Duck Dynasty - no, not a fan!

And not likely to be one anytime soon.

But don't take that to mean I am a drama queen, up in arms at those mean, nasty, dastardly comments by Duck Daddy.

Folks, one person's homophobia is another person's faith - you know, just like one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorists.  Besides, what the hell does homophobia mean, anyway?  No one said that anyone was afraid of gays.  Maybe we should call this "homopitty" because thinking homosexuality is wrong, a sin, a one way ticket on the fast track to hell is not phobia.  Just like, in some "queer eye for the straight guy" way, thinking that Duck daddy is a bearded creature from another plant is not phobic - it is judgemental.  Considering his opinion crazy and archaic is not phobic, it is judgemental.  And ain;t we all judgmental?

Look - there is lots of shit I do that others do not like.  I have been called an asshole more times than I can remember.  I drive crazy.  As is clear from my posting here, I own and carry firearms.  I am sure that all of that and so much more makes me some sort of subhuman troglodyte to some folks.  But know what - no whining, no crying, no big deal.  I don't give a shit.

So - time to get over thinking everyone should accept you for what you are - it ain't happening.  Be what you are.  You want to hold gay pride parades dressed in your mother's underwear - have at it.  Don't care!  You want to be Dan Savage and talk about straight folks like they are morons and trash catholic priests (not that I care for them either - just making a point) - then have at it.  But you can't do all that and then cry foul when someone speaks their mind about you and your behavior.  This ain't no one way street - you are not making the rules for the rest of us.

Look, this is not about freedom of speech; other than prohibiting the government form outlawing speech, there is no such thing.  That is the beloved capitalism and freedom we all love - we can say what we want (and have sex with whom we want) if we are willing to deal with the aftermath.  Speech has consequences.  So Duck Daddy's drool will have consequences, somehow I doubt he said it thinking no one would notice.  A&E suspending him for his opinions is also their right - that damned capitalism and free enterprise stuff.  But it will have consequences.  No speech is free - no act is free; what we say and do have consequences.  Time to get over that.

But look - liberals - there was a time you seemed to care about rights.  Of course, it seems you are only interested in what you want to do.  But you can't tell other people how to live one minute and then next say no one else should tell people how to live.  It's not logical, it makes no sense.  Doing so makes you look stupid - perhaps you are stupid.

The man's religion tells him that a man lying with a man is akin to a man lying with a beast.  Yep, I think that's pretty stupid.  But then I also cannot relate to a man lying with a man so I find both ideas a bit foreign.  I suggest you both not try to convince me otherwise.  Especially not when you want to take away my rights. 

My thought is that both of you have the right to your thing - so deal with it. 

And I am stuck here between you idiots.

And this is why we carry!

And why only a fool wants to walk around unarmed.  Sure - it didn't happen here; in fact, it happened in the pristine bastion of zero violent crime - Britain (after all since they outlawed firearms, how can there be violence?).

Yeah, I know - this will never happen to you, thinking this might happen is paranoia, blah, blah, blah.  But you go head and utter platitudes to convince yourself that you are always safe, everywhere you go, that all those people you encounter, who get close to you in all those places you go mean you no harm and would never go anything violent.

Just remember that Fusilier Lee Rigby let his guard down, felt secure, crossed the street, was hit, run over, stabbed and nearly beheaded all in the land of "No violence here, thank you very much!).  Just remember that one of his murderers was quoted as saying that Rigby was killed because  "he was the soldier that was spotted first."  You might be the first person spotted on that day that someone, anyone, for any reason, decides that your death would be adequate retribution for someone else's folly, that the cost exacted for the behavior of some one who looks like you or shares your job is your death.  There is your unarmed paradise.

If it pleases you to believe it cannot happen to you, that evil will never visit your door, then lie down now and offer yourself up.  For me and mine - I will keep my head up, eyes open, firearm strapped on, remain calm and, if I have to go, I will take as many of them with me as I can.

I can think of no better vehicle for a sense of peace and serenity than being ready and capable to do violence when it is necessary.

Si vis pacem para bellum.

You must be joking...

Oh, my!  A computer-generated random confirmation code and everyone gets their panties in a wad.

We have become a society of drama queens.  Get a grip!

Why is it? (UPDATED)

Why is it that when someone - say a disgruntled 18 year-old - uses a firearm to commit mayhem it makes all the news shows and headlines, yet when a law-abiding properly-permitted citizen uses a concealed firearm to protect others and save lives, the national media, in fact any media other than the local one, ignore this.

There is little reason to wonder why people seem to think that firearms are only ever used by civilians for evil.  For one, they see only what they want to see, they know the truth and thus are immune to new data.  Second, they only hear what others want them to hear, few of them will know that a firearm in the hands of a fellow citizen is more likely to save lives than to take them. [Few know that they are more likely to be shot by police than by an armed citizen].

Lastly we have to realize that wishing that this law-abiding citizen had been prohibited from having his firearm in his possession, is tantamount to wishing that the people he defend would have been killed.

UPDATE:  Well, if the victim in this home invasion had been armed,perhaps he would have been able to save himself from being stabbed and the alleged invader from a terrible death.  (Not that the invader did not deserve a terrible end, but the bleeding hearts who are so afraid of firearms might also find his avoidance of bisection a good thing - and, in this case, a positive reason for armed self-defense.)  Remember that most successful defenses with a firearm do not even involve its discharge. If the victim had had a firearm and held the perpetrator for police, he would never have made his fateful unsuccessful leap.

Perhaps...

They might have been better of if there were armed.

A step in the right direction...

Really very happy to see this finding from the 1st District Court of Appeals.  It is about time that the assertion by officials at universities in Florida (and elsewhere) that they can resist state preemption by considering themselves "school districts" was called out for its absurdity.  Isn't it clear that the assumption that underlies such policies is that the young people we send to college are too out of control, too impulsive, too uncivilized, too violent to allow them to exercise the rights they are allowed to exercise everywhere else?  What does that say for our view of our students (and faculty)?  I can only hope that this decision will ultimately lead to a step in the right direction for all schools in the Florida State University System, putting them one step closer to allowing those of us who work here to have some reasonable way to defend ourselves.

Some of the comments in the story deserve attention:

"I am looking forward to getting my concealed weapon, but I don't think it needs to be on campus for the simple fact that having weapons on campus heightens things to get more violet," said UNF junior Susan Kurilla (the misspellings and such are theirs, not mine).

- Ah, you are clearly the product of our education system, misinformed and illogical.  How does having weapons on campus make things more violent - perhaps you should read some of the tragic tales of violence on campuses where lawful carry of gun are prohibited.  Are we assuming that there are we are over-run by potential shooters who do not act out because the university president establishes policy that says they can't have a firearm on campus?  Kind of like "Oh, well, I was thinking I'd shoot-up campus this week, but I do not want to get expelled for violating policy"?  Really.  Are our campus really bastions of safety? (See my previous posts on this matter).  Gun-free zones and safety-free are defense-free zones and experience tells us that shooters know this.

"I feel like you should have the right to protect yourself, but at the same time I think it opens doors for more bad things to happen," said UNF junior Megan Mclain.

- Well, this is a clone and probably enough was said.  Just another emotional and illogical statement with no shred of evidence to support it.  Why do you think this?  Because Sung-Hui Cho brought weapons onto campus and killed people?  But weren't the weapons he brought already against policy, illegal?  Did the policy dissuade him?  Might just one armed potential victim have persuaded him to take his own life that much sooner?  Again, are you saying that you and your peers are that immature, that uncontrolled, that untrustworthy that we cannot allow you to exercise rights that others can (or that you can when off-campus)?  How does being on campus change this?

If only people would think through their positions, instead of just "feel" things.

"Just our protection. Our personal protection," Bratton said.

- That is it, plain and simple...there is no reason that I, because I work on a college campus, should not be able to take charge of my own personal protection.  The campus police you say?  Where were they at VT?  How long did it take for them to respond there and at Sandy Hook?  Why, because I work on a college campus, should I be required to "die in place" when I might be able to defend myself?  That is not your damned choice to make for me.

No, I am not a ninja, not an "operator", not an LEO.  I do not want to be.  But I am a military veteran, well-trained in the safe and effective use of firearms of all kinds, and an individual who does not wish to give over the responsibility for his safety to others.  I have a CWFL which allows me to carry concealed.  I train on a regular basis.  I can defend myself and in so doing defend others.

I am not talking about clearing buildings, about hearing the alerts and going on the offensive.  I am talking about defending myself, my students, and co-workers should a shooter enter our area intent on running up a body count.  I am talking about doing what I can to avert such a tragedy and, quite frankly, dying on my feet and not on my knees begging for my life as so many others have died in shootings in gun-free zones. Cowering in fear, begging for humanity from inhuman animals while waiting for someone to save me is simply not in my plan.

I hope this decision by this appeals court is one step closer to giving me back that natural right.

Can't quite buy it...

Never have been one for hero worship - at least not the heroes that the pols, pundits and prevaricators feed us.  So, to be honest, I cannot be sold on Nelson Mandela as hero.  Survivor, someone who was imprisoned, perhaps for the wrong reasons, for many years?  Perhaps.  But hero is a strong word for someone with his history. 

I would refer folks here to see at least the less than shiny side of today's hero.  Perhaps - well, most certainly - the goals of the hero and how well they reflect the current sentiments of the people that define them will become the metric for heroism.  That and the use of heroes to label others as evil.   As can be seen from Mandela's own comments here - the methods of terror, no matter who uses them, may be justified in hindsight when the culture decides the cause was just.  Today's "sensibilities" (perhaps inanities) help to define the hero and wipe away the taint of terror.

I would wish we could see how disingenuous this biased, backwards looking perspective can be.  But we love to create heroes, most often at the whim of today's pet issues.  Mandela is a hero because being downtrodden has advantage.  Sadly we - they - think little about the role such heroic terrorists and the adulation they receive play in educating today's children about how to approach life.  This is a game of ends justifying means - terror is justified, if decades later the ends are valued.  Will there come a time when today's terrorists will also be viewed as heroes; in fact, are they already? Why should be be surprised?

'Tis a dangerous plan.

Huffington Post: The New Front for Gun Control

A diner at Sir Edmond Halley's a pub in Charlotte, N.C., thanks the owner for hanging a "no guns allowed" sign.

All I can say is good luck with this.

Let's see: 
- Columbine - school, gun-free zone. 
- Aurora CO theatre - no firearms allowed policy. 
- Sandy Hook elementary, Newtown, CT - gun-free zone. 
- DC Navy Yard - no guns allowed.

What is the magic process whereby declaring your area a "No Guns Allowed" zone will prevent gun crime?  Now think rationally and respond honestly; if a person is willing to kill - to violate the most sacred of laws  - then how is a sign that says "No guns Allowed" going to stop them. Seriously, is a person intent on killing in that store/theatre/school today going to walk up to the door and say "Damn, I was going to kill people here, but my gun is not allowed"?

When will this foolishness end?

The person who will see that sign and either A) leave their firearm outside or B)(and this is the better option) just not come in and do business, is not the person we need fear.  How many times must it be said; those are the people who abide by the law - by definition, they are not going to commit murder in that store/theatre,/school today.

What is abundantly clear, given the list above, is that those who desire an unimpeded path to a large body count of defenseless victims and the posthumous infamy it ensures find their best hunting ground in places that law-abiding citizens cannot carry.  The fact that we leave our children, who have not choice, in such a state is unconscionable. 

Police cannot prevent such events, they can merely hang crime scene tape and draw chalk outlines.  It is not their job to be everywhere and prevent such events - that is our job.  And the killers have no intention of surviving such events.  These cowards will take their own lives as soon as they meet resistance - they are not afraid of their own death, but not there for a shoot out, not likely even trained to engage in one.  Hence, one armed law-abiding citizen who produces a weapon - even if they do not fire it - is likely to end such tragedies.  But, if need be, they can hasten the shooter's journey ti hell. 

Need some evidence - see here among many other places.

If laws and signs could stop such people and such behavior, then crime prevention would mean simply putting up signs that forbade robbery, rape, mugging, shoplifting, domestic violence, and so on.  Simply having a law would mean bad behavior did not happen.  Speed limit signs would be their own enforcement.  If such fantasy works for you, then I hope you find solace in your faith in magic and willingness to be helpless when things go wrong, when your idealism proves futile, to leave your survival to others.  But that is your choice and you should not force it upon the rest of us.

Oh - and in many states, such a sign has no meaning in relation to stores or restaurants.  While you can ask me to leave your place of business if you discover I am carrying (which you won't unless I have to use my pistol to save you and the other sheep in your store), I will not be breaking any law.  But chances are good, if I can help it, that I will keep my pistol in its holster and my money in my wallet and move along to somewhere I am welcome and will feel safe knowing that I can protect myself and that the business owner has not hung out a sign advertising easy prey and money.

The tale many do not want to hear...

Old data from the UN - but a picture, in this case, is worth more than a thousand words.

 

Nuclear hypocrisy

See - here's the problem - if it would have been catastrophic for your opposition to do it because it defiled the history and legitimacy of the senate, then it still does that today when you do it.

Reid, 2005:  “The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government.”

Reid, 2013: ""It's time to change before this institution becomes obsolete."

Indeed Senator, you are presiding over the death of the institution.  Just as George W. Bush set a precedent for uncontrolled spying on the American people that has led to the NSA abuses of today, so does your precedent mean that future senate cohorts will have justification for self-serving rule changes.

McConnell, 2014:  "You may regret it a lot sooner than you think."

I tend to agree - this is one step closer to WROL - when rules can be rewritten to suit one's fancy.

So when will other universities wake up?

As a faculty member at a large state university, one which has an explicit policy regarding bearing arms on campus, the recent story of armed self-defense at Gonzaga is an interesting one to me.  The lessons are clear and, thus, will likely be missed by academicians everywhere.

It is, however, gratifying to read that in the aftermath of this event, Gonzaga University is at least dedicated to re-evaluating its weapons policy.  It is a shame that these students had to be victimized on campus and violate policy as well as be placed on probation in order to motivate the administration to realize the policy needed review.  It is a travesty that the only way such policies come under scrutiny is when steadfast support of them would mean saying out loud that it would have been better for these students to be unarmed victims on crime on campus.

I wrote not long ago about a violent crime spree that happened right off campus in an area largely populated by students, a crime spree that ended in the death of the criminal, but might have been cut short if one of the students who was victimized had possessed a firearm.  While this occurred off-campus and thus absolved the campus administration from the need to question their own policies, it would certainly be prudent for them to consider whether that time has come - and to do so before someone on campus has to decide between violating policy or becoming a victim - a choice I make every day - or simply has no choice because the university has taken it away.

The absurdity of thinking that a criminal, intent on finding victims in a self-defense free zone, will in any way be deterred by campus policies (when it is virtually assured that the criminal will not be a student and will be carrying a weapon illegally) is mind-boggling.  Yet this mindset pervades the halls of academia, is virtually unchallenged in this world of fairy tales and blinders.  If we tell students and faculty that no guns are allowed on campus then we can be assured that no crime will happen.  Please don't talk to me about the halls of science.

It makes no sense to them, cannot break through their wall of denial, to explain that criminals - predators - are by their nature, not followers of law and rules and are attracted to easy prey.  In the wild, it is the defenseless animal that is taken first.  When universities (and other institutions) enact such public policies, they essentially put up signs that say "No one will be armed here" or they are saying "It is open season here."  Gullible, pre-occupied, naive, unarmed prey.  Events, such as Virginia Tech, Columbine and Sandy Hook show this to be true (that is not to mention the Aurora shooting or the DC Naval Yard shooting).  Even criminals intent to die do not ant to fail, do not want to meet heavy armed resistance before they can achieve some measure of their goals. 

Tales like those at Gonzaga show us that armed students are 1) not dangerous to others (these men had not committed any crime), and 2) can stop crimes.  It is likely, given research findings on how carry laws relate to reductions in crime, that criminal activity on campus will decrease when the probability of encountering a student with a firearm who can and will defend himself increases.  At that point, to continue to insist that firearms not be on campus in this case will be tantamount to saying that campus administration wishes the students had been victims - it would have been better if they followed policy and became crime statistics.  What a cowardly world that would be!

Alas, there is little hope that such issues will be openly debated and any meaningful changes considered.  The myth of the inherent safety of gun-free zones will continue unabated, even in the face of such events.  It is a cowardly world already.

This is not Stand Your Ground.

But it is a tragedy.

Point 1:  As is usually the case, when there is a law, a right, a behavior that you don't like and want to see eliminated, the first step is to associate it with every heinous and stupid act you can - relevant or not.  So we heard and continue to hear about so-called Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws and their association with Trayvon Martin (his mom continues to make the circuit - if only as much attention had been paid to him when he was alive) and now here in this sad case as well.

On one's property, in one's home, there never was a duty to retreat - this is the Castle Doctrine and it has been part of common law for centuries.  SYG laws were an extension of this to other places that one "has a right to be" - the street, their car, wherever.  Of course, this emerged because of the difficulty in determining when one could safely retreat, as was required by previous law.  But in the case of one's own home, SYG is not an issue. 

But is it simply ignorance that leads the term to be so often and grossly misapplied?  Well, yes, it is likely that those using the term do not know what it means.  But it is also strategic - find a tragedy and quickly link it with SYG - it played no part in the Zimmerman case and has no role here.  This then also capitalizes on people's ignorance.

Point 2:  The misinterpretation of the law and the use of this tragedy for larger purposes will potentially distract from its import for firearms owners.  It is not the law - any law (even the misapplied SYG) - that caused this.  It is not the firearm.  It is the person. 

People have to realize that you cannot automatically shoot someone just because they come on your porch or to your door.  Now I have talked to people who say they would "Shoot through the door" and told them to be sure they were ready for prison if they did.  Well, hell, there's even Joe Biden, Mr. Gun Control for the Obama administration who was quoted as saying "[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."  I guess maybe he should be called as a witness for the resident in this case.

But such advice aside, firearm owners need to accept that, as good guys, as law-abiding citizens, we cannot be preemptive, we must show restraint.  We are, because we are following the law and not committing assault, likely to start any such confrontation at least one step behind - because we are not initiating it, we are reacting to it.  Sucks, but it is the way it is.

What this citizen did was initiate, preempt, attempt to stay ahead of the loop and, thus, committed a grievous error.  Tragically, for both his victim and her family, as well as for him and his family, this mistake was and will be costly.  No one's life will ever be the same.  Even the Castle Doctrine does not say we can indiscriminately shoot people who come on our front porch, to our door.  It is clear that, should their lethal intent become evident, we have no duty to retreat, but we must ascertain that intent, even if doing so puts us at some potential risk of being second.

Please - law-abiding armed citizens - stop being irresponsible with your rights or you will destroy them.  There are forces out there who want to take them away and will use any and all means necessary to do so, including misleading the public and making you an example of all.  Yes, we must battle this attempt with our hearts and souls, but also with our minds, we must be smart.  Yes, we all believe - molon labe - no matter, we are not going to be like the British or Australians who lined up to turn in their arms because someone passed a law that said to do so.  The attempts to take our rights, our firearms, away will never come to fruition, even if they succeed in changing law, in legislating them away.  We will resist.

But let us do all we can to make sure it never gets that far by not only abiding by all laws, but by being responsible.  Do not give them the ammunition they some strongly desire to use against us.

Wanna bet?

Oh, the outrage - an editor for the magazine Guns and Ammo got fired because he published an article in support of gun control.  Huffington Post notes:

"That's what Jim Bequette found out this week. On Thursday, he announced that he was resigning immediately from the helm of the gun-friendly title after readers revolted over an article by contributing editor Dick Metcalf which ran in the magazine's latest issue."

Now, it's no surprise that Huffington Post would make a big deal of this...after all they are for gun control.  But would you like to bet that:

- if a columnist who wrote for Cigar Aficionado wrote that cigars should be banned, heads would roll?
- if a columnist for a gay magazine wrote that gay marriage should be outlawed, he would take one where the sun don't shine?

I'm thinking that Jet or Ebony are not going to be telling the brothers and sisters that getting stopped and frisked is the right thing to do.

Again with the false outrage - any magazine that has a certain position is not going to publish articles that berate that position.  Any magazine whose readership has a certain set of beliefs - a set of beliefs that lead to their purchasing said magazine - is not going to support the publication of articles that alienate that readership.

And you know that.  You can make it sounds all extreme if you want, but really?

Yes, but it's not all relative...

So Jon Stewart commented last night on the President's disingenuous selling of the AHCA, but had to end by noting that, in his estimation, in the grand scheme of things that was okay since he believed the Republications were even less credible.

The problem is this:  It's not all relative, the is an absolute standard for truthfulness and deceit is not justified just because one's "opponents" use it.  The lies told by Obama (and his recent tap-dancing around them, trying to add previously non-existent qualifications) are eerily similar if not at the same degree as many told by his predecessor.  But this was to be hope, change, a new era of openness and accountability, not the same old business.  One cannot sell themselves as above such deceit, as above the fray and then justify it by saying "But they've done worse".

It does not take much reading of the history of this blog to see I was an Obama supporter.  I thought the tales of his dishonesty were partisan paranoia; I thought the discussion of his plans to change course during a second term, when he would not need to run for re-election, were hysterical hyperbole.  But it has come to pass and recent events have revealed the duplicity.  He has proposed doing things he said he would never do ("No one is going to take your guns away").  He has revealed that he has been less than honest so as to achieve his own ends.  He has as much as said "Let's be clear - I do not have to run for election anymore".  And he has now become Bushian in his backtracking and re-imaging and re-interpreting his past words and deeds.

I think she meant "Gay People"

Oh, Diane - you're such an idiot.  The rest of us sit out here wondering why every right in the book (if not in the US Constitution) is just okay with you, but this one is not.  Shit - this happened in your home state which you and others bill as the future of the Republic - as gun control utopia. If all your gun control regulations didn't work to prevent this there, then why do you think it will do so anywhere?

Fools!  All your agenda does is ensure that no one there can protect themselves.

Ah..another gun free zone (except for criminals)

Note that this kind of thing did not happen at a gun show or the NRA national meeting.  Schools, theaters (with no firearms allowed signs) and airports...only common denominator in site selection; target rich and self-defense deficient.

You mus' be shittin' me!

Folks:  If this picture



gets you all up in arms about nudity and family values, then you need to get out more.  It's a damn jungle out there and you are sitting at home on your frickin' computer, eating ho-hos whining about a 32 year-old mother of three who is proud of her fitness and thinks everyone should -= gasp - get up off the couch and try to be their best!  Well, that "you can be better than you are" shit won't fly in today's society girlfriend!  Folks got a right to be fat and out of shape if they want - its all for the children!

Take this long-winded pile of poo for instance:

"I think this picture and the presentation along with the caption was off putting and upsetting. There are thousands of other ways to show off a fit body without wearing a bra and underwear for the nation to see. Secondly, "excuses" come in every shape and size. I think for most women it's about priorities, not excuses! My kids are my first priority. If what you say is true you are a very busy working mom with no nanny. Where are your kids while your spending all your free time working on you? Finally, you don't have a daughter. I think if you did your message would surely be a different one. Would you want someone telling her she had no excuse for looking a certain way? What if she didn't look like you, and some woman made her feel bad about it? I'm sure you would change your tune. Your apology is a joke and as worthless to women as your initial post. Put some clothes on and spend some time with your children."

Wait - that's a bra and underwear?  No shit?  Again - you need to get out more - that is decidedly over-dressed these days.

But here's the message:

- Do for your kids, not for yourself and when you die young at least they will know how much you sacrificed for them in the short years you had together!
- Boys?  Who needs 'em?
- Take your shoes off and get your ass back in the kitchen, you Hussy!

Look Ms. Facebook commenter Shaunalee Brown-Chavez - more names makes you an expert - if you don't like the picture then don't look at it.  How do you know whether she cares for her children?  how do you know where they are when she is working out?  Do they have a father?  Do yours? 

Does it dawn on you, just a little bit, that she asked what your excuse was and you gave her a whole litany of tired reasons - the major message of which was "I can't do it or anything near it, so I choose not to try"?

Ah, people - always looking for a reason to get up in arms.

UPDATED: But he isn't wrong!

Why is it that any time someone makes a statement that is not "favorable" to African-Americans, it is considered racist?  Is it not true that the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens, all Americans, and not just African-Americans?

Yes, it is clear that people do not like to hear such things, but it is not wrong.  And it is clear that Scalia often seems either motivated to insult or simply to lack social intelligence.  Still, for all his blunt or careless language, the continued effort to create equality by creating inequality has been shown to be a failure, has such a long list of unintended negative consequences so as to be staggering in its failure.  It is not racist to note that well-intentioned efforts to create equal access and opportunity have morphed into "favored race" status and, among many, a sense of entitlement.  The notion that a government or a society can lift a minority within it up is foolish.  All it can do is provide opportunity for people to lift themselves up.  But efforts to lift people up have failed because they stifle such a process.

I know, I am now being called a racist by someone out there - after all, I am a white Caucasian and, thus, if I speak at all about African-Americans in less than glowing terms, I am a racist.  But that is simply cover and more evidence of the tyranny of low expectations.  As  male, white, Caucasian, I read or hear every day about the shortcomings of the group of which I am seemingly representative.  But, as an apparent majority, I am seemingly also fair game for such criticism.

If we cannot observe and converse openly and honestly, then I am not sure how we ever become one nation.

UPDATE:  There's your problem!

And this is why we can't talk about race - because websites like the Huffington Post and those who follow them think that is one mentions race or a race, they are racist.  Perhaps if people actually looked up the definition of racism they would know more about what it is and what it is not.

In its most simple form, racism is defined as "the belief that some races of people are better than others".  According to Huffington Post: "During oral arguments on an affirmative action case on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the 14th Amendment protects everyone, not 'only the blacks.'"

Now, it seems to me, that he said all races have a right to equal protection, that it is not just one race, in this case, the black race, that has the right.  That is not a racist sentiment; in fact, given the definition, it seems anti-racist.

Polling Nightmare? Petulant Children?

I think there is something that people miss if they think that polls are the only thing our representatives in congress should attend to:

1.  Polls at a national level do little to inform us about what a given representative's constituents think of his or her performance.  We have to remember who is likely to be sampled in such polls and where the concentration might reside.  This notion certainly emerges from discussions of gerrymandering - if a district has been constructed in such a way as to include only favorable constituents, then voting in a way that is inconsistent with their views is not only political suicide - it is not representative.  The idea that a representative from rural Kansas should vote in a manner that reflects 74% of the general US population seems a bit misplaced and far-fetched.  It suggests that their allegiance should be to the national party and not to their constituents.  To whom does the phrase "Will of the people" refer?

2.  Perhaps there are issues of ideology involved in addition to representation.  To point to polls and say "How can you vote this way, look what others think?" is akin to saying "A vast majority of the world is Islamic, so how can you possibly continue to be a Christian?"  People believe what they believe. If a representative thinks that Obamacare is wrong, his ideology is opposed to it (in addition to his own constituency) then is he supposed to ignore that?  Again this goes back to the (potentially mistaken) idea that the effects of such opposition at the national level are more important than local concerns and ideology.  So the Joe Scarborough's of the world will say such opposition will mean defeat at the national level for years to come.  Perhaps - but some would say that prostituting one's values or beliefs so as to win control of dysfunctional government is not a suitable trade-off.

Again, as an independent, I think there is more than enough blame to go around in this situation.  Clearly the GOP - the extent there IS a GOP any longer - is to blame for some of this - certainly one can say they are the reason things are shut down.  Others may say they are sticking to their ideology. 

On the other hand, as an independent who voted for Obama, one of the more discomforting things that has happened as a result of this shutdown has been the realization (via obvious demonstration) that the Obama administration is not more above politicizing government than was the Bush administration.  This attitude (along with attempts to limit my RKBA) was not what I voted for.

There has been absolutely no need - beyond politics - to shut down the various national parks, monuments and memorials that we have heard about.  This is especially true in cases where it is obvious that it has taken more resources to shut down areas than it usually takes to maintain them.

Such misbehavior smacks of several unsavory characteristics.  First, and most harmless, it is petulant - it is a whining crying child stomping his feet, a temper-tantrum, an attempt to find ways to enhance the pain of the shut down in areas that could foment discontent and then blame it on others.  Yes, others may well be "to blame"; but enhancing the pain to make that point is childish and manipulative.  Second, and much worse, it gives an impression of despotism, it fulfills images that many share (and many discount) of a government ready and willing to assert dictatorial and even armed control over citizens, to over-reach in it claims of control via use of force.  As the saying goes - "Is it paranoia if they really are after you?"  Closing monuments and memorials to the people whose suffering they are honoring, who pay for them, to those who have no role in the ongoing tantrums and shenanigans, is something imperial rulers do ("Let them eat cake!"). 

It is not the government's role to close our public lands to the public - we entrust its management to them, not its control. Sadly (or perhaps presciently) those who ask questions about stories of DHS hoarding ammunition (and are berated for it) get partial answers from stories of armed agents holding vacationers in a national park; "No, you are not allowed to see a natural geyser that has been doing its thing for hundreds or thousands of years, because your government says so".

In either case - temper tantrum or a show of imperial force - both are ways to assert control, either by the immature or the egotistical, the message is not a good one.  It speaks plainly of "This is not yours, it is mine and we control it".  The liberal media may not like that conservative politicians take advantage of this for their own purposes (see Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and others); but the administration doing likewise is also problematic and concerning.

There are no cooler heads to prevail.

Pity the lesbian mothers

Absolutely shocking that a Florida State Representative would say something like this:

"It's easy to say parents need to get involved, but half these kids are raising themselves. They don't have any parents that are functional. ... I mean I sat an hour and a half with a teacher telling me: 'This child has got serial men coming through the house, this one has two mommies, this one has abusive father whose home, this has alcoholism, this one has drug abuse.' It was a casualty warfare event to hear -- just her classroom -- how many dysfunctional, atypical -- to me -- structures are in the way of a kid having a chance to learn."

Yes, he is likely a tool and that is almost as disparaging as the things that Rachel Maddow (being a lesbian) and other gun control advocates have said repeatedly about law-abiding gun owners.  Oh, it is so shocking, so terrible, that someone might say such a thing about lesbian mothers.  Might we call this selective outrage?

Thus Nadine Smith, CEO of Equality Florida, wrote in a release in response; "We hope Representative Baxley has the decency to apologize for his comments disparaging gay parents and our children. More than that, we invite Representative Baxley to educate himself, talk with us and actually meet our families". 

Yes Ma'am that makes sense so any time Rachel or you want to apologize for disparaging law-abiding Americans of all races, genders, and sexual preferences, you go right ahead and feel free to do so - and then you can come on over and you can meet a couple of us and find we are not really the animals you portray us to be.

Until then, keep your outrage to yourself.  As I have noted numerous times, your rights and dignity are no more important to me than mine are to you.  I have spent years defending the rights of others - rights I myself have no desire to share - and in return have been treated by those people as a pariah.

Yup, you're on your own.  Given a choice to vote for Baxley if he is pro-gun but anti-gay or his opponent, who was anti-gun and pro-gay - well - guess who gets my vote.  Equality Florida?  What a laugh.

Just shut up and feel safe

Other than acknowledging a general sense of ill-ease associated with a Sheriff working so hard to convince us that paramilitary police units are our only way to be safe, some specific comments related to this editorial are in order.

"It would, of course, be ideal if suspects engaged in dangerous activities simply surrendered. That’s not reality." Absolutely - but facing dangerous subjects is part and parcel of what LEOs do - at all levels.  That has not changed.  I like to think of it in the same terms as the NFL and concussions.  If the nature of the mission is such that potential danger is inherent to its accomplishment, then attempts to mitigate that risk will always fall short.  Football will not be football if we change the rules so as to eliminate large bodies running very quickly into each other.  The same kind of issue affects the emergence of paramilitary LE operators; changing the nature of the game has not solved the problems, simply created substitutes.  The increase in a siege mentality, the adoption of the "war" analogy, has lead to a widespread acceptance of non-combatant casualties. 

There are two competing contingencies here that must be resolved; there is a mission to protect and serve and then there is a mission to enforce. To protect and serve entails danger; it is inherent in such a mission and system.  The traditional role of LEOs puts them between "polite" society and those who would harm it (although we have to remember that the police have no legal responsibility to defend/protect any individual - that is our responsibility).  That is to "protect and serve" and there is no way to do the job without some potential for violence - when one tries to change that mission in a way that eliminates the danger, then it is no longer the same mission.

The core nature of that new mission - in this case to wage war - becomes defined by an us against the world mentality.  This becomes "preemptive enforcement" and the reality is that more and more "civilians" (a term that is used as a pejorative and further highlights the "us v. them" distinction that has evolved in LEO circles) are being killed by those who would use violence to mitigate the inherent risk in their profession.

"They hold the line between order and chaos, security and peril".  If this does not define certain LE units as paramilitary, then I do not know what would.  That sounds like a description of our military.  I would suggest that they do this to protect themselves, not those they traditionally served.  They do this because they come under fire, not because we do.  So this leads me to ponder how many errors have been made by these defenders of order, how many innocents have been killed so that their own risk is mitigated, and decide whether we want them thinking they take on this role. 

We also have to ask the Sheriff "Who defines that order, chaos, security and peril"?  Order, chaos, security and peril sound like Homeland Security concerns.  They sound like codewords for those who might see the role of LE differently, those who my not agree with certain directions and decisions, those who might not wish to lose fundamental rights, those who insist on the RKBA.  they sounds like things we might read about in the SPLC literature.  Whose order?  Whose security?  The sheriff sees himself and his minions as defenders of some faith to which they and some select others are privy, are defining.

Tell me Sheriff - does this not give you pause to reflect on the attitude of your LEOs?  Does this not suggest a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality? A callousness?

Eddie Vedder, further thoughts

I continued to ponder this Eddie Vedder foolishness and the hero treatment he has received for it from many anti-gun sources.  In the end, I think we have much to thank Vedder for - and those who support him might want to question - since what he has done is clearly demonstrate the underlying psychological issues that most who are anti-firearms are dealing with, why they are afraid of firearms. Damn - I hate to sound Freudian here and fulfill everyone's worst assumptions about psychologists - but Freudian or not, there is no escaping that this seems a case of projection and reaction formation. That is, the manifestation of ego defense mechanisms that Freud proposed.  One in which people project their own issues onto others as away of defending themselves against seeing their own faults; it is not me, it is them.  They will also adopt extreme position opposite of their true feelings.

Vedder clearly has issues with aggression and has a vulnerable self-image, feels persecuted and a need for some irrational revenge on those who have mistreated him.  No?  Listen to his music (Is Vedder Jeremy - speaking in class today - getting his revenge on those who have wronged him).  That is not a coincidence  Accept his own assessment of himself - "If I didn't have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn't want me having a gun either".   First, that makes it sound like he has a gun ("If I didn't have music, you wouldn't want me having a gun").  He has music, so...?  But he is clearly describing himself and and his use of the word "either" suggests that the image he sees of others are projections, reflections of himself.   He cannot or could not handle it, hence others (who don't have music?) cannot handle it either.

 

I am sure this is a position shared by most of those who are afraid of firearms.  Since they know that they would act out with a firearm given the opportunity, they have to believe that all others would do so as well.   In this way they can feel "normal" - because, after all, everyone else is like them; none of us can control those impulses.

We might also see this as a case of reaction formation.  That is, Vedder would love to be Jeremy, would love to have a firearm and hurt others so he has to adopt a strong opposite anti-gun view.  I would suggest that this, too, is not an unusual stance among many who wish to take away firearms (or other rights) from others.   Just as we often see those who are most anti-gay emerge as closet homosexuals (e.g., Ted Haggart, Larry Craig), I suspect we can see that many who are anti-gun are those who fear their own ability to control their own behavior and so much take on extreme opposite positions.

 

No Eddie - we are not all like you. We know that carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility - we do not see it as a tool to act out on some revenge fantasy.  Responsibility is a component of all rights; without it, rights mean nothing; without it, people start clamoring for laws to limit those rights.   But because you are not capable of responsible firearm ownership does not mean others are not as well.

 

As I said before, Vedder has a right to freedom of speech, he would even have a right to keep and bear arms.  But given his comments, it seems clear he is too irresponsible for it, does not have the right temperament for it.  He seems, perhaps, to be a Jeremy - an Adam Lanza - a person whose mental health status suggests he is better off without a firearm - and that we are better of that he is not armed.

 

Thanks Eddie - bet you didn't know you said so much in so few words.

Eddie Vedder - violence prone and proud of it.

Quite frankly, I am really tired of reading hearing what celebrities or pseudo-celebrities think of my right to bear arms and my opposition to their and others' attempts to deny it.

You know, Eddie - used to like the music, but that was when both you and I looked better and were young enough to look the part.  Now, we are both old and tired and I don't give a rat's ass for your opinion - I doubt anyone except gun control advocates do.

A few low lights:

- Perpetuating the 90% myth - that 90% of people want new laws - as if that means 90% want gun control legislation.  This is the same statistic so many gun control advocates use without substantiation.
- Assuming because he is apparently an aggressive hostile prick (e.g., "If I didn't have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn't want me having a gun either"), that the rest of us must be, too.  The fact that you are either an arrogant or aggressive jerk who could not handle such responsibility, that you would not be a good candidate for gun ownership, has squat to do with me and my rights and temperament.
- As further proof of this, he follows that by saying "I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people." He's right - he does not need to be carrying or owning a firearm.  But what he does need to do is realize that we are not all jerks like him.

Interesting poster, BTW:

"Ex-soldier bleed a lot"?

For those who think stories like those reported in "White Girl Bleed a Lot" are made up, let's not forget this one.  this is not good clean fun, this is not "kids are bored" so we need to build more basketball courts with lights so they can shoot hoops all night.  This is not "rural folks need to know how to act in urban areas" shit. This happens all too frequently and is part of a larger pattern and if the effort that is put into making excuses for it were to be put into addressing it, a difference could be made.

It is not racist to notice patterns of behavior, no matter which group it is that is participating. If the opposite pattern were occurring at this rate then there would be no shortage of outrage.

Time for the idea of protected classes of people to fade into the past.

Really...?

And so it continues - I can only hope that if I ever have to defend myself with a handgun, my ex-wife doesn't come out of the wood work to tell them she knew all along I would do it.  Even after all these years, somehow I doubt she would be a good character witness for me.



What a hatchet job!  Why is this news?  Why would anyone have this estranged perjurer almost ex-wife on to discuss any of this?  Apparently Matt Lauer must love the rumor-mongering and other stories the tabloids do to him, so he wants to share it around.  What a sorry person. 

There is zero reason to do this interview, to bring this person on to air this personal dirty laundry in public except that a) NBC wants to defame George Zimmerman, a man who has filed suit against them and b) Shellie Zimmerman is looking for a bigger pay day.  No one cares what she thinks of her husband's guilt or innocence except people who want to relitigate the case.  She is not of a character to judge this or to provide anything near objective evidence about her husband.  These people are in the middle of a divorce! Any one else ever been in that condition?  Did you really think that either you or your soon-to-be-ex-spouse were really rational objective reporters on the character of your ex?  Was that really how any one approached this event?

This is some really bad reporting, in fact, it is not reporting.  It is bull shit.

So then it's easier just to attack gun owners?

More, and very disturbing, details about the Navy Yard shooter are emerging.  Those who would tell us whether we can or can not exercise our rights as law-abiding Americans seem more than a little incompetent when it comes to doing required background checks for security clearances.

Perhaps one of the most telling comments in this post is "While in hindsight, the string of events could have set off alarm bells within the Navy, officials said Monday that it is difficult even now to see them as glaring indicators of last week's shooting rampage."  With such rare yet tragic behavior, the "glaring indicators" are usually the act itself - until then it is always about probabilities.  So what they are admitting is that any form of "enhanced" background checks would not have made any difference - how could it when people, such as these officials, work so hard to explain away a history of troubling behavior.

Well, one could give a long lecture about base rates and sensitivity and specificity and the problems with predicting rare instances of behavior, but what's the point?  It seems to me that the first answer is to move the bar in a way that catches more "suspicious" behavior and at least subjects it to further scrutiny.  What is the greatest risk, too may false positives or false negatives?  Clearly we would rather risk false positive identifications given the tragic consequences of failed prediction (false negatives).  Yes, it is easy to say that Alexis' behavior may or may not have been predictive of this event - confirmation came on the day he killed 12 people.  Yes, it is likely that many people who engage in similar behavior will never be mass murderers.  Still, if one works this predictive equation - with all the pertinent variables - the misconduct, the firearms-related offenses, the mental health concerns - there is sufficient evidence there for concern and if people had not worked (and were not working) so hard to explain it away or justify their decisions, this might never have happened.  We do not need to always rely on hindsight to obtain our focus.

At its most simple, there is a decision here to be made; whose rights are we going to threaten?  On one hand, the rights of those who have concerning behavioral histories and suspected mental illness can be held sacrosanct, in which case we must accept cases like this.  Yes, we can try to put all of this under the pejorative heading of "profiling" and thus refuse to do something that might help.

On the other hand, to avoid that, one could simply deny a right that is enshrined in the Constitution to a large law-abiding segment of the population, suggest that the only rights we can exercise are those that can be exercised peaceably by the least able among us.  This has been the favored approach of a group that prefers to extend protections to many special groups - their rights to fair and equal treatment - yet heaps derision on an even larger group wishing to exercise their rights. 

It seems a choice based on ideology, not effectiveness.  Those who hate , do not carry, and are afraid of guns, who despise as antiquated a certain set of values, will choose to deny rights they themselves do not care to exercise.  They will suggest the Constitution is a musty old, out-dated relic.  Others, who abide by the law, who are not criminals and who desire to take responsibility for their own security in a safe and responsible manner, will suggest that a better approach is to hold individuals accountable for their own behavior.

Let us take the issue of mental health as an example.  We have come a long way in removing the stigma associated with mental health problems.  This is a good thing.  However, to the extent that mental health concerns - specific severe mental health concerns - might typify some who engage in mass murder, it behooves us to, without stigmatizing, consider them as predictors of such behavior.

Falling support for harsher gun laws?

If you want to know why support for harsher and more restrictive gun laws is falling, perhaps a logical answer is because you are surveying law-abiding citizens.  They would be the ones who care about laws and would prefer not to be made criminals via legislation.  Perhaps those among them who own firearms realize that they are not the problem.  Perhaps they are tired of being treated like criminals or potential killers.  Perhaps their neighbors, friends, and others have started to wonder why upstanding citizens are suddenly the enemy.

If you were surveying the criminals, I suspect they would not care, or might even hope that those upon whom they intend to prey would be disarmed.  Perhaps if your read some of the research that has been done talking to such criminals, you would know this.  But perhaps it is easier to attack those who obey our laws than deal with those who ignore them.  Easier, but also cowardly.

This is just like watching the discussion of guns on Real Time last night.  How do you spend five or ten minutes on this topic and only discuss law-abiding citizens - never once mention criminals.  How do you bemoan gangs shooting each other and the innocents between them, crazy people killing innocent people, but never complain about anything but lawful gun owners and the NRA?  Well, you do that by being stupid about it, by being a sarcastic comedian or a clueless liberal.  You do that by conflating lawful gun ownership with violent crime because, again, it is easier to attack those who obey laws than those who break them.  Our history and that of places like Australia that have banned firearms - shows this all too well.

And, yes, Joy Behar, a vast majority of people who own firearms do so at least partly for personal protection - for many, that is their sole purpose (I have no desire to hunt).  What, did you think that the vast majority of the millions who own them do so in contemplation of committing crimes?  I know, people like you who live in a bubble.  In fact, Bill, how about that as a dispatch from inside the bubble - celebrities who have plenty of money, personal security, gates, cameras and alarm systems, who think they know how average Americans feel about their safety and security out here?  Of course such people have no idea what the real world is like.  Perhaps Bill should have Nicole (Nikki) Goeser, the author of "Denied a Chance" on to talk about how it feels to be disarmed and watch a loved one killed by an armed criminal who did not care about the law.  She certainly has more moral authority on the subject than Joy Behar or Chris Hayes.  Could she get a fair and respectful hearing?  I somehow doubt it.

Just saw some of it again - Bill at least, if for all the wrong reasons, seems to get that assaulting those who are not committing crimes is not working.  The rest of his guests, not so much.  The whole focus is on those who own firearms but commit no crimes.  Seems to me a lot like blamers drinkers or drivers for those who do both simultaneously.

Sure thing...

So there I was, sitting here feeling safe in my gun-free work zone writing my thoughts on Daniel Guth's stupidity when what pops up in my email:

ALERT *** *****:  Armed intruder near *** Health (***) area.  Remain alert. Avoid area.  Follow instructions.

All is well in our world, as long as we keep the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding populace no evil can befall us.  So whose sons and daughters would Guth like to visit this upon, I wonder?

A sad little man, a waste of flesh, a small man with small thoughts.

Embarassing...

I know - I am not the typical academician. That's what happens when you spend 10 years in the Army before heading here.  My BS meter goes off almost constantly around here.  Still I have to hope that this guy isn't usual either.  He certainly is an example of why a lot of people think the tenure system is crazy.  As an academician, I could give you a lot more reasons for reconsidering tenure, but that's not why I'm here.

As has been noted elsewhere, we have a Bill of Rights to protect us from government telling us what we can say or do.  Even Guth knows this, although he seems to know it only at a child-like egocentric level.  The First Amendment allows people to say any stupid shit that comes to their mind without the government outlawing that speech.  Sometimes the 1A has protected important, history-making speech and other (most) times it has protected idiocy.  Of course, the reason we have a Second Amendment is much the same - to guarantee freedom from government attempts to infringe on a right.  Guth is willing to at least, after his idiocy became so public, mouth some begrudging understanding of these ideas; “I defend the NRA’s rights first and second amendments and I hope they respect mine.”  Yes, I acknowledge and defend your right to say what you want - I do not have to respect anything you do.  Not so sure what you said suggests you "defend" mine.  Right.  You think my 2A rights make me complicit in a crime and seem to hope that a future crime will take my sons and daughters from me.  Like I said - I do not have to nor do I respect that even if you are free to say it.

Guth's refusal to retract his statement is to be expected (why I do not tweet - once the round is headed downrange, you can't take it back).  But his feeble explanation is laughable:

‘If you look at how I structured the statement, I didn’t really bring [the NRA’s) children into it,” he said. “I carefully structured the statement to make it conditional, but apparently it was too much of a nuance for some people.” Guth went on to say, “I don’t want anybody harmed. If somebody’s going to be harmed, maybe it ought to be the people who believe that guns are so precious that it’s worth spilling blood over.”

Carefully structured?  Be honest.  Be a man.  1 - you clearly believe such an act will happen again - you say as much- you do not say if.  2 - given that you really do see this as an eventuality, you hope that WHEN it does, it will befall someone - and seemingly that will be the sons and daughters of law-abiding gun owners like yours truly who have committed no crime.  3 - any data on who thinks guns are worth spilling blood over?  Sounds like it is you who find this issue one deserving blood.  I would prefer this never happens again - because we begin to convict criminals for crimes they commit and punish them appropriately and hospitalize and treat those who have mental illness.

Well, Guth is a journalist after all - you can't expect a modern journalist - even one who is teaching the journalists of the future, to be objective or facile with the language.

Kansas has recently made moves toward concealed carry on campus, but I imagine, given Guth's position that if this happens again and it just so happens that it is in his classroom, he will prefer it if no one but the shooter is armed.  Note how carefully I structured this in making it conditional.  I hope that is not too nuanced for you.

Good luck.

UPDATE:  Wow - paid administrative leave - why can't those of us who don't make foolish tweets get some of that?

Of course, what is even more puzzling is the Kansas City Star's opinion that "It’s completely rational to blame the NRA and other pro-gun groups for promoting the political climate that has made it nearly impossible to enact reasonable gun-safety measures in America."  They use the word "reasonable" as if it has an agreed upon definition, as if reasonableness is an absolute, as if the NRA and its members agree that such proposals are reasonable and are only blocking them out of sheer desire to be contrary (of course, this is what the Kansas City Star believes).

In fact, as most liberals and conservatives do not seem to realize, what is reasonable to you is almost always bat-shit crazy to someone else, lots of someone elses.  The NRA and its members do not fight such proposals because they think they are reasonable, they fight them because they see them as unreasonable, as wrong-headed, as infringing on a God given right.

Chastising and admonishing them for disagreeing with you is hardly "reasonable" or "debate".

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/23/4502911/professor-guths-tweet-was-wrong.html#storylink=cpy

Tragedy in Chicago

It will always be shocking but can no longer be surprising when things like this happen in Chicago.



It can also no longer be surprising when websites like Huffington Post place it as their top headline and so soon after the DC Navy Yard shootings.  Once again the not-so-implicit message is that guns are bad.

I have no possible or rational reason to expect that my humble and logical opinion can change any of this knee-jerk reaction.  Indeed, if it were possible, others who have a larger soap-box and higher profile would already have done so.  Nonetheless, I also feel strongly enough that I have to say something I have said over and over.  I know we have idiots like Daniel Guth, who not only wish misfortune on others' children, but do not seem to realize that it is people who believe like him who are ultimately at fault for such tragedies.  His defense of his tweet is absurd, but I digress and will come back to this topic in a later post.

For now, the simple notion is this; what are the similarities between the ongoing violence in Chicago and the DC Naval Yard shootings?  Guth and those like him - who apparently see no evil in the actor, only the tool - see the gun as the problem.  If only guns were not allowed.  What those who a law-abiding citizens, who own firearms, carry firearms, and abide by all laws see is that Guth and those like him have had their way, both in the Gun-Free City of Chicago and on military installations.  The naturalistic experiment has been done, the results are in; these places are examples of what such people want to see on a larger scale - protection free zones that are a target-rich and defense sparse environment - and it is clear they have failed.  As I noted yesterday, even in cases where the time from first shot to LEO intervention is brief (and in the DC event, it apparently could have been even shorter), these are precious minutes where disarmed people can do no more than cower and die.  If there are no weapons on site but those in the hands of the killer, then those minutes are filled with tragedy - there can be no other outcome; the policy leaves no option but death in such cases.  If, however, one armed civilian is there, the odds that this tragedy stops early and lives are saved increase enormously, from one at all to at least something.  They can only increase even more if others are there as well.

I hate to talk personal defense with such morons, because I know they will not only not understand it, but will take offense and try to use it against me - suggesting someone is a wanna-be.  Hell, Zimmerman could not defend himself without begin labelled, better he had died or been brain-damaged at the hands of Martin.

I am not a wanna-be anything except survivor if an active shooter enters my AO.  I am a veteran, military-trained, former Senior NCO, more than proficient with a variety of firearms and qualified to think in these terms and act if necessary.  I do not need or care to listen to such shit from people.  This was one shooter and he was not wearing body armor.  If one's situational awareness was not such that they alerted on this armed, out-of-place, dressed all in black individual coming (I know some were fired on from above), then at least from the first shot they should have known something was up, to take cover.  Sadly, as in most cases (and well discussed by De Becker in his book, The Gift of Fear), most people expend a great deal of effort to explain away such events, failing to follow their intuitive sense of alarm.  Perhaps they are deluded by the idea that this is a "gun-free" zone - "That can't be a gun!". 

It does not take an LEO to hit such a target with enough firepower to at least stop him in his tracks, keep him from continuing to be mobile, to score, at a minimum, a mobility kill, to at least plant him in place where he can no longer actively seek targets.  One he's down he can continue to fire, but if his targets are alert and behind cover, his damage potential is drastically reduced.  In addition, he becomes a stationary target, if he needs finishing, then that can be done.  And let's be clear - meaning no offense to our fine LEOs - a good many armed civilians are just as or more proficient as marksmen with their firearm as is the average (non-SWAT) LEO. And some of us ponder such events regularly because we do not accept the fairly tales the Guth and his like do.

So, where was I?  Oh, right.  It is no surprise that these events continue to happen in places where people who are law-abiding citizens do not carry firearms, be it Sandy Hook Elementary, a theater in Aurora, on Ft. Hood, at the DC Naval Yards, or in Chicago.  Given recent events related to Starbucks, perhaps they will now start to happen there as law-abiding carriers of firearms take their business elsewhere.  The people - if they even qualify for that designation - who commit these tragedies, although they are not afraid to die, do not want armed resistance.  And neither does Daniel Guth - so, sadly, chances are that it will be him that is next and no rational person would wish that on him, his children, or any one else.

Of course, let's note that Guth teaches on a campus in a state that recently approved campus concealed carry, so, ironically, he is likely safer than I am here teaching on my gun-free college campus.

Definitely remember these fights!

RIP, Ken Norton.

Sorry John...

Sorry John - like you and all funny man, but sometimes you must hate having to feign ignorance for the sake of a bit.  You know; "I have to be anti-gun, so I will have to ignore any other relevant facts".  I expect that from real media, but had always thought you knew better.

How was he able to buy a gun? Maybe because no one ever really took the action necessary to document the years of trouble that Alexis had been in?  Because we have expanded the deinfitionof acceptable behavior so far these days that theonly way someone gets the attention or punishment they need is to commit a heinous act?  Thn after the fact we go "how did no one notice this?"  They did and chose to trivilaize it until it ended up killing 12 people.  Who might we blame that on?

The NICS system works based on the information that is put into it.  It is not gun owners' or gun sellers' faults that Alexis had been in trouble numerous times yet no one ever saw fit to hold him accountable, to incarcerate or treat him in a manner commensurate with his behavior and that would have created a record.  That is not an argument against guns, but an argument against lenient and lax standards of treatment, enforcement or prosecution.  The current system or even the one that Manchin-Schumer-Toomey would have created, would not help if the mental health treatment and criminal justice systems do not do their part in protecting people from themselves or others.  Just nod your head at the young criminal or crazy person, avert your eyes and figure "They'll get over it".

Round two for you:  You and Aussie Hugh Jackman with your "Why could Australia ban guns and become a Utopian paradise, but America can't" hugfest.  Perhaps a little read over this would help you see how far off you are.  A prominent quote: "In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime."  But data are of little use when one knows the truth - for all the liberal religious mockery that goes on, it seems that the idea of faith - belief without evidence, the "it must be so" - is not lost on you.



And the fact that there's that little thing about a constitution?  Well, we know how some folks will not let them bother them.  While we keep making up rights that are not in there out of little substance, why not ignore a few that are.

Another reason having armed citizens on site protect themselves is a hell of an idea.

This is particularly troubling - to say the least - and sadly, given the current biases in our own major media, I am more inclined to believe the BBC than the US press.  If borne out, some heads need to roll over this decision.

We all - at least those of us who are not ignorant defenseless people - that "When seconds count a police are minutes away".  But low and behold, in this case that response was much closer than it might usually be or have seemed.  I, for one, would prefer not to be trapped, unarmed, in a building with an active shooter while bull shit games are played outside.  But if such trained active shooter intervention teams are not going to be allowed to do their job even when they are on scene early, then how do we expect unarmed civilians to survive?

Apparently we don't.  The idea that this active shooter, armed with a shotgun and two pistols and not wearing any body armor, was able to stroll the compound unimpeded is unconscionable.  To suggest that he could not have been taken down or at least stifled with suppressive fire from one or more armed civilians in the area is preposterous and motivated prevarication.  At least the dead and injured could have had a chance to defend themselves, to survive or stop the carnage.  But, as usual, those who create and revel these gun free zones appear to prefer that people in them die rather than protect themselves - this serves only to foment tragedy and fuel a given political agenda.

Update:  Just more information here to suggest that a well-trained armed civilian could likely have stopped this before it ever got as far as it did.

Did they ever retract this?

Watching Morning Joe the other morning (yes, like I have said before, my wife puts in on) Mike Lupica (whoever that is and why I should care about or have to listen to his opinion, I do not know) went on a Mika and Mike Barnacle pleasing rant (I think Mika obtained vicarious gratification) on the whole AR-15 notion and how could this Navy Yard shooter have gotten one.  Well, damn, what do you know - he didn't have one?  He had a shot gun and then took two pistols off of guards he shot.

A shotgun - Joe Biden's weapon of choice.  A shotgun, which no one has yet tried to ban.  A shotgun.  And he passed a background check - one he could have passed even if the Manchin, Schumer, Toomey bill had passed. 

Now, on one hand, the rational amongst us go back to my previous post - the fact that a rational and efficient system would have previously incarcerated or treated this individual and he would not have been able to pass a check.  So, where do we go from here?  Those who hate firearms, the Second Amendment, and all firearm owners, those who see this as an other opportunity to excuse the criminal or mentally ill shooter while banning firearms, would have us create a society where all of our freedoms are measured by the least among us.

To the rational among us, this is another example of abdication of responsibility.

Mass shootings? How about armed citizens?

The Huffington Post thinks there are points to be made by pointing out that there have been more mass shootings since Newtown than we have heard about. Well we all know there is a bias in headlines; I keep looking for them to publish articles highlighting the successful and justified defensive use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

Silly question, but I wonder if they have considered how many people have saved their lives and the lives of others, including their loved ones, over that same period because they had a firearm for personal protection, either in their home, in their car, or concealed on their waist?  Even if we were to believe - which I do not - that only one person per day had been able to defend only themselves, then that would mean more lives saved than lost to these "mass" shootings.  And, of course, further analysis might even suggest, as with the Naval Yard tragedy, that the absence of the right to carry there had a detrimental effect.  No, I am sure they will not note that such events are more likely to happen and be more devastating in places where only a criminal will carry a weapon.

As with the Zimmerman case, where those who felt he was in the wrong clearly thought it would have been better for his head to be battered into the sidewalk until he died, this kind of reportage forces one to ask whether these people would prefer that those who carry firearms and successfully protect themselves had simply been victims of attempted crime?  Just as I alluded to before, if we all want to pretend that criminals are only bad because they have been treated unfairly, if we all want to believe that they would stay home or go to work if only they did not have access to a firearm, if we all want to believe that your grandmother, approached by two or more young gangsters does not need some equalizer, then we can all go to fairy tale land, where if only there were no more guns there would be no more crime.  Folks, that is not the world we live in.

Better yet, in this world let's treat criminals like criminals, arrest, charge, convict, and incarcerate them.  Let's stop making excuses for their behavior, no matter what race they are, and stop accusing law-abiding citizens of being the root of this problem.  The problem is violence and crime, the disintegration of morals, values and culture.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but young African American male are not all angels any more than are young Caucasian males.  No degree of "oppression" can justify crime. The liberal idea that today's thugs have somehow earned some latitude from the maltreatment of their ancestors has done nothing but give a large swath of the population the impression that they can commit crime without impunity.  In fact, such a belief, such a position, infantilizes rather than promotes equality.  It "keeps them in their place" as incapable of doing right without the man to cut them a break.

A prime example of this is the young Martins of the world, who get second, third, fourth and more chances because they are oppressed, poor, downtrodden, and come away with no lesson learned regarding acceptable behavior.  Then, ultimately, they begin to consider themselves above the law , infinitely bad and untouchable (see the persona Martin projected in social media), and impervious to harm.  In their impunity, supported by the state and their "hands off" parents, they make the poor decision to get in the face of the pudgy little Hispanic dude who dared to follow them; wrong person, wrong time, and they die as a result of people letting them have a pass again and again.  If you want to blame martin's death on anyone, look at those who never required anything resembling decent behavior of him.

Aaron Alexis committed numerous firearms violations over a decade and was charged but never convicted of those events.  He had numerous bouts of misconduct in the USN, but trying to separate him under a general discharge took so long that they handed him an honorable, as if he had served his country with honor as did I and so many of my fellow veterans.  He told numerous mental health professionals that he heard voices (in this he is no different than many other shooters whose mental health issues were well known but largely unattended).  His race is irrelevant to this.  So he was hired as a civilian contractor, maintained a security clearance, and then one day agreed with those voices that it was time to kill.  If you want to blame his actions on something, it is simply abdication of responsibility to look to the tool.  Too busy with the rich getting richer, more wars to start, and every other damn thing in the world, to be sure that people who behave badly or abnormally are dealt with.

Foolish people look at these and other events and see only the firearm as a common element.  What I see is a dereliction of duty among those who are supposed to protect the populace from such potential perpetrators as well as protect them from themselves.  How much more information did we need on these people? What last bit of evidence was left to find expect that they would snap and kill?

And, in this world, where people fear holding others to some standard and let them commit crime after crime with no punishment, you expect the rest of us to give up our means of protection?

Sure, right.

So, I am in the gym yesterday and, given the events unfolding at the DC Navy Yards, a discussion among some guys - one a sheriff's deputy - ensues.  Since it is an active shooter event, the discussion shifts to school shootings and the deputy notes that he is not sure about the arming of teachers because he is afraid that when he and his fellow deputies enter in search of the active shooter, what if a teacher is walking around with a pistol in his hand and gets shot on sight as a perpetrator.

As a "teacher" who has been in front of a class of 200 students when the campus went into lock down and had students tell him that they were not scared because he would protect them, I had to differ on this a bit.  As I have noted before, I have told my wife that, should I ever be killed on campus is such an incident, she needs to sue everyone from the University President right up to the Governor for failing to allow me to carry my legally permitted firearm.  Quite honestly, in the initial stages of such an event, I prefer my chances with my firearm, holed up in the classroom against an armed intruder to waiting it out and hoping to be found while LE finds their way to my location.

I appreciate that some training is in order - I am a veteran of 10 years in the Army.  I know how to handle my weapon.  I know not to go wandering around, trying to find the shooter and clear the building on my own.  I also know that I can do better for myself and my students than to follow the ridiculous recommendations posted in classroom to hide and throw book bags.

It is somewhat disconcerting that both the bad guys AND the "good guys" prefer that the people in side be unarmed.

Ah, here we go again...

So, let's see:

- Dude supposedly heard voices - check!
- Dude had been arrested for multiple weapons offenses previously - check!
- Dude had multiple incidents of misconduct while in the USN - check!
- Dude was armed with a shotgun and two pistols - check!
- So - "assault weapons" are at fault.

Another case where thinking you are safe because there are guards at the gate makes for a killing field.

Even Steny Hoyer noted that (my emphasis): "In almost every one of these instances [of mass shootings], we've seen the perpetrators be people who individuals thought were unstable. In this case, apparently this guy was prone to violence. He had apparently shot the tires out of a neighbor's vehicle. He'd shot through the ceiling of another neighbor. He was given a general discharge from the Navy. So there was no doubt that this was somebody who had a record of instability and certainly should have been, I think, subject to closer scrutiny, particularly in access to the facilities at the Navy Yard."

Access to the Navy Yard?  Perhaps access to walking free.

Of course, as a good liberal democrat, Hoyer's (and Feinstein's) knee-jerk answer to the violence perpetrated by unstable, violent, un-charged criminals is "gun control".  How about violence control (my guns are fine)?

You know, elements of this story have become a recurring theme in our most violent headlines and I am not talking about the nature of the weapons used.  One element involves issues of mental health that people turn their back on because it would not be politically correct to note that this person is a danger to themselves or others.  So, in today's world of doing your own thing, pants down to your knees if you have any on at all, someone who seems out of touch with reality is given a wide latitude and permission to be that way.  Wouldn't be right to call it "abnormal". 

This can be compounded, as it was in the Zimmerman case and certainly in this case, when an African-American lives within a system that is particularly tepid in its response to misbehavior lest it be attacked as racist.  Such is the world that has evolved in which noticing bad behavior is dissuaded because of bizarre notions of fairness or equality.

If Americans in certain places and roles were doing their job, were willing to enforce rules in a fair and impartial way for all and stop excusing bad behavior because identifying it might be stigmatizing or might mean sanctioning someone of a protected race, then perhaps such events could diminish.  We must be honest; Martin would be alive now if his parents and the Miami-Dade school system had dealt seriously with his misconduct when it occurred, when he started down the path that lead him to mistake a "Creepy ass cracker" for an easy beat-down.  Twelve people at the DC Navy yards would be alive today if this perpetrator had been tried and convicted for his previous law-breaking and received treatment for any existing mental health issues.

For more on the response we can expect to see, look here.