56% Say Increasing Concealed Carry Would Make U.S. More Safe

By William Teach October 22, 2015 – 6:53 am

Yet another poll that’s bad for the gun-grabbers

(Gallup) A majority of Americans, 56%, believe that if more Americans carried concealed weapons after passing a criminal background check and training course, the country would be safer.

Personally, I’d like to see an increase in open carry. If a criminal sees someone carrying a handgun, rather than wondering if they have concealed, they’d be less likely to engage in a criminal act against that person. Anyhow, 82% of Republicans say safer, as do 59% of Independents. Of course, only 31% of Democrats say safer, putting them outside of the mainstream yet again on guns. I guess they prefer the high levels of criminal use of guns in their cities, especially when it comes to Blacks killing Blacks.

We also find that 86% support a “universal background check using a centralized database”. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with a background check, and since the term “universal background check” is not explained, of course people will say yes. Then we get this

So, 53% say it wouldn’t really make a difference. We’re still waiting for the recommendations from the gun grabbers on how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, gang members, people intent on doing harm, etc. Most of their plans are aimed at those who aren’t purchasing firearms for nefarious purposes.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: 56% Say Increasing Concealed Carry Would Make U.S. More Safe »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Kid’s Reaction To Mom’s Scary Story Is Priceless

By William Teach October 21, 2015 – 4:40 pm

Yeah, this one is from almost a year ago, and, hey, I have lots of stuff on climate change and politics in the saved file, but, I just don’t feel like it. Enjoy!

Read: Kid’s Reaction To Mom’s Scary Story Is Priceless »

Posted in Humor | Comments Off on Kid’s Reaction To Mom’s Scary Story Is Priceless | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 21, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled cooker heating evil meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on more people believing Donald Trump can win.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

High Flying John Kerry Says Skeptics Shouldn’t Be Allowed In Elected Office

By William Teach October 21, 2015 – 10:23 am

How about a new term: Unintentional Deniers. They are people who say they believe in anthropogenic global warming/climate change, but fail to do more than take token steps to make their own lives carbon neutral. This would especially apply to people like John Kerry, who live high on the hog, use tons of energy, don’t eat local, and use lots and lots of fossil fuels. People who are total climahypocrites

Kerry: Climate Deniers Should Be Disqualified From High Public Service

Climate change deniers do not deserve to serve in high public office, Secretary of State John Kerry said at the kickoff of his Climate and Clean Energy Investment Forum in Washington on Wednesday. (snip)

“And to suggest that when more than 6,000-plus peer-reviewed studies of the world’s best scientists all lay out that this is happening and mankind is contributing to it, it seems to me that they disqualify themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements,” he said.

Seems like Kerry wants to apply a religious test as to whom is qualified, which, last time I checked, was against the Constitution. This is what the far Left does, though: refuse to allow any dissension from their cultish doctrine.

Read: High Flying John Kerry Says Skeptics Shouldn’t Be Allowed In Elected Office »

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

Climate Change Adding Billions To Non-existent US Hurricane Costs Or Something

By William Teach October 21, 2015 – 8:19 am

Remember that hurricane that made landfall in the U.S. just the other week? Oh, wait, the United States has only been hit with one actual hurricane since 2008, and that one, Issac, could be argued was actually just a tropical storm. We’re three days away from the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Wilma, which was the last time the US was hit with a major hurricane, the longest period of no major landfalling hurricanes since the Civil War. But, hey, things are supposedly really, really bad, according to Doyal Rice

(USA Today) The cost of U.S. hurricane damage has increased dramatically from 1900 to 2005 as a result of man-made climate change, an economic study released Monday concludes.

“The rise in losses is consistent with an influence of global warming on the number and intensity of hurricanes, an influence which may have accounted for 2% to 12% of the U.S. hurricane losses in 2005,” according to the study, which was published in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature Geoscience.

In 2005 alone, climate change was likely responsible for close to $14 billion of additional damage, including devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Huh. The study avoids any mention of the last 10 seasons. I wonder why?

The study claims that the extra costs in recent decades do not just stem from more homes, businesses and infrastructure that have been built near the coastlines. “Increases in wealth and population alone cannot account for the observed trend in hurricane losses,” according to the study, whose lead author is Francisco Estrada, an economist at Mexico’s National Autonomous University.

Estrada and two colleagues from Europe said that this unexplained increase in economic losses over time is consistent with a climate change signal.

So, since there has been so few landfalling hurricanes and tropical storms since the start of the 2006 season, and they have almost dried up since 2008, does that mean there’s no “climate change signal” now? Some of the worst hurricane years occurred during….wait for it….Modern Warm Period pauses. The mid-1940’s through mid-1970’s was a big period, especially in the 1960’s. What of the great Galveston hurricane of 1900? Wasn’t much time for “climate change” to kick in, and it was when CO2 was well below the “safe” level of 350ppm.

University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, who was not involved in the study, said it should have included hurricane damage data from just the past 10 years (2006-2015), which have been quiet for hurricane activity. He said it’s “misleading” to end an analysis with the “exceptional” hurricane year of 2005.

“The period 2006-2015 has been well below average in terms of damage and U.S. hurricanes,” Pielke said in an email to USA TODAY. “It is shocking that they did not include this further data.”

No, it’s not shocking, it’s what the Cult of Climastrology does. They claim that it is cherry picking to work backwards from today to show how long the Pause has been going on. Will they say it is cherry picking to ignore data from 2006-2015? Of course not, the idea here is to create a Scary Fable, for which we have to Do Something, namely, increase taxation and control of citizens, private entities, and economies.

Read: Climate Change Adding Billions To Non-existent US Hurricane Costs Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

San Francisco Explodes Myth That Sanctuary Cities Don’t Exist

By William Teach October 21, 2015 – 7:54 am

After the cold blooded killing of Kate Steinle by a 6 time deported illegal alien who’d been convicted of multiple felonies, many on the Left were quick to tell us that sanctuary cities just don’t exist, and, even if they do, they’re totally safer, and not the problem, dagnabit!

Yes, they do exist

(AP) San Francisco supervisors vigorously reaffirmed the city’s status as a sanctuary city on Tuesday, nearly four months after a woman was killed by a Mexican national who had been released from jail despite federal requests to detain him for deportation proceedings.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution urging the sheriff not to participate in a detainer-notification system that asks jails to let Immigration Customs and Enforcement officials know when an inmate of interest is being released.

The action sent a strong but symbolic message to critics who had lambasted San Francisco after the July 1 waterfront shooting of 32-year-old Kate Steinle.

What is that message? It seems to be “to hell with the safety of legal residents of the United States, we’re protecting those who are in the country illegally and may also be felons”.

“All of us in this room agree that the death of Kathryn Steinle was senseless and tragic, but what many of us disagree on is the role — if any — that San Francisco’s existing sanctuary and due-process-for-all” ordinances played in the event, Supervisor Malia Cohen said to cheers from the crowd that gathered for the meeting.

Supervisors said they wouldn’t let hateful commentary undermine a long-standing policy that improves public safety and embraces immigrants.

So, if you dare speak out against a city being a magnet for illegal aliens, many of them dangerous felons, you’re “hateful”.

Public safety? San Francisco is rated as a 3, meaning it’s safer than just 3 percent of US cities. The violent crime rate is 8.64, compared to the national median of 3.8 and California media on 4.02. Robbery and assault are well above the national median. Property crime is also double the national median, with theft and motor vehicle theft well above double the national median. Can all this be blamed on illegal aliens? Of course not. But, being a magnet for illegals surely does not help public safety.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: San Francisco Explodes Myth That Sanctuary Cities Don’t Exist »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on San Francisco Explodes Myth That Sanctuary Cities Don’t Exist | Trackback URL

Latest Warmist Meme: Climate Pledges Aren’t Enough, We Have To Do Way More

By William Teach October 20, 2015 – 3:59 pm

As we approach the next Conference On The Parties in Paris, where lots of Warmists will take lots of fossil fueled trips from all over the world, many of them sucking at the teet of the government via taxpayer funded hotel rooms, etc and so on, members of the Cult of Climastrology are trotting out a new Imperative. Brad Plumer at Vox is the latest

The math on staying below 2°C of global warming looks increasingly brutal

Here’s a capsule summary of the big UN climate talks this year:

1) The good news: Every country is submitting a detailed pledge to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

2) The bad: Those pledges, added together, aren’t nearly enough to keep us below 2°C of global warming. Short of drastic changes, we’re in for some serious shit.

Point 2 can be tricky to conceptualize, since it involves so many moving parts. For more detail, I’d recommend this new paper in Environmental Research Letters by Glen Peters, Robbie Andrew, Susan Solomon, and Pierre Friedlingstein. It’s the clearest presentation I’ve seen of how far off course the world is from its stated 2°C climate goal. And it illustrates why the United States, Europe, China, and even India would have to drastically rethink their climate policies to stay below that target.

Now, for years and years we’ve been told that the CO2 cutting pledges and such just aren’t good enough to keep the world below 2C (3.6F) warming by 2100 (despite there only haven been a meager .8C (1.4F) increase since 1850, and, at best, statistically insignificant warming since 1997), but, now, the Cult of Climastrology is demanding that more be done than what they call meager “carbon pollution” cuts, as espoused in the rest of the Vox screed, along with many, many others. There’s been a growing movement to push for more and more and more. Yet, interestingly, most Warmists aren’t willing to make changes in their own lives. Weird, eh?

Read: Latest Warmist Meme: Climate Pledges Aren’t Enough, We Have To Do Way More »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 20, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil dog sucking up the Earth’s natural resources and causing more/less hurricanes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post wondering why Michelle O is unveiling new websites.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: Another Warmist Calls For Changing The Whole Economic System

By William Teach October 20, 2015 – 10:30 am

But don’t say that this is a political movement, because this is totally about “science”! Here’s Warmist Prof. Alice Bows-Larkin (video here) (via Climate Depot)

So that poses very significant challenges for wealthy nations. Because according to our research, if you’re in a country where per capita emissions are really high — so North America, Europe, Australia —emissions reductions of the order of 10 percent per year, and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance of avoiding the two-degree target. Let me just put that into context. The economist Nicholas Stern said that emission reductions of more than one percent per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval. So this poses huge challenges for the issue of economic growth, because if we have our high carbon infrastructure in place, it means that if our economies grow, then so do our emissions. So I’d just like to take a quote from a paper by myself and Kevin Anderson back in 2011 where we said that to avoid the two-degree framing of dangerous climate change, economic growth needs to be exchanged at least temporarily for a period of planned austerity in wealthy nations.

Interesting. Leftists have been telling us “austerity” is a Bad Thing, from the tiny itty bitty “austerity” implemented via Mr. Obama’s sequestration to asking Greece to live within their means, well, at least the means of all the loans (that don’t get repaid) provided for them. But, hey, for ‘climate change’? Austerity for all!

This is a really difficult message to take, because what it suggests is that we really need to do things differently. This is not about just incremental change. This is about doing things differently, about whole system change, and sometimes it’s about doing less things. And this applies to all of us, whatever sphere of influence we have. So it could be from writing to our local politician to talking to our boss at work or being the boss at work, or talking with our friends and family, or, quite simply, changing our lifestyles. Because we really need to make significant change. At the moment, we’re choosing a four-degree scenario. If we really want to avoid the two-degree scenario, there really is no time like the present to act.

She’s not just talking about changing lifestyles (which Warmists rarely do for themselves), but changing the whole economic system. To what, you ask? She won’t quite say, because that would give the game away. She and Kevin Anderson have called for “de-growth” in 1st world nations. Naomi Klein, who has advocated for a complete economic change to a socialist system, cites the Anderson/Bows-Larkin paper. So does Socialist Climate and Capitalism. As do other Socialists and Progressive sites. Surprise?

Read: Surprise: Another Warmist Calls For Changing The Whole Economic System »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Support For Civilian Possession Of Handguns At Highest Level Ever

By William Teach October 20, 2015 – 8:35 am

Gallup is running an article entitled Americans’ Desire for Stricter Gun Laws Up Sharply, and liberal gun grabbers (meaning, they want to grab Everyone Else’s guns, not their own), are crowing about this. They really love this poll

Fifty-five percent of Americans say they want laws covering the sale of firearms to be stricter than they are now, a distinct rise of eight percentage points from 2014. Fewer Americans than last year want the laws to be less strict, and the proportion who want the laws to stay the same has also declined slightly. (snip)

The rise in the proportion of Americans who want stricter laws on firearm sales can be attributed partly to an increase among certain demographic groups. Support rose among Democrats and especially independents from 2014, and among those who do not personally own a gun. However, support increased even among those who say they own a handgun, from 30% in 2014 to 36% this year.

Here’s what it looks like.

Interestingly, American’s have had much higher support in the past. More interestingly, just wanting stricter laws on gun sales doesn’t say what should be stricter, or how strict. Personally, I think they should be more strict, in terms of making it much harder to make a straw purchase and knowing if the person has mental health issues that make the person a danger to other people, along with better information when it comes to violent misdemeanor and felony charges. We want to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them for nefarious purposes.

Of course, what Liberals mean is making it so hard to purchase a gun that people won’t. How’s that working out in Democratic Party run cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and D.C., among others?

Here’s where it gets fun, though, so fun that liberal gun-grabby websites fail to even bother mentioning this part

While there’s a slight uptick in the number who want civilian ownership of handguns banned, there is still a record level for support for handgun ownership. That’s your takeaway from this Gallup poll. Gun grabbers won’t care. And they still won’t push to enact policies that go after those who illegally possess handguns. Just the law-abiding owners.

Read: Poll: Support For Civilian Possession Of Handguns At Highest Level Ever »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove