I Concur

I’ll just leave this thought for you guys to mull over:

If you have 3 visible holsters containing 3 handguns, attached to tactical gear at the range, I’ll automatically jump to the conclusion that you’re a douchebag.

I agree completely. Nothing says douchebag like the guy with the tactical gear which includes three handguns attached to various parts of his body. That shit may be funny if you’re purposely making fun of mall ninjas but if you’re wearing it because you honestly think it’s a good tactical decision then you’re likely a moron.

When the State Won’t Protect You

Whenever I get into a debate about the right to carry firearms the conversation often turns to the person debating me claiming that I should rely on the police for protection. The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that the police aren’t required to protect you. The right to self-defense should be universal as should be the right to own the best tool for that job. Thankfully I live in a state where I have access to the ability to carry my firearm but others are not so lucky.

But what can you do if your entire community is vulnerable and the state is unwilling to protect you? In that case you have to band together with the other members of your community and work together in common defense. The Firearm Blog has a link to an article that discusses the method which the people of Obo, a small African village, use to defend themselves against roving marauders:

An old woman had died. Before burying the her, the residents of the village of Obo — in southern Central African Republic, just north of the Congolese border — gathered around a campfire to eat, drink, cry and sing in celebration of the woman’s long life. It was a night in March 2008, just another beat in the slow rhythm of existence in this farming community of 13,000 people.

Then the dreadlocked fighters from the Lord’s Resistance Army rebel group — tongo-tongo, the villagers call them — rose from their hiding places in the shadows and advanced toward the fire. Others blocked the paths leading from town. The rebels killed anyone who resisted, kidnapped 100 others and robbed everyone in sight.

The LRA forced the captured men and women to carry stolen goods into the jungle before releasing them. Boys and girls, they kept. The boys would be brainwashed, trained as fighters and forced to kill. The girls would be given to LRA officers as trophies, raped and made to bear children who would represent the next generation of LRA foot soldiers.

Much of Africa consists of poor farming villages such as this one. In addition to that many of this villages fall under various ineffective governments (lucky buggers there) that will refuse to offer aid to those who take defense into their own hands but also are unwilling or unable to provide defense for those who comply with the state’s demands of being disarmed and easy prey. Well the people of Obo had enough shit from the LRA and decided that shit was going to end:

Instead, Obo’s surviving villagers raised their own volunteer scout force (depicted above), armed it with homemade shotguns, and began disseminating intelligence on the LRA’s movements using the village’s sole, short-range FM radio transmitter.

The results of this do-it-yourself approach were encouraging. Since the attack three years ago, Obo has not suffered another major LRA invasion.

I think this proves the point that you can do a great deal of things with very little money or equipment. The citizens of Obo may not be able to afford shotguns but they certainly are willing to make them. They’ve been able to stave off any other major invasions from a likely superior fighting force. I did chuckle a bit when I read the following though:

But there’s a downside to DIY security. In arming itself and taking on intelligence tasks, Obo is essentially giving up on ever receiving help from Central African Republic’s impoverished government. That can only further undermine the government’s tenuous legitimacy — and could fuel wider instability in the future.

That doesn’t sound like much of a downside to me. Obo’s government did do jack shit to protect the villagers from the LRA so I have no idea why it would be a disadvantage to not receive any help from that state in the future. Of course this could lead to the Central African Republic’s eventual invasion and disarming of Obo but let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

You know what another benefit of having a means of self-defense is? Being able to defend yourself against outside threats usually does amazing things are removing your fears:

The morning after the LRA’s March 2008 attack, the sun rose on a transformed community. Before, the tongo-tongo had been able to terrorize an entire village, kill scores of people and take more than 100 prisoners using just their machetes. During the 2008 raid, the LRA reportedly didn’t fire a single bullet.

After the attack, the surviving villagers were determined to never again be defenseless. “We are not afraid,” an Obo resident named Joseph told Invisible Children’s Adam Finck. “We are not afraid because we are the victims. They attacked us. They took our children. They killed others of us. That motivates us not to be afraid of them.”

This goes for both villages and individuals. Given a means of self-defense most people become less fearful for they have a means of controlling a situation involving an attacker. People generally fear that which they can’t control and if somebody is mugging your while you’re defenseless you have no control over the situation. On the other hand if you have an effective means of self-defense you gain some semblance of control over bad situations and thus are less fearful. It’s a great bonus to being able to save your own life as well.

I’m also impressed with Obo’s determination of keeping their fellow villagers safe. Some people often cry because they can’t afford a proper means of self-defense. Guess what? The people of Obo are very poor as well but that didn’t stop them either:

But the men of Obo knew they needed more than courage and manpower. Too poor for military-grade weapons or even the kind of firearms American hunters take for granted, Obo set about building an arsenal of homemade, single-barrel shotguns loaded with hand-packed shells.

Anything can be a weapon in the right hands which is why making possession of weapons illegal is pointless. But even if you can’t afford a proper tool for self-defense the chances are you can build something that will work in a pinch. If you can’t afford to buy a proper self-defense tool do as the people of Obo and build something that will work.

The Obo scouts represent a phenomenon found in many conflict zones. When government or occupying armies fail to provide security, vulnerable communities often organize their own forces. It has happened in northern Iraq’s besieged Christian communities, across Afghanistan and, most famously, in Sunni-dominated north-central Iraq, where volunteer “Sons of Iraq” groups helped turn the tide against Iraqi insurgents.

I like how they call this a phenomenon. I’d call it common sense as nobody likes to be victimized and those who live in conflict zones haven’t spent their entire lives being told that self-defense is impossible and you should rely on the government to protect your life. Of course the article also spews the following statist bullshit:

The downside of these DIY militias is the risk they pose to the long-term stability of their countries. Baghdad and the U.S. military struggled to stand down and reintegrate Sons of Iraq groups after security improved and they became unnecessary. NATO has canceled several Sons of Iraq-style initiatives in Afghanistan after sedition-minded warlords co-opted some of the militia groups.

The Obo scouts could entail a similar long-term liability to Central African Republic’s weak government. “The very act of civilians taking up arms outside of their government’s direct control is a potentially problematic issue without an easy answer,” Finck admitted.

Fuck you you statist pieces of shit. This is a great example of governments wanting control. If you are able to defend yourself that means the government has that much less control as you no longer rely entirely on them for your self-defense. Being capable of independence is what tyrannical statists fear most because it takes away their control over the lives of those living under them. On top of this the Central African Republic didn’t do shit to defend these villages so I don’t see where they have the right to talk about how it’s improper for civilians to defend themselves. It’s not like the government was rushing in to offer help.

IBM Turns 100

IBM is officially 100 years old now and to celebrate they’ve created a list of 100 innovations created by the company. Not surprisingly they forgot to mention their punch card system when used in relation to assiting in the Holocaust. Then again if I were IBM I’d try to cover that up as well.

No I’m not going to spend this entire post ragging on IBM for something they did long ago. What I will do though is use this situation to explain the dangers of census information. IBM didn’t help Nazi Germany with the Holocaust by supplying equipment to kill targeted individuals, they did it by supplying Germany with machines that more easily allowed for tabulating information such as ethnicity about the country’s population:

On April 12, 1933, the German government announced the plans to immediately conduct a long-delayed national census. The project was particularly important to the Nazis as a mechanism for the identification of Jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic groups deemed undesirable by the regime. Dehomag offered to actively assist the German government in its task of ethnic identification, concentrating first upon the 41 million residents of Prussia.

On top of that the same type of system was used by the United States for their concentration camps:

His grand design for 1943 was a locator file in which would appear a Hollerith alphabetic punch card for each evacuee. These cards were to include standard demographic information about age, gender, education, occupation, family size, medical history, criminal record, and RC location. However, additional data categories about links to Japan were also maintained, such as years of residence in Japan and the extent of education received there… The punch card project was so extensive and immediate that the WRA [War Relocation Authority] subcontracted the function to IBM.

IBM’s punch card systems allowed for the recording and easier sorting of additional information related to individuals. This information was then used to better target certain groups. When the 2010 United States census forms went around people noticed that the government was doing a Hell of a lot more than simply counting the population (the only thing they’re legally allowed to do according to the Constitution). The census form seemed to have a strong interest in Hispanic populations.

Data related to peoples’ race, religion, gender, native country, etc. have been collected by governments and used improperly for ages. The Holocaust was a prime example of how dangerous it is to let governments hold onto such information. Like all technological advancements punch card systems can be used for both good and evil and have been used for both. I’m not attempting to blame IBM or technological progress for anything, but I think it’s important to note the dangers of allowing governments to gather information on demographics. Once that information is obtained it will never be destroyed and thus can be used decades down the road by some crazy ass dictator who decides he doesn’t like one group or another.

As IBM celebrates their 100 years of being in business let us also take a moment to remember the dangers of demographic information in the hands of governments. IBM created a marvelous system that was put to terrible use and it’s important to learn from that lesson.

This Could be a Good Thing

Apparently the wars we’re fighting throughout the world is causing a shortage of available ammunition for police officers in the United States:

Police chiefs around the state spoke of rising costs and long waits to get ammunition.

“We used to spend between $12,000 to $13,000 a year but now it’s around $16,000 to $18,000,” Hazlet Police Chief James A. Broderick told the news service.

Some chiefs said orders take a minimum of six months to get filled, and often take up to a year.

I think ultimately this is a good thing. Two things would occur if the police are no longer able to obtain large quantities of ammunition; they would need to learn how to shoot well and wouldn’t be able to murder as many innocent people. I’m sure a shortage of ammunition would have benefited Jose Guerena as the police not only murdered him in cold blood but also took 70 rounds of ammunition to do it.

Thanks goes to Uncle who lead me to Bob’s Gun Counter which had posted a link to the story.

In Lieu of Real Arguments the Brady Campaign has Resorted to Falsely Claiming Gun Owners are Drunkards

You have to hand it to the Brady Bunch, they want to keep that sweet Joyce Foundation money flowing to avoid getting real jobs and they’re willing to use any tactic to retain that funding. The Brady Campaign released a “research” paper that concludes basically that gun owners are drunks and thus can’t be trusted with firearm. So what’s wrong with their research? Well for starters the data was cherry picked so heavily that they could make millions on a harvest. The “report” makes the following claim:

Altogether, 15 474 respondents provided information on firearm exposure. After adjustment for demographics and state of residence, firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to have ≥5 drinks on one occasion (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50), to drink and drive (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39) and to have ≥60 drinks per month (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away.

In many states that allow for a right to self-defense drinking while carrying is a big no-no. Here in Minnesota you can carry so long as your blood alcohol level remains no higher than .04 (half of the legal limit for driving). Combine those facts with the fact that carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people out there and you can put the puzzle together. As the rate of crimes committed by carry permit holders is generally lower than other people and carrying while intoxicated is heavily restricted or completely prohibited in most states you can logically conclude that there are few people able to legally carry a firearm who carry while drunk.

The article on No Lawyer – Only Guns and Money also point out the fact that Utah ranks dead last on the Brady Campaign’s list of freedom hating states yet is mostly Mormon and Mormons have a prohibition against alcohol consumption. Thus there seems to be a lack of correlation between the Brady Campaign’s rating of “safe” states and alcohol consumption (and thus less opportunity for carry permit holders to carry while intoxicated). Oh and Utah has an extremely low rate of alcohol-related deaths to boot.

Basically if you cherry pick your numbers well enough you can create a report that says anything. If I worked hard enough at it I could release a report that demonstrates a correlation between being anti-gun and being a Nazi sympathizer.

I find hit hilarious though that the Brady Campaign can find any factual numbers to back up their claims that more restrictive gun laws lead to safer communities so they’ve resort to simply trying to run a smear campaign against gun owners. The next report they release will probably demonstrate how gun owners like to kick babies and murder cute baby bunnies while torching retirement homes. After that they’ll probably resort to simply calling us poopy-heads. Honestly you guys at the Brady Campaign should just quit before you embarrass yourselves any further. There is nothing bad about admitting when you’re wrong, we’ve all made mistakes. The difference is admitting your failures allows you to keep your dignity while attempting to do everything possible to avoid admitting failure just makes you look petty and pathetic.

Obama Doesn’t Considering Bombing a Country to be Hostilities

Because of oil humanitarian reasons Obama decided it would be a jolly good time to cruise some of our warships over to Libya and hurtle missiles into the country. After 90-days of this the War Powers Act states that the President must get Congressional approval to continue killing people on foreign countries. Obama not being one to follow United States law decided that rule doesn’t apply to him because bombing the shit out of Libya doesn’t qualify as hostilities:

“The president is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the resolution’s 60-day termination provision.,” the White House said.

Personally I’d find the act of somebody hurtling bombs onto my property to be pretty fucking hostile. Then again I also believe the whole humanitarian argument is bullshit because the Syrian government is killing demonstrators and we’re not even talking about it. How people can’t see that Obama is just as much a war monger as Bush is beyond me. Oh, and I love the definition of hostilities the White House uses:

“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors,” the report said.

So hostilities are only hostilities if any of our people may get hurt. Thus somebody hurtling bombs onto your property isn’t hostilities unless the guy bombing your place could get hurt. I’ll try to keep that in mind.

Personally I think impeachment hearings should begin immediately but instead all we get is a lawsuit:

The White House rebuttal came as a bipartisan group of US lawmakers sued Mr Obama in federal court for taking military action in Libya without authorisation from Congress.

The lawsuit alleges that the president had violated the US constitution in bypassing Congress.

The lawsuit, which also targets Defence Secretary Robert Gates, challenges the policy “that any president can take the US to war unilaterally”, Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said.

“We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” he added.

I think commencing the bombing of a foreign nation not only counts as hostilities but an act of war. Obama dragged us into Libya without Congressional approval which is required by United States law and thus he has broken the law. How that’s not grounds for impeachment I’ll never understand.

Lulz Security and Anonymous as Testers of Internet Anonymity

A hacker group called Lulz Security has been making news as of late, especially after Tuesday’s escapade. Before that Anonymous were making headlines. You’ll hear arguments both for and against the actions of these groups but what I find more interesting than their escapades is the fact that most members of these groups have avoided law enforcement.

I often talk about the importance of anonymity and groups like Lulz Security and Anonymous make great testers of the ability to remain anonymous on the Internet. People likely to be prosecuted by law enforcement would do well to watch the actions of these groups and determine how they are able to avoid law enforcement. If the tactics used by these groups allows them to avoid those who are seeking them out then the same tactics can be used by political dissidents in oppressive countries. Those wishing to release dirt on private or government entities would also be well served by such information.

Obama Doesn’t Get Economics

I know you read the title of this post and thought to yourself “no shit Sherlock.” Well it’s worse than we thought because it seems Obama believes automation which increases productivity and frees up labor for other areas is actually the cause of unemployment:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

I think Obama desperately needs to read some Hazlitt, namely Economics in One Lesson [PDF] which can be found freely available at this link. Specifically Obama needs to read chapter 7, The Curse of Machinery:

After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before. (We shall assume that he merely sells his coats for the same price as his competitors, and makes no effort to undersell them.) At this point, it may seem, labor has suffered a net loss of employment, while it is only the manufacturer, the capitalist, who has gained. But it is precisely out of these extra profits that the subsequent social gains must come. The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possibly he will use part of them in all three: (1) he will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines to make more coats; or (2) he will invest the extra profits in some other industry; or (3) he will spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever of these three courses he takes, he will increase employment.

In other words, the manufacturer, as a result of his economies, has profits that he did not have before. Every dollar of the amount he has saved in direct wages to former coat makers, he now has to pay out in indirect wages to the makers of the new machine, or to the workers in another capital industry, or to the makers of a new house or motor car for himself, or of jewelry and furs for his wife. In any case (unless he is a pointless hoarder) he gives indirectly as many jobs as he ceased to give directly.

Claiming that machines cause unemployment does nothing besides demonstrate ignorance in economics. People that blame machines for unemployment doesn’t stop to think about who builds those machines, who maintains them, who manufactures more raw materials to handle the increase in consumption due to ability to produce more, etc. Basically those who believe automation is the enemy of employment are unable to see the whole picture and instead only concern themselves with the part they’re looking at right then and there.

If automation were the enemy of employment then a large portion of the population should have remained unemployed after the Industrial Revolution where automation took over a huge amount of work previously performed manually by people.