Antigun

Three Times is Enemy Action

As I reported earlier, there is now a shortage in the ammunition market. The old saying goes: Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. This shortage is therefore looking like it’s being caused by government fiat. In the past month:

We know that Biden said more than a year ago that he wants to cut off ammunition sales to the public. He tried last year to cut off the funding to the plant, but was stopped by Congress. So, it appears that he is trying a new tactic.

Mr Guns and Gear has some information on this:

This is not the end. Expect things to accelerate. I think that 2024 is going to be a rough ride.

By Divemedic, ago

Using Statistics to Mislead

Take a look at the National Safety Council’s statistics on your odds of dying.

I’m not even on the “guns” yet. There is a basic flaw with this chart, and that flaw is the assumption that the event that causes your death is random- that is, they are assuming everyone is equally likely to experience one of the events. So looking at “opioid overdose” for example, if you don’t take opioids, your chances of dying of an opioid overdose are exactly zero.

Now that we have exposed the flaw, note that “guns” is the only cause of death that is listed as an object, and not an event or action. You will also note that the math doesn’t work. Firearm assault and accidents aren’t even close to equaling your odds of dying from “guns.” Doing the math, there is a 1.1 percent chance of being killed by “guns,” but your chances of dying from a firearm assault or accident are only 0.049 percent. The other 0.61 percent? That is from suicides. So you cut your chances of being killed by “guns” if you take the simple step of not comitting suicide. We see that on the next line, where you have a 1 percent chance of killing yourself.

Taking other steps, like not being a gang banger, a drug dealer, or a violent criminal likewise reduce your risk of death by “guns,” but we won’t mention that because it doesn’t fit the agenda. This is a great example of how people can be mislead by what appears to be solid facts and mathematics applied in a scientific appearing article, when it is really just hokum that is designed to manipulate the reader.

By Divemedic, ago

No More Free Speech in Canada

Canada’s broadcasting regulatory body, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has published a news release announcing that it will require podcast providers, social media services and online streaming platforms to register with the government.

Registration requires disclosing the name, address, email, and telephone number of the service, as well as a disclosure of what type of services it offers. The Canadian government calls this registration a “very light” burden. Just remember my position on registration:

Registration of ANYTHING by a government is a necessary first step towards regulating who may have, use, or partake in the regulated activity. That is true of speech, business, and possession of regulated items.

This is nothing more than the Canadian government making moves to restricting who may speak on any topic online. Canada is claiming that this regulation doesn’t pertain to social media companies like Facebook because, well, we already know that those companies are part of the communist movement.

We all know where this is headed- the left desperately needs to shut down websites and blogs like this one. Of course, they deny it.

“I don’t think that registration is the same as a censorship regime,” he said. However, he added, he isn’t without concern.

“The idea that you potentially would have to register with the Canadian government or with its agency, the CRTC, in order to engage in expression, because you meet a certain threshold for revenue is, I think, a real incursion into expression.”

My answer to that statement? Canada began with registration of “assault weapons” in 1995. In 2022, the Canadian government announced that they would begin a “mandatory buyback” of the registered weapons. Mandatory buyback is really leftspeak for “we are confiscating your shit, and we will give you an amount of money in compensation that we think is appropriate, and if you don’t like it, too bad.”

Now let’s see how that applies to speech.

By Divemedic, ago

Here Comes Another One

The ATF has sent a notice to gun dealers in the vicinity of the Mexican border.

Law enforcement is advising Federal Firearms Licensees of expanding interest of criminal networks’ intention to utilize straw purchasers in acquiring large caliber firearms such as .50 caliber and/or belt fed rifles within the next 60 days. This activity is anticipated to occur throughout the entire State of Texas. Please contact your local ATF office if any suspicious, attempted or finalized purchases occur.

So what do you think will be the next rule change to come out of this?

By Divemedic, ago

Science for Sale

Johns Hopkins, which used to do good work, but is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg, has come out in favor of microstamping.

They aren’t very bright. Microstamping is useless without firearm registration, so we know that is what is next, should they even get this technology (off site PDF alert) to be passed. However, the problems don’t stop there.
  • No manufacturer has ever manufactured a firearm with microstamping. Why? A reliable way of doing it hasn’t been invented yet.
  • All you need to thwart it is a nailfile applied to the end of the firing pin.
  • As a bonus, a murderer could just scatter brass casings that he picked up from the firing range around the crime scene
  • What if the gun used was stolen?
  • What if that gun has a replacement firing pin?

That doesn’t stop the medical people at Johns Hopkins from attempting to push for things in a field where they have no experience whatsoever. They just whore out their credentials to whomever is willing to pay.

The paper touts California’s law, passed in 2007, that requires new models of handgun sold to be equipped with this unicorn technology. They don’t mention that the law was found to be unconstitutional.

Then they attempt to make it into a racial issue by claiming this:

One analysis of major U.S. cities found that law enforcement makes an arrest in only
35% of firearm homicides and 21% of firearm assaults when the victim was Black or Hispanic/Latino compared to 53% and 37% respectively when the victim was white.

You know why that is? Because in white neighborhoods, “firearm homicides” are usually solved when the cops arrive to find the shooter still standing over the decedent’s body with the gun still in his hand. Many of them are also legal self defense shootings. Contrast that with black neighborhoods, where the majority of homicides where a firearm was the means employed involve disputes over gang territory, drug deals, or simple drive by shootings. When police arrive, no one claims to have seen a thing.

A large portion of these unsolved shootings are perpetrated by guns that were recently trafficked and diverted into the illegal market.

Criminals steal guns and then use them to commit crimes? I’m shocked. Hey, explain to me how microstamping will in any way help in solving a crime involving a stolen firearm.

For example, an analysis of five years of data from the ATF found that more than 40% (528,855) of crime guns recovered by police and traced were used in a crime within three years of their initial retail sale at a licensed dealer.

Again, misleading. Used in crime? What crime? Theft? What about the guns recovered by police and not traced? This is a carefully worded statement, intended to mislead the reader.

No, this is where the conclusion leads them:

Microstamping should deter gun dealers and owners from selling or transferring their gun to someone who might commit a crime because microstamping evidence should lead law enforcement to the person who initially purchased the gun from a retail seller.

Of course, no criminal will be smart enough to replace the firing pin.

Doctors at Johns Hopkins: What does Michael Bloomberg’s dick taste like?

By Divemedic, ago

Scaring the Kids

I got a call from my sister. Her 14 year old daughter, my niece, is being sexually harassed at school. There are a couple of boys who are being very descriptive in what they want to do to her. She told them that what they were doing is sexual harassment, but the boys responded with “You women are just too sensitive.”

Two weeks ago, she emailed the school counselor. Who did nothing. It has continued to happen.

So yesterday, she went to the counselor’s office and complained. The counselor said that there is nothing she can do but move my niece to a different class.

I told my niece that this is unacceptable. She is the victim and shouldn’t have to move, plus this won’t stop the boy from simply seeing her somewhere else and continuing the behavior. I told her that the way forward is to go to the principal (or have her mother do it) and ask that administrator if he is going to take action. Point out to him that he is required by law to take disciplinary action against the boy, and if he doesn’t, she will contact the county school board’s title IX officer and make it an official complaint. Trust me, it won’t go that far.

My niece doesn’t want to do that because she is afraid that, if the boys get in trouble, they are going to bring a gun to school and shoot her.

This is what the left is doing to young women- they have them so afraid of the almost nonexistent threat from school shootings that are black swan events, that these young girls are being sexually harassed and afraid enough that they are having to take it.

  • These girls are having to change in locker rooms next to a “trans woman” with “her” penis hanging out.
  • They are having boys make those kinds of comments about them.
  • The schools now do nothing.
  • And the girls are afraid to stand up for themselves for fear of retribution,

Tell me again how the left is the group that supports women. I get it. Teenaged boys are stupid and have no game. They need to learn that this isn’t the way to get women. Twenty or thirty years ago, the way that boys learned this lesson was a guy said some shit like that, and he was told to cut it out. If he didn’t, one of the girl’s male friends, her brother, or some other male would kick the shit out of him and he would learn some respect. A few months later, they would all be friends again.

Not today. Now we are too civilized for that.

By Divemedic, ago

The Catholic Church Can Kiss My Ass

But Newark’s Roman Catholic Archbishop, who says:

Salvation came from Christ, not from an AR-15. To them, Jesus says as he did to the arms-bearing Peter, “put that away.”

The Catholic church has become a gun control organization. I quote:

The Supreme Court has expanded the application of the second amendment, which says nothing about “personal ownership” or “guns” to mean that individuals have the right to possess, carry, and shoot semiautomatic weapons of war designed solely to kill, maim, and obliterate human life.

In fact, the conference of Catholic Bishops has this to say:

“We support a total ban on assault weapons and limitations on civilian access to high-capacity weapons and ammunition magazines.”

I want to point out what happened to Jesus- he was tortured and murdered by his government. Since I can’t miracle myself to a resurrection, I think I will keep my guns. In the meantime, the Catholic church and its communist pope can work on not letting their priests fuck little kids.

Pope Francis: “If I See the Gospel in a Sociological Way Only, Yes, I Am a Communist, and So Too Is Jesus”

By Divemedic, ago

My Proposal

Democrats have proposed a 1,000% tax on all “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammo. That would make an AR15 cost $5,500 to $33,000. I didn’t realize that we were taxing Constitutional rights. Let’s try a few others:

  • a $10,000 tax for each person who wishes to register as a Democrat.
  • You can only vote for one Democrat each election. Each vote for a Democrat candidate after that will cost you $500. No cash? No vote.
  • In fact, only people who pay income taxes can vote. If you don’t pay any income taxes, you don’t get a say in how things are run. Skin in the game, and all that.
  • $2,500 fee for your first jury trial. Guilty or not, that fee doubles for each subsequent trial. Can’t pay? You get a bench trial.

What’s that you say? People can’t be taxed for exercising their rights?

Exactly.

By Divemedic, ago