Author: Kevin

Just Fvcking Marvelous

Looks like we’ve got another random serial killer.

Excerpt 1:

Serial sniper suspected in convenience store killings in W.Va.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Bullets that killed three victims this week outside Kanawha County convenience stores were fired from the same caliber and class of weapon, police said Friday night, but they stopped short of saying they were fired from the same gun.

“All three balls had the same characteristics,” Kanawha County Sheriff Dave Tucker said after getting ballistics results from a State Police crime lab. “But we can’t say for sure it’s the same gun.”

Excerpt 2:

Sniper suspect is large white man

Shooter might be serial killer, sheriff says.

Police speculated Friday that a large, white male driving a black pickup with an extended cab may be responsible for Thursday night’s killings outside two Kanawha County convenience stores, and possibly others.

Kanawha Sheriff Dave Tucker said at a Friday afternoon media conference that the killer “could be a possible serial-type murderer.”

Both victims of Thursday night’s convenience store shootings, Jeanie Patton, 31, and Okey Meadows, 26, were shot in the head area in a manner similar to the shooting of Gary Carrier Jr., 44, who was shot outside a Charleston convenience store Sunday night.

Please, let some armed citizen whack this nutcase.

Frank J. Continues his Firearms Tutorial

Money quote:

500 S&W Magnum: After caving in the anti-gun nuts, Smith & Wesson had to win back the heart of their consumers. They did this by making a freaking huge handgun caliber. If someone is robbing the house four houses down from you, you can shoot through all the houses and hit him with this.

If all of these calibers are too weak for you, those crazy Israelis at Magnum Research can make revolvers for you chambered in rifle rounds like the venerable .30-.30. The only purpose of these is to freak out people at a gun range, and it takes a lot to freak out people at a gun range.

Go read the rest here.

Hurry. Frank has declared WAR!! on Glenn Reynolds.

His site could become a smoking radioactive crater at any time.

THIS is TOO Weird!

Try it!

(Nod to Feces Flinging Monkey for the link)

Another Friday Five

1. How much time do you spend online each day?

Way, way too much.

2. What is your browser homepage set to?

I have a version of John C. Dvorak’s Personal Portal installed on my harddrives both at home and at work. I like it.

3. Do you use any instant messaging programs? If so, which one(s)?

No. I use the IM feature over at AR15.com occasionally (when the site is up – the servers are in NY and are still down.)

4. Where was your first webpage located?

You’re lookin’ at it!

5. How long have you had your current website?

Let’s see…Since Wednesday, May 14, 2003 at about 1:00 PM. (First post was 1:39, but I managed to wipe my first contribution without posting it. Newbies, sheesh.)

More on the Gun Industry Bankrupting Lawsuits

From that font of information, Jointogether.org, comes this update on the D.C. sniper lawsuit against Bushmaster:

Denied Again: Judge Refuses Bushmaster’s Plea In Sniper Lawsuit

Tacoma, WA – Bushmaster, a gun distributor and manufacturer that is charged with supplying the DC-area sniper suspects with their assault weapon, was denied its second plea for a dismissal in the sniper lawsuit. The decision was announced in a ruling by Judge Frank E. Cuthbertson of the Pierce County Superior Court in Tacoma, Washington, on August 11, 2003. The court refused to overturn its prior ruling where it held that based on plaintiffs’ allegations, Bushmaster knew or should have known that Bull’s Eye was a reckless and incompetent dealer. The case is presently set to go to trial next July.

Really? “Charged with supplying…?” Bushmaster isn’t charged with anything. That implies that there is a criminal “charge” layed. Bushmaster is defendant in a lawsuit where it is accused of negligence.

Bushmaster supplied the gun? It was my understanding that Malvo admitted to stealing it. And if Bushmaster “knew or should have known that Bull’s Eye was a reckless and incompetent dealer” then why isn’t the BATF being sued for not pulling their Federal Firearms License? Bull’s Eye, if you weren’t aware, was connected to Buford Furrow in 1997 when one of the guns he possessed was traced back to that shop. Bull’s Eye had been investigated by the BATF for some time prior to Malvo’s five-finger discount, according to this story. In fact, Bull’s Eye could not account for 160 firearms two years prior to the theft of the Bushmaster rifle. So, who really is responsible? Sure as hell not Bushmaster, but they’ll pay through the nose to defend themselves from this ridiculous lawsuit.

Question: Does the BATF tell gun manufacturers that licensed dealers are “reckless and incompetent?” If not, how else would they know?

Question 2: If the BATF can prove a licensed dealer is “reckless and incompetent,” why don’t they pull the license?

The DC-area sniper suspects, who were prohibited purchasers, obtained their assault rifle through the negligence of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Washington, one of Bushmaster’s handpicked gun dealers. The gun lobby is attempting to override the judge’s decision in this case and other gun related lawsuits with federal legislation immunizing the gun industry from liability in virtually all civil suits brought by gun violence victims.

So, according to the Brady Center (source for this “release”) theft = negligence. If someone steals from you, you were obviously negligent and it’s all your fault. All actions involving the stolen property are also your responsibility. Therefore, by this logic, if someone steals my truck and uses it in a drive-by shooting, I am liable and can be sued by the victims and their families because I was negligent and allowed the vehicle to be stolen, and both the dealership and Ford are liable because they knew they were selling a vehicle into a high-theft area.

Makes sense to me. (Not!)

Daniel Vice, an attorney for nine families of victims of the DC-area snipers said, “Any Senator who honestly reviews this case of negligent and reckless behavior by these gun sellers would immediately work to defeat the special interest legislation that seeks to strip away the rights of gun violence victims. The gun lobby’s mission to protect bad apple gun sellers and take away victims’ rights is absolutely detrimental to America’s public safety.” Mr. Vice is a Staff Attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

That fisks itself. I can’t do it justice.

The suit was filed on January 16, 2003 against Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., the distributor and manufacturer of the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S .223 caliber semi-automatic assault rifle used by the snipers and against Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, the gun dealer from which the Bushmaster mysteriously “disappeared,” ending up in the hands of the snipers. A total of 238 guns have “disappeared” from Bull’s Eye’s store in three years – an average of more than one gun per week. Bull’s Eye’s guns have been traced to more than fifty crimes. The suit also names as defendants the two individual owners of Bull’s Eye, Brian Borgelt and Charles N. Carr, as well as sniper suspects John Muhammad and Lee Malvo.

If they could prove that Bull’s Eye sold the gun “under the table” to Muhammed or Malvo, then they have a case – against the shop. If an employee of Bull’s Eye ripped it off and sold it, they’d have a case against that employee. But in no way could it be the responsibility of Bushmaster. Again, if Bull’s Eye was known to be “reckless or incompetent” to the BATF, then they should have yanked the license (which they finally did.) Why isn’t the BATF being sued? Oh, right – in order to sue the government, you have to get its permission. Not bleeding likely.

The suit charges Bull’s Eye with operating its gun shop in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of guns, including the high-powered Bushmaster, inexplicably “disappeared” from the store. The suit asserts that Bull’s Eye took the gun into its inventory in July 2002, that both sniper suspects visited the store after that date and that Muhammad practiced his sharpshooting in the store’s shooting range. Because both sniper suspects were legally prohibited from buying guns, they could not have obtained the gun without the gun shop’s negligence. Bushmaster Firearms is charged with negligence in continuing to sell high-firepower assault rifles through Bull’s Eye even though government audits of the store had revealed hundreds of “missing” guns.

Government audits from before the theft of the gun. Again, since when is “theft” equal to “negligence?” And why is it BUSHMASTER’s fault? (Because they are eeeeeeevil and have the deepest pockets – conditions which to liberals are often one and the same. But we are talking a gun manufacturer here. They’re especially eeeeeevil.)

Legislation to grant the gun industry unprecedented immunity from legal claims passed the House of Representatives on April 9 of this year. It is currently pending in the Senate with 54 cosponsors. Several Senators have vowed a filibuster against the bill should it move to the Senate floor. The National Rifle Association has declared that the immunity legislation is its top legislative priority in Congress.

And this case is a perfect example of why.

The NRA Gets Off its Ass and On the Silveira Bandwagon

After opposing the Silveira case in the California court system, the NRA files an amicus brief in favor of the case being heard by the Supreme Court. It’s a good one, too. Go read.

My favorite part? They hammer on the “incorporation” question right off the bat. That one’s been my particular hobby-horse since I started studying gun “control.”

Here’s hoping.

And This is a Bad Thing…Why?

Artist is John Sherffius, St. Louis Post Dispatch.

I don’t think that’s supposed to be my reaction to the cartoon, but it is. It’s also my reaction to this one, also by Mr. Sheriffus:

Apparently I just don’t get it.

Good for me.

Things That Make You Go “Hmm….”

On the way in to work this morning, I was behind a car that had a standard 8.5×11″ piece of paper taped up in the hatchback window. Printed on it was a quotation, apparently printed on an ink-jet or laser printer in a bold, legible font:

“Nothing Enduring is Built on Violence” – Gandhi

Well, isn’t that profound. But what was the point?

Of course, my first thought was “This person is a Bushwar protester” – as in “The use of violence to oust Saddam will result in nothing good.” But then I thought about it a bit more. Saddam came to power violently, and maintained his rule violently. And he did not endure.

But it took violence to oust him.

What we’re trying to do in Iraq now is non-violent – the reconstruction of a nation and the establishment of representative government.

Gandhi said some other things, too, one of which was:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

Gandhi had a lot to say about the use of violence, but what it seems to boil down to is that initiating violence is evil, responding to it is not. The difference between those who oppose and those who support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is the understanding that those invasions were a response to, not an initiation of violence.

This is why I find the liberal desire for the U.S. to intervene militarily in Liberia so hypocritical. They expect us to go in there and bang heads in order to stabilize the country, but they object to our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s use of violence in all three cases. The only difference is that Liberia has essentially zero U.S. national security implications. The same cannot be said about Iraq nor Afghanistan.

The funny thing is, the use of non-violent protest in the mode of Gandhi would probably be effective in Liberia – assuming you could get the international press to pay much attention. The use of non-violent protest in Iraq and Afghanistan would only have resulted in a lot more mass graves.

Often non-violence doesn’t work.

Ask the victims of Tiananmen Square.

“We are Kevin of Blog. You Will be Assimiliated. Resistance is Futile.”

(Thanks to Kevin Schaum of Lazypundit for the title of this post.)

Kevin of Whizbangblog has this week’s Blogging Kevins post up, and I’m a contributor. Damn, there are a lot of us! (I almost used Kevin McGehee’s post title: “My God! It’s Full of Kevins!” but that would be unethical.)

Steven “Spock” Den Beste has a three part essay up on the difference between Europe and America, and some predictions as to what the future holds for Europe. In particular, I found this passage fascinating:

(T)he general trend in Europe is to continue to reduce the work week while continuing to implement policies which give businesses a disincentive to invest and hire. If there’s any way out of this trap, I haven’t seen any discussion of it.

There are really only a few ways this can end. First, the voters in Europe could come to their senses and face the reality that their current policies are unsustainable. They’d have to accept a radical reduction in entitlements, a radical reduction in business regulations, and a lot of other changes all of which would be viewed in the short term as being hostile to labor and friendly to business. There would have to be broad acknowledgement that Socialism isn’t economically sustainable. But before there can be any chance of that kind of political change, things are going to have to get a lot worse. And if things do get worse, that’s probably not how the voters would react.

For one thing, the kind of people who would feel that way and help push the system socialism won’t be there. Europe has a safety valve to release capitalist sympathizers: they emigrate to the US. People who hate the US system will stay behind and it will be those who will end up trying to solve this. (It’s one of several ways in Europe is badly damaged by brain drain.)

So what’s far more likely is that the voters will blame business leaders. They’re generally thought of as villains now, and eventually someone will point out that if business leaders are unwilling to take the risk of expansion, then the government will need to force them to do so. The business leaders should be making their decisions on the basis of social conscience, not in crass pursuit of profit. Profit is evil anyway, and if the leaders refuse to serve their nations the way they should, well then we’ll damned well force them to do what’s right. And that way we can get job growth without having to eliminate the extremely important and obviously just job protection regulations or reward the filthy money-grubbing capitalists with tax cuts.

As I’ve noted, I’m slogging through Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and that is her entire premise in a nutshell.

I’ve said in here before that she never made a point she wasn’t willing to beat to a bloody pulp, but that doesn’t mean she was wrong.

I disagree with a lot of the Objectivist philosophy, but when it comes down to describing the behavior of socialist governments and the people willing to live under them, she was, apparently, spot-on.

Steven concludes, though, with this cheery prediction:

So in the end what you’ll get is economic collapse. There are various ways in which this can play out, but none of them are good. And as long as Europe is locked in this economic death-spiral, they are unlikely to be a military threat to us, and at least that’s a blessing.

But what comes after the collapse or emerges politically during the collapse? The historical record suggests a new rise of Fascism is the most likely outcome. In the midst of economic chaos, with a huge population of unemployed and people who are dissatisfied, charismatic leaders will appear who will blame the problems on foreigners and claim they can solve the problems if only they’re given unrestrained power. Once elected, they abolish elections, dismantle most of the programs which are causing trouble, and actually do improve the business climate. But they do other things, too, and few of them are likely to be good.

The classic example of this is the rise of the Nazis after the fall of the Weimar Republic, but that’s by no means the only example of that kind of thing from European history. Historically speaking, when things go to hell in a handbasket, Europeans tend to look for charismatic and nationalistic demagogues who promise them pride and glory in exchange for strict obedience. That’s a price Europeans have seemed almost eager to pay.

We can’t discount the possibility that in fifty years the EU and most existing national governments in Europe will be gone, replaced by a new Fascist dictatorship, which among other things chooses to make the investment in a modern military and which hopes to use it in yet another round of world conquest.

And we might not be able to interfere before this point, because France has nuclear weapons. Even though Europe won’t have the ability to threaten us using conventional forces for the next few decades, they do have the ability to threaten us with nuclear conflagration. Of course, if they nuked us we’d also nuke them, but the threat of it means that we might not be able to significantly interfere to prevent the rise of a new Europe-wide Fascist state, which could follow historical patterns and become militaristic and expansionist.

If that happened, the world would become a very interesting but much less safe place.

Which doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies for the future my grandchildren will be living in. But I think Steven makes a very strong case, the same as that made by Alexander Tytler. I just hope that we are able to avoid the same fate here. A lot can happen in 50 years.