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.

Not Woke Enough

Andrew Branca was providing expert testimony on self defense law, free of charge to defendants that were being defended by the Colorado Public Defenders office. Then they found out that he wasn’t woke enough. I will let you read about it from Branca himself.

Pop Warner Shooting

In Apopka, one 11 year old player got into a fight with two other 13 year old players, decided that it would be a good idea to go to his mother’s car, retrieve her unsecured handgun, then shoot the two 13 year olds.

Apopka police say that they will only be charging the 11 year old with one count of attempted second-degree murder, because the chief of police doesn’t feel that it’s necessary “to stack charges upon an 11-year-old with no criminal history.” UH, he has a criminal history- he tried to murder two people. I would even argue that walking to the mother’s car to retrieve the handgun before returning to the practice to shoot the two boys could even be made to support a first degree murder charge. Still, second degree is easier to prove, and an 11 year old can’t be sentenced to more with one charge than with the other.

The mother is likely facing a second degree misdemeanor charge for leaving a loaded, unsecured firearm where a minor could access it.

In case you were wondering, here is a picture of the Pop Warner team in question, taken last season.

The shooter was likely on this team last season, the 10 and under team.

Yeah, it’s what you would expect, and no, I am not insinuating that the shooting happened because the players involved are black. I am not insinuating anything, I am coming right out and saying it.

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.

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?

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?