Sources say an arrest has been made in connection with a fatal stabbing near the TD Garden that happened as the Pink concert was ending.
…Officers were called to 10 Causeway Street at 10:40 p.m. They found a homeless man in his 50s suffering from stab wounds. He was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said the man was likely on the street for about 30 minutes before anyone called police.
No gunshots, so no “Gun Death”. Further I know this area VERY well, as the Boston Garden is on top of North Station which is the train station I use to get home when I’m in the city. Also the Garden is an easy walk to Massachusetts General Hospital. So the idea that if help had been called soon after the event, this victim might have lived isn’t an absurd one.
A bouncer at The Harp told the Boston Globe he heard arguing and then saw the victim on the ground.
Not sure if he knew the guy was on the ground because he had been injured, or given that the man is one of the countless homeless people who loiter around the Garden at all hours, possibly he might think a body piled up on the sidewalk is a normal thing, but he certainly saw the man down shortly after he was attacked, but a while before anybody was called.
A severely injured 9-year-old whose 6-year-old sister died of an apparent beating told police they were attacked by “bullies” — but their mother is facing assault charges after police found a note on her saying “the children were bad and beaten.”
…**SURVIVOR**, who police said suffered “serious injuries and bruising to his face,” also told officers his mother “had glued a wound on his neck closed with super glue,” and that his parents had told him not to call 911.
**DEPARTED** was pronounced dead after being found unresponsive in the family’s home on Stoneybrook Road, where the children were home-schooled.
Police said they observed “extensive bruising of various ages over her entire body.” Her brother said **DEPARTED** was unable to drink yesterday morning “and that his mother was mad.”
No idea if any weapons were used or just bare hands, but a little girl is dead, and her older brother could have also been killed as well.
And of course these stories are to shine a light on the bogus statistic of “Gun Death” used by gun control advocates. It shows how many brutal and horrible crimes aren’t counted, as well as showing what could replace “Gun Death” if all guns were magically vanished.
And when you look at the insanity in London where simple trade tools are being confiscated and the police are proudly parading scissors, and garden shears, as if they have done something worthy of praise. Never mind the “Scary” pocket knives and kitchen knives we take for granted here.
The anti-gun forces ARE coming for ALL the guns, but that isn’t their end-goal, their end goal is total control of society.
So back in 2010 a guy who I suspect knew very little about cars but a lot about building websites sold The Truth About Cars, and used that money to form a gun blog called “The Truth About Guns”
He then started a “Gun Blog” that didn’t know much about guns, and was fairly antagonistic to the second Amendment Field, including stealing stuff from bloggers claiming “Fair Use” (including from me) and generally being a jerk. He even hired an anti-gun drug dealer for a contributor!
I knew he would eventually grow tired of running his site like he did with the cars one, and eventually would sell out.
For those who don’t know or remember, After the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France, Farago set up a shoot-house where the terror attack would be simulated, but there would be American CCW holders inside. He invited all the media to come and report on the event.
This would be awesome except the staff of the training facility both assembled the shoot-house AND played the terrorists. This both gave the bad guys more skill than the actual killers AND gave them intimate knowledge of the building. The Hebdo staff was played by TTAG readers from Texas…which meant that the people who “worked” in the office had spent less time in the Shoot house than the “terrorists”.
So the “terrorists” won, and the news reported that CCW would have done no good.
Of course TTAG staff later realized that some of the terrorists didn’t notice, or cheated when they were shot, and one man used a tactical light which the terrorists didn’t have. Further it was claimed there would be more “analysis” of film footage from the participants, that never came.
This media stunt was a direct attack on gun rights in this country, no different than ABC’s 20/20 where they gamed a campus shooter, except ABC doesn’t bill itself as a 2nd Amendment supporter. The fact that no staff quit after this event says the whole site is rotten to the core no matter who owns it.
But I am glad I won’t be seeing Farago at the NRAAM this year.
So one important thing for me to do in the intelligence side of the gun debate is to watch the C-list gun control advocates.
See the A and even B-list figures are all having their speeches and public statements approved through the corporate machine. This is why when you listen to anti-gun politicians or lobbyists talk you often hear the exact same phrase again and again, and even more you often see trending talking points. Like back in the early 2000s activists referred to firing multiple rounds through a semi-auto firearm as not a “Pull of the trigger” but as a “Finger twitch”, trying to somehow state what they had always attempted, that semi-auto is really almost the same as full auto.
That “Finger twitch” line was EVERYWHERE for about a month, and then it VANISHED as quickly as it had appeared. That talking point was crafted by the messaging experts (in the case of Finger Twitch, that came from inside the Brady Campaign) and it was communicated to all official spokespeople that this was the new term to use for “Semi-auto”….and then when polling showed that it wasn’t working, a new message was given out….NO LONGER USE “FINGER TWITCH” IT HURTS THE MESSAGE!!!
You see this with the March For Our Lives kids. March For Our Lives is a Bloomberg owned company, it’s no different than The Trace, Moms Demand Action, or any of the other anti-gun groups under the Everytown Umbrella. Not only were kids like Emma Gonzales and David Hogg flown around the country on Daddy Bloomberg’s dime, their speeches and talking points (and I wouldn’t be surprised if reporters were given sample questions) were also supplied by Everytown employees.
Because of this, I’ve watched dozens of speeches and media appearances by these Parkland kids, and there has consistently been NOTHING of substance on what they say. They hate the NRA, They hate anybody who might be affiliated with the NRA, they talk about “Gun Death”, they talk about their experience in the shooting (which I really can’t blame them, or fault them at all), They talk about youth voting, and they frequently repeat some meaningless catchphrase like “We Call BS!”
They don’t talk about laws, or solutions. That’s pretty consistent with the Corporate Anti-Gun Lobby, they give opposition to the 2nd Amendment as a whole, but they offer no alternative…until there is a law either up for a vote or up for referendum. Then if the law fails (which it most often does) it is totally abandoned.
See Tom (or Mike Weisser for that matter) isn’t part of any anti-gun lobby group (Mike has some little lobby group that may or may-not still exist, but its so ineffectual it hardly counts) but they are voices frequently USED by the anti-gun lobby because Mike owns guns and a gun shop here in Massachusetts and LOVES gun control, and Tom is a scientist so his opinion can’t be questioned!
To Tom has always been against so-called “Assault Weapons” or “Weapons of War” as he calls them, but like most Anti-gunners he knows them when he sees them, but can’t define them! He starts with a recap of the 1994 AWB:
The manner in which weapons covered by the ban were defined also undermined its effectiveness. The federal ban and current state laws define “AWs” by their features, some of which are irrelevant to the harm the weapon can produce. Under the 1994 ban, an assault weapon included semi-automatic rifles capable of accepting detachable magazines and possessing two or more of the following features:
Folding stocks for concealment and portability;
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
A bayonet mount;
A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; or
A grenade launcher.
Definitions based on these features create a loophole by allowing manufacturers to circumvent the law simply by making minor modifications to a weapon. For example, removing flash suppressors and bayonet mounts makes a weapon no less dangerous but can get around a features-based definition.
Now what Tommy won’t talk about is the INTENT of the law. See the anti-gun groups want to ban ALL guns, period, full-stop! But they know they can’t do that. They started in the 60s with calls to ban all handguns (really you could even say the first attempt was the NFA, and that’s why barrel length and overall length are relevant in that law, they were defining handguns and forcing every $25 revolver to have an additional $200 tax in the 1930s) but Americans WANT handguns, they’re what we use to defend ourselves! So they stepped back from that. Note I didn’t say “Abandoned” if you don’t think Handgun Control Inc is any less against handguns when they changed to the Brady Campaign, you’re an idiot. Also Michael Bloomberg sure did a lot of work as New York Mayor to make sure the plebeians diddn’t get their hands on handguns.
But in the 1990s AR-15s were ONLY made by Colt, they were expensive, they looked funny, and so not many people owned them. Same with AKs, they weren’t expensive, but they were more rare, subject to import restrictions, AND they were the ENEMY weapon in the Cold War which was a war of optics, not bullets.
The antis thought MAYBE they could ban ALL semi-auto long-guns…..but there were too many hunters in the way, and back then Hunters were the main lobby arm for the 2nd Amendment. So the feature list was simply looking over what were the unique parts of guns like the AR-15 and AK-pattern. Muzzle devices, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, inline stocks (which require a separate pistol grip) ect.
The idea what cut off a small number of semi-autos first, then slowly draw the ban in closer and closer.
It was a MASSIVE tactical error, and thankfully one they continue to make.
Now in Tom’s previous anti “weapons of war” posts he refuses to define them….even gets asked in the comment section to define them. He doesn’t. He still isn’t going to in this post, but he gets closer:
To address this void, I propose identifying the most dangerous firearms and regulating them, not on the basis of what they look like but on their ability to kill and injure as many people as possible in the shortest time frame. National gun expert Mike Weisser proposes a method of scoring the lethality of a firearm on the basis of five factors: This system is an objective one which is not influenced by cosmetic modifications intended to circumvent regulations.
Caliber – Larger and faster projectiles tend to cause more damage to human tissue, although the design of bullets and the materials used to make them are also important;
Capacity – The number of cartridges that can be fired without reloading;
Loading mechanism – The speed at which a rifle can be reloaded;
Action – Time required to fire a single cartridge and bring the next cartridge into the breech;
Design flexibility—the ability of a firearm to accommodate accessories, some of which increase lethality (e.g., lasers, electronic aiming devices, fore grips).
Once a scoring system is in place, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has the expertise and facilities in place to evaluate each firearm on the market and give it a lethality score.
Cool now he’s talking a “Lethality Score”….but note he isn’t defining a score, he’s saying the ATF will do it for him. Why? Tommy is a researcher, he can’t come up with some sort of scoring system? Hell even Mike came up with a scoring system, you can read it here spelling and factual errors and all (PDF) (BTW jus skimming it, it seems that a huge part of his “research” was just making stuff up out of thin air), but there is no definition, and let’s be honest his criteria as so vague as to question if he A) Has no idea what he’s talking about (My vote) or B) Simply wants to keep the options open to cover EVERYTHING.
Like “Action type”: He isn’t saying semi-auto….but let’s face it, it doesn’t matter if you have a simple blowback hi-point carbine, or a DI AR-15, or a long-stroke Mini-14, the numbers should be all the same….but I wonder if he’s also trying to lump in pump and lever action guns….of course he won’t say.
This is the whole point of the post 2004 Assault Weapons crusade, don’t define the terms….or in the case of California, re-define the terms every few years. Maura Healy is on record with this:
Hear that? Massachusetts will NOT release their criteria for defining “Assault Weapons” because it will invoke a “Cat and Mouse Game”. More like, if you define an “Illegal Assault Weapon” then gun makers can COMPLY with the law. You don’t call a rifle with a 16″ barrel, or a Bullpup with an OAL of 26″ a “Loophole Short Barrel Rifle” because it fucking isn’t an SBR!
He [the shooter’s father] also said she had been reported missing on Monday after not answering calls for two days. Police later found her sleeping in her car in Mountain View, 25km (15 miles) south of the YouTube offices in San Bruno and reported this to her family, but did not detain her.
REDACTED father then warned police that she might go to YouTube as she “hated the company,” local media said.
Still early to go off exactly what the police did or didn’t do, sounds like, from this single report, that she was reported missing, and police found her sleeping in her car, and reported back to her father that she had been found. They didn’t detain her because she hadn’t done anything wrong, and is a grown adult and had every right to be there. According to how this report is written (but again this is speculation) it was THEN that her Father suggested she might be heading to Youtube to enact some sort of revenge.
If this is how it played out in reality, and not just how it reads in the report, then what did police do? Did they contact Youtube? Does Youtube have any security, and did they take any further actions?
Obviously Youtube and Alphabet in general is an anti-gun company, and given that, and that this is in the San Francico Bay area, we can assume that they have a policy against employees being armed, not that it would really be possible as San Mateo County simply does not issue carry permits, so an armed employee would need the direct blessing of Youtube management to be lawfully armed there. So once again a crazy person seeks out a gun free zone to shoot people.
Also here’s an interesting part that I’ve been seeing a lot of.
Her father, Ismail, told local US media she had become angry because YouTube had stopped paying her for uploading videos.
The platform “stopped everything and now she has no income,” he told NBC news.
This is a VERY common phenomenon in Youtube, when they first introduced their partnership program content creators started making VERY good money, and many of them quit their day jobs, starting working for Youtube full-time, and in many cases, started hiring employees….then the “Adpocalypse” happened and a LOT of channels (not just gun channels) suddenly lost either ALL or a huge portion of their revenue stream. Some managed to switch to a different method of earning and kept the channel going without a hiccup, others quit the game, some, I suspect, but don’t know, managed to play ball and get their revenue stream re-instated.
One person got her hand on a gun and shot three people, who hopefully will recover completely, and then turned the gun on herself.
This is VERY bad ju-ju! Here’s a great video on this subject from Lloyd at Lindybeige, who talks about medieval weapons and history.
Personally I think Youtube figured out that people upload videos (or post to blogs, or upload podcasts) because they are expressing their creativity, and not because they are expressly being paid for it.
And of course they do it all with bots.
Youtube, and certainly their employees don’t deserve this violence, but they are being right bastards.
**UPDATE** looks like Police did say they would “Keep an eye on her”, this doesn’t strike me as Parkland levels of incompetence, but it still goes to show you that the role of police is to arrest the criminals, not protect us from them.
**UPDATE**Please stay to the end to read the update below, it blows everything I wrote out of the water!
So the antis have been debating us for too long to not know that of the roughly 33,000 “Gun Deaths” in America every year, 60-70% of those “Gun Deaths” are suicides, the the bulk of these suicides are older adults. They know that background check laws, safe storage laws, magazine bans, gun bans, and any other anti-gun boilerplate isn’t relevant to this issue.
But they NEED dead bodies, their entire agenda is contingent on dead bodies! So they try to conflate that guns cause suicide, and we get this graphic from Bloomberg’s web mouthpiece The Trace.
Ok so first lets just LOOK at the graph! A very nice curve on one side (It should be, they arranged the states intentionally in order) and a raggity mess on the other side! OK, yes the graph is VAGUELY symmetrical….but boy that’s some messy Data! It’s nothing but outliers! There are a TON of states that fall into the “High Gun Ownership” group (especially when you notice that the curve is REALLY flat in the middle…lots of states have very similar gun ownership rates) but have relatively low “Gun Suicide”, Places like The Dakotas, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, among others. Why do they have such a low “Gun Suicide Rate” yet have relatively high gun ownership rates? Also look up at the top! Ok Hawaii is fucking HORRIBLE to gun owners, so those numbers are understandably low, and their Suicide rate is low. No shit, its a fucking tropical Island! You feel depressed, smoke some legal weed and go sit on the beach and watch the waves, maybe eat a fresh coconut!
But look at Connecticut and New York, both anti-gun states, and their “Gun Ownership” numbers look approximately the same, but Connecticut has a much higher Suicide rate than New York which is right next door.
And while Massachusetts has the lowest “Gun Suicide” rate, and by my math is the most gun unfriendly state in the country, California is a close Second, and Illinois is in 3rd, those states have a much higher “Gun Suicide” rate….why?
Of course no explanation is given to these wild numbers.
Also how did they get these numbers in the first place? I looked at the references from the cited journal article but I can’t find a clear-cut source on how they determined the “Gun Ownership” number. Further I have some questions about the suicide numbers. So there’s a big spike in Florida, it makes sense, it’s relatively friendly to gun owners, and its a haven for retired persons…which happens to be a huge percentage of the suicides in America. It makes sense, lots of 65+ People and no onerous gun laws you’ll see a higher rate of suicide.
But what about Nevada? I’ve heard, but I don’t have a reference to cite, that Nevada has lots of suicides from tourists. People losing all their money in the casinos, and people having one last hurrah and living it up before punching out. Also there are lots of shooting ranges in Nevada that cater to tourists from gun unfriendly areas, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more suicides with rental guns from people who planned a last vacation. So are those “Gun Suicides” all from the gun owners in the corresponding categories?
What about when your local drug dealer offs himself rather than going back to prison? Is owning a stolen gun counted as “Gun Ownership”? Certainly the suicide still counts.
And then there’s the numbers themselves. Look, Gun ownership is in Percent (per 100 for those who don’t speak Latin) and the suicide is per 100,000!
Think about that! Even if Bloomberg had a perfect 1-to-1 ratio (which he doesn’t) that would mean that firearms only CAUSE suicide in 1% of those who own them. Given that this data set is VERY questionable both on its correlation between guns and “Gun Suicides” and its methods of just determining these numbers, a 1% correlation would still likely be statistically insignificant to draw any conclusions on. And they don’t have even those worthless numbers in the first place.
Also the data is further garbage because the overall implication is that SUICIDE is bad, not just “Gun Suicide”. This is the whole point to the “Gun Death” unit, it’s an artificial variable that is implied to be a number we all think about. Lower “Gun Death” is applied to mean it has a lower death rate in general, same here with this “Gun Suicide” number, it implies that a low “Gun Suicide” number is a low suicide number.
That isn’t the case. Doing a quick look, but not running a statistical analyses there is a correlation in those numbers, but hardly a clean one. The bottom line is while nation-wide 50% of the suicides are by firearm, in places like Massachusetts with the lowest “Gun Suicide” rate that isn’t the case (PDF)
Firearms were only used in 24% of the suicide deaths by males, and 11% by Females. That’s a MASSIVE deviation from the national numbers, so while Massachusetts is below average in Suicide numbers in total, this data does point out that suicide will be replaced by another method if a gun is not available.
So their overall implication is that if we reduce the number of guns in civilian hands we will reduce suicide, and that just isn’t true. Also when you note that they are pushing for reduction in gun ownership numbers, while they heap high praise on Australia and the UK, we can guess what their proposed methods might be.
**UPDATE** Ok, I hadn’t read the whole study Bloomberg referenced, and boy I should have before I put pen to paper! This is from the Methods of the study I linked above:
The main predictor variable was the prevalence of household firearm ownership. Because no annual survey assessed the level of household firearm ownership in all 50 states during the entire study period, we used a well-established proxy: the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm (firearm suicides divided by all suicides, or FS/S). This measure has been extensively validated in the literature13,14,32,37,44,50–54 and has been determined to be the best proxy available of many that have been tested.50 The ratio of firearm suicides to all suicides has been shown to correlate highly with survey measures of household firearm ownership,13,14,32,36,50–54 including state-specific measures of firearm ownership,36,50 and has been used extensively as a proxy for state-specific gun availability in previous studies.32,34–37,39,43,44,54–56
So get that? They are looking at the correlation of gun ownership rates and “gun suicide”, and they determine gun ownership by the number of gun suicides the state has! This isn’t a study variable, it’s a positive feedback loop! It’s almost amazing that the graph above isn’t perfectly symetrical!
First up you will all be able to hear the show soon. We have episode one done, episode two will be done this week, and the podcast has a home!
We have a website (At the time of my typing it’s totally empty, I need to get to that) we have a facebook group which you might even already be following as Sean gave Erin and I the keys to the old Gunblog Variety Cast group and we renamed it.
So we’re almost there, and thanks to all for your patience!