The tale many do not want to hear...

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

 

Nuclear hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

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

So when will other universities wake up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not Stand Your Ground.

But it is a tragedy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wanna bet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think she meant "Gay People"

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

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

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

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