* * *
This is an old story but it's still an interesting one. Neil Steinberg, opinion columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, attempted to buy a gun in order to demonstrate how easy it is to do so, in the name of proving that We Need More Gun Control. The whole column drips with disdain for the personal ownership of weaponry.
I came to this column via somewhere else--a chain, one blogger referring to another, to the original article--and those other bloggers aren't Chicago natives. They didn't read the Sun-Times every day for years, so they wouldn't know that Steinberg is a leftist douchebag, and always has been. The subject and tone and even headline of the column come as no surprise to me whatsoever; and his conclusion upon being denied purchase of a gun is typical leftist horseshit.
The store completed the transaction and the background check for him, and sold him a rifle; but during Illinois' mandated 24-hour waiting period, the store canceled the transaction. In a statement the retailer sent to the paper, they said, "...it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."
The butthurt coming off the article is strong:
Gun dealers do have the right to refuse sales to anyone, usually exercised for people who seem to be straw purchasers. I told her I assume they wouldn't sell me a gun because I'm a reporter. She denied it. But hating the media is right behind hating the government as a pastime for many gun owners. They damn you for being ignorant then hide when you try to find out.Gee, I wonder why gun owners hate the media so much? It couldn't possibly be the constant anti-gun drumbeat and the perennial characterization of gun owners as stupid, violent hicks. They just hate your ignorance, of course! And of course no media person has ever run a "gotcha!" story about gun owners after they cooperated and answered all their questions, right?
As I said, Steinberg is a typical leftist douchebag.
* * *
Correlation does not imply causality but that's only if you can't find other evidence to support that causality. Heavily Democrat districts tend to have stricter gun laws and denser populations, and higher crime rates in general.
* * *
He forgot one. He should have added, "Isn't even remotely funny." None of those comedians can tell a joke to save his life.
Related: "Is the Late-Night Talk Show Over?" It wouldn't be if they were funny, damn it.
* * *
Animals that don't exist after all. The Liberian greenbul is a bird, and only one example has ever been found. It turns out that only one example of it has ever been found because the single example is actually a member of a common species with slightly different plumage.
Now, imagine an bird being found in an American forest with a similar variation in its plumage. Let's say it looks like a common robin but has an odd variation in the chest area such that it's not ruddy red, but brilliant white. Call it the "white-breasted robin", the first-ever found example of a very, very rare bird!
Why, it must be an endangered species! We need to protect its habitat! Shut down all exploitation of that forest immediately. That company that paid twenty million for its logging contract in the next forest over is just going to have to eat that cost, because what if there's another white-breasted robin in that forest? So what if that company has to go out of business--you can make another company, but you can't make another white-breasted robin once the species is extinct!
Despite fervent attempts to get a census of the species, no one ever sees another white-breasted robin. It's vanishingly rare! More forest is declared off-limits. More companies fail.
Time passes, and somehow some EPA stooge finds the white-breasted robin after it's died--maybe during another attempt to get a census--and it gets collected and cataloged and stored. Years later someone revisits the preserved singular example of the white-breasted robin, and it turns out that the white-breasted robin is a regular robin that had weird genetics.
...but the restrictions on land use, do they get rescinded? Does the EPA compensate anyone for the loss of their job, their business, their money?
This is why I think the EPA needs to buy the land it declares to be off-limits. Oh, it's rare for zoologists to make this kind of mistake, but the EPA has a history of blocking land use for much more mundane reasons, and the economic damage caused by their diktats is real. Making them buy the land would limit them to actions which would actually benefit biodiversity, instead of them being able to do whatever the hell they want to "just in case".
* * *
This sounds like an excellent reason to bring back DDT. And also, a fantastic reason never to go to Madagascar.
* * *
Cloudy, cool, damp day. Whee!