Academic Bias

Lee Foullon's protest against it was published in UC Davis Magazine (see "Hostile". [More]

This is the article he was responding to. I see it repeats the allegation that "Wintemute himself was repeatedly harassed and threatened."

At least it doesn't repeat the "Wanted Poster" lie promulgated by Slate, or accuse me of outing the guy, like Nature did, before they published a half-@$$ed "correction" that left out most of their "errors."

I repeat my question:  If Wintemute has truly been threatened (and I mean real threats, not what The New York Times says "poured in" against Dick Metcalf and has since refused to substantiate), were police reports filed?

Selective "Reporting"

It's what the "legitimate news media" does. [More]

What else would we expect? It's Slate.

[Via Michael G]

Justin's Disdain

I have nothing but disdain for the TrackingPoint, which exemplifies everything I hate about a gun culture...While the TrackingPoint technology has definite military applications, I can’t think of any real civilian use for it. [More]

I'd say all that hate and disdain is clouding Justin's thinking.

Slate males.  I wonder if they stamp their feet when they're mad?

[Via Florida Guy] 

The Guns of Tomorrow

At least according to Masshole Rep. John Tierney, who either doesn't realize how ignorant suggesting mandating "smart guns" makes him, or is merely counting on the fact that anyone stupid enough to vote for him can pretty much be conned into anything. [Read]

So it figures the idiot metrosexuals at Slate would go all gushy over the idea, especially if an anti-gun James Bond actor can be made up to look all heroic and manly with it.

Killing the Messenger

Gayle Trotter has made herself a target of those who would rather see her raped and strangled than armed. [Read] 

See?

When both The New York Times and The Washington Post are out there blaring the same talking points, you just know her message scares the hell out of the powers that be.

And the thing is, their arguments are the same old stale, discredited ones, dusted off for this latest character assassination/disinformation campaign. Note they make no attempt to separate women living in criminal environments from the general population. Note also they limit DGUs to when a gun is "fired" for their comparison, as opposed to the mere presentation that can break off an attack with no further action needed. What that does is penalizes good armed citizens for not being the bloodthirsty trouble-seekers they paint us to be.

UPDATE: Naturally, Salon piles on. Hey Katie McDonough--let's say hypothetically a male (I don't honor such types by calling them "men") is getting ready to do whatever the hell he wants to you, and there's no one around to save you. What would you do? And Slate...

And Campus Progress ("young people working together for progressive change")

Say, this meme is getting quite the workout from those "women's' rights" champions.  It's almost like the so-called "feminist" movement actually hates women...

Slate cites gun blog 'Wanted' poster as threat to 'gun violence researcher'

"There is a wanted poster on the Internet." [More] 

Today's second Gun Rights Examiner effort explores the nature of the threat.

Anybody up for a game of "Where's Wintemute"?

Biometric ‘Skyfall’ gun neither new nor ‘smart’

To further think that those perpetrating “gang violence” would in any way be inclined to participate or be impacted, as the Slate.com piece suggests, is just ignorant and childish, despite their ploy to add an unmerited appearance of authority by advising readers “This article also appears on As We Now Think, a site edited by the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University.” [More]

Today's Gun Rights Examiner license to kill stupid ideas aims to leave villains bent on domination shaken, not stirred.

Burden of Proof

And if you have evidence that your use of force was justified, it’s the state’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t. [More] 

So what we need is a system of guilty until proven innocent? Do you think Emily Bazelon ever listens to herself? And she's a Slate senior editor?

Bread and Circuses

So America continues the transition from a citizenry to a people, that waits for government handouts and the comforts of a monarchy as spectacle, broadcast simultaneously on all channels. While Obama preps a cabinet slate, half of whom belong in jail, the media continues applauding loudly to drown out any criticism. And the public watches with glazed eyes. [More]

Daniel Greenfield looks at the spectacle his neighbor to the south is putting on and speaks his mind. And how.

[Via Joe G]

The Trouble with Freedom

Slate editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg thunders that recent headlines are evidence of "global economic meltdown made possible by libertarian ideas." According to Weisberg, author of a pro-Leviathan snoozer called In Defense of Government, "any competent forensic work has to put the libertarian theory of self-regulating financial markets at the scene of the crime."

You got that? Our problem is we have too much economic freedom, and government doesn't have enough power and control.

Only national socialism can save us!

We're the Only Ones on ICE Enough

Up to two-thirds of the people ICE arrests have never received deportation orders, frequently because their presence here is lawful. By ICE's own admission, the bureau has mistakenly detained, arrested, and even deported not only legal immigrants but also U.S. citizens. Those caught up in recent home raids include Adriana Aguilar, a citizen living in East Hampton, N.Y., who was sound asleep with her 4-year-old son when ICE officers stormed into her bedroom, pulled the covers off the bed, and shined flashlights into her face before interrogating her.

Yes, we must address the problem of illegal aliens, and there is no doubt Slate is not the most unbiased of sources. Still, who thinks "Only One" wide net stormtrooping is the best way, and if we tolerate it here, what else might it be used for?

What hasn't it been used for already?

[Via ryanmguard]

The Hero of Medicine

Special foreword posted on Dec. 20, 2012: Visitors coming over from the Slate Thacker/Wintemute interview: You've been lied to. Look this post over and then see my rebuttal here.

UPDATE 2: Visitors from The Atlantic Wire-- it looks like Adam Clark Estes has no more integrity than the other two --he repeated the lie in his column even though he had the link and knows better.

My original blog post from 2007 follows.

-----

Wintemute’s first challenge was to find some way to eavesdrop on gun transactions without attracting notice. At first he tried recording his observations by speaking into a hidden tape recorder that he carried with him, but the quality of the recordings were poor.

“Then I realized that everybody (at the gun shows) was using cell phones,” he recalled in a recent interview.

Wintemute decided to do likewise. He recorded his observations by calling up his voice mail, the capacity of which he had expanded for the study. The voice mail messages were then transcribed by members of Wintemute’s staff. He made visual recordings of the gun shows by taking pictures with a hidden camera. [More]

I won't go here into why I think this study is crap, aside from the fact that Wintemute is one of the more notorious agenda-driven anti-defense propagandists out there. Going to gun shows is hardly equivalent to doing "shoe-leather epidemiology" in South Central or East LA amongst these guys. And I'll only note in passing what a disappointment I find this PhysOrg.com site to be--is this what purported scientific "news" has been reduced to: blatant rah-rah press releases for anti-defense fanatics?

What stands out most for me was this character snooping in on private transactions without the knowledge of the people involved--and many gun shows I've seen have a "No Cameras/Recording Devices" policy. I've also seen some case law involving "news gathering" and hidden cameras/microphones, but "research"--particularly for propaganda purposes--is arguably a different beast altogether. If the shows were posted to keep cameras out, dealers and patrons may well have had some sort of expectation of privacy. I invite anyone with knowledge of California law in this regard to weigh in via "Comments," below.

At the very least, it ought to tell us something about the ethics of this character who has to sneak around like a cheap, bumbling East German spy. And here's the clincher:

Eventually, he hopes to train others to become observers at gun shows — and possibly to go one step further than he did and notify local police when they witness an illegal transaction.

This isn't science. This is a police state informant developing his own private snitch patrol--and I would hope any evidence he gathered would be inadmissible, since he's made it clear his real purpose is to effect criminal prosecutions.

Actually, I would hope he's done something for which he can be prosecuted and sued. And I wouldn't mind if he was forcibly ejected from the next gun show he attends.

In the mean time, as a public service, WarOnGuns would like to assist promoters, dealers and customers in detecting an enemy in their midst--feel free to adapt this into a flier to post and distribute at gun shows:

WARNING!
IF YOU SEE THIS MAN, NOTIFY SECURITY IMMEDIATELY.
HE IS GAREN J. WINTEMUTE,
AN ANTI-GUN "RESEARCHER" KNOWN TO STALK GUN SHOWS WITH HIDDEN CAMERAS AND RECORDERS. HE IS REPORTEDLY TRAINING HIS FOLLOWERS TO MONITOR YOUR TRANSACTIONS AND CALL THE POLICE!

I guess it's easier going after citizens at gun shows than it is stalking and reporting on criminals. It's sure a hell of a lot safer for "The Hero of Medicine"--because we know what the folks who are truly causing the problems do when they find snitches in their midst.

"The Hero of Medicine." That sounds like a title Stalin would hand out, doesn't it?

We're the Only Ones Contagious Enough

[Use BugMeNot to bypass site registration]

It is known in police parlance as "contagious shooting"-- gunfire that spreads among officers who believe that they, or their colleagues, are facing a threat. It spreads like germs, like laughter, or fear. An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too.

In other words, give an "Only One" a gun and mob mentality takes over? I think until we can ensure that this phenomenon has been drilled out of them, there's only one responsible solution.

[I found this link via a Slate article, which blames the guns, naturally, and I found that while reading some excellent commentary over at Armed and Safe.]

A New Gun Argument

The mayors, Menino said, do not want to meddle with the rights of hunters.

That's your "new gun argument"? Sorry pal, "The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting" bumper stickers have been around for years. Clinton and Kerry in camos didn't fool us then, and you're not fooling anyone but the fools now.

The National Rifle Association regularly says that we don't need new laws and should simply enforce the regulations on the books. But if many of the existing laws are unenforceable, that statement is meaningless.

That's because gun control laws don't work. Some of us wish NRA would accept that simple fact, but evidently they think that message resonates with enough voters to advance their agenda, and they're playing a political game.

Basically what you're saying is, if 20,000 laws on the books are ineffective, 20,001 will do the trick. In what other demonstration of cause and effect would that not be considered insane?

Yes, there is a cultural difference between big cities and rural areas, but it's a difference in how guns are used. Rural people treasure their guns mostly for hunting and recreation, and as collectors. In inner cities, guns -- especially handguns -- are used almost entirely to threaten or kill other human beings.

You want a "new gun argument"? You haven't got the guts to explore a "new gun argument."

But it's inarguable that the culture you rail against, where handgun abuse is the highest, resides in areas where the populace overwhelmingly votes in lock-step with the "gun control" slate.

Sorry, E. J. Dionne Jr. You've demonstrated nothing new here. You're just another in a long train of boringly unoriginal hacks trotting out the same old tired arguments as you cheer on the police state. You're just another ignorant socialist who would be useless in a defensive situation, but insistent on imposing your contemptible impotence on all men--as long as other men do the enforcement.

There’s a Reason Why They Call Us “Gun Nuts”

NRA Backs Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill

“[A]s one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations,” University of Connecticut editorialist Robert Schiering tells his readers in The Daily Campus, “the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.”

“People who bring guns into public buildings shouldn't have permits,” editorial letter writer and former mayoral candidate Charles Nance tells The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “They should have their heads examined.”

How often have we heard from the anti-choice in defense crowd that concealed carry will lead to Dodge City shootouts over fender-benders?

How often have we who warn against gun control’s “slippery slope” leading to confiscation been dismissed as paranoid?

The message is clear. Gun owners are psychotic, violent, out of control. We need to be treated for a mental disorder. And if we think anyone is trying to confiscate our guns, we’re paranoid to boot.

Enter Indiana Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored a bill that “would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous.”

Buell tells the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette “that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation.”

Buell was endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF in the 2004 campaign--which means if you contributed to it, you enabled him. Buell says NRA supports this confiscation without due process scheme—which means if you contributed to them, you have helped finance this edict.

So now we’re supposed to buy into street cops having the professional qualifications to adjudicate a person mentally ill, and then empower them to confiscate guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? What is this, Gitmo? And NRA “supports the legislation”?

Furthermore, the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill gives the cop immunity if he makes a bad call:

“6. (a) A person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts according to this article and…(3) participates in…(A) a proceeding under this article for the seizure or retention of a firearm possessed by an individual alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous…is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed as a result of the person's actions.”

Here are a few questions I’d like to see NRA management and their slate of candidates for the upcoming Board of Directors election address:

Does NRA really support this legislation as A-rated Rep. Buell claims?

Does Indiana have no laws providing for the restraint and arrest of someone acting violently? If arrestees behave bizarrely, are there no statutory provisions to place them into an evaluation facility? Is there no current lawful means of removing a person deemed harmful to himself and others from the general population into custodial care and treatment?

Or do we just let a cop—any cop—declare a citizen unfit to keep and bear arms, and then implement that decision under color of authority and force of arms—with guaranteed immunity?

While some will no doubt argue the bill has provisions guaranteeing the suspect individual a hearing, how many gun owners faced with such allegations are financially able to prevail against the unlimited resources of the state?

What guarantees are there, especially with the vague criterion of “reasonableness” cited in the bill, that this confiscation edict will not be exploited by anti-gun police administrations in the guidelines they establish for its execution? Is it not apparent that there is tremendous police management opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms, that they are looking for an excuse—any excuse—to disarm them? Doesn’t the same hold true for many of their political masters?

What if a woman is hysterical because a stalker or a vengeful ex-partner is threatening her? Seeing only the snapshot of her behavior at the moment, can we be assured the responding officer will not see fit to disarm her—for her own good? But, oh yeah, she can pick her gun back up in 45 days—if she can afford a lawyer, if she can afford a battery of self-financed psychological evaluations and if she hasn’t been attacked and killed in the interim.

Or how about a devastated individual grieving over the loss of a parent, spouse or child? Might there be instances where their behavior might indicate they are not in complete control of their emotions?

Is it not manifestly evident that the mere desire to own and use firearms is looked upon by anti-choice in defense advocates as a sign of mental instability? Doesn’t no less an “authority” than the American Psychological Association advise parents “Don't carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems”?

What do you think the APA would say about someone who believes the reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry was so that tyrannical leaders and their agents could be lethally repelled?

It has been my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, if we are to believe the Establishment Media (and, gee, why would we doubt them?), the single biggest mass murder in our nation’s history was initiated with mail room tools, the second biggest with fuel oil and fertilizer, and the third biggest with a dollar’s worth of gasoline.

How can any sane person advocate taking away a madman’s gun, but then leaving him free to wreak mayhem with box cutters and matches?

If the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill becomes law, look for it to spread to other locales, and even to be proposed at the national level. After all, George Bush, who NRA reportedly amassed a $20,000,000 reelection war chest for, has introduced his Orwellian-titled “New Freedom Initiative,” which recommends mental health screening of the entire US population, from pre-school children on.

These are some of the reasons why I came up with my NRA BOD Candidate Questionnaire, to support those who will use their office to rein in the “Winning Team’s” baffling affinity for subverting “shall not be infringed,” and to expose those who will not.

So here’s another question for the candidates: Will you be an apologist for this outrage, or will you publicly and vocally condemn it?