Wendy Davis Attempts To Rebrand Gun Control As A Female Issue

By William Teach November 15, 2017 – 7:00 am

You remember Wendy Davis, right? She’s the one who attempted to filibuster an abortion law in Texas, lost, but was celebrated by the Left for yammering on in pink shoes in order to protect infanticide. She then parlayed that into a run for Texas, in which she again lost. Got smoked! And now she tries this

Wendy Davis: Why Women Shouldn’t Shut Up About Gun Violence
Women are disproportionately affected by guns in America, and now they’re leading the fight for gun control.

…..

Let’s be clear about what’s going on here. These headlines, these senseless killings, are about people using guns to kill people and therefore, this is a “guns situation” (as President Trump denied in reference to the recent shooting at the small church in Sutherland Springs, Texas). And because the majority of mass shooting incidents — at least 54 percent — in the United States involve domestic violence, it’s a “violence against women situation” as well. (And that doesn’t even count the mass shooters who have committed acts of domestic violence in the past and then later go on to shoot and kill people who are not in their domestic circle, as was the case in Sutherland Springs.)

That 54% is a pretty loose statistic. Regardless this is a women situation or something

While gun safety may not seem like a feminist issue at first blush, it doesn’t take too much digging to see that women are uniquely vulnerable to and disproportionately the victims of gun violence. As former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (herself a survivor of gun violence) has eloquently said: “Dangerous people with guns are a threat to women. Criminals with guns. Abusers with guns. Stalkers with guns. That makes gun violence a women’s issue. For mothers, for families, for me and you.”

What better way to protect women than a gun? Which is why women have been one of the largest groups purchasing firearms the past few years. Because a whistle doesn’t work.

Americans know this. That’s why the majority of Americans support common-sense gun safety measures like universal background checks and a ban on rapid-fire assault weapons. But how will we ever manage to adopt those policy reforms with all those NRA shills in office?

Rapid fire. Like, how fast you can pull the trigger. Which is exactly the same on every semi-automatic  weapon, be it a scary looking “assault rifle” or a .22 handgun. Also, perhaps all the existing laws should be implemented. Regardless, based on the shootings in California, heavy restrictions do not seem to stop nutters

A wise lawmaker once said to me, “Change happens when mama bear gets mad.” Well, in the face of repeated mass shootings around the country and the human carnage left in their wake, mama bear is fire-engine-red mad right now. And she’s not backing down. Women are leading the fight for common sense gun safety reforms across this country – from Moms Demand Action to Gabby Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions to women voting their conscience at the ballot box.

Well, good for them. Why do they want to restrict firearms from being obtained by law abiding women? Let’s jump to the Washington Free Beacon

“While gun safety may not seem like a feminist issue at first blush, it doesn’t take too much digging to see that women are uniquely vulnerable to and disproportionately the victims of gun violence,” Davis argued.

The opposite is true, however; statistics show that men are far more likely than women to be the victims of gun violence.

In 2015, the gun homicide rate for men was 19.3 for every 100,000 Americans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. By contrast, the rate for women was six times lower, at 3.2 per 100,000 people.

It’s no wonder Wendy was wrong: she was taking stats and stuff from groups who really want to confiscate firearms, not implement policies that would do a lot to stop criminals from obtaining and using them.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Wendy Davis Attempts To Rebrand Gun Control As A Female Issue »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Report: Fewer Brits Will Die From Cold Due To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 14, 2017 – 4:00 pm

Just like back during previous Holocene warm periods.

(UK Telegraph)  Climate change may have unexpected benefits for Britons because fewer people will die from the cold during the winter, a new study suggests.

Although many regions of the world will see death rates soar as the climate heats-up, in northern Europe hot weather mortality will be cancelled out by the decrease in cold weather deaths.

In bad years nearly 50,000 more people die during the winter in Britain compared to the clement months. But the new research suggests that cold-related mortality will fall by between 32 and 50 per cent if the worst case climate change scenarios occur by the end of the century.

Of course, the Telegraph then went into all the other doom and gloom from the study, because that’s what Cultists do.

Oh, and they forgot to provide empirical, scientific, rock solid proof that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, but, then, they are cultists, and do not need proof to Believe. Nor do they feel a need to practice what they preach.

Read: Report: Fewer Brits Will Die From Cold Due To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 14, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution spewing airplane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Hijab Barbie.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Are Gun Grabbers Attempting To Rebrand Gun Control To Gun Safety?

By William Teach November 14, 2017 – 10:46 am

For a long time now, the gun grabbers (who often refuse to give up their own firearms and/or armed security) have used the phrase “gun control.” They’ve worked in the gun safety here and there, but, it looks like they could be making a concerted effort to rebrand, much in the way they changed global warming to climate change. For instance, here’s rising Democratic party star Kamala Harris, who at one point would have been part of the extremist wing, but, really, now, the extremists run the party

What are those gun safety reforms? Who knows, she doesn’t say, but, it would be a pretty good bet to think that they are the same ones the Dems want to pass to take the guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, rather than going after criminals (who tend to vote Democrat due to the Dems weak on crime policies).

Everytown is all about instituting massive gun restrictions on law abiding citizens. They do not talk much about going after criminals.

They are using the hashtag #GunSafety all over Twitter. Crazy Ted Lieu (D-Ca) tweeted back to Sarah Palin about gun safety.

Kamala also dropped one which reads

On the topic of reasonable gun safety laws, the false choice that is being proffered everywhere is the choice that suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away. That’s a false choice and we have to reject it.

They can reject it all they want, because their policy recommendations are about taking guns away.

I see, among others, CNN, Senator Bob Menendez (good grief), Bill DeBlasio, Dianne Feinstein, Gabby Giffords, and so many other blue check marks, including so-called journalists, pushing for “gun safety”.

A lot of this seems to stem back to a push by Everytown to reframe, just like Kristof recommends from the 7th. There’s lots of anecdotal evidence that this became a big push starting November 7th. The end result is the same: gun grabbing.

Read: Are Gun Grabbers Attempting To Rebrand Gun Control To Gun Safety? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Thousands Of Activist Scientists Warn Of Doom Or Something

By William Teach November 14, 2017 – 8:05 am

Usually, the Alarmist wing of the Cult of Climastrology issue their most doomy proclamations prior to each year’s UN IPCC meetings. But, there are always a few that come out during, in order to attempt to give the conference some news bites (this years is pretty much back page news, if mentioned at all). Like this one, featured in the Washington Post, which kills lots of trees, uses vast amounts of energy, and uses lots of fossil fuels to conduct their business

Thousands of scientists issue bleak ‘second notice’ to humanity

In late 1992, 1,700 scientists from around the world issued a dire “warning to humanity.” They said humans had pushed Earth’s ecosystems to their breaking point and were well on the way to ruining the planet. The letter listed environmental impacts like they were biblical plagues — stratospheric ozone depletion, air and water pollution, the collapse of fisheries and loss of soil productivity, deforestation, species loss and  catastrophic global climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

“If not checked,” wrote the scientists, led by particle physicist and Union of Concerned Scientists co-founder Henry Kendall, “many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.”

Interestingly, things are still OK. Doom has not occurred. They wrote in the document “No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.” We’re still fine.

To mark the letter’s 25th anniversary, researchers have issued a bracing follow-up. In a communique published Monday in the journal BioScience, more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries assess the world’s latest responses to various environmental threats. Once again, they find us sorely wanting.

I wonder if they’ve given up their own use of fossil fuels and practice what they preach?

“Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse,” they write.

This letter, spearheaded by Oregon State University ecologist William Ripple, serves as a “second notice,” the authors say: “Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory.”

Global climate change sits atop the new letter’s list of planetary threats. Global average temperatures have risen by more than half a degree Celsius since 1992, and annual carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 62 percent.

I’d love to know where that half a degree figure comes from. Most data sets of actual data show, at most, a .2C increase, and let’s not forget that for all the dire warnings from these concerned activist scientists, there was a warming pause that lasted almost 19 years, per actual measurements. Regardless of .2 or .5, the dire predictions and doomy prognostications haven’t come to fruition, and all the models that predicted this have failed.

The authors offer 13 suggestions for reining in our impact on the planet, including establishing nature reserves, reducing food waste, developing green technologies and establishing economic incentives to  shift patterns of consumption.

Pretty much the typical Big Government, domineering, controlling policy prescriptions which other Progressives offer for everything. Liberty? Freedom? Over-rated in Warmist World.

And the more they roll Hotcoldwetdry into real environmental issues, the more they scaremonger, the more people tune out.

Read: Thousands Of Activist Scientists Warn Of Doom Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Boston Globe: “Hand Over Your Weapons”

By William Teach November 14, 2017 – 7:39 am

It’s great how liberals are always saying “nobody is talking about taking your guns” right before they talk about taking your guns

From the screed

Trouble is, it’s not clear the “something” Democrats typically demand would make a real dent in the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Congress can ban assault weapons, but they account for just a tiny sliver of the country’s 33,000 annual firearm deaths. And tighter background checks will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.

In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, leading Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.

At a New Hampshire forum in the fall of 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of an Australian gun buyback program that collected more than 650,000 weapons — a buyback that, she neglected to mention, was compulsory.

Obama, Kamala Harris, and many others have talked about the “Australian solution.”

The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?

There’s deadly weapons in the streets …. just witness Democratic Party run cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore … being used by criminals, so, let’s disarm people trying to protect themselves who have nothing to do with the crime

Here in the United States, interest in large-scale gun buybacks — both voluntary and involuntary — has mounted with each mass shooting. Matt Miller, a journalist and onetime senior fellow with the left-leaning Center for American Progress, has proposed what he calls a “massive, debt-financed” buyback.

The idea is to supersize the small-scale, voluntary buybacks that happen in American cities — offering hundreds of dollars more per weapon in a bid to make them more effective. “Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500,” Miller wrote, in an opinion piece in the Washington Postafter Sandy Hook. “After all, overpaying powerful constituencies to achieve public policy goals is a time-honored American tradition; we do it every day with Medicare drug benefits and defense contractors, to name just two.”

Good luck with that. Most legally obtained firearms cost more than $500. Certainly, those scary looking rifles are worth more. But, perhaps some will trade in old ones not worth much and put the money towards a new firearm.

John Rosenthal, co-founder and chairman of Massachusetts-based Stop Handgun Violence, says it may be time to embrace a mandatory buyback — the relentless tide of mass shootings leaving weary activists with little choice.

Remember, Democrats are not talking about taking away guns from law abiding citizens.

Many of those hard-core gun owners see their weapons as a guard against government overreach. And sending government agents to claim them could end very, very badly. An NRA article on the specter of Australian-style confiscation coming to the United States is subtitled “There Will Be Blood.”

Ya think?

Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the enterprise. An operation on par with the Australian buyback — claiming one-fifth of American guns — would mean tens of thousands of police officers collecting some 60 million guns. It is, on some level, simply unimaginable.

Part of the problem is that law enforcement leans Republican, and officers would refuse to engage in something so anti-Constitutional.

Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

It’s interesting how Democrats always want to disarm the law abiding while doing nothing about the criminals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Boston Globe: “Hand Over Your Weapons” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Global Warming Will Kill Hopes Of A White Christmas In Ireland Or Something

By William Teach November 13, 2017 – 3:06 pm

From the Department Of Give It A Rest comes more scaremongering which will surely mean historic levels of snow in Ireland over the next few years (via Watts Up With That?)

Global warming melts hopes of a white Christmas in Ireland
A leading climatologist has some bad news for snow-lovers

The prospect of Ireland waking up to a white Christmas is becoming more and more unlikely every year, according to a leading climatologist.

Prof John Sweeney said that Ireland can expect increasingly warmer winters due to global warming, resulting in less snowfall in the traditionally coldest months of the year. (snip)

He said: “The projections are for Ireland to warm by 1C by mid-Century, and we’re looking at both warmer summers and winters.

“We’ll always get snow in the uplands and mountains, but we’ll start to see less snow in the lowland areas in the coming years, and that means we’ll get fewer and fewer white Christmases. Let’s put it this way, if I were a betting man I wouldn’t be putting any money on there being snowfall on Christmas Day. It’s getting less likely each year.”

Can you guess what is missing? Proof of anthropogenic causation. And, again, that is the debate. Not warming, but causation.

And, as Eric Worrell points out

Of course, climate scientists can trot out predictions that global warming will cause heavier snowfalls when the inevitable blockbuster winter hits, to demonstrate they were right all along.

We all know that they’ll blame cold, snow, and ice on greenhouse gases, too boot.

Read: Global Warming Will Kill Hopes Of A White Christmas In Ireland Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 13, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution spewing airplane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on the daycare generation.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Fossil Fuels Usage To Reach Record Highs In 2017

By William Teach November 13, 2017 – 10:30 am

One of the best things of all time which allows people to move out of poverty and into a better life is the use of fossil fuels. Inexpensive, easily obtained, reliable energy. This is a bad thing in Warmist World

Fossil fuel emissions will reach an all-time high in 2017, scientists say — dashing hopes of progress

Global carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise again in 2017, climate scientists reported Monday, a troubling development for the environment and a major disappointment for those who had hoped emissions of the climate change-causing gas had at last peaked.

The emissions from fossil fuel burning and industrial uses are projected to rise by up to 2 percent in 2017, as well as to rise again in 2018, the scientists told a group of international officials gathered for a United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany.

Would that be the COP23 conference, where thousands upon thousands of True Believers took fossil fueled trips from all over the world to attend?

The renewed rise is a troubling development for the global effort to keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below the levels needed to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. The more we emit now, scientists say, the more severe cuts will have to be later. That’s because of the very long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide, which means we can only emit a fixed amount in total if we want to stay within key climate goals.

They should start with their own usage of fossil fuels.

China and India are going up for CO2 output, and expected to further rise a lot. The EU is expected to go up a tiny bit. The US is expected to continue its slow downward trend. However, when it comes to the Rest Of the World, their output is expected to go way, way up, and this goes very much to the so-called developing nations, which are very interested in using fossil fuels and other things that put out CO2 in order to have the same lifestyles as those in the 1st World.

The new findings will be immediately relevant to the proceedings in Bonn, since one part of the agenda involves laying the groundwork for a “facilitative dialogue” to take place next year, in which countries will take a hard look at where their emissions are, and where they need to be, to live up to the Paris goals.

Let’s unpack that: it means global elites who refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels and lavish carbon footprints want to control what everyone is allowed to do.

Read: Bummer: Fossil Fuels Usage To Reach Record Highs In 2017 »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

In The Age Of Trump, Sheriff’s Are Emboldened To Be Tough On Criminals

By William Teach November 13, 2017 – 7:48 am

Only in Liberal World would getting tough on crime and criminals be considered controversial

Emboldened by Trump, sheriffs are mimicking his rhetoric and putting some residents on edge

With his red “Make America Great” hat now prominently displayed in his office here in Titusville, Ivey is part of a wave of county sheriffs who feel emboldened by President Trump and his agenda, becoming vocal foot soldiers in the nation’s testy political and culture wars.

From deep-blue states such as Massachusetts and New York to traditionally conservative strongholds in the South and the Midwest, locally elected sheriffs have emerged as some of the president’s biggest defenders. They echo Trump’s narrative on everything from serious policy debates such as immigration to fleeting political dust-ups with NFL players who kneel during the national anthem.

With Trump dominating the national conversation through tweets, sheriffs are mimicking his antagonistic political style, alarming progressives and some legal observers who fear an increasingly undisciplined justice system. Some have even gone to battle with Democratic officials, bucking their “politically correct” policies and using rhetoric that puts some residents on edge.

Those residents would be illegal aliens and criminals

“Members of law enforcement and sheriffs seem to be more comfortable articulating controversial, pro-incarceration views than in recent years,” said Daniel Medwed, a law and criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston. “When you have a president who feels comfortable saying things that people would not have said in previous regimes, it emboldens other people to say those things.”

Over the past nine months, various elected sheriffs have been filmed saying that they would call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on undocumented residents, have threatened to bar sex offenders from hurricane shelters, and have proposed sending inmates to help build Trump’s planned Mexican border wall.

And? I’m not seeing the problem here, but, I’m not pro-criminal.

But legal analysts and other observers are surprised that the breadth and political clout of conservative sheriffs appear to be growing stronger, reflecting the coarsening of debate in the United States.

Goodness, law enforcement officials wanting to enforce the law? To get tough on crime and criminals? To make punishment painful? How terrible!!!!!1!!!!

What the article is even more upset with is that so many Sheriff’s are Trump supporters and Republican voters. And that they want to actually enforce Constitutional provisions, rather than squishy, extra-Constitutional laws emanating from Washington.

Of course, there are still some Democratic Party Sheriff’s in the Dem big cities. And look what’s happening with their crime rates.

Read: In The Age Of Trump, Sheriff’s Are Emboldened To Be Tough On Criminals »

Posted in Liberal World | 19 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove