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.

Successful recall elections in Colorado

Against all odds in a history making pair or recall elections, CO State Senators John Morse and Angela Giron were told to go back home Tuesday, September 10th.  While some media outlets have cast this as an NRA victory and presented their best imitation of Republicans (e.g., accusing the other side of menacing and intimidation a'la the Black Panther Party; Lord knows no one ever loses such an election because their positions are unpopular), the message seems clear; some citizens of Colorado think that their state legislators should be listening to them and not to people from Washington, D.C. and New York City.  And while some, including Giron, note that "I think it's a lot about Democrats vs. Republicans, and has grown very partisan" there are reports that large numbers of democrats signed the recall petitions that prompted this election.  T the level of legislators, perhaps this is a partisan issue; it certainly would seem so.  But at the grassroots level, it is good to know that rights can transcend such petty partisan divides.  Still, it is not unexpected that gun control advocates would impugn the motives of any and all who opposes them, from citizens to law enforcement officials.

Yes, this is a victory for a more expansive right to keep and bear arms than those who wish to assert control over freedoms they themselves do not appreciate, gun control advocates, would prefer.  But the results also make it even more clear that "representative government" is an expectation of the people, that they elect representatives to represent them, not to pursue agendas of their own or others device.  For instance, Morse not only failed to listen to his own constituents, but was reported to have told legislators in his party from other areas to ignore their constituents expressions of concern over gun control legislation as well.  It would seem his constituents were not particularly enamored with this approach or his position.  It is uniquely American that when legislators do not listen to their constituents, they are held to account for it.  We should all applaud that!

This was cast as a local fight that was serving as a proxy for national level discord and indeed it was.  It is clear that both sides of this argument had decided that they needed to "stand their ground" in these locales.  But the data are in; it is time that anti-gun advocates realize that they need to be anti-crime advocates, that citing criminal acts like the Columbine and Aurora shootings as a reason to tell law-abiding citizens what they may and may not do is a non-starter.  Law-abiding citizens desire to exercise their rights unencumbered by restrictions meant to deter criminals (who, the history of gun control has shown, will not be deterred by law) and have no interest in being told whether they have that right or not by those who represent them.  They desire their opinion to be heard and considered when such issues are debated.  Dismissing them, their rights and their opinions is done at the peril of such pompous legislators, those who know better than those who elect them.  One would hope that those at all levels of responsibility will come to focus on crime and punishment rather than rights and limitations.

I can't call it a shame that Bloomberg's investment did not pay off; thankfully for him he has money to waste.  That one man with enough money might have been able to make a decision for millions who toil every day to survive is as un-American an idea, a nightmare, as I can think of.

Well, now you know...

What happens when you rightfully and legally defend yourself with a handgun?  Well, now you know that, even if you are in the right in defending yourself, your life will never be the same again, that it can turn upside down.  Now you know that everything you do, from speeding to visiting firearm manufacturers to divorces will be used to suggest you were guilty all along.  Now you know that if you subsequently go through the typical messy and adversarial break-up and divorce, that every little tidbit of your life will be out there for the world to see, to chew on.  That your once loving wife will use everything she knows to bury you.  Now you know that there are those who will hound you throughout time, waiting for you to belch at the wrong time, to be human.  No forgiveness for being human.  Now you know that the trauma of surviving can be hell.  Better to be judged by six than carried by six - only to be harassed by millions.

Now you know that even if you are legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, somehow that will not matter to some people, will be seen as a sign of guilt.  What does this quote mean?  "One particular question that might be answered if video can be pulled from the damaged device is whether George Zimmerman was carrying a weapon during the confrontation."  What, he is not allowed to carry his legally concealed pistol because he is in a confrontation?  He should have left it outside?  Should have called a time out and pulled it out to put it down?

Zimmerman has two big problems:  He had to shoot an African-American teen in self-defense and he is married to a women.  Hence, he is interacting with two "protected" groups who seemingly can do no wrong. And he can do no right.

So why would anyone want to be a neighborhood watch captain again?