This isn't really about Paula Deen.
She is just a stupid volunteer. It is about a moment in time which converges with SCOTUS' Voting Rights Act decision and Zimmerman. It is about a society that thinks it is reality TV instead of the other way around.
The "N-word" - stupid childish, gives more power to a shitty word (one of many bazillion shitty words); because I am white, I am supposed to call it that (none of us knows what it stands for!). Thus we convince people that they can be hurt by a word. It is like being in a Harry Potter movie - I can't say Voldemort but "The thing that shall not be named". What incredible Bull Shit.
Words are letters, syllables, sounds, strung together that impact your tympanic membrane and become sounds - then you make a meaning for them. It if hurts you, then look at yourself. It is an immature world where words are hurtful - "She called me a ....". The next step is that this justifies whatever one does in response. Quite frankly, a society cannot allow the use of a word to justify criminal behavior. It can try to understand it, but cannot tolerate it.
Let's be fair; white, European-Americans are not the only ones taught to use such terms or who, either anonymously or when with their own "group", demean others and make stupid or threatening statements. [Please go see how innocence looks]. I do not normally read The Blaze - but it is what it is - these are the little cherubs we are all supposed to be concerned about, the poor children the liberal media would tell us are so mistreated, the budding young sociopaths. I feel certain that Paula Deen, for her many faults, will not be threatening mayhem on strangers any time soon, even after being robbed - just calling them names. So, let's see: Paula Deen is the devil, but these little cherubs are "victims"?
Perhaps it is comforting to bluster, perhaps it allows a sense of control over things that are not controllable, but it is simply more likely that society - or at least part of it - has taught these little want-to-be gangsters that they have a right to blame others. It will certainly be interesting to see the excuses some people make for them if one acts out this threat - or dies in the attempt. I do have to ask: given these tweets, given one is a "cracker", I have to wonder if they have now provided a justification for lethal force if one is faced by a gang of these "gangstas" who approach them?
Whatever it is, you know, most people just want to be left alone to live our lives, to do no one else any harm; we don't care what you look like, what music you listen to, who you screw, or if you like to talk shit to make yourself feel more "empowered". And I am sure that, should Zimmerman be convicted, masses of white Americans will not riot and burn their own neighborhoods or any one else's, nor commit random crimes based on skin color - it didn't happen when OJ was acquitted - but did when Rodney King's assailants were. Go figure. When will we demand that people meet expectations instead of excusing their misbehavior?
Anyone wonder why we are where we are today, how we got to coddling little "gangstas" and psychopaths, justifying their bad behavior, while the culture goes to hell?
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
The hits keep right on coming
Busy day for blogging - every time I turn around more melodrama pops up.
Take this for instance!
This "Tea Party" group (and that is irrelevant) has apparently been marching in this July 4th parade with their rifles for many years without incident. They are law-abiding citizens. But this year; well, the SHTF! What is the big deal? Is this the new America where we have to continually deal with, cater to and, thereby, reinforce melodramatic and idiotic BS? Perhaps the "community" is polarized because some number of them are just plain ignorant and immature and no one will dare confront this as a way to educate them. Perhaps it is because some number of ignorant people want to limit the rights of others. When did this become a country by of and for scared, ignorant children?
It is well known that allowing organisms (including people) to avoid the things they fear does nothing to eliminate that fear, does nothing to "educate" them on the irrationality of that fear. In fact, the reduction in aversive arousal that accompanies avoidance is reinforcing phobic behavior. In such cases, one of the best treatments available is exposure; someone who has a fear of snakes can learn to overcome it by not avoiding it, but through gradual exposure to that stimulus without negative consequences until the arousal diminishes (basically).
So what's that got to do with this foolishness?
Well, as long as we keep letting the irrational fears of those with hoplophobia determine what the rest of us can do, we will continue to allow them to avoid reality and feed their fears. If we keep agreeing with them that it would just be too dangerous to let a group of law-abiding citizens, who have done so in the past, to march with unarmed rifles, then we are simply retraining them over and over to maintain an irrational fear, to be ignorant.
When I talk to people I know, some of whom know that I am an advocate for gun rights and carry a firearm concealed whenever I legally can, and they express concerns about what might happen IF someone were to carry a gun "here" (they often seem to forget that someone IS carrying one - concealed, after all, means concealed), I like to remind them that the odds are that most places they go there is a firearm there. Given that the population in this state is about 20 million and there are about 1 million CWFL holders - an average of 1 in 20 will be carrying - even greater if we limit our candidates to adults as the law mandates.
Take your kids to McDonald's, chances are there is at least one legally carried and concealed firearm there. Going to the grocery store, out to lunch or dinner - likely there is an law-abiding armed citizen there - maybe me. Thing is, you do not even know it or who it may be. Scary, huh? But if the firearms themselves were so dangerous, if they had a "mind of their own" then you would have known this a long time ago. There IS a gun there...a legal gun carried by a responsible owner. And, strangely, what you do not know seems unable to hurt you. And, you know what...there may be a time when you will be glad it was there (like this).
What non-gun-owners do not realize is that the vast majority of legal gun carriers are less likely to start, engage, or escalate trouble because they know that there is a gun there. If I am out and someone acts like a jerk, I am much more likely to walk away because I know that there is the potential for a lethal force. I know that ego needs to take a backseat.
Please - put your ignorant prejudice phobia aside long enough to get educated. Stand back, let people march and express themselves, exercise their freedoms - you might find it is, at worst, a harmless exercise in liberty and, at best, you might learn something. Don't decide you are going to prove all the negative stereotypes of the ignorant anti-gun zealots out there. If you are going to make a decision on such an issue, make it as an informed person, an educated citizen - that is what our nation was founded upon - that is how government by the people was designed to work.
Don't be like the silly little girl from Ms. Magazine (yes, I know that is demeaning - it is what she deserves) who thought the best way to approach this issue was to put her ignorance on parade. She belittled herself and was nothing more than an unflattering caricature.
Take this for instance!
This "Tea Party" group (and that is irrelevant) has apparently been marching in this July 4th parade with their rifles for many years without incident. They are law-abiding citizens. But this year; well, the SHTF! What is the big deal? Is this the new America where we have to continually deal with, cater to and, thereby, reinforce melodramatic and idiotic BS? Perhaps the "community" is polarized because some number of them are just plain ignorant and immature and no one will dare confront this as a way to educate them. Perhaps it is because some number of ignorant people want to limit the rights of others. When did this become a country by of and for scared, ignorant children?
It is well known that allowing organisms (including people) to avoid the things they fear does nothing to eliminate that fear, does nothing to "educate" them on the irrationality of that fear. In fact, the reduction in aversive arousal that accompanies avoidance is reinforcing phobic behavior. In such cases, one of the best treatments available is exposure; someone who has a fear of snakes can learn to overcome it by not avoiding it, but through gradual exposure to that stimulus without negative consequences until the arousal diminishes (basically).
So what's that got to do with this foolishness?
Well, as long as we keep letting the irrational fears of those with hoplophobia determine what the rest of us can do, we will continue to allow them to avoid reality and feed their fears. If we keep agreeing with them that it would just be too dangerous to let a group of law-abiding citizens, who have done so in the past, to march with unarmed rifles, then we are simply retraining them over and over to maintain an irrational fear, to be ignorant.
When I talk to people I know, some of whom know that I am an advocate for gun rights and carry a firearm concealed whenever I legally can, and they express concerns about what might happen IF someone were to carry a gun "here" (they often seem to forget that someone IS carrying one - concealed, after all, means concealed), I like to remind them that the odds are that most places they go there is a firearm there. Given that the population in this state is about 20 million and there are about 1 million CWFL holders - an average of 1 in 20 will be carrying - even greater if we limit our candidates to adults as the law mandates.
Take your kids to McDonald's, chances are there is at least one legally carried and concealed firearm there. Going to the grocery store, out to lunch or dinner - likely there is an law-abiding armed citizen there - maybe me. Thing is, you do not even know it or who it may be. Scary, huh? But if the firearms themselves were so dangerous, if they had a "mind of their own" then you would have known this a long time ago. There IS a gun there...a legal gun carried by a responsible owner. And, strangely, what you do not know seems unable to hurt you. And, you know what...there may be a time when you will be glad it was there (like this).
What non-gun-owners do not realize is that the vast majority of legal gun carriers are less likely to start, engage, or escalate trouble because they know that there is a gun there. If I am out and someone acts like a jerk, I am much more likely to walk away because I know that there is the potential for a lethal force. I know that ego needs to take a backseat.
Please - put your ignorant prejudice phobia aside long enough to get educated. Stand back, let people march and express themselves, exercise their freedoms - you might find it is, at worst, a harmless exercise in liberty and, at best, you might learn something. Don't decide you are going to prove all the negative stereotypes of the ignorant anti-gun zealots out there. If you are going to make a decision on such an issue, make it as an informed person, an educated citizen - that is what our nation was founded upon - that is how government by the people was designed to work.
Don't be like the silly little girl from Ms. Magazine (yes, I know that is demeaning - it is what she deserves) who thought the best way to approach this issue was to put her ignorance on parade. She belittled herself and was nothing more than an unflattering caricature.
Oh, Joe!
I would have to imagine that no one has ever accused Joe Scarborough of being overly tolerant. It is not his forte. In fact, I think he takes pride in it.
And Joe is also so accommodating - he consistently provides examples of both his egocentricity and ethnocentricity. Witness (an interesting choice of words given the topic) this exchange this morning with Jerry DeWitt.
What is remarkable is that he begins his interview with DeWitt by noting that, although DeWitt's book is called "Hope after Faith" he would consider the journey DeWitt has taken as one from faith to hopelessness. In this we can see the usual snarky, know-it-all, disdainful Joe Scarborough approach.
Not unexpected!
However, then, in an example of his typical complete lack of insight, one of his initial questions to DeWitt was whether if, having gone from faith to hope, was he now disdainful of those who still had faith. Joe, in fact, asserted that most atheists were openly hostile of those who still believe and, by implication, that this was terrible.
So - Joe, being Joe - first shows his complete disdain for someone else's beliefs, then derides them for their perception of their seeming disdain for his.
Classic; stupid, but classic.
And Joe is also so accommodating - he consistently provides examples of both his egocentricity and ethnocentricity. Witness (an interesting choice of words given the topic) this exchange this morning with Jerry DeWitt.
What is remarkable is that he begins his interview with DeWitt by noting that, although DeWitt's book is called "Hope after Faith" he would consider the journey DeWitt has taken as one from faith to hopelessness. In this we can see the usual snarky, know-it-all, disdainful Joe Scarborough approach.
Not unexpected!
However, then, in an example of his typical complete lack of insight, one of his initial questions to DeWitt was whether if, having gone from faith to hope, was he now disdainful of those who still had faith. Joe, in fact, asserted that most atheists were openly hostile of those who still believe and, by implication, that this was terrible.
So - Joe, being Joe - first shows his complete disdain for someone else's beliefs, then derides them for their perception of their seeming disdain for his.
Classic; stupid, but classic.
Hyperbole?
You may not like someone's opinion if it disagrees with yours, but I am not sure that this tweet by The Grand Master of Chick-Fil-A is "homophobic". He, indeed may be, but the tweet does not seem so.
It seems an ongoing saga in Modern America - we cannot disagree with each other without being the worst example of intolerance. Yes - I know both sides do it, but while it has never been a mystery that the "right" does so, the "left" now seems to be catching up in a big way.
You're white and want to rationally discuss race and its place in America? You're a racist! Want to insist on your second amendment rights? You're a gun nut who doesn't care about the children! Your beliefs disagree with acceptance/promotion of a gay lifestyle? You're homophobic!
It seems an ongoing saga in Modern America - we cannot disagree with each other without being the worst example of intolerance. Yes - I know both sides do it, but while it has never been a mystery that the "right" does so, the "left" now seems to be catching up in a big way.
You're white and want to rationally discuss race and its place in America? You're a racist! Want to insist on your second amendment rights? You're a gun nut who doesn't care about the children! Your beliefs disagree with acceptance/promotion of a gay lifestyle? You're homophobic!
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Well, really?
What seems just as stupid is vilifying executions when one is in favor of abortion.
This is the logic I cannot follow - the death penalty is bad, gun violence is bad, abortion is okay. Whether it is Rick Perry or this "Blue Texan" I just do not see how it adds up.
So when you note that "Obviously, the irony of cheering on Rick Perry, who's executed more people than any other governor in US history (including innocent people) -- was lost on him" - that's true enough, but all I can say is the obvious irony of complaining about 500 executions in Texas when 1.5 - 2.5% of women in Texas have had abortions every year over the past two decades seems to allude you - most of those unborn were innocent, I'll wager. This is why you sound so stupid. You write shit like this for people who agree with you.
Death is death - seems like you are either for it or agin it!
This is the logic I cannot follow - the death penalty is bad, gun violence is bad, abortion is okay. Whether it is Rick Perry or this "Blue Texan" I just do not see how it adds up.
So when you note that "Obviously, the irony of cheering on Rick Perry, who's executed more people than any other governor in US history (including innocent people) -- was lost on him" - that's true enough, but all I can say is the obvious irony of complaining about 500 executions in Texas when 1.5 - 2.5% of women in Texas have had abortions every year over the past two decades seems to allude you - most of those unborn were innocent, I'll wager. This is why you sound so stupid. You write shit like this for people who agree with you.
Death is death - seems like you are either for it or agin it!
If this is not the dumbest thing...
...then it is damned close!
So - the big plan - close schools so that children have to travel further through crime-ridden and self-defense challenged Chicago so as to get to school.
Then we can spend money on "Safe Passage Routes"? Doesn't the need to establish "safe pasage routes" admit that all of the other areas are not safe? Even after all these years of banning legal ownership of friearms, this shining city on the lake is not safe?
So - the big plan - close schools so that children have to travel further through crime-ridden and self-defense challenged Chicago so as to get to school.
Then we can spend money on "Safe Passage Routes"? Doesn't the need to establish "safe pasage routes" admit that all of the other areas are not safe? Even after all these years of banning legal ownership of friearms, this shining city on the lake is not safe?
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Hey...that's how I feel...pt. 2
DOMA is dead and gay folks can start marrying up, the Voting Rights Act has been gutted and Paula Dean is the devil incarnate!
So now I am getting emails from a multitude of organizations wanting my money, my signature, my time, to help support their right to marry in my state, their right to vote, their outrage over "The word that shall not be spoken by white folk".
Folks - I wrote this a while ago but now that hysteria is all around once more I feel the strong need to reiterate it. I know it does not matter, but it is through a strong sense of betrayal that I have to say this out loud. I am not gay, I am not a woman, I am not black. I know you think that makes me special (I know people think that all of us heterosexual white males hold secret meetings and plot the downfall of civilization and well as to split up all the money). Nonetheless, even though I am part of a "privileged class" (yep, my life has been one long freebie), I have, for many years, supported a range of rights for all who desire them. If I had been motivated by self-interest for the past several decades, I could and would have made different choices.
No, I will never want to marry another man - it is a foreign idea to me; no, I will never need an abortion; no, Paula Deen (nor anyone else) will never ever insult or "hurt" me, no matter what word she uses - my skin is thicker than that. No, disenfranchising black voters will not affect me personally - I have never been one - and the hysteria over the blathering of an old, southern white woman does not matter to me. I have nothing to gain from tax increases (because they will fall on me) or decreases (because I will not get one), lower student loan interest rates (paid mine off many years ago), or better unemployment compensation (I do not need it). I am so old that no matter what we do to the environment, it will not recover in my lifetime, nor will it kill me.
So, since I have often voted for those who support these initiatives that mean little to me personally, I have, for years, supported causes that I had no personal stake in. And it is clear at this point that I have gotten shit on in return.
Hence, for now, every email from each of you asking me to support your cause, from gay marriage, to women's rights and choice, to voting rights, to immigration will get the same response from me. "When you come out in support of the right that is personally relevant and important to me - my right to keep and bear arms as a law-abiding citizen - then I will consider supporting yours." As long as you make it impossible for me to support you without in turn denying my own rights, we will have to part ways. So don't come to me when you find you cannot get married in my state, when they institute a voter ID or poll tax, when they cut voting hours during your favorite times to vote, don't come to me when they close the abortion clinics in your state or shove a vaginal probe where the sun don't shine. You are on your own, abandoned by me as you have abandoned me.
Until you find a way to acknowledge my rights, your selfishness and self-indulgence will be met with my disdain and I will become a single issue voter.
UPDATE: So here's a good example of what I mean. These people think that I should give a damn about someone else's rights when they could care less about mine. Folks - I am not going out on the limb for you any more, not going to argue for fairness for you when you argue for restriction for me. As far as I am concerned, until you stand up for my rights, the people in Texas and anywhere else can close all the abortion clinics, ban gay anything and keep everyone they want from voting. In fact, as you become more militant in trying to limit my rights, I may just have to respond in kind.
Yes, I think I will have to make a deal with the devil, as ignorant as I might think he is; if the unsavory likes of a Louie Gohmert, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms, then they will get my vote. That's how fed up I am with selfish snobs who want to exercise their rights but want to constrain mine.
So now I am getting emails from a multitude of organizations wanting my money, my signature, my time, to help support their right to marry in my state, their right to vote, their outrage over "The word that shall not be spoken by white folk".
Folks - I wrote this a while ago but now that hysteria is all around once more I feel the strong need to reiterate it. I know it does not matter, but it is through a strong sense of betrayal that I have to say this out loud. I am not gay, I am not a woman, I am not black. I know you think that makes me special (I know people think that all of us heterosexual white males hold secret meetings and plot the downfall of civilization and well as to split up all the money). Nonetheless, even though I am part of a "privileged class" (yep, my life has been one long freebie), I have, for many years, supported a range of rights for all who desire them. If I had been motivated by self-interest for the past several decades, I could and would have made different choices.
No, I will never want to marry another man - it is a foreign idea to me; no, I will never need an abortion; no, Paula Deen (nor anyone else) will never ever insult or "hurt" me, no matter what word she uses - my skin is thicker than that. No, disenfranchising black voters will not affect me personally - I have never been one - and the hysteria over the blathering of an old, southern white woman does not matter to me. I have nothing to gain from tax increases (because they will fall on me) or decreases (because I will not get one), lower student loan interest rates (paid mine off many years ago), or better unemployment compensation (I do not need it). I am so old that no matter what we do to the environment, it will not recover in my lifetime, nor will it kill me.
So, since I have often voted for those who support these initiatives that mean little to me personally, I have, for years, supported causes that I had no personal stake in. And it is clear at this point that I have gotten shit on in return.
Hence, for now, every email from each of you asking me to support your cause, from gay marriage, to women's rights and choice, to voting rights, to immigration will get the same response from me. "When you come out in support of the right that is personally relevant and important to me - my right to keep and bear arms as a law-abiding citizen - then I will consider supporting yours." As long as you make it impossible for me to support you without in turn denying my own rights, we will have to part ways. So don't come to me when you find you cannot get married in my state, when they institute a voter ID or poll tax, when they cut voting hours during your favorite times to vote, don't come to me when they close the abortion clinics in your state or shove a vaginal probe where the sun don't shine. You are on your own, abandoned by me as you have abandoned me.
Until you find a way to acknowledge my rights, your selfishness and self-indulgence will be met with my disdain and I will become a single issue voter.
UPDATE: So here's a good example of what I mean. These people think that I should give a damn about someone else's rights when they could care less about mine. Folks - I am not going out on the limb for you any more, not going to argue for fairness for you when you argue for restriction for me. As far as I am concerned, until you stand up for my rights, the people in Texas and anywhere else can close all the abortion clinics, ban gay anything and keep everyone they want from voting. In fact, as you become more militant in trying to limit my rights, I may just have to respond in kind.
Yes, I think I will have to make a deal with the devil, as ignorant as I might think he is; if the unsavory likes of a Louie Gohmert, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms, then they will get my vote. That's how fed up I am with selfish snobs who want to exercise their rights but want to constrain mine.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Not really...
Cute couple - it's all well and good, but you're not a king.
You see, this is where the problem lies; we have a young man in West Virgina who was harassed in school for wearing an NRA t-shirt asserting his 2A rights and was ultimately arrested during the incident - and then we have a lesbian prom king.
Rights is rights...can we get some perspective here?
Damned peculiar.
Monday, June 24, 2013
'Bout time someone noticed...
Good for the Mayor of Rockford, Illinois for calling out hypocrisy and dropping out of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG).
As can be seen in the Daily Caller's write-up, in dropping out of the organization Mayor Morrissey noted that “As the original mission swayed, that’s when I decided that it was no longer in line with my beliefs. …So that’s why I dropped out.” He further explained that “The focus should not be against law-abiding citizens. We should be focusing our enforcement on folks who have no right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise.”
By noting this, Morrissey exposes the bait and switch that Bloomberg, MAIG and, in fact, the Obama Administration have attempted to pull on the American people. There is the public face that preys on tragedy and plays to the ignorant and uninformed; the "Who could not be against illegal guns" that kill people face. Then, behind the scenes - but clear to those who see it - is the ultimate agenda of eliminating all gun ownership. In the end, to Bloomberg, all guns are illegal guns (except those carried by his PSD). Why this is so important one can debate - but regardless of the reason, its ultimate end would be to leave those who follow the law largely defenseless.
Add this to the fact that Bloomberg, a billionaire on a mission, is using public funds/resources to support his pet project and we begin to see the agenda for what it is; manipulation and power-grabbing. This is a little man, a little despot, with a lot of money who wants to tell others how to live and manipulate others into supporting his agenda. It is sad enough to believe that someone could be capable of using their own millions to change the nature of a nation, but when it becomes clear they are actually using money raised from tax payers to push a personal agenda, it becomes ludicrous and criminal. Time for a new group; People Against Illegal Mayors (PAIM; copyright, me, now).
Mayor Morrissey deserves profound thanks from all law-abiding gun owners for his willingness to not only leave the organization but for doing so in a visible way while revealing the true purpose of the organization.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
What's inflammatory about personal responsiblity?
You'll pardon me for asking - or perhaps you won't - but I am at a loss to understand why this is inflammatory.
Serena Williams was asked about the Steubenville rape case - why I'll never know - and noted: "I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people."
I'll leave any ideas she might have expressed regarding the predators' punishment aside - that's a phenomenon for another blogger or blog. UPDATE: Serena has apparently apologized for her comments - hopefully it is only for those that suggested that the punishment for the rapists was too harsh.
If you cling to that you will miss the important part she did say; parents teach your children that getting drunk, high, or whatever, letting your guard down, being where you should not be, making yourself easy prey is the most direct path to being raped, preyed upon, or taken advantage of by predatory criminals. Parents must stop abdicating responsibility for teaching children that all is not right in the world and start teaching them how to protect themselves.
First, to deflect the obvious, self-serving, interpretations! Rape is not something anyone asks for and it can never be explained away...no one goes looking for it and those who commit it are heinous criminals. Nothing a victim does can ever justify such behavior. This girl did not ask for or deserve to be raped. But, with that out of the way, let's talk about prevention! Is it better to be "right" or safe?
What is inflammatory about suggesting that people - every person - can and should take responsibility for their personal safety and security - not leave it up to the good will of others? There are predators in the world - we all know that - they see the rest of us as prey, as meat. They look like us but are less than human. We can bemoan this all we want and insist that, no matter what we do, no matter how we put ourselves at risk, they should not behave this way. Of course they shouldn't; but all protestations aside, they do! Does that make you feel better? Whine about it until you are blue in the face, insist that offering one's self to them as easy prey plays no part in the outcomes, that bad things just should not happen. In the best of all possible worlds, this might be the case, but that's not where we live. The ends are partly a function of the decisions one makes.
It is an old adage in personal security that the best way to avoid trouble is don't be there! [Perhaps the rest of our culture might benefit from paying more attention to the gun culture instead of vilifying it]. If you know an area is is not safe, then don't be there. Do all you can to avoid it (if you can't then you need to be prepared for it - as in armed and in the company of like-minded others). If you end up there and are victimized - no, it is not your fault - but that does not mean you couldn't have prevented it by prudent planning and situation awareness. Part of avoidance is not getting drunk and passing out, whether you are a 16 year-old girl or a 40 year-old man. DTA! Would you rather be a sad story of a righteous, justified, blameless victim or not a victim at all?
There is nothing inflammatory about the idea that you can choose to pull your head out of the sand and come back from that fantasy world where no evil can befall you - where everyone around you will comport to your rules. Come and take responsibility for your own safety in a world where others will violate it given the chance. Those who think that it is inflammatory to remind potential victims that they can prevent their victimization are the same people who think that carrying a firearm is paranoid or unnecessary. They live in a dream world filled with only good people and seemingly prefer righteous victimization to self-preservation. In the meantime in the real world, the rapes of young girls and shootings of helpless victims (see Chicago) continue.
Comforting but ineffective fairy tales - and righteous indignation - solve nothing.
Serena Williams was asked about the Steubenville rape case - why I'll never know - and noted: "I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people."
I'll leave any ideas she might have expressed regarding the predators' punishment aside - that's a phenomenon for another blogger or blog. UPDATE: Serena has apparently apologized for her comments - hopefully it is only for those that suggested that the punishment for the rapists was too harsh.
If you cling to that you will miss the important part she did say; parents teach your children that getting drunk, high, or whatever, letting your guard down, being where you should not be, making yourself easy prey is the most direct path to being raped, preyed upon, or taken advantage of by predatory criminals. Parents must stop abdicating responsibility for teaching children that all is not right in the world and start teaching them how to protect themselves.
First, to deflect the obvious, self-serving, interpretations! Rape is not something anyone asks for and it can never be explained away...no one goes looking for it and those who commit it are heinous criminals. Nothing a victim does can ever justify such behavior. This girl did not ask for or deserve to be raped. But, with that out of the way, let's talk about prevention! Is it better to be "right" or safe?
What is inflammatory about suggesting that people - every person - can and should take responsibility for their personal safety and security - not leave it up to the good will of others? There are predators in the world - we all know that - they see the rest of us as prey, as meat. They look like us but are less than human. We can bemoan this all we want and insist that, no matter what we do, no matter how we put ourselves at risk, they should not behave this way. Of course they shouldn't; but all protestations aside, they do! Does that make you feel better? Whine about it until you are blue in the face, insist that offering one's self to them as easy prey plays no part in the outcomes, that bad things just should not happen. In the best of all possible worlds, this might be the case, but that's not where we live. The ends are partly a function of the decisions one makes.
It is an old adage in personal security that the best way to avoid trouble is don't be there! [Perhaps the rest of our culture might benefit from paying more attention to the gun culture instead of vilifying it]. If you know an area is is not safe, then don't be there. Do all you can to avoid it (if you can't then you need to be prepared for it - as in armed and in the company of like-minded others). If you end up there and are victimized - no, it is not your fault - but that does not mean you couldn't have prevented it by prudent planning and situation awareness. Part of avoidance is not getting drunk and passing out, whether you are a 16 year-old girl or a 40 year-old man. DTA! Would you rather be a sad story of a righteous, justified, blameless victim or not a victim at all?
There is nothing inflammatory about the idea that you can choose to pull your head out of the sand and come back from that fantasy world where no evil can befall you - where everyone around you will comport to your rules. Come and take responsibility for your own safety in a world where others will violate it given the chance. Those who think that it is inflammatory to remind potential victims that they can prevent their victimization are the same people who think that carrying a firearm is paranoid or unnecessary. They live in a dream world filled with only good people and seemingly prefer righteous victimization to self-preservation. In the meantime in the real world, the rapes of young girls and shootings of helpless victims (see Chicago) continue.
Comforting but ineffective fairy tales - and righteous indignation - solve nothing.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Her month with a gun?
So, what better way for someone who is clearly scared of and vehemently against firearms to make a point than to strap one on for a month and share all her worst fears and burgeoning neuroses with us? In Ms. Magazine no less!
Take this for an example: "Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment."
Did you ask if it was loaded? Where would the rounds have come from? Did you buy ammunition? Ejecting a magazine will fire the gun? If you could not answer these questions then you were unprepared. That is on you! How dare someone selling a product assume that someone buying it is not a moron. You really thought that the best way to learn about firearms was to be stupid? So much for personal responsibility.
Then: "I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought through."
No shit! Strike two!
"I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it. I asked him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was and how he had one just like it."
I bet he knew all about it before he got his.
"The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal."
Strike three! Nothing illegal, but plenty wrong. Did you ask questions about it? Were you at all inquisitive about this potentially dangerous weapon? God forbid that anyone buying a product be expected to ask questions about it if they were ignorant. It is easy for people who are clueless about guns and the gun culture - who are not only unaware of the norms of that culture, but actively antagonistic to them - to think that this is the modal gun buying experience, that most people simply wander in to a gun show or shop and buy a pistol with no prior knowledge, like going through the drive-through at McDs. One of the norms in that culture is that if you are not going to train and become proficient with the use of a firearm, then perhaps it is not a good choice for you. One of the lessons you clearly missed is that carrying a weapon is a terrible responsibility not to be taken lightly - as you have done. No one can take that responsibility for you. Did that LEO tell you how often this happens? I suspect you are the first person to ever do this to him...and that should tell you something.
But I am not sure what is worse - reading her blog or the "you go girl" comments that follow it. I suppose it is a side-effect of both how gun issues are covered and the sheltered lives that some people lead, but the people who are commenting by and large seem to think that there are old-time western shoot-outs in the street (or at Starbucks) on a regular basis. If the law with regard to training and knowledge required to obtain a firearm is so egregious, then why aren't people accidentally shooting up Starbucks and everywhere else all the time (again, many of these commenters probably think they are!).
Another commenter notes how easy it is for criminals to disarm an open carrier. If it is so easy for criminals to take away openly carried sidearms, then why doesn't this happen all the time in states with open carry? Are there any data this person would like to cite or is steadfast but unsupported belief sufficient?
This is sadly destined to be a lost opportunity - this person who could, if she chose, learn about pistol handling and the culture that surrounds it seems very likely to simply present a caricature of it. I hope that as this month goes by she will try a little harder to find out what being a gun owner means and being a gun carrier is all about, instead of imposing her stupidity on it. She could show a different picture of law-abiding gun owners to her audience than they are used to seeing if she wanted to do so.
The gun will not make you smarter; it is a tool and like any other tool, YOU must learn to use it well and safely if it is to perform for you. They do not require me to show I can be safe with a chainsaw, knife, lawn mower (like the one a dad ran over his daughter with), or whatever, before I buy one.
If you do not want to learn what it takes to be safe and proficient, to not become an ignorant gibbering wreck who has to drive until she finds an LEO on a roadside to get her pistol cleared, then you should stick to harsh words for your self-defense.
I hold out little hope.
Take this for an example: "Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment."
Did you ask if it was loaded? Where would the rounds have come from? Did you buy ammunition? Ejecting a magazine will fire the gun? If you could not answer these questions then you were unprepared. That is on you! How dare someone selling a product assume that someone buying it is not a moron. You really thought that the best way to learn about firearms was to be stupid? So much for personal responsibility.
Then: "I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought through."
No shit! Strike two!
"I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it. I asked him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was and how he had one just like it."
I bet he knew all about it before he got his.
"The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal."
Strike three! Nothing illegal, but plenty wrong. Did you ask questions about it? Were you at all inquisitive about this potentially dangerous weapon? God forbid that anyone buying a product be expected to ask questions about it if they were ignorant. It is easy for people who are clueless about guns and the gun culture - who are not only unaware of the norms of that culture, but actively antagonistic to them - to think that this is the modal gun buying experience, that most people simply wander in to a gun show or shop and buy a pistol with no prior knowledge, like going through the drive-through at McDs. One of the norms in that culture is that if you are not going to train and become proficient with the use of a firearm, then perhaps it is not a good choice for you. One of the lessons you clearly missed is that carrying a weapon is a terrible responsibility not to be taken lightly - as you have done. No one can take that responsibility for you. Did that LEO tell you how often this happens? I suspect you are the first person to ever do this to him...and that should tell you something.
But I am not sure what is worse - reading her blog or the "you go girl" comments that follow it. I suppose it is a side-effect of both how gun issues are covered and the sheltered lives that some people lead, but the people who are commenting by and large seem to think that there are old-time western shoot-outs in the street (or at Starbucks) on a regular basis. If the law with regard to training and knowledge required to obtain a firearm is so egregious, then why aren't people accidentally shooting up Starbucks and everywhere else all the time (again, many of these commenters probably think they are!).
Another commenter notes how easy it is for criminals to disarm an open carrier. If it is so easy for criminals to take away openly carried sidearms, then why doesn't this happen all the time in states with open carry? Are there any data this person would like to cite or is steadfast but unsupported belief sufficient?
This is sadly destined to be a lost opportunity - this person who could, if she chose, learn about pistol handling and the culture that surrounds it seems very likely to simply present a caricature of it. I hope that as this month goes by she will try a little harder to find out what being a gun owner means and being a gun carrier is all about, instead of imposing her stupidity on it. She could show a different picture of law-abiding gun owners to her audience than they are used to seeing if she wanted to do so.
The gun will not make you smarter; it is a tool and like any other tool, YOU must learn to use it well and safely if it is to perform for you. They do not require me to show I can be safe with a chainsaw, knife, lawn mower (like the one a dad ran over his daughter with), or whatever, before I buy one.
If you do not want to learn what it takes to be safe and proficient, to not become an ignorant gibbering wreck who has to drive until she finds an LEO on a roadside to get her pistol cleared, then you should stick to harsh words for your self-defense.
I hold out little hope.
So what does this mean post-shooting?
It has always been the "traditional wisdom" to say little or nothing in response to questions after one has engaged in a self-defense shooting. The rationale has always been that anything you might say in that time of hyper-arousal and confusion might be used against you. Hence, common advice ranges from say nothing at all to pointing out important evidence and witnesses and then declining further comment until one is able to gather one's self or have counsel present. This is the common procedure with LEO after officer-involved shootings - no interrogation on scene.
But now that the SCOTUS has ruled that pre-Miranda silence can be used as against us as evidence, what does that mean for this advice? Does this mean that refusing to answer questions, whether before or after Miranda warnings, can be used as evidence against you?
This hopefully will alarm some of those who always spout that worn out old notion that "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear." Given the post-incident arousal and confusion, memory is likely to be less than reliable and one is liable to say something in a way that could be misinterpreted. Now we know that saying nothing is likely to be misinterpreted, too.
But now that the SCOTUS has ruled that pre-Miranda silence can be used as against us as evidence, what does that mean for this advice? Does this mean that refusing to answer questions, whether before or after Miranda warnings, can be used as evidence against you?
This hopefully will alarm some of those who always spout that worn out old notion that "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear." Given the post-incident arousal and confusion, memory is likely to be less than reliable and one is liable to say something in a way that could be misinterpreted. Now we know that saying nothing is likely to be misinterpreted, too.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Yes - they all love the gun ban in Britain
How interesting that all the gun control advocates here in the colonies look longingly across the pond to the British as a way of justifying the notion of a gun ban. Oh, how idyllic the old island is and how happy all the citizens are with things - like being disarmed. "Cause Piers Morgan tells me so!"
Then...all of a sudden someone actually decides to ask them what they think and, damn, it is apparently not so. Sure, it's not a scientific poll - not a random sample - but it is hard to deny the meaning and import of the numbers - 87% of those responding to the poll (about 19,900 votes) asking what laws need to be changed asserted that the Great British handgun ban needs to be repealed.
In the US, when one wants to imply consensus of opinion, they use numbers of that magnitude. So...will the Brits rethink their approach? Will the American media share this nugget, this datapoint with the American people?
"Not bloody likely!"
Then...all of a sudden someone actually decides to ask them what they think and, damn, it is apparently not so. Sure, it's not a scientific poll - not a random sample - but it is hard to deny the meaning and import of the numbers - 87% of those responding to the poll (about 19,900 votes) asking what laws need to be changed asserted that the Great British handgun ban needs to be repealed.
In the US, when one wants to imply consensus of opinion, they use numbers of that magnitude. So...will the Brits rethink their approach? Will the American media share this nugget, this datapoint with the American people?
"Not bloody likely!"
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
The bizarre world revealed by the NSA spying scandal
Rights is rights, m'kay?
There are those who don't care about any of them (at least those enshrined in the Bill of Rights; e.g., Mika Brzezinski), who think the right to keep and bear arms and the right to privacy from unwarranted government intrusion (otherwise known as the second and fourth amendments) are not so important, are out-dated. That is their new world, traditional rights are just an obstacle to be overcome. Well, to be honest, Mika and those like her care about rights as long as they are rights to things like abortion and gay marriage I suppose (no amendment numbers for those, BTW) or have to do with Mommies and equal pay and - would you like some cheese with that whine. Oh, yea, she wants to tell us how to eat, too.
Then there are people like many of the GOP politicians who are inconsistent on the issue of what rights are really rights and their inconsistency muddies things that should be clear. For instance, it makes no sense to be against limiting the RKBA and government intrusion and gun control via registration and then to support unwarranted surveillance. Rights is rights...we get them all or we give them up. Giving up one - especially one as important as the right to not have the government tracking your every move and word - starts us down the dark road to losing others.
Of course, there are those - some liberals - who are the other way around; actually willing to be appalled at lawless surveillance and its violation of our rights, yet more than ready to take other rights away at the drop of a hat. Again - if you take the axe to one of them, you diminish the others by implication; Bill of Rights - drop one then why not others, too? If the 2A RKBA arms is outdated (you know - "The founders never envisioned automatic assault weapons" ;<)), then so is the 4th, because the founders never envisioned terrorism and the technology that can be used to defy it. This is the instantiation of the famous "When they came for..." idea - if you let the rights you do not value go, then soon the only ones left to take away will be those you cherish - by then it will be too late because there are no rights - only privileges.
Freedom is about risk!
We do not need give up freedom to be safe! We do not need freedom to be like everyone else!
Totalitarian societies keep good order by knowing everything about everyone, by demanding uniformity and conformity to the extent possible. Wrong religion? Off with your head! Wrong politics? Off to prison with you! Our rights codify the risk that freedom entails.
A society that purports to enshrine freedom understands this, accepts the risk. freedom is unpredictable by nature. How many times since 9-11 have we heard the saying "Freedom isn't free!". Sure, this is most often used by war mongers who are not serving their nation and never have to justify the loss of precious American life and countless billions in wars that were folly at best and criminal at worst. But it has to mean more than that - Freedom isn't free because it means one must pay a price and part of that price is risk, uncertainty, potential loss. It means accepting responsibility, making a decision, taking a chance, dealing with consequences; that no one can be looking over your shoulder all the time, that you are self-reliant. Those who seek a clean, safe, risk-free world seek a world in which they are like everyone else, they are hiding away, they cower from life. Freedom is too scary - please keep me safe and tell me what to do! Not so long ago a President resigned over a wiretapping scandal - for bugging the headquarters of his political enemies. Now we exalt in an administration that follows in on all of us.
Walk tall, be free, live life, and accept that tomorrow is never guaranteed. That was once America - but terror works by making cowards of the unsure, cowards who are willing to give up their rights, abandon their culture, for the sake of perceived security. Thus it changes the nature of a culture, just as ours has changed.
"If you're not doing anything wrong..."
Speaking of cowards, how many times have we heard this one; you have nothing to fear from surveillance if you are not doing anything wrong. Pardon me for calling Bull Shit on this, but what a pant load! What is "wrong?" Do you mean "If I am not breaking the law?" Really? How does this jive with "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? In case it is not clear from reading this blog, I believe in and exercise the RKBA. Not against the law...but I am told constantly (although I do not believe it) that a majority of Americans consider it wrong. It is not illegal - but will there come a time that it will be used against me? Do they track my ammunition purchases? Do they read this blog?
The vast majority of social control we are subjected to has nothing to do with formal laws and criminality. It is social consensus, social norms. But we are free to violate them without formal penalty - that is the nature of freedom - even if we are subject to informal ostracizing. We are free - have the right - to keep such behavior and thoughts in private. Is my personal business your business? The government's business? That it not your decision to make - it is mine. That is freedom.
The shit that most people are willing to accept just for the illusion of safety is frightening. It is, quite frankly, a sign of the decline of a free nation, it is terrorism creating a cowed nation and a defeated people. I'm too old to give a shit; between the safety of a government on my shoulder and the freedom that means the possibility of terror, I choose the risk of freedom.
There are those who don't care about any of them (at least those enshrined in the Bill of Rights; e.g., Mika Brzezinski), who think the right to keep and bear arms and the right to privacy from unwarranted government intrusion (otherwise known as the second and fourth amendments) are not so important, are out-dated. That is their new world, traditional rights are just an obstacle to be overcome. Well, to be honest, Mika and those like her care about rights as long as they are rights to things like abortion and gay marriage I suppose (no amendment numbers for those, BTW) or have to do with Mommies and equal pay and - would you like some cheese with that whine. Oh, yea, she wants to tell us how to eat, too.
Then there are people like many of the GOP politicians who are inconsistent on the issue of what rights are really rights and their inconsistency muddies things that should be clear. For instance, it makes no sense to be against limiting the RKBA and government intrusion and gun control via registration and then to support unwarranted surveillance. Rights is rights...we get them all or we give them up. Giving up one - especially one as important as the right to not have the government tracking your every move and word - starts us down the dark road to losing others.
Of course, there are those - some liberals - who are the other way around; actually willing to be appalled at lawless surveillance and its violation of our rights, yet more than ready to take other rights away at the drop of a hat. Again - if you take the axe to one of them, you diminish the others by implication; Bill of Rights - drop one then why not others, too? If the 2A RKBA arms is outdated (you know - "The founders never envisioned automatic assault weapons" ;<)), then so is the 4th, because the founders never envisioned terrorism and the technology that can be used to defy it. This is the instantiation of the famous "When they came for..." idea - if you let the rights you do not value go, then soon the only ones left to take away will be those you cherish - by then it will be too late because there are no rights - only privileges.
Freedom is about risk!
We do not need give up freedom to be safe! We do not need freedom to be like everyone else!
Totalitarian societies keep good order by knowing everything about everyone, by demanding uniformity and conformity to the extent possible. Wrong religion? Off with your head! Wrong politics? Off to prison with you! Our rights codify the risk that freedom entails.
A society that purports to enshrine freedom understands this, accepts the risk. freedom is unpredictable by nature. How many times since 9-11 have we heard the saying "Freedom isn't free!". Sure, this is most often used by war mongers who are not serving their nation and never have to justify the loss of precious American life and countless billions in wars that were folly at best and criminal at worst. But it has to mean more than that - Freedom isn't free because it means one must pay a price and part of that price is risk, uncertainty, potential loss. It means accepting responsibility, making a decision, taking a chance, dealing with consequences; that no one can be looking over your shoulder all the time, that you are self-reliant. Those who seek a clean, safe, risk-free world seek a world in which they are like everyone else, they are hiding away, they cower from life. Freedom is too scary - please keep me safe and tell me what to do! Not so long ago a President resigned over a wiretapping scandal - for bugging the headquarters of his political enemies. Now we exalt in an administration that follows in on all of us.
Walk tall, be free, live life, and accept that tomorrow is never guaranteed. That was once America - but terror works by making cowards of the unsure, cowards who are willing to give up their rights, abandon their culture, for the sake of perceived security. Thus it changes the nature of a culture, just as ours has changed.
"If you're not doing anything wrong..."
Speaking of cowards, how many times have we heard this one; you have nothing to fear from surveillance if you are not doing anything wrong. Pardon me for calling Bull Shit on this, but what a pant load! What is "wrong?" Do you mean "If I am not breaking the law?" Really? How does this jive with "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? In case it is not clear from reading this blog, I believe in and exercise the RKBA. Not against the law...but I am told constantly (although I do not believe it) that a majority of Americans consider it wrong. It is not illegal - but will there come a time that it will be used against me? Do they track my ammunition purchases? Do they read this blog?
The vast majority of social control we are subjected to has nothing to do with formal laws and criminality. It is social consensus, social norms. But we are free to violate them without formal penalty - that is the nature of freedom - even if we are subject to informal ostracizing. We are free - have the right - to keep such behavior and thoughts in private. Is my personal business your business? The government's business? That it not your decision to make - it is mine. That is freedom.
The shit that most people are willing to accept just for the illusion of safety is frightening. It is, quite frankly, a sign of the decline of a free nation, it is terrorism creating a cowed nation and a defeated people. I'm too old to give a shit; between the safety of a government on my shoulder and the freedom that means the possibility of terror, I choose the risk of freedom.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Hypocrisy on parade
Ah, the irony of it all. I'm sure I've complained somewhere about how, when W was president I was constantly accused of being a liberal because I thought his surveillance of the American people was an affront to our liberties and an impeachable offense. Now, upon the revelations that O is doing the same thing if not more, I suggest it is an impeachable offense and have been accused of being a conservative. They say "Well, remember who made it law" and I say "And remember who said he would never do it if elected".
All those folks who thought it was just great (or completely wrong) for a Republican president to flaunt the rules (after all we were also scared that we would give up those liberties for a bit of security) need to remember what some of us said - some day there will be a president you don't like (or do like) and he will do it, too.
All those folks who thought it was just great (or completely wrong) for a Republican president to flaunt the rules (after all we were also scared that we would give up those liberties for a bit of security) need to remember what some of us said - some day there will be a president you don't like (or do like) and he will do it, too.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Why did it have to wait for the police?
Given the ever-present bias in the media with regard to reporting on any incident involving firearms, it is certain that the recent shooting in Santa Monica will get the usual slanted attention. It will be little more than another in the long list of reasons we need to ban all firearms.
First, at least most outlets are making it clear that this was not a "school shooting" at all - it was a crime spree that ended when the criminal was killed by LE after retreating into a school library (photo above).
Second, let's be sure we note that this happened in California. Yes, California, one of the states that has the strictest gun control laws in the nation (and getting stricter all the time). Let's further note that this follows on recent reports of record numbers of gun-related crimes in Chicago and New York City - two more places where the most draconian of gun laws are in effect. So, this specific example happened in a gun-free zone in a virtually gun-free state. What can we take from that? Do I really need to lay it all out? Why is it that these instantiations of the general research findings that fewer guns equals more crime are always interpreted in the context of anti-gun bias? Why is the answer always the next draconian step when the last one did not work?
Further, note that this "rampage" ended when guns were used by good guys; in this case LEOs because, after all, who else in California is carrying a gun on a regular basis? So, it took a good guy with a gun to end a rampage by a bad guy with a gun. Damn, where have I heard that saying before?
But what if someone in his path had been armed while the police were still getting themselves on site? If such crimes end when a good guy (LEO or otherwise) with a gun ends it, then why should this outcome have to wait for the police (and, if the media were willing to report it, it often does not have to wait that long)? Why did it have to wait in Aurora? Why in Newtown? Why in Columbine? Yes, there are those who will insist that the police are trained for this, that they are somehow uniquely qualified to use a firearms in this situation. In fact, this is probably not true for the most part and simply reflects the misconception that the police are constantly training with the firearms they carry. In fact, many may train less frequently than many civilians. They MAY have other training that is useful and more rare, such as active shooter and team tactics training. They certainly can bring coordinated strength in numbers to bear. But recent events have shown that their marksmanship is likely no better than most civilians.
But think of the different times in the different events noted above where a person with a firearm might have ended or at least slowed down or stalled the carnage. Yes, in this case (and in Aurora) the shooter was apparently wearing body armor (what level and how much, unknown). Yes, such armor may stop any caliber round that is capable of being carried concealed. But here again the misconception is that this means there would be no benefit to the presence of an armed good guy in the area with the ability to get rounds on target. Body armor may prevent penetration, but there is still the force of the round impacting the armor. The armor is also not likely to be full body, offering either a low-line mobility kill or a head shot (two shots to center mass will get at least some hesitation (see this insane example) and also signal that it is time to shooting either pockets or the head. In any case, an active shooter taking fire is most likely not going to continue unabated whether due to physical or psychological debilitation.
Let's be clear on one more thing: carrying a concealed firearm does not make one a LEO. I am not suggesting that legally-armed law-abiding citizens adopt the role of duty-bound responders and run to danger (that is a personal choice and potentially deadly one for several reasons). What I am suggesting is that, if innocent citizens going about their daily business are going to find themselves in the path of such madmen, if they are going to be potential victims of them, then allowing them to have a fighting chance to defend themselves and potentially save lives seems to right thing to do. It MAY well be that this criminal could walk right through all of the rounds of 9 mm I carry and could put on him and take my life. It IS CERTAIN that he could do so if I were unarmed.
But you will read none of this anywhere in the mainstream media, I am most certain.
First, at least most outlets are making it clear that this was not a "school shooting" at all - it was a crime spree that ended when the criminal was killed by LE after retreating into a school library (photo above).
Second, let's be sure we note that this happened in California. Yes, California, one of the states that has the strictest gun control laws in the nation (and getting stricter all the time). Let's further note that this follows on recent reports of record numbers of gun-related crimes in Chicago and New York City - two more places where the most draconian of gun laws are in effect. So, this specific example happened in a gun-free zone in a virtually gun-free state. What can we take from that? Do I really need to lay it all out? Why is it that these instantiations of the general research findings that fewer guns equals more crime are always interpreted in the context of anti-gun bias? Why is the answer always the next draconian step when the last one did not work?
Further, note that this "rampage" ended when guns were used by good guys; in this case LEOs because, after all, who else in California is carrying a gun on a regular basis? So, it took a good guy with a gun to end a rampage by a bad guy with a gun. Damn, where have I heard that saying before?
But what if someone in his path had been armed while the police were still getting themselves on site? If such crimes end when a good guy (LEO or otherwise) with a gun ends it, then why should this outcome have to wait for the police (and, if the media were willing to report it, it often does not have to wait that long)? Why did it have to wait in Aurora? Why in Newtown? Why in Columbine? Yes, there are those who will insist that the police are trained for this, that they are somehow uniquely qualified to use a firearms in this situation. In fact, this is probably not true for the most part and simply reflects the misconception that the police are constantly training with the firearms they carry. In fact, many may train less frequently than many civilians. They MAY have other training that is useful and more rare, such as active shooter and team tactics training. They certainly can bring coordinated strength in numbers to bear. But recent events have shown that their marksmanship is likely no better than most civilians.
But think of the different times in the different events noted above where a person with a firearm might have ended or at least slowed down or stalled the carnage. Yes, in this case (and in Aurora) the shooter was apparently wearing body armor (what level and how much, unknown). Yes, such armor may stop any caliber round that is capable of being carried concealed. But here again the misconception is that this means there would be no benefit to the presence of an armed good guy in the area with the ability to get rounds on target. Body armor may prevent penetration, but there is still the force of the round impacting the armor. The armor is also not likely to be full body, offering either a low-line mobility kill or a head shot (two shots to center mass will get at least some hesitation (see this insane example) and also signal that it is time to shooting either pockets or the head. In any case, an active shooter taking fire is most likely not going to continue unabated whether due to physical or psychological debilitation.
Let's be clear on one more thing: carrying a concealed firearm does not make one a LEO. I am not suggesting that legally-armed law-abiding citizens adopt the role of duty-bound responders and run to danger (that is a personal choice and potentially deadly one for several reasons). What I am suggesting is that, if innocent citizens going about their daily business are going to find themselves in the path of such madmen, if they are going to be potential victims of them, then allowing them to have a fighting chance to defend themselves and potentially save lives seems to right thing to do. It MAY well be that this criminal could walk right through all of the rounds of 9 mm I carry and could put on him and take my life. It IS CERTAIN that he could do so if I were unarmed.
But you will read none of this anywhere in the mainstream media, I am most certain.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Oh, the terror...
In a sign that it is clearly the end of the world, legally-armed law-abiding citizens are going to be able to carry their weapons in the parks and pools of Charleston, WV. Run for the hills (as long as they are not in a park)!
Gee - look at this - I bet this citizen wishes she had been carrying a firearm in this park a year ago. Now why would anyone want to carry a firearm in a park? Absurd!
Do these people really think that a criminal, intent on committing a crime at a park or a pool, would choose to not do so because it was against the law to carry a firearm there? That prohibiting guns means preventing crime. I know this is complicated, so I will try to go slowly: The truly vast majority of gun-related crime is committed by those who cannot or do not legally possess a firearm at all - anywhere - so they have already made the decision to break the law. If one is intent on committing murder, a fine or whatever for a small infraction for carrying a weapon illegally means nothing (please read the FBI Violent Encounters publications)!
Do they really believe that the criminal who was intent on shooting up the park would be concerned that he may get arrested for having an illegal firearm there? How do you define "criminal" if you believe that? This is the foolishness people engage in as a way of justifying their intentions to restrict the individual freedoms of law-abiding people. This is superstitious behavior and nothing more. It is willful blindness. Crime is behavior. The problem is behavior.
People who get all up in arms (pun intended) over this kind of thing obviously do not understand the reason for pre-emption at the state level. One can only assume it is because they have no need to and, thus, it is a selfish lack of understanding. But for the law-abiding and legally-armed citizen it is important. I know - those who do not care to carry a weapon do not see any reason that those who do should not be inconvenienced. Well, if we want to think that way then those who want to have an abortion should be required to have that ultrasound vaginal probe - what's the problem with a little inconvenience and a violation of rights? And, btw, there is no constitutional right that specifically notes that the "Right to Abortion shall not be infringed".
To have to know the idiosyncrasies of the law in each little municipality one may enter (often without knowing they have entered it) is absurd. It would be like each city or suburb having its own driving laws, like having the speed limit change from one block to the next but with no signs to tell you it had or having green mean stop in Podunkville and "Oh, you didn't know!?!?! - well ignorance of the law is no excuse!", so that you are entrapped into breaking the law.
If only people would think...if only.
Gee - look at this - I bet this citizen wishes she had been carrying a firearm in this park a year ago. Now why would anyone want to carry a firearm in a park? Absurd!
Do these people really think that a criminal, intent on committing a crime at a park or a pool, would choose to not do so because it was against the law to carry a firearm there? That prohibiting guns means preventing crime. I know this is complicated, so I will try to go slowly: The truly vast majority of gun-related crime is committed by those who cannot or do not legally possess a firearm at all - anywhere - so they have already made the decision to break the law. If one is intent on committing murder, a fine or whatever for a small infraction for carrying a weapon illegally means nothing (please read the FBI Violent Encounters publications)!
Do they really believe that the criminal who was intent on shooting up the park would be concerned that he may get arrested for having an illegal firearm there? How do you define "criminal" if you believe that? This is the foolishness people engage in as a way of justifying their intentions to restrict the individual freedoms of law-abiding people. This is superstitious behavior and nothing more. It is willful blindness. Crime is behavior. The problem is behavior.
People who get all up in arms (pun intended) over this kind of thing obviously do not understand the reason for pre-emption at the state level. One can only assume it is because they have no need to and, thus, it is a selfish lack of understanding. But for the law-abiding and legally-armed citizen it is important. I know - those who do not care to carry a weapon do not see any reason that those who do should not be inconvenienced. Well, if we want to think that way then those who want to have an abortion should be required to have that ultrasound vaginal probe - what's the problem with a little inconvenience and a violation of rights? And, btw, there is no constitutional right that specifically notes that the "Right to Abortion shall not be infringed".
To have to know the idiosyncrasies of the law in each little municipality one may enter (often without knowing they have entered it) is absurd. It would be like each city or suburb having its own driving laws, like having the speed limit change from one block to the next but with no signs to tell you it had or having green mean stop in Podunkville and "Oh, you didn't know!?!?! - well ignorance of the law is no excuse!", so that you are entrapped into breaking the law.
If only people would think...if only.
More death in a gun-free zone...
It is no coincidence that levels of violence and murder with guns are highest in traditionally gun-free zones, and where the loudest voices for "gun control" are heard.
How can it be that in the very city where the man with the deep-pockets who is behind most gun control initiatives rules, there can be this kind of violence?
Let's get real - people like Mayor Bloomberg think that if they can just prohibit enough things - and things they do not like - that they can build some kind of Utopian society where no one will die and guns will not walk the streets committing crime. But this is a nation that cannot keep illegal drugs from hitting the streets, how do they think they will keep illegal guns from coming in to fill the demand (most demanded by those who could give a damn about laws). When you ban guns and gun crime goes up - well, get a clue if what you are doing is not working.
Guns do not commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes. There is no evidence that lawfully owned and carried firearms are a source of crime. There are stories every day of law-abiding citizens using firearms to protect themselves - often without firing a shot.
Until Bloomberg (or Emanual) or any other elitists are willing to go out and walk the streets of their cities, walk in the neighborhoods riddled with crime without their armed security in tow, they should not judge what others might need to do to protect themselves.
How can it be that in the very city where the man with the deep-pockets who is behind most gun control initiatives rules, there can be this kind of violence?
Let's get real - people like Mayor Bloomberg think that if they can just prohibit enough things - and things they do not like - that they can build some kind of Utopian society where no one will die and guns will not walk the streets committing crime. But this is a nation that cannot keep illegal drugs from hitting the streets, how do they think they will keep illegal guns from coming in to fill the demand (most demanded by those who could give a damn about laws). When you ban guns and gun crime goes up - well, get a clue if what you are doing is not working.
Guns do not commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes. There is no evidence that lawfully owned and carried firearms are a source of crime. There are stories every day of law-abiding citizens using firearms to protect themselves - often without firing a shot.
Until Bloomberg (or Emanual) or any other elitists are willing to go out and walk the streets of their cities, walk in the neighborhoods riddled with crime without their armed security in tow, they should not judge what others might need to do to protect themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)