'em.<br /><br />He knew his guns and his gunmen. They have done so. </i><br /><br />Post hoc, meet propter hoc.<br /><br />(Besides, unless your evidence is anything other than anecdotal, there should be a an increase in police shootings that parallels the replacement of wheel guns with 9mm <i>semi</i>-automatics. Otherwise, and otherwise is the correct option here, what?)<br /><br /><i>It is far from obvious, from having reported police news for two generations, that officers need to be armed routinely. They were not in England, with no particular problems. </i><br /><br />And in England, people drive on the left side of the road with no particular problems. To do so here would be a horror show. <br /><br />Also, the tense in your last sentence is telling. They are now, because they had particular problems then.<br /><br />--- <br /><br />I wonder how many children (age less than 14) drown per year, compared to being killed by guns.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html" rel="nofollow">Drownings: 700</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf" rel="nofollow">Gun deaths: 375</a><br /><br />Time to ban pools, right?<br /><br />Unless you are a pool nut.<br /><br /><br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-39084817756960790892013-01-18T13:34:39.364-08:002013-01-18T13:34:39.364-08:00A failure due to too much upcannon is hardly the s...A failure due to too much upcannon is hardly the same as a failure of the general model (otherwise we'd have to declare water poisonous because people have drunk themselves to death with it). Further it may be that trends were leading toward police use of firearms and the police recognized the trend before it peaked. And even if true would be accurate for your particular situation - generalization to the entire country does not automatically follow from that.<br /><br />However I will agree that it is a general and disturbing trend of police to upcannon for status and power rather than utility, with many SWAT departments having no point except for providing cool toys to the police.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-52765087377960225962013-01-15T13:34:50.164-08:002013-01-15T13:34:50.164-08:00Well, in my county, the police force was armed wit...Well, in my county, the police force was armed with .38 revolvers for 80 years and never once fired one seriously.<br /><br />Some years ago, they decided they had to have 9mm automatics. A gun nut friend of mine argued strenuously that they didn't need 'em but if they had 'em they'd use 'em.<br /><br />He knew his guns and his gunmen. They have done so.<br /><br />It is far from obvious, from having reported police news for two generations, that officers need to be armed routinely. They were not in England, with no particular problems.<br /><br /><br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-85288355484981104862013-01-10T11:31:29.366-08:002013-01-10T11:31:29.366-08:00Harry:
An armed police force has arguably been a...Harry: <br /><br /><i>An armed police force has arguably been a failure. </i><br /><br />Then make the argument. I hope it isn't the same one claiming pacifism is a wonderful idea.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-19921905123715971352012-12-31T05:48:17.402-08:002012-12-31T05:48:17.402-08:00It was when the police started working for their u...It was when the police started working for their union bosses, not the people who hired them, to wit, their disgraceful behavior lately in Michigan.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-73297990387517311592012-12-30T22:16:32.841-08:002012-12-30T22:16:32.841-08:00I was puzzled to think what event marked the move ...I was puzzled to think what event marked the move of the police to the dark side.<br /><br />It couldn't be that they stopped shooting schizophrenics. They did that 64 times last year.<br /><br />Was it when they accepted orders to stop racial profiling? When they began treating women who alleged they had been raped with sympathy instead of giving them the third degree? When they stopped rigging the sergeants' exams so that only whites could pass?<br /><br />Dark doings all, but it hardly seemed sufficient to tar the boys in blue with so black a brush.<br /><br />Then it hit me (slaps forehead). Of course! It was shutting down the red squads.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-62863885553762248472012-12-29T14:09:40.306-08:002012-12-29T14:09:40.306-08:00funny indeed. you have the police to protect you....funny indeed. you have the police to protect you. they only have their union thug bosses to rely on now they've gone over to the dark side.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-55770536183534988742012-12-29T14:01:36.007-08:002012-12-29T14:01:36.007-08:00Amusing. An armed police force has arguably been a...Amusing. An armed police force has arguably been a failure. <br /><br />There is no argument about the militia, however.<br /><br />A few doors down from where I work, there is a disused police station. Disused because it has windows and the cops are afraid to work in a lighted window.<br /><br />Funny thing. I work behind a lighted window-- with a big neon sign reading CASH -- and I'm not afraid.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-18744637518411123202012-12-26T20:10:16.633-08:002012-12-26T20:10:16.633-08:00As usual, I fail to see the point to Mr. Eagar'...As usual, I fail to see the point to Mr. Eagar's cite. Perhaps he meant it as an example of how the 1st Amendment works in practice?<br /><br />As for his incidents regarding the National Guard, I'll take those seriously when Eagar agrees that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html" rel="nofollow">police incident</a> indicates that the police are not well regulated and should be abandoned as a failed experiment. For someone who claims to know the sweep of history, he is amazingly taken with what are effectively anecdotes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-17489065891808033232012-12-26T19:54:08.779-08:002012-12-26T19:54:08.779-08:00I mean it is not well-regulated and has never been...<i>I mean it is not well-regulated and has never been necessary to the security of the country. </i><br /><br />You are missing the point, and in precisely the same way collectivists missed the point in Citizens United.<br /><br />IMHO, the writers the 2A codifies the inherent right of individuals to self defense. The entering argument that we are all equally entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. None of that means anything unless we are also entitled to defend those things against encroachment. The militia clause is ultimately a self-defense provision against what was then seen as the biggest threat: tyranny. <br /><br />But simply because the Constitution cites the biggest perceived threat doesn't obviate all "lesser" reasons for self defense. The collectivist notion of the 2A is ridiculous -- no one at the time would have done anything other than heap abuse upon the notion that individuals should be prohibited the means of defending themselves.<br /><br />And even now, outside the UN or other similarly pathetic precincts, if you put the argument against the 2A in those terms -- which is the only way to put it honestly -- then the reception will be scarcely any warmer.<br /><br />But while I think that is the ultimate justification for the 2A, that isn't my point, which is this: the 2A (as does the 1A) clearly limits the power of government.<br /><br />Just because you don't like that limit doesn't mean you, or the government, gets to wish it away. Because to do so amounts to spitting upon the idea of contractually limited government. It is certainly possible that <i>it follows there is no reason -- in the Constitution -- for citizens to have firearms.</i>; unfortunately, it is in the Constitution that citizens may have firearms. Just as it is in the Constitution that Congress may not abridge the freedom of speech. <br /><br />So, by all means, get a confiscatory amendment passed. Or get an amendment passed that allows the government to authorize speech.<br /><br />But until then, and I suspect "then" will amount to very long time indeed, tough.<br /><br /><i>As for charging bears, I have read enough stories about how they kept charging even though wounded many times to doubt whether a high-velocity round will stop one. </i><br /><br />My next door neighbor did just that. Granted, he did it with a rifle, but at the range from which he fired, whether it was a .44 from a pistol, or a 30-06, would scarcely matter.<br /><br />When looking at the range of alternatives, though, I would far rather be in the position of dealing with a bear that has been hit once or twice than one that hasn't. The latter is your choice. Pretty safe for a Hawaiian, but not so much for an Alaskan. Perhaps you would see it differently if you had skin in the game.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-5564920694315064622012-12-26T15:34:59.130-08:002012-12-26T15:34:59.130-08:00I mean it is not well-regulated and has never been...I mean it is not well-regulated and has never been necessary to the security of the country.<br /><br />You might look up Lundy's Lane or Kasserine Pass to see how it performed.<br /><br />To my great regret, the Post published a fabulous story about how the Second Amendment does work in practice, but on Christmas Day when few will have stopped to read it.<br /><br />Now you have time, and I commend it to you:<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/freedomworks-tea-party-group-nearly-falls-apart-in-fight-between-old-and-new-guard/2012/12/25/dd095b68-4545-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html?hpid=z1<br /><br />ROTFLMAOHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-60850993519374951142012-12-25T16:42:21.603-08:002012-12-25T16:42:21.603-08:00You mean this "National Guard" I hear ab...You mean this "National Guard" I hear about is just made up? You might also consider the possibility that the Founders had a slightly different idea of "well regulated militia" than you do. I know, it's almost impossible to conceive how *anyone* could have a different view of facts and history than you, but I just wanted to put it out there.<br /><br />P.S. I would go back and quote this - "If the Bill of Rights did not care about the militia, why does it mention it?" - to point out that you asked, but that would be wrong, because I shouldn't try to use history on Mr. Eagar. Now I understand what he meant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-33737421443698691512012-12-25T13:42:43.456-08:002012-12-25T13:42:43.456-08:00I already knew why it mentioned the militia, but t...I already knew why it mentioned the militia, but that was not my point.<br /><br />My point is historical -- we never got the well-regulated militia.<br /><br />It turns out that a well-regulated militia is not necessary to operate a nation of our sort; we have gotten along well without one for ocer two centuries.<br /><br />If the Foinders were wrong about needing a militia, then it follows there is no reason -- in the Constitution -- for citizens to have firearms. <br /><br />As for charging bears, I have read enough stories about how they kept charging even though wounded many times to doubt whether a high-volocity round will stop one. <br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-54166163459927327042012-12-24T12:04:55.574-08:002012-12-24T12:04:55.574-08:00[Harry:] Skipper, I hope you never try to stop a c...<i>[Harry:] Skipper, I hope you never try to stop a charging grizzly with a pistol, 'cause he'll get you. He may die later, but he'll get you. </i><br /><br />Thanks for your concern, but, in this case, wrong. A .44 is a good sized round to being with; my revolver is built to handle a 340 gr round. I don't practice with it, because the recoil is painful -- three rounds did it for me. <br /><br />Provided I hit the bear -- my son and I fire a few boxes of specials in the spring and mid-summer -- it's going down. <br /><br /><i>If the Bill of Rights did not care about the militia, why does it mention it?</i> <br /><br /><a href="http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm" rel="nofollow">Here is why</a>.<br /><br />Read the whole thing.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-47716948488951999722012-12-24T08:37:59.627-08:002012-12-24T08:37:59.627-08:00the left's historical perception is distorted ...the left's historical perception is distorted by centuries of propaganda and potemkin village-sized lies.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-15077534027600092362012-12-24T07:07:06.056-08:002012-12-24T07:07:06.056-08:00"Don't try to pull history on me. I know ..."Don't try to pull history on me. I know way more of it than you do."<br /><br />"It's not what he doesn't know, it's what he knows that just isn't so."<br /><br />Why does the 2nd Amendment mention militia? That's a good question that has been long debated. I think it was to avoid the federal government having a monopoly on organized troops, that is to preserve a State's right to have a militia that is not directly part of a federal army. One could ask why the 2nd states "the right of <i>the people</i> to keep and bear arms [emphasis added]" if the Founders meant only a state militia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-71592828754697847212012-12-23T18:10:35.695-08:002012-12-23T18:10:35.695-08:00Skipper, I hope you never try to stop a charging g...Skipper, I hope you never try to stop a charging grizzly with a pistol, 'cause he'll get you. He may die later, but he'll get you.<br /><br />You'd be better protected with one of those little carbon dioxide-powered klaxons, and save money too.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-50901924314513284992012-12-23T15:22:11.329-08:002012-12-23T15:22:11.329-08:00Harry, you have no idea how comical you are, do yo...Harry, you have no idea how comical you are, do you? The Amsterdam News had a banner and that banner was the, you should excuse the expression, the gospel, truth and after the new deal, the propaganda value of lynching was no longer required, so they stopped, or at least, the banners stopped.<br /><br />Did it ever occur to you to wonder how the lynchers coordinated their efforts, so only one darky a day was lynched. In the days before cell phones and i-Pads that must have been some mighty fine organizing.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-29154017320021170072012-12-23T13:40:04.373-08:002012-12-23T13:40:04.373-08:00I used to be the person visitors to the Des Moines...I used to be the person visitors to the Des Moines Register saw first. Our doors never closed.<br /><br />Some came armed. I dealt with them. Never had to shoot a one.<br /><br />If the Bill of Rights did not care about the militia, why does it mention it? I understand that Americans do not know how cowardly our militia was, but Canadians do. <br /><br />What American knows the name Lundy's Lane?<br /><br />Don't try to pull history on me. I know way more of it than you do.<br /><br />The origins of gun control were private in the republic. Prior to the republic, slave codes forbade blacks to have firearms.<br /><br />Later, corporate ranch owners forbade firearms on their properties -- the XIT, for example, did not allow its employees to own firearms or horses.<br /><br />erp, you can disbelieve in White terror all you want, but all you have proven to me is that you never went uptown. The Amsterdam News used to hang a banner out its window in Harlem. It read: A BLACK MAN WAS LYNCHED TODAY.<br /><br />That banner flew in Manhattan almost as many days as it did not fly. Until the New Deal.<br /><br />Then the lynchings were stopped and the banner was no longer needed.<br /><br /> Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.com