Forbes has this article on climate change today. In it, Louis Woodhill writes:
But don’t the climate scientists’ computer models prove that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing climate change? No. First, no computer model can ever prove anything (see the definition of “science” given above). Second, we do not have the capability to model a system as complex as the earth.
It has been said repeatedly, and I agree, that one huge problem that the pro-global warming people have is the tendency to use computer model results as if they are data. They are NOT! Something resulting from a computer model does not dictate that that same thing will be observed in nature. And guess what? Predicted rises in global temperature have not occurred in the last 10 years.
Oops.
Karl Rove makes some political predictions in this Wall Street Journal article. One prediction in particular stood out:
Scandals surrounding the now-bankrupt Solyndra, Fannie and Freddie, MF Global and administration insider deals still to emerge will metastasize, demolishing the president's image as a political outsider. By the election, the impression will harden that Mr. Obama is a modern Chicago-style patronage politician, using taxpayer dollars to reward political allies (like unions) and contributors (like Obama fund-raiser and Solyndra investor George Kaiser).
An evil thought occurred to me: is it possible that Rove already has information about additional scandals involving "Chicago-style patronage" that he has held back, waiting to use it to derail the Obama re-election campaign?
Maybe, just maybe.
Article is here.
I commented on the article and reproduce it below:
----- Comment Start -----
"Most states require training and safety courses before using firearms, and there are programs popping up throughout the country teaching women to do just that."
This is untrue. Most states do not require any training or license to purchase and use a handgun or any firearm. In fact New York City and New York State is only one of a small number of states that require a license to own handguns: the vast majority of states have no such requirement.
Most states to require a license and training to carry a concealed weapon, but that is entirely a different matter than owning and using a gun at a gun range.This problem stems from most writers at the television networks being based in New York City naturally assuming that New York City laws are typical, when in reality they are atypically strict when compared to almost everywhere else in the United States.
---- Comment End ----
This alludes to another thing I hear all the time, even in California: the phrase "licensed gun owner". I hear it in conversations, and I read it in articles like this one. To most non-gun owners it seems to be held as a truth that one must be licensed to own a gun.
I blame television shows for this. How many times have we seen characters in procedural police dramas say lines like: "We recovered an unlicensed gun at the crime scene." Many TV writers are ignorant of gun laws in general, and many are based in New York City where one must obtain a license to possess a handgun in ones home, so they assume that such laws apply everywhere. There we hear TV show characters talk of licensed firearms and licensed gun owners in shows set in places like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or Atlanta even though those places do not require a license to possess a handgun.
This leads new gun owners to be ignorant about the law, assuming that one must get a license to own a gun. I have actually had people ask me how to get a handgun license in California, and I tell them that it is pretty much impossible in Santa Clara County, only to learn that they want to BUY a handgun, not carry a concealed handgun.
Even though firearms are becoming ever more popular, I really don't see this changing.
Hat tip to David Hardy at Arms And The Law.
President Obama in a signing statement has alluded to his intention to ignore budgetary prohibitions against spending for certain research projects that seek to justify increased gun control.
But David Hardy points out that spending money in ways not authorized by Congress is unconstitutional and illegal.
I wonder, if President Obama proceeds to spend money to fund the prohibited programs, breaking the law, who would enforce the law? the "Justice" Department? It is to laugh!
Ever wonder what would happen in California if the state started issuing LTC permits on a shall-issue basis? Iowa may have provided a glimpse of the future during 2011.
“The majority of people I’ve talked to said they’d just always wanted one,” said Pals, the Cerro Gordo County sheriff. “And now they can in Iowa and they are following through with it. The training that’s required is a lot easier now.”
There is undoubtedly a huge backlog of gun owners in California that would apply for a permit if the process was not discretionary. If only 2% of Californians got a permit California would expect to increase from approximately 32,000 permits held today to somewhere around 600,000 permits.
Given the state of current court cases, there is a possibility that such a scenario may eventually come to pass in the next few years. To help it along, donate to the Calguns Foundation.
My sister has never been a gun person. She did not get a gun as a
child, like I did (a Remington
Fieldmaster 572 that I still have and still shoot, and will NEVER
sell) and to my knowledge has never shot a gun. But she has on
several occasions heard me discuss my introduction to handgun
shooting and training, and my views about pro-gun rights issues. I
found out earlier this year that she had been listening more closely
than I thought.
My parents have moved out of California and purchased land in
Oklahoma for their retirement. After this, my sister and I began
semi-annual pilgrimages to visit, often together to save on expenses.
During one visit my Dad mentioned a few handguns he had inherited
from his half brother. Would I be interested in taking a look? Sure!
So he brought out a box and there were a couple of .22 revolvers, a
Ruger P89, a Taurus .38 snubbie, and a strange and shrunken 1911 in
.380 from Llama, which may be a Llama
V. My sister was there and she watched as my Dad and I talked
about the guns and I even showed my Mom how to load, unload, and
handle the .38 revolver. It turned out that she kept that one in her
night stand for protection when my Dad was away. On a subsequent
visit I actually took her out back to shoot the gun at least once so
she would know what to expect. I mentioned that she should get a
holster for it, and she looked at me as if I was crazy.
The 90 minute drive to Tulsa gave us a lot of time to talk, and on
the last trip out we had a surprising conversation about guns. My
brother-in-law had inherited several handguns from his father, and
was interested in shooting them, but did not really know much about
guns, safe gun handing, ammunition selection, and related topics. My
sister thought that if they were going to have guns in the house,
and if her husband was going to shoot them, it would be a good idea
to get some training. Then came the real shocker: she herself was
interested in learning to shoot! My pacifistic, not quite anti-gun,
liberal sister wanted to learn to shoot.
I asked her why she wanted to shoot, and she said that she wanted
to feel safe with guns in the house, and she realized that if she was
confronted by an intruder when she was alone at home she would need
to protect herself for the period of time before the police could
arrive, and a gun could be a life saver in that event.
Although I had talked before about my own gun hobby and how I
started, we talked a little more about it, the group that taught the
NRA Basic
Pistol Class I attended, Bay
Area Professionals for Firearms Safety and Education, BayProfs
for short, and my subsequent shooting activities and training. To
say the least, this was an interesting conversation with my sister,
especially when she decided to get her husband the gift of two seats
in the next BayProfs Basic Pistol class, one for each of them. She
said it would be a “couple bonding” activity for both of them.
A few weeks went by, and while at work I got a call from my
sister: she wanted my advice on a gun-related gift for her husband.
She wanted to get him some kind case or container to carry his guns
to from the range. While looking at items online, she was unsure the
quality and suitability of various products and wanted more
information. I suggested we go to a local gun store where we could
ask about the products, and get some hands-on evaluation. After a
little more discussion it turned out that the the Bay
Area Gun Vault in Mountain View was most convenient for her. I
also preferred this store because they recently expanded, taking over
the space next to them, and because it is well lighted, tidy, and
ordinary looking with a helpful staff. I did not want to take her to
a more hardcore gunnie man-cave like the Gun
Exchange or Sportsmans
Supply. Bay Area Gun Vault is also the closest gun store to her
house, so she is more likely to make it her “home base” store.
I met her there on a recent afternoon, and upon walking in and
seeing all the rifles in the racks, her eyes got big and the said
something like “Oh, my! This is a little scary.” I distracted
her by suggesting we get some help, and went over to the counter.
One of the clerks, who was armed, started showing, my sister the
various gun cases they had in stock, and also suggested she look at a
range bags that could be locked, explaining that any locked container
would satisfy California law. All the while he was keeping up a
conversation, asking about her shooting experience, asking about the
BayProfs classes (approving enthusiastically about getting training)
and also mentioning about other things she may need like cleaning
kits and supplies, eye and ear protection, etc. My sister eventually
selected a Boyt
range bag, thinking that it would be more versatile, and
impressed with the lifetime warranty.
This was when things got weird.
I took her over to the handgun display case and pointed out my
pistol, a Kimber
Custom II, which the counterman immediate took out and handed
over to me. I explained to my sister about indexing the trigger
finger along the frame, and a little about why I bought the gun,
while she handled it, getting a feel for the weight and balance.
This may have been the first time my sister ever held a handgun. But
it did not stop there. Even though we were not buying a gun that
day, the counterman got into a conversation with my sister and asked
about what she liked about the 1911, and then suggested she try out a
Glock. She did not like the finger rounds on the grip, so out came a
Smith & Wesson M&P, which she liked better. I liked it too.
And after that came a Sig P226, and then a couple of Smith &
Wesson revolvers. After a short time my sister was getting pretty
comfortable with all the guns around, and even appeared to be
enjoying herself.
We left after about an hour in the store and went to Peet's
to get a coffee and catch up with family stuff. My sister thought
the entire experience was enlightening and interesting, and she is
definitely looking forward to the class. I was amazed, and a little
proud of her for going outside her comfort zone. While in Peet's I
mentioned that women
getting into shooting and guns seems to be part of a cultural
trend. She offered two explanations: first, more woman are living
alone because of divorce or other life circumstances, and second,
women in the baby boom generation are older and more clear sighted
about security, not as naive that younger women about the
possibility of becoming a victim, and more confident in their ability
to do something about it. In addition, my sister thinks that gun
safety should begin with knowledge and respect of firearms, not fear
and ignorance.
I really admire my sister.
We parted then as it was getting on in the evening, but not before
I told her that if she wanted to visit a gun range to try out my gun
before the class in February to give me a call. I would be very glad
to arrange a trip.
In this post on her blog Common Gunsense Joan Peterson has really outdone herself by writing the stupidest thing I have ever read on her blog, which is quite an accomplishment because there are so many candidates for the title. Concerning a man in Hollywood, California, who was killed after he walked down a street shooting at random passing automobiles:
"That's the problem when guns are so available. An otherwise normal and law abiding person who has a bad day can take it out on innocent people too easily."
I see. Gun owners are not to be trusted because they might "snap" and commence a murderous spree? Amazing how this excuse keeps being thrown out by the anti-gun bigots.
Here's my prediction: further investigation will reveal that the shooter had previously unknown and severe psychological problems for which had had not been successfully treated. Investigation will further show that the gun he used was purchased legally in California but that the background check system, 10 day waiting period, and the DOJ Hangun Roster, all failed to keep a gun out of that mans hands.
I was sorely tempted to post the above on Joans blog, but I refrained. I have long decided that posting comments on her blog is a waste of time because she is not interested in "debating" anyone but those who already agree with her.
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw
As can be seen in this post on her blog.
Other posts I have seen about the gun replica on a purse have rightly excoriated the stupidity of the TSA. But for Joan, even a picture of a gun in public is alarming. Please everyone, stop posting comments on her blog. If we all ignore her, perhaps she will stop.
