Murphy's Law, or what?

[alan]

It had been my understanding that S.1774 and or S.1835, legislation that would extend, for 10 years, the 1988 ban on the sale, possession or manufacture, in the U.S. of UNDECTABLE FIREARMS had been passed. Of course, there are no such firearms, but that is another matter, one that would not stand in the way of our exhaulted law makers.

In any case, yesterday, I got from the offices of my U.S. Senators information to the effect that 1774 and 1835 had not been passed, that they were still in The Judiciary Committee. The House, via an example of legislative legerdemain by James Sensenbrenner, had passed a version of this legislation, but the Senate hadn't.

The point of the foregoing is the following. It is not to late for the "elected things" in The Senate to feel the weight of the roughly 80,000,000 law abiding gun owners objecting to the legislative stupidity above described.

Consider the following if you will, re the above mentioned. If the anti gunners and their allies can push through a law banning guns that don't exist, just think what they might do respecting guns that do? One assumes that most viewers, readers and or the acquaintances thereof are familiar with the following admonition, Speak now or forever hold your piece. Well just think of the following in addition.

If our side let's the opposition pull off a stunt like this, banning things that do not exist, consider how much of a "leg up" we will have handed the antis. It might well be one that our side will never recover from. Think about the ultimate costs of doing nothing.

According to the following from the N.Y. Times, it appears that the "correction" I got from my Senators offices was incorrect, to use polite terminology.

NYTimes.com > National

Ban on Plastic Guns Extended 10 Years
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 9, 2003


Filed at 9:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush quietly signed legislation Tuesday that would extend for 10 years a ban on plastic guns that can be slipped past airport metal detectors or through X-ray machines.

The legislation bans the manufacture, sale or possession of such firearms, but exempts military and intelligence agencies. It renews a ban that was last reauthorized in 1998 and expires this month.

Advertisement


It was passed as officials worry that terrorists would get their hands on weapons undetectable by metal detectors at airports and other security checkpoints.

 

[N3rday]

Cmon, how smart do you really think Bush is? I'm sure no one has pointed out that these guns don't exist up in Washington...

 

[Standing Wolf]

Cmon, how smart do you really think Bush is?

Not very. Less anti-American than Liar Gore, but not very.

 

[alan]

I find Bush more and more annoying, but as to stupid, dumb or whatever else, perhaps he cheated, but he has a Masters, MBA I believe, and he is President, so you tell me how stupid he is, or might be.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I believe the answer is, "or what."

Murphy's law has absolutely zero relevance here. alan, what I believe you are hoping to reference is actually Finagle's Law which says that if it can go wrong it will. This is actually called Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives. Finagle predates Murphy. Murphy's law actually pertains specifically to human behavior and not to bad luck as in Finagle's Law. Murphy's Law is "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it." Murphy was a rocket scientist and the comment was in regard to several parts, all the same, that were installed in the same manner, exactly backwards. He caught the mistake before a rocketsled test, as I recall.

Most folks are completely clueless as to who Finagle was or the fact that what they call Murphy's Law is actually Finagle's Law.

 

[alan]

Double Naught Spy:

Re your "Most folks are completely clueless as to who Finagle was or the fact that what they call Murphy's Law is actually Finagle's Law", I guess I'm included in that number, however it was my impression that Murphy's Law(s) included the following. Anything that can go wrong will, and when it does, there will always be someone who just knew it would.

 

[foghornl]

Finagle & Murphy were a matched pair of eternal optimists.


Not to "thread-jack" but does anyone remember Joe Bltzfk (sp?) from the Li'l Abner cartoon? They guy walking aound with the thunderstorm always directly over him?


Well, that's me!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

alan, right, many people think that, and it is completely wrong. Murphy's law does not include the statement you suggested. Please allow me to draw your attention to ... http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/m/Murphy_s_Law.html

While not stated there, Finagle and his law preceded Murphy by several years. The concept of "if anything can go wrong, it will" is specifically not a Murphy concept. That is what is called folklore just like suggesting shooting a person in the thumb with a .45 acp will spin them around, knock them down, and kill them. Whether or not people believe it to be true does not make it factuall correct simply because of the belief. Misunderstandings of Murphy can be attributed to pop culture, poster sold to kids with "Murphy's Law" for particular circumstances (cars, climbing, dating, technology, warfare, etc.) and the internet where things get spread like wild fire. This forum is a classic example.

A good example of trying to head off a Murphy mistake is where gun makers make it impossible to load a round in the chamber backward. There is a reason for that. People will put them in backwards...just like during the Civil War and other similar battle with musket loaded rifles that folks under stress managed to load the ball, then the powder and then had a failure to fire. A police firearms instructor just related a story to me yesterday about two ways to do something, one being wrong, and an officer managing to do it wrong and testing out the new 'snail' bullet trap. In a typical Murphy blunder, the officer racked the slide to remove the round from the chamber of a Sig, dropped the slide, placed the muzzle into the snail trap and pulled the trigger and then to her surprise, there was a loud BANG and the chamber round discharged into the snail. The snail worked great. What went wrong? Simple, she should have removed the magazine FIRST before racking the slide to clear the chamber. She didn't and simply managed to chamber a new round and it was that round that was discharged into the trap. These are NOT Finagle's Law examples, but Murphy's law.

Many people also think that if a person does something and gets harmed or killed, that "Darwin" or 'survival of the fittest' relative to Darwin comes into play. It does not if just based on those parameters. Darwinian evolution and survival of the fittest are theoretical concepts of population genetics and have zero to do with the individual within a population. More over, it refers to the passing on genes from one generation to the next. Ideally, traits that are beneficial help a given organism survive long enough to reproduce. Those genes then get pased to the next generation. Hence the popularized (and not actually correct) version of 'survival of the fittest.' In fact, the most fit sometimes do die prematurely, either due to intentional acts or random chance and do so before having the chance to pass on their genes. By contrast, you can be dumb as a barrel of hair and be killed doing something idiotic, but if you have already passed on your genes to the next generation, then there is no relavance to Darwinian concepts as you have passed on your genes. You know, there were some amazingly healthy deer on Mt. St. Helen's before it exploded. Those animals no longer get to pass on their genes, but not because they were not fit animals. Comprende? In large part and in recent years, this sort of misconception can be blamed on pop-sci programs and the "Darwin Awards" web site/newsletter.

 

[dshimm]

Although blanket legislation outlawing an entire class of guns offends me in principle, the fact that this class of guns outlawed does not exist makes it at least a little palatable to me. Yes, I wish our president and legiscritters had the spine to stand up to the Brady Bunch and soccer moms, but, on the other hand, if we have to throw the morons a crumb to appear "moderate," this is a pretty easy crumb to throw.

Maybe Bush ought to announce, with great fanfare, a bill to outlaw the manufacture and possession of invisible firearms, which are, of course, of use only to terrorists and crooks and exist only in the minds of soccer Moms.

 

[alan]

dshimm:

Personally spoeaking, I would be real careful re what you seem to advocate, 'throwing the morons a crumb in order to appear moderate". The following are reflective of my thinking on the subject, should you be interested.

1. One can never fortell from whose hide the next "crumb" will come, they do come from somewhere you know, and in passing I will note that it could come from your hide.

2. Throwing them a crumb is sort of like paying off your friendly blackmailer. The recipt of either "crumbs" or money serves only to encourage furthur demands, or so it appears to me, looking at the historic progression of gun control proposals. He that learns not from history, will relive it.

 

[alan]

Double Naught Spy:

I will read material at the link. Thanks. Later.