Needles in Haystacks

...or barbs in strawmen as the case may be.

This is a continuation following up the last post. After reading about the dangers guns pose to kidlets, I came across this one about the wimmen folk also from the Brady site.

This one is so poorly presented that the required lapses in logic are beyond even my most irrational rantings. (I hope you enjoyed that last sentence as much as I did.)

I will first examine the opening sentence.

For years, the gun industry and gun lobby have perpetrated the myth that owning guns will protect women from violent crime.

I think this is incorrect. I cannot conclusively say that none from the gun industry or lobby has claimed that owning guns will protect women from violent crime. I do know that many have claimed using guns against violent criminals has protected them.

Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence.

Again, the wording is poor. It should read, "Using guns protects women from violence." Also notice the change of gun violence to just violence. As I have stated, the Brady Campaign seems set in their belief that gun violence is somehow worse than other violence.

Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are
disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent.

This might be correct but lacks substantive data. I checked its source and while it references other data, it is not available to the public at large. For it to be meaningful, it would have to be proven that the presense of firearms is the cause for higher suicide rates. The researchers themselves state that the evidence is circumstantial.

Fact: In the US, regions with higher levels of handgun ownership have higher suicide rates. Although women have higher rates of depression than men, it is the handgun-suicide connection, rather than depression, that accounts for higher suicide rates.

It also does not mention the attempted suicide rates as a whole. I have no problem believing that there are more "successful" suicides when guns are used. This still however begs the question, "If some other agent where used when committing suicide that were more prevalent, would it not be just as bad?"

Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.

Grammar mistakes aside... this should be worded, "Using handguns increases a women's ability to defend herself." Owning a handgun no more makes a person a good shooter than owning a set of golf clubs makes him a good golfer. It is important that should anyone choose to defend himself with a firearm, he should be proficient with it. This is especially important for women in general.

Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.

I am not sure why this fact is being used. It is completely irrelevant to the purported myth. It might be important if it stated, "...women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with their own handgun than to use their own handgun to kill in self-dense." The same applies for the second and third sentences too. The fact that for every one woman who chooses to defend herself there are 101 who do not supports just the opposite. If those 101 others where carrying (and knew how to use their firearms) at the time of their murder, would they still have been murdered?

Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.

So if they know their attackers, they should not be allowed to defend themselves? This is also completely irrelevant and if anything, supports the opposite.

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.

I will keep doing this as long as I must... It should read, "Using guns against rapists protect women." Once worded correctly, it is not a myth and is nearly indisputable.

Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns, while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

Why does it matter what rapists use? If rapists are not using guns, that is all the better for women who have (and are able to use) guns. I am sure that the definition of "personal weapons" and their relation to "(physical violence)" is riveting and worthy of discussion but that is not important to the subject at hand.

Excuse the tangent: If a woman is going to have a gun, she should be able to use the gun. This is the same with knowing self-defense. Being able to break a brick with her hand will not help her at all if she will not hit her attacker. However, she can be a fifth degree black belt and that will be of little use to her if she is attacked by several men at once. If those men have guns, she is as helpless as a 80 year old woman with bone cancer unless she is armed herself.

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.

Women need to use guns against rapists whether they know them or not. A woman must decide what she can face the rest of her life. If she cannot perish the though of killing someone, she needs to be able to shoot to wound. This requires a deal of skill. She may better serve her interests by learning to "deal with the thought."

Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are
committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.

Whoever wrote this cannot even stay within the confines of his own argument. The fact that most women know their attackers does not address those who are raped by strangers. Given the last two "myths" I am unable to determine if the author deems it acceptable to use a gun in self-defense regardless of the situation. It seems as if he is saying, "You may not use a gun to defend yourself against either someone you know or someone you don't know." The message may as well be, "Carry a condom and hope he'll use it."

The latter part may just as well be used to justify lowering the age of those who may have (and use) firearms. This is something that I have been considering for sometime.

I believe that if parents are willing to take the responsibility, their children should be able to carry firearms. That is a post for another time though.

It still does not take into account the other 40 percent. This time it seems as if the author is saying, "Minors cannot defend themselves when they are raped so adults cannot either."


My message to women (and pretty much everyone) is thus: Defend yourselves and your families by any and every means necessary. Know how to use your hands, your knives, and your guns. Know that anything is a weapon that you may use and that may be used against you. If you are mentally unstable, take some responsibility and do what you must to protect yourself and your family - even if that means separating yourself from them for a while. Never let anyone dictate to you how to protect yourselves. Hope for the best in all situations but be prepared for the worst.

Would You Rather They'd Been Pushed out of Windows?

From our friends at the Brady Campaign comes these statistics. While the numbers may be accurate, they lack context and frame of reference skirt over the arguments for gun rights.

They do not say that it cannot be reprinted without permission but it is all public data from CDC anyway...

So let us take them one-by-one (data only goes to 2004):

• In 2004, 1,804 children and teenagers were murdered in gun homicides, 846 committed
suicide with guns, and 143 died in unintentional shootings. A total of 2,852 young people
were killed by firearms in the U.S., one every three hours.

They included the suicides here. Is it possible for one to murder himself? Germany and Japan both have very strict guns laws and higher suicide rates. Finland has laws almost as strict as Germany and their suicide rate is even higher. Also included are the children who were killed by their parents. The context that this lacks is the number - estimated of course - that would have been killed even had there been stricter gun laws or no guns at all. I disagree with including the suicides but even if you do, you must ask, "How many would have committed suicide by some other means?"

• In 2004, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.

Again, how many of these were suicides, killed by their parents, or would have been killed by any other means? Just because they were killed with a gun does not mean that they would still be alive. It may also mean that they had a relatively quick and less painful death compared to others that they might have suffered.

• During 2004, 55% of all murders of those under age 18 in the U.S. involved firearms.

So, looking at the last two stats, ages one through twelve and nineteen are pretty dangerous firearm years? Same as the last statistic, without the other numbers, this is meaning less. If there were only 100 children murdered and 55 were with firearms, it would still be the same percentage and no more or less a basis for banning guns.

• Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young
people 19 and under in the U.S.

Firearms are not a "cause of death." They can be a used to cause death but require something else, such as someone pulling a trigger. They correctly state that motor vehicle accidents are a cause. To be consistent, they need to say that firearm accidents or homicides are a cause of death. This is another example of how they continue to miss the main point.

• The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than
in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

They do not mention which countries these are. Are the combined populations of these other countries roughly equal to that of the U.S.? Actually, they are probably greater, given that you can pick the 25 most populous countries on the planet, exluding the U.S., and they will have much more strict firearms laws. To correctly frame this argument, they need to provide the combined homicide, suicide, and violent crime numbers of these other countries.

• In 2004, for every child and teenager killed by a gun, nearly five were estimated to be
non-fatally wounded.

This is a statistic but makes no argument on its own. Would it be better if all six had been killed by a gun? Would it be better if none had been killed by a gun? I am guessing the latter would be a "yes" but then the statistic would still be just that: a raw stat with no frame of reference and no argument using it for support.

• From 1999 to 2004, firearms were responsible for 18% of injury deaths for Caucasian
teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 51% of deaths for African-American teens, 31% of
Hispanic teens, 18% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 19% of Asian/Pacific
Islander teens.

What is the ultimate goal of providing a statistic like this: Banning ownership of firearms in predominantly African-American communities until the 51% is down to 18%? I realize this is done quite often and find it irresposible at best. Had the numbers been the opposite, then the using this statistic might have merit. As it is, black and hispanic communites already have some of strictest gun laws in the country so should not these numbers be reversed?

The statistic is flawed in its wording as well. Not firearms but firearms misuse is the cause and those misusing them are responsible.

• In a study of inner-city 7-year-olds and their exposure to violence, 75% of them reported
hearing gun shots.

There are many things that are and could be wrong with this statistic. It begs the question, "Does every 7-year-old studied know what a gun shot sounds like and can tell the difference between a car misfiring, a television, or any other loud 'crack'?"

What were the questions asked to discern this? Poll results that do not provide the questions or other salient information about those questioned have little, if any, value.

• "The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is 10 times larger than the
polio epidemic of the first half of this century."

An "epidemic" relates to either a bacterial or viral, i.e. an infectious, disease. I am sure that those providing the statistics would like to think of firearm injuries as something that can be treated as such, that comparison can jade the views of those seeing the statistics. The result of which is the reader thinks less of the statistics overall. If someone is already in concurrence with the provider of the statistic, there is no problem. Someone who is reviewing the facts and may be swayed may just as well discount the whole study.

With regard to the numbers, no census data is provided. How many children were there in the last half of "this century?" It appears that whoever put the data together thought that we were still in the twentieth century. (The statistics were compiled from 2004 data.)

Firearm injuries may be more prevalent now than then numbers should be provided for reference. The references given in the statistics have the same fallacies, i.e. numbers are provided but sources and context is lacking.


The belief of restricting firearms to prevent violence is tantamount to treating the symptoms of an injury without trying to cure it. While it may make the injured feel better, it does not do much more than that.

Of course, the biggest issue that is missed is the overall amount of violence. The Brady Campaign is only concerned with "gun violence." They disregard the greater issue reducing crime / violence against the innocent. In fact, I say they do it to the detriment of the other.

PhoneMort Update

Well now i'M iRate. There are a few shortcomings with the iPhone that are inexcusable. There are some business practices at play here that are as well.

Shortcomings:
There is no copy and paste. iThought that this was supposed to be a smartphone replacement. Some even said it would be a laptop replacement. On occasion iDevelop software and run services from my laptop. iKnew it would not replace that but jeez...

Only one address per SMS and no "Reply-All" option. This is only made worse by the lack of copy and paste.

No vcards for sending or receiving. iUsed to transfer my contact information from my old palm phone via iR. Once phones started going to bluetooth, iWas limited in my ability to transfer contacts. Now iCannot transfer contact information at all. It all has to be typed.

iHave to email people my, and others', contact information which cannot be copied and pasted into the email. If a contact has more than one email address, it goes to the first address; there is no choosing.

There are numerous software bugs that can be expected in a first release that do not bother as much except for one...

With multiple mail clients on my laptop, iDo not always have the primary one active. If iSync the phone with the non-main account running, all of my contacts are deleted and replaced with the active mail account's contacts. Moreover, the warning message states that it will modify more than five contacts on the computer. All changes made since the last sync are lost. PhoneMort* was almost used for target practice after that happened.

There are a number of business practices that fell into play here too. Again, it was the "unadvertised ones" that bother me:

The developer API was extremely limited in scope. iThought Microsoft was bad about this.

LNP was not fully tested. This is what allows mobile customers to retain their phone numbers when switching operators. This was a rush to market with regard to least used scenarios.
Fortunately, most of these things can be fixed with software improvements. Failing that, a hardware upgrade in .44 caliber may be needed.

*PhoneMort is the name for my phone. Even if iTunes did not require that devices be named, it would still be PhoneMort. Why PhoneMort? Because my wife's iPod is "PodMort" so "PhoneMort" just seemed to follow.

Taking Inventory

So I went to the range again today, bringing along my "reading material" and a new shooter.

I try to take at least ten new shooters shooting every year. I also try to bring along as many others who have shot but are not yet "in the habit." These are not set in stone numbers but just general guidelines.

This year, I have taken shooting:

1 x Mexican (this evening / new shooter)
1 x Israeli (this evening and the week before last / shot twice before - once while conscripted and once for fun)
1 x Ghanaian (this month / new shooter)
1 x General Euro Mix (OK, he is a Portugese citizen from Germany with Latvian heritage / shot several times before / first time with me and usually since / yeah... I got him "into the habit")
1 x Pole (last month / new shooter)
1 x Washatonian (Washatesian? / shot a few times before / originally from Florida)
1 x Chinese (Taiwanese actually / few months ago / new shooter)
2 x Finns (husband and wife / few months ago / he shot rifles when he was a teen)
1 x Dane (a few months ago / shot .22's a few times when he was a boy)
2 x Israelis (boyfriend and girlfriend / not counted with the other Israeli because that may have been last December / I cannot remember / both shot either an Uzi or M-16 while conscripted and she had also shot some unknown pistol)

Of course I have brought my older daughter with me shooting several times but she is neither a new shooter nor anywhere near old enough to go shooting by herself (ergo "habit" need not apply).

The Ghanaian was really unique. We spent three hours at the range that night. The Israeli, the GenEurMix, and my Washington shooting buddy where all there too. We started him and the Israeli on a .22LR pistol (Kimber .22/.45 conversion then switched to a Ruger Mk. II). They then shot my 9mm, my buddy's .40, his MAC-10, and his .44 Magnum. We were making so much noise and had spent so much, the range brought out a .500 Magnum and gave a round to each of us. He shot it too. Having never shot before that evening, he went from a .22LR to a .500 Magnum within three hours. He is "chomping at the bit" to go again.

I wrote about the Pole a few weeks ago. That was the only time I have ever really been scared around firearms. The fact that they were loaded, less than two feet away, in the hands of a novice, and pointed at my face had a lot to do with that.

I have pretty much met my quota for the year and given that I have planned to do a lot less travel after August, the "foreigners" will have to wait.

Our homeschool group, however, has asked for someone to coach a trap shooting and rifle team. My wife volunteered me before I even knew about it.

Looks like I will be taking many more before 2008.

They Don't Care What You Read

So I arrived at DFW airport last night a bit earlier than expected. This was good; although at the time, I thought I had wasted half an hour. I usually feel that I have wasted time if the door does not hit me as I get on the plane.

I figured that I would stop by the airline club and get something to drink or one of the free stale cookies that they always leave for weary travellers.

Boy was I wrong.

As usual, I was checking a firearm. There is a nice indoor range not too far from one of the offices in Washington. I always try to bring as many people as possible to get them into shooting. I also try to bring old shooters that have not been in a while. I also bring my range bag with spare goggles and ear phones, Shoot-N-C (tm) targets, and spare magazines.

I declared to the Check In Agent the firearm. She took inventory. She said that she had to see it to make sure that it was unloaded. I do not know why they say this. Only once has the Check In Agent actually cleared the weapon, verifying that the inserted magazine and chamber are empty. To the TSA's credit, they check it. They always do. Sometimes they do several times.

Fortunately, I am not bringing ammunition this time. I split a few cases with some friends last trip and decided that I would keep it with them. This would save both the time and the hassle of checking ammunition. Firearms are easy to check. Ammunition is not.

So I was a little surprised when the Check In Agent said, "You're overweight."

And I say, "Well you're ugly." (Not really but I thought it would be fun to add that.) I know that I am not as trim as I used to be but I exercise and am still somewhat slender. My bag, which does not have ammunition in it is still eight pounds overweight.

I was overweight on my last trip and had to pay an extra $25 to the airline for the inconvenience of having a heavy bag. I am sure that they use that to offset the medical costs of the injuries that their baggage handlers receive when they lift a fifty-eight pound bag. However, I could not help but feel that they were soaking me just because they could.

So this time around I was determined that I would not pay that non-reimbursable travel expense. She said I could check another bag. In my big bag was my range bag but it is just a shoulder backpack. I did not think that could be checked. So I took out my shoes and rangebag with the plan of carrying them onto the plane.

I told her that it was my range bag and that it had thumbtacks and magazines in it. She said they would be fine.

I went down to the TSA bag check and gave them my now barely underweight bag. While they verified that my firearm was unloaded, I tore through my range bag for anything that might not be carried onto the plane. I took out my buck knife which I knew was in there. I searched and searched again for any loose ammunition.

After giving my knife to the TSA agent to put into my check bag, locking my check bag, and satisfied that everything was fine, I went to the security check.

I use three bins: computer, non-computer metalic items, and non-metalic x-rayable items (such as sandals). It takes a while for everything to go through. I stand there at the opening of the x-ray waiting to put on all of my items.

My range bag is the first thing. The pretty TSA guard at the x-ray monitor looks panicked. She then calls another agent over to her. He looks at it. He then calls another agent to look at it. The first agent looks at me and says, "Ummm... Sir."

That is not a statement or a question. I am not sure what she is saying but since she is the prettiest TSA agent I have ever seen - maybe the only one now that I think of it - I decide not to correct her poor conversational skills and instead say, "I had not intended on carrying that bag onto the plane."

My fear is that I somehow managed to miss some loose rounds. I am normally very particular about how I pack ammunition on a plane. So are the airlines and the TSA. I figure a loose round is good enough to get me arrested and interrogated and possibly spend some time in jail. I thought, "I'm at least going to miss my flight."

After closing my line and directing everyone else to the others, they take a few more minutes and let me pass through. They give me a "PC pat down" and let me gather my things - everything except the range bag that is.

They ask if they can go through it. I was as courteous and polite as I could be. So were they. I thought for a moment, this is going to be the most pleasant experice I have ever had on my way to jail.

Then a moment of dread: if carrying a loose round through airport security is a felony offense and I cannot prove that I was not an accident, I will be a felon and will not be able to own firearms anymore. Then I thought I might be over-reacting. Then I thought, "To hell with it. There are probably a few laws that I need to be ignoring anyway. That would be as good as any."

As they went through, the senior agent showed great interest in the Shoot-N-C (tm) targets. I explained what they were and he said, "Neat." He then pulled the magazines aside and finished with the bag.

He looked at me and said that they could not be carried onto the plane and that he would have to do a full report. At that time, I had an option of either putting them into a checked bag, mailing them home, or surrendering them. I did not know if my checked bag had already made it to the gate but thought that I would see what I could do.

He took a lot of information from me. I relayed the part about the Check In Agent telling me that the magazines were fine to be carried. He showed the thumbtacks to the pretty agent who, being relatively new I discovered, thought they might be rounds facing up on the monitor. He was also able to see which agent it was that had Checked Me In on my ticket.

He said that I would likely get a letter in the mail at least in a follow up investigation and that the Check In Agent would be beaten a bit too. He gave me my magazines and escorted me out of the terminal.

Back at the counter, the same agent was working. I told her how magazines were not OK to be carried and that they needed to be checked. She gave me the funniest of looks. I took out a set of earphones to make room, put my shoes in my range bag, and asked the agent to use a zip-tie to secure it. I wish I had thought of that originally.

As I put the magazines back into the bag she said, "Oh, those have to be checked."

I told her that I had mentioned them when I took my range from my large suit case.

She said, "Oh. I thought you meant reading material."

The stale cookies will have to wait until next time.

As Easy as Saying One, Two, Three

In this interview via LGF, Hirsi Ali makes several glowing statements about America - and in general Western - democracy and freedoms. The host may have been playing the devil's advocate or may have just been an idiot but he asked incredulously, "How can you say [such great things] about America?"

He also argues against "extreme Christianity" and how it is just as bad as "radical Islam."

She shuts him down quite easily. She points out that when a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, he goes to jail. Then talks about how the murderers of a couple publicly holding hands in Iran not only go free, they are often "working" on the government's behalf.

She also mentions how he, having grown up in Canada and wealth, has no concept of authoritarian or totalitarian oppression and can therefore spit on his freedoms.

He also asks how she can say things like a penniless immigrant can come to the U.S. and become wealthy.

Perhaps I have known too many immigrants come from communist countries that became millionaires. More than any other country, a person can grow his business in America - even moreso than the old capitalist Hong Kong.

Having known literally hundreds of people who became successful (by their own definitions) in America, I would say that it is easy to say.

Buggering of a Lifetime

Of course I am referring to the IRS.

I pay a lot of taxes. When I was an independant contractor, I paid a lot of taxes. I am now a regular employee of a medium-large size company and I still pay a lot of taxes.

I am now having to go back to past tax years of when I an independant contractor and redo my taxes because of not paying enough Selp Employment Tax. What the IRS says I owe now works out to around forty-two percent of what I made those years.

I am no fan of progressive taxes but that's just ridiculous. Had I not been independant, that would have been around fifteen percent.

I am now left with refiguring them, etc. They will review my resubmissions but unfortunately, their large accounts recoverable (receivable, whateverable) moves a whole lot faster than their reconsideration department. I will likely have to pay it or suffer liens and levies until that gets paid and hope that the overall amount is lowered sometime in the future. Did not the levies burst?

It is things like this that make Americans want to rent Ryder trucks, stop by the Ace hardware, and then pay a visit to the nearest IRS office. Or even worse... support Ron Paul for President.

Hyperbole aside, I need to get this resolved and it is not fun.