Mailvox: why criminals should have guns

TimF encounters an unfamiliar mindset:


I guess I’m also confused when the far right nuts are against things like the Brady bill…which is just trying to make sure criminals don’t have gun access. How could anyone be against that?

I am absolutely against that. Why? Because it is an absolute impossibility. Consider the following: a few years ago, the Chinese government decided to crack down on illegal firearms. By using the full power of the totalitarian state, they managed to seize 120,000 illegal guns in one month.

Now, the significant thing is that all guns had been illegal for fifty years, fifty years of totalitarian government where 38 million people were murdered by the government in the Great Leap Forward. If you cannot manage to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms in 50 years of murderous totalitarian government, you have absolutely no hope of doing it in a society with even a modicum of freedom.

Israeli soldiers have sold their rifles to Palestinian terrorists. How hard would it be to arrange for a pot-smoking National Guardsman to “lose” his M-16? It might cost less than buying one at the gun store. Police weapons are stolen from parked police cars; manage an effective gun ban and you’ll have policemen being jumped simply to steal their Glocks. And miniature stamping presses allow those who are reasonably handy to manufacture their own – the Chinese found more than one in their massive investigation.

One might as reasonably rely on the Gun Fairy taking the guns away. The only thing gun control ensures is that the bad guys outgun the good guys. It’s only considered an option for those who haven’t thought the issue through.

Advertisements

More Guns Less Crime – the flip side


The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

Naturally, gun control advocates will assert that this proves nothing and that more study is needed until one tiny piece of information is found that supports their mythical case, at which point that will be the only data referenced in the media.

If the legacy media had any interest in the facts, this report would suffice to stop their incessant drumbeat for gun control. But as they’ve repeatedly proved in the past, any correlation between the demonstrable truth and the legacy media agenda is merely accidental.

On fire like an inferno

Reuben Frank of Sports Illustrated praises a genuine All-Pro QB:


Culpepper has 37 TD passes, which is the seventh-most in NFL history, behind only Manning this year, Kurt Warner in 1999 and Brett Favre twice in the mid-1990s. And Culpepper has completed 69.8 percent of his passes, which if he maintains it would be fifth-best in NFL history, behind only Kenny Anderson in 1982, Sammy Baugh in 1945 and Steve Young and Joe Montana once each.

No quarterback in NFL history has ever thrown for as many yards with as many touchdowns in the same season as Culpepper. Including Manning.

No quarterback in NFL history has thrown for as many yards with such a high completion percentage. Including Manning.

No quarterback in NFL history has thrown for as many touchdowns with such a high completion percentage. Including Manning.

If Culpepper continues at his current pace in the Vikings’ final game, at Washington — and throws fewer than five interceptions — he will finish the season with the fewest interceptions among any quarterback in history to throw for more than 4,700 yards. Right now, the fewest INTs by a quarterback with 4,700 yards is 17, shared by Dan Fouts in 1981 and Marino in 1984. Culpepper has only 11, so he should annihilate that record.

I’ll be the first to admit that Donovan McNabb has significantly improved his game with a bona fide #1 receiver. But I do not retract my statement that Culpepper is a better quarterback and one more worthy of adulation despite the fact that, as usual, the NFC East quarterbacks get all the press. Even though Owens was healthy for most of the season and Moss wasn’t, Culpepper outperformed McNabb on a statistical basis, and as for the win-loss record, the difference between Philadelphia’s defense (14.8 ppg, #1) and Minnesota’s (24.9 ppg, #25) – not to mention the difference between Andy Reid and Mike Tice – is more than enough to account for the five-game disparity. Let’s face it, Tice alone has blown three games this year, Chicago, Seattle and Green Bay.

And even if Steve McNair hadn’t been injured, I don’t think there’s still any doubt that Daunte is much the better QB of the two. As for Michael Vick, please, don’t make me laugh. Exciting, yes. Fun to watch, sure. A top QB? Forget it… I said that Drew Brees was a better quarterback early in the year and I see no reason to back of that statement either.

One win and we’re in. We got a black quarterback, so step back.

The horse necromancer

Cedarford digs up a few rotting chunks of horse meat long ago ground into hamburger, slaps them together and shouts “look at my pretty pony!”


“I say that major sabotage and spying could have significantly impaired the war effort and cost the Allies many more lives.”

And you’re hopelessly wrong. Speak to any military expert, officer or historian, they’ll quickly set you straight with regards to the inability of sabotage to significantly impair ANY historical war effort, much less the American effort in WWII. But unlike Malkin and Powerline, Cedarford at least has the wits to avoid trying to defend the invasion and spot raid idiocies. But in any event, the sabotage and spying argument was dealt with and dismissed months ago. Go to the September archives on the right and you can learn all about logistics and the inefficacy of massive attempts to inhibit production.

As I’ve demonstrated, the production delta was such that no amount of sabotage and spying could have impaired the war effort for a single day, much less “severely crippled” it as Malkin would have us believe. From my letter to Michelle Malkin posted her on September 6th in response to her own post that day:

Shipping Tonnage Produced, 1942 to 1945

—————-1942———-1943————1944———-1945

USA—–6,252,300—15,153,000—14,580,000—8,804,900

Japan——511,100—-1,023,000——1,929,200—–626,300

delta——-1223%——–1481%————757%——-1406%

Because you appear to be unfamiliar with both military history and logistics, I note that the bulk of the shipping production for every belligerent power was not warships, but merchant shipping, 72.92 percent to be precise. And considering your interesting opinion that aircraft carriers are the only basis upon which threats to the two American coasts should be assessed, please be advised that Japan was only able to build nine carriers over the course of the war, some of which were never launched, while the US launched 120, many of which were surplus to requirements.

Aircraft produced, 1942 to 1945

———–1942——-1943——-1944——-1945

USA—-47,800—–85,900—–96,300—–46,000

Japan—8,900—–16,700—–28,200—–11,100

delta—–537%——-514%——-342%——-414%

I note here that even if every West Coast aircraft production facility had been destroyed in 1942 by “attack, invasion, spot raids, sabotage, and surveillance”, the USA would have still had essentially the same advantage over Japan that year that it did in 1945, when the war was all but over, 403 percent compared to 414 percent.

In the event that you find yourself inclined to argue that a significant percentage of American production was required for the European war in 1942, I recommend that you first examine the production statistics for Great Britain, the Soviet Union and Germany, then read Winston Churchill’s excellent six-volume History of the Second World War. You will find that the Allied leaders were well aware of the implications of their significant advantage in industrial capacity even before America’s entry into the war.

All the signs strongly indicate that Malkin was foolish enough to base her case on military necessity despite never bothering reading any of the relevant Army or Navy warplans or strategic planning documents and never checking to see if the historical data supported her assumptions in any way. She so clueless that she even asserted that there were NO carriers based on the East Coast at a time when FIVE of America’s nine carriers were operating out of Norfolk – and three of the four based on the West Coast were in Samoa.

Furthermore, no amount of spying could possibly have been as dangerous as the media leaks that led to two of our most important warplans, containing detailed production information, being printed in major Chicago and Washington newspapers. German spies ensured that the publishing of AWPD-1 led directly to one of Hitler’s rare Fuhrerbefehl, moving German AA batteries to protect all of the 113 (if I recall correctly) production targets specified within days, and yet the Senator who leaked the information was not even investigated, much less interned. Nor was the British national who published detailed reports in the Chicago Herald about the status and disposition of US naval forces in the Pacific immediately after Midway arrested… but over 100,000 innocent ethnic Japanese lost their homes and property thanks to this “necessity”.

If there was any sort of reasonable case for military necessity, Malkin would have been willing to debate it as she debated other aspects of internment. She refused to even try making a case because she knows that she didn’t do any research on it and has since learned that there is no case to be made. I have more respect for Michael Moore than I have for Malkin, the quintessential conservative media whore. Far from being “obsessed” with Malkin as some have claimed, I haven’t read her for months… if I’m in the mood for implausible, poorly researched historical fiction, there’s always Christian Jacq.

Hardly

An alternative take on conspiracy theory found on NRO:


“…conspiracy theorists, for example, tend to assume there are conspiracies everywhere precisely because if they were in power they would be hatching conspiracies themselves.”

YES YES YES! This thought haunts me every time I hear the Dems make Bushitler accusations. What does it say about them? (Didn’t Hillarycare remind you of the Italian run-on-time train system?)

This is component of human nature is observed by the Patriarch: “[the guilty] flee when none pursue” and the Bard: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

I don’t harbor a preference for conspiracy theory because I’m plotting to corner the world’s platinum supply, but because a) the official stories have massive holes in them, and, b) even a cursory examination of history reveals hundreds of past conspiracies.

Daniel Pipes learns that Me-So’s full of it

I heard back from Daniel Pipes:


>>While I very much respect your work, please don’t

>>make the mistake of depending on anything

>>Michelle Malkin has written.

I did a little more research and found her reply to your critique at http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000489.htm

That, of course, is her post of September 6th. So, I sent Mr. Pipes the following excerpt from my September 27th column:

Now mistakes – even howlers – are made by every columnist from time to time. But when egregious mistakes are compounded by evasive half-truths, it raises real questions about whether they were honest mistakes at all. On WBAL radio last Tuesday, Ron Smith asked Michelle Malkin how she would be responding to my challenge to debate the question of military necessity. She backed down, saying:

“I won’t be doing that. I have already addressed those questions on my blog.”

However, the only posts at michellemalkin.com related to the question of military necessity were made on Aug. 6 and Sept. 6. I did not join the growing number of Mrs. Malkin’s critics until Aug. 18, and I did not even send her my list of 10 specific questions until Sept. 8. The truth is that she has never successfully addressed a single point that I have made with regard to her many factual inaccuracies and erroneous assertions, on her blog or anywhere else.

Daniel Pipes is a courageous writer. Considering that he bothered to look into it, I have no doubt that he’ll soon reach the same conclusion that so many others have, that Malkin is a clueless purveyor of equine ejectus.

Mailvox: Jews and Fascists

DL isn’t quite sure what to think:


The gist of that paragraph is that Jews totally out of proportion of their numbers are in the front in of the Secularists in taking Christ out of Christmas and, alas you write the truth but not the whole truth. What you chose to omit is the fact the Conservative Jews both neo as well as paleo (amongst the latter I number myself) made a determined effort to keep Christ in Christmas, as a cursory glance of Town Hall during the month of December will testify thereto; and I do fault you for that….

Now back to Jewish Fascists or rather the term ‘Fascist.’ Are you using this term as a descriptive or as a pejorative? If descriptive, how to describe it? One way is to go back all the way to the source, to the late Benito Mussolini who, after all, coined that word: ‘All to the State, everything inside the State, nothing outside the State.’ Obviously not applicable in this particular instance.

If using it as a pejorative, well . . .

I’m aware of people such as Dennis Prager, Charles Krauthammer, Mona Charon, Michael Medved and Jeff Jacoby defending the right of Christians to publicly celebrate Christmas. But these very Jews have criticized the very same secular Jews to whom I was specifically referring. These more-or-less conservative Jews are clearly not anti-religious secular Jews, (although I’m not actually sure about Krauthammer).

You’ll note that I did not say “Jews” or even fascist Jewish secularists. “Secular Jewish” served as an adjective to describe the non-religious fascists (small-f descriptive) at the ADL and the ACLU. I

speak Italian, I have lived in Italia and I have even personally translated Mussolini’s Manifesto of the Fascist struggle. So, I do not speak lightly when I call these individuals fascists – as opposed to Fascists – as it is the ideological term that best suits their corporate-friendly ur-socialism. There is more to the historical Fascist program than the slogan Niente fuori lo stato…. and much of it, especially its virulently antireligious fervor, is echoed by the ADL and the ACLU.


One hit, one palpable hit of yours was: Meanwhile, in gloriously secular Europe, Jews walk the streets in visible fear and are physically attacked on a regular basis in France, Germany and Belgium.

I was at a large train station in Europe and it really struck me how fearful the eyes of an Orthodox Jewish couple were, as they glanced continuously around them. I’ve never seen that in America.


One grievance I do have with columnists across the political spectrum is their contribution to the debasement of our language, or, as a conservative columnist, whom charity forbids me to name, excused himself by saying that he merely follows current usage.

I agree, though I make the occasional slip myself. It’s why you’ll usually see me referring to left-liberals. And I have written several columns on how the Fascists and Nazis were both left-wing ideologies.