Heroes in Sydney

Two hostages who died in the siege in Sydney were hailed as heroes for sacrificing themselves.  It is the best that emerges in our selfless sacrifice in such moments.

But how much better would it have been if those heroes had been armed when the siege began and could have saved themselves and others through quick self-defence action?  This is where all the anti-gun rhetoric fails; when it disarms the law-abiding to make them helpless in the face of those who will never obey the law.  So it leads them to hear such stories and opine that all guns should be banned, it leads them to ask why this Muslim madman was not in jail for the many crimes with which he is accused.  It leads me to ask why could the unfortunate hostages not protect themselves, why were they disarmed?

So, yes, we end up with jerk-offs like the plant Mike the Gun Guy (give me a break) on Huffington Post, making big deals of small numbers of concealed carriers who may commit crimes (I am not as keen as he is on taking the numbers from the Violence Policy Center for granted).  Their answer - make firearms the purview of the unlawful and make the rest of us victims in waiting.

Not going to happen; Mike the Gun Guy, Vivik Murthy, Barack Obama, and anyone else can say as they will; They can choose to be defenseless if they like, but not for me.  I will never give up my right to defend myself with all the force necessary as I see fit.  I will not be held on my knees in a coffee shop by a Muslim adman.

Taking us down a treacherous path

Perhaps it is not a surprise, given the notion that many hold that we are not citizens of our nation, but global citizens, that we are walking a dangerous path.  The inescapable conclusion is that, whether consciously or unintentionally, liberals are defining a foolhardy worldview that will lead to the end of the nation that has allowed them the right to promulgate their foolishness.

This is probably nowhere brought into clearer relief than in the recent torture debate.  How many people may have vanished or been vanquished for the belief that we must fight a moral fight, that we must be kind to enemies who would destroy us?  How dangerous is the fairy tale that treating others in humane ways that they would not treat us will somehow insure our survival?  It leads to capitulation, not cooperation.

The bizarre kabuki theater in all of this is those who are now screaming most loudly about torture are those who cried most vociferously for someone, anyone, to defend them in whatever ways were necessary. Oh, the luxury of being safe in your bed, pulling the covers over your head and letting others fight the fight that keeps you safe.

There is little doubt that Jack Nicholson's tirade as COL Nathan Jessup was meant by liberals to be an awful and critical caricature of the mindset of those we task to protect us, making them look inhuman. Still, the kernel of truth is there.

Weasels, cowards, blowhards, self-righteous politicians and pundits, cowering in their hallowed halls, pushing others out in front of them like human shields, seeking only their own safety and security, later criticizing the means whereby those they task do their work.  They should all pick up a weapon and stand a post or STFU. They want rights and freedoms but lack the courage to defend them.

But this is the view of those who would blame themselves for others' misbehavior; crime, riots, and other lawlessness are the fault of those who have not decided to support the "less fortunate".  Terrorism and discontent are our own fault.  This is where they decide, in the name of some amorphous philosophy, to turn their fate over to those who would kill them with no thought.  This is where there notion of diversity and cultural sensitivity fails.  Quite simply their notion that all have won and all must have prizes will lead to their own culture being overrun and decimated in favor of other, less charitable cultures.

This is not an issue of ethnocentricity, that our culture is better and another worse.  it is an issue of survival and an ideology that allows murderous, dictatorial cultures to whom the notions of freedom and rights is anathema to flourish and eventually gain precedence, will be ground under. these cultures do not have a Bill of Rights, there is no freedom of speech or religion, there is only submission.

Foolhardy conflation

It is foolish for people to conflate the two refusals to indict LEOs in the recent deaths in Missouri and New York. I suspect that if I have to explain why, you would not listen anyway.

But let's be clear - one protest is justified, one is not.

Michael Brown was killed by an individual defending himself.  It could have happened just as it did, whether the shooter was a LEO or an armed citizen, being attacked and defending himself.  The evidence supports the determination; this was a tragic, but justified homicide.  Garner was killed for no such reason, with no such justification.  This would be murder if it were committed by a citizen and so it should be when committed by an LEO.

So there is your standard;

- Defending one's self from a threat that could be reasonably assumed to be lethal is a justification for using lethal force in defense.  Brown, a larger man was assaulting another person.  Whether it was Wilson or anyone else in this scenario, Brown's death was justified by his actions. If a civilian would be justified committing this self-defense shooting, then so is a LEO.

- If Garner's death resulted from a civilian attack then it would be murder - there was lethal threat and no need to use lethal force, no justification.  Hence, it was illegal and unnecessary.  The only possible and totally misguided justification for it was that it was committed by a NYPD officer. That is no justification at all.

It is foolish and manipulative to conflate the two cases.  Only those who are using Brown's tragic but justified death for their own purposes would do so.

Running over Protesters, V.2

So, there it is - the modern Missouri version of Reginald Denny.

"Begic was in his vehicle in the 4200 block of Itaska in the early hours of Sunday when the teens advanced on him and began damaging the car, police said. After Begic exited the car, the teens started beating him with hammers. Begic was taken to St. Louis University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. He had injuries to his head, abdomen, face and mouth, the Post-Dispatch reported."

Note - they are "teens" - not black or Hispanic teens (although they are).  White cop kills black teen - color is everywhere.  But here a 32-year-old Bosnian man is killed by thugs with hammers.  No one mentions race.  No one will be say this was in retaliation.  No one will say it is racist or a hate crime when a white male is attacked and killed for no reason other than his whiteness by teenage thugs-of-color.

Folks - he was white, they were not.  If he had driven over a couple of them, his whiteness and their color would have been critical information - central to the slaughter of innocent young men.  He doesn't defend himself against such disparity of force and they beat him death.  He's Bosnian and they are teens.  Go figure; move long race-baiters, nothing to see here.  Haven't seen the President, who loves to use race as a tool, condemn this one yet.  Either race matters or it does not.

Running over protesters

Well, you had to figure it was going to happen at some point with protesters thinking that blocking the public way was a great idea.

But before everyone decides to jump on the bandwagon of how terrible this is, let me utter one name that would resonate in my mind if I were to have to decide whether to stop for protesters or drive through them:

REGINALD DENNY.

And then there's this...

An answer to the question why mob violence will not get you what you want.

Let me see if I can channel this properly:

- You need to treat us fairly, as equals! When frustrated we will lash out, have tantrums like children, even when the targets of our violence are not guilty or even are those who support us.
- We are not criminals! How about we loot that store over there!

There is a clear disconnect here with regard to the social covenant we all agree to so as to live in a peaceful society and be treated with respect and dignity.  I realize that, in modern times, a ideology has emerged that asserts that we are all allowed to do as we please simply because we are alive.  But a society functions as a unit when its members all hew to common standards and goals. That being the case, to demand that one be treated with respect when one is incapable of treating others that way, is pointless. When one considers the most viable means to attaining a respected position in society to be acting in a lawless manner, they defeat their own purpose.

We hear a lot about stereotypes of young black males.  Where to you think they come from?  They emerge from the same process that leads to stereotypes of white Americans.  Please tell me how acting in violent and lawless ways helps to overcome the stereotype, how the apparent lack of emotional control helps to change such views?  When you seem to be trying so hard to fulfill every negative stereotype you can, when you decide to lash out at those who are blameless, then you are creating enemies, not supporters.

I wonder what all  those liberals will do if the "protesters" decide to come and burn shit down in their neighborhoods.  I suppose they probably have gates and private security.  For me in my world, with no gates or security except what I bring with me, the answer is, quite blunt; don't bring that shit to my neighborhood, to my front yard.  You won't like how it goes down. If defending myself against your indiscriminate violence makes me a racist, then I guess I'll have to be one.

Ferguson...so here's the thing. (UPDATED AND EXPANDED)

Huffington Post, among other media outlets, has for months now, demonized Officer Darren Wilson.  They consistently talk of him having killed Michael Brown - an "unarmed teen" - which, of course, he was.  But the use of the term in this this case is not meant to inform, but to inflame.  He was an "unarmed" and potentially assaultive teen who was the size of some of the largest NFL defensive linemen.  So, he was not called "a hostile and belligerent giant teen intent on assaulting a police officer", even though indications are that he had a history of physical assault (not unusual in such large adolescents) and a disposition to match, given video of his confrontation with a store manager just prior to the events that lead to his death. So let's start right away by debunking the "gentle giant" notions and agree that he likely chose to be combative with Wilson; a poor and irrational decision that contributed to his death.

None of this is meant to suggest that his death was not a tragedy.  In fact, none of this even needs to refer to his race or the race of the LEO (of course, to the media and those intent of being disgruntled, this is essentially the sole defining feature of this unfortunate affair.

What this does is set the stage for disaster, no matter who gets killed (and clearly someone was destined to die in this situation).

But let's start by asking "What should Wilson have done?"  What options did he have?  Well, upon initial contact, perhaps he should have waited for backup prior to approaching Brown.  Of course, we have to acknowledge that this may not have solved the problem or prevented the tragedy.  It certainly may also have inflamed tensions when a cadre of officers ends up approaching a belligerent and "unarmed teen", a gentle giant (does this sound like the prelude to a Rodney King event).  It may have ended up with wrestling, clubbing and tasing (all caught on video), which would have been roundly criticized.  But it may have avoided a fatality.  But Wilson didn't wait; that is not evidence of maliciousness; naivete or even poor situational awareness, but not malice. There is no evidence that he did not follow procedure.

Perhaps, once he realized that Brown was large, high, belligerent and combative, he should have decided that survival (both his and Browne's) trumped the law and simply left, backed off.  Of course, that is not what we expect of our LEOs, that they allow potential law-breakers to go free because it might be difficult or risky to stop them.  I also expect, given Brown's demeanor, that he had a history of intimidating people physically and thus, perhaps, this was what Brown expected - he would intimidate the officer into leaving him alone.  But that is not what happened, either.  Sadly, this seems to be what the "community" thinks should happen; that a young black male should simply be left to do as he will.

What would you have done if you were in Brown's place? Let's start at step 1:  Would you have robbed a small convenience store, taking cigars and shoving the manager out of your way as you left?  Would you then, when approached by an LEO after such an act, have decided it was better to initiate combat than de-escalate, fight rather than comply? If you place total blame on Wilson for this event, then you are saying this is what you would have done as well, that there was nothing wrong with how Brown reacted.  sadly, this is what many in the "community" seem to be saying; that Brown's behavior was excusable.

So, what was Wilson to do?  Even Joe Scarborough was able to realize that "...cops are jerks to everybody, when you don't do what cops tell you to do. I'm 6-foot-4. I weigh way too much. I'm a big guy. If I'm coming at a cop on Staten Island, and I go into the car, if we believe the grand jury report, do we believe the cop would act differently towards me than Michael Brown?"

So, what was Wilson supposed to do?  I know for most people it is not possible to imagine themselves in that place, most would not ever choose to work in a profession where they might have to potentially encounter such an individual.  Most who are complaining about it would probably not walk down the street where Brown lived - they have great empathy for African-Americans, but would be too fearful to walk that street.  And, if they did, Brown would likely rob or assault them.

But think on it - what would you do?  Small decisions made without awareness or anticipation of their potential outcome lead to a large confrontation. Consider yourself in Wilson's place - it is your job to stop this person who is walking in the middle of the street.  Upon contacting him, it becomes apparent that he took part in a recently reported robbery.  Can you figure into your decision as to whether to do your duty his race, color or size?  Do you decide not to do your job because he is black and you are white? Does your responsibility change due to these elements? Do we have to sets of laws?

The answer has to be no, that it does not; so you move forward doing your job.  So, when the shit hits the fan, what do you do?  You contact and attempt to stop a suspected criminal who decides that he will not comply, not be taken.  Someone 80 - 100 lbs larger than you decides to resist arrest or detention via attack and is beating on you.  You are overwhelmed, you are not match in a physical fight, you are trapped in your vehicle and there is a clear disparity of force and dangerous intent,  You are trying to detain him, protect yourself, he is trying to kill you.  You fear for your life, you have been struck a couple of times and you feel it is likely you will be rendered unconscious.  Suppose, as an LEO, you are carrying a gun, and in this scuffle this individual has already grabbed for your gun and you are certain that, should you be incapacitated, the gun will be taken and used on you.

That is your dilemma.  Of course, there are more than enough armchair quarterbacks, looking at the scene from plush couches in cozy offices, academicians who have never set foot in a dangerous neighborhood, looking back at it without knowing what it is like to be in that moment.  They know what you should have done.  Sing Kumbaya with Brown and all will be well.  But let's leave them to their fantasies and be real.  For all the twists and turns that could have kept these players from ever crossing paths, here you are.  What do you do?  There are people who will not be reasoned with - especially with an LEO when they have just committed a crime - this was one of them.  So if that is your choice, you are dead - story over, and likely very little media attention to your death.  Or, you can defend yourself as best you can.

So the two choices are pretty clear at this point; when it has come this far, the situation dictates that you either die or defend yourself.  By the time this event got to this point, the end was inevitable; someone was going to be killed. Should Wilson simply allowed himself to be killed? Would you (be honest)?  There are those who  would think that was the better solution; that for all the social ills of our times, it is better for a white cop to die than a black teen. That would be "social justice".

Polls find that Americans are deeply divided on the issue of culpability in this case.  That is because, as noted above and contrary to what you will hear elsewhere, this is not a simple equation and there are things that both might have done to de-escalate the situation.  Once it reached its peak, it was too late for that.

I know - this all relies on logical thinking, which is short supply these days.  White cop, black teen, no brainer.

Coming soon to a locale near you...

Even Huffington Post will tell you that it is going to happen here.

We have already seen our junior home-grown versions of this, with workplace beheadings and assaults on LEOs.  If you are naive enough to really believe it will not happen here, that a massive national security apparatus can stop something like this, then you are a fool.

"Visions of sugar plums" are dancing in your head if you think that you can rely on your government to keep you safe from lone, random, dedicated, and enthusiastic killers.  So all you Moms Demanding Action and others who think that we can build a fantasyland by disarming all those who would obey the law have a good time when they come for you.  All of you who think your rights are so important but mine (as in 2A) are not, enjoy it when yours are taken from you and you do not have the means to resist. As usual, you will wait for others to fight your fights for you, those who will resist your foolishness. If you are fortunate, you may wake up to this before it is too late.

Shall we predict the future?  ISIS-inspired gunmen will start committing violence around the country; mass shootings at malls, theaters, schools, attacks on LEOs, maybe even firing on a MDA protest.  A great outcry will go up to disarm the public in order to insure safety - they will be left defenseless dhimmi.

What certainty looks like

This is one example of what it looks like when people know the answer and no data are needed.

Why investigate?

Once more we listen to aggrieved parents and their attorney as if these are factual sources.

UPDATE:  I am no friend of the KKK, but this is what happens when one groups, any group, thinks it can riot, loot and acost others with impunity.  People will defend themselves; even people who have hateful pasts have a right to defend themselves.

You mean anti-weapon rules don't work?

Huffington, as usual, loudly announces a shooting at Delaware State University.  Of course, any shooting is unfortunate, but it is also clear how liberal and anti-gun HuffPost is when you read that the shooting resulted in non-life threatening injuries. When one is trying to score points all incidents deserve national attention.

But what do the rules at DSU say about having weapons in residence halls?

*******
Weapons
Because of the threat of violence in our society, we are very concerned about weapons in our residence halls.  Therefore, we prohibit the possession of weapons or those items that a casual observer might perceive to be a weapon (e.g., toy guns, stun guns etc.).  Persons found to be in possession of such items or weapons may be charged with a violation of the Code of Student Conduct.  For further information on this policy, please read the student handbook.
*******

What? Prohibiting weapons on campus didn't prevent this shooting?  You mean someone intent on committing a crime with a firearm was not deterred by their prohibition on campus?

Shocking!

Why I wouldn't stop in certain parts of town if I had an accident

It wasn't that many years ago that a local woman was arrested and ostracized for driving away from the scene of an accident where she accidentally ran over three young children.  Seems a terrible thing to do, to drive away from such an accident.

Of course the story is much more than this and the things one cannot say about how or why it happened need to be heard before one can really judge her.

Let's say it all starts with thinking about Reginald Denny.  You know, a white truck driver in the "wrong" part of town when people are rioting over the Rodney King verdict.  Wrong color, wrong place, wrong time, pulled out of his truck, beaten senseless, all because of his color.  Now think about this girl in her early 20s, driving through the "wrong" part of town (as with Denny, "wrong" because, in the eyes of the residents "she" and her kind do not belong there).  Any of us who have driven through there know this and also know that people cross this street with little regard for their own safety, daring you (regardless of color) to hit them.  She accidentally and tragically hits a group of young children who are crossing the street, panics and drives away.

Now, read this story and tell me that she should have stopped to try to render aid.  Sadly, in the minds of some people, there are no accidents and the response to any accident is prejudice, violence, and mayhem.  And, as recent events clearly suggest, for them that is okay because it can all be justified.  I can say with certainty that this would not happen in the "other" part of town. So what's up with that?

Until such time as this primitive impulse to mob action and revenge can be quelled, there will be no peace and people will feel compelled to take sides and defend themselves.  Until that can happen, I know I would not stop in the "wrong" part of town, not because I value anyone less than myself, but because I know I am valued less there, where I am seen as nothing more than a representative of my race who is to be assaulted, to be an object for revenge over real, imagined, current or past wrongs I did not commit. Perhaps some will see this as cultural elitism, that I am suggesting that certain cultures and their norms are disruptive to good order.  Perhaps they are right.

Equality implies two sides of the equation; it does not mean one group falls back to allow another to occupy the field.

But it will lead some to be intimidated - and foolish!

To those of us who have watched the liberal insanity of the past few years, it is almost a certainty that the response to today's tragic shootings in Ottawa Canada, regardless of the rhetoric to the contrary, will be cowering in fear and cries for disarmament.

Despite the strong words of the Canadian Prime Minister: "This will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts and those of our national security agencies to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats" one can have little doubt that anti-self-defense forces will move quickly to condemn the gun that was used by this terrorist, not the individual involved.  We can safely bet that his religion will be absolved of all guilt in favor of blaming the tool he used in service of his ideology (of course they will not blame the car for the recent attack on two soldiers in Quebec). Guns are fair game, but ideology that devalues the life of all but its devotees is off-limits, untouchable.

Some will point to the tragic killing of a soldier at the War Memorial to suggest that an armed populace would not help prevent such attacks (it is not clear to me that this soldier was armed). However, it was clearly an armed "Sergeant-at Arms" that ended this siege on the Parliament building; a good guy with a gun! Imagine that!

Nonetheless, there will be those who call for new levels of gun control, using this event to forward their agenda in contradiction to the facts on the ground.  Once again, these people will fantasize that somehow a law that would forbid this terrorist from having a gun would make it so, would be more potent than the laws that forbid him from killing another.

Quite frankly, I and many others, would prefer the option to stand and fight over running and cowering. Don't get me wrong - those of you who prefer to be unarmed, to run and hide and pray that you are not a victim, are welcome to do so.  What you are not welcome to do, and I will not let you do, is disarm me so that I have no choice but to join you in your terror and helplessness. I would rather die defending myself and others than live knowing I did nothing. I could not live the years I have left, knowing that I survived by hiding while others died.

Some of us were born, bred and built to go out on our feet, not on our knees.

It supports the RKBA, too!

Yes, numbnuts, it may be that the equal protection does that - certainly some will debate the inference that the equal protection clause extends to gay marriage.  However, it is clear and unequivocal that the Second Amendment confirms and protects the right to keep and bear arms - no inference needed.

So how about we uphold the clearly written rights that the constitution protects before we start making inferences?  Support all of it, not the parts you like.

"Mike the Gun Guy?" Really?

Ah, Huffpost and your wonderful, if lacking in insight and intelligence, commentators!  This one calls himself "Mike the Gun Guy". Not sure who elected him - probably people who liked his opinion.

For instance, this piece of drivel regarding the FBI report I wrote about last week:

"The fact that 21 of these shooting situations were terminated by unarmed civilians as opposed to a single incident that ended because a good guy had a gun might come as a big surprise to the NRA..."

You see, what partisans like this fail to recognize is that the vast majority of these events happen in places where guns are either illegal for "common" civilians to possess (e.g., schools, military bases) or where they are not allowed as a function of private property owners' prohibitions. You know the kind of places that people like "Mike" and Moms Demand Disarmament are intent on expanding around the nation.  Hence, they have to jump through hoops to make their case.  So he parses things, like suggesting many of the locales for these events were "not readily understood to be gun-free zones".  "Readily understood"?  So he really thinks that a private property owner or an employer has right to set policy and no effect on the carry of a firearm in their establishment or workplace?  Does he realize how many employees have been fired for carrying (and in some cases, using) concealed firearms in their place of business against company policy? So would he say, in this case, that Starbucks, Target, and others are not understood to be "gun-free" zones, that people who typically carry may choose not go go there and spend their money?  If not, then why all the action to try to force such places to adopt such counter-productive policies?

The reason these events go on as long as they do, the reason that so many are not halted by police, but by the shooter, is because people like "The Gun Guy" have worked hard to prohibit armed self-defense in these areas, whether it is by statute or assertion or a property owners' rights.  They do not want people to be able to defend themselves with a firearm there and then they use the lack of such defenses in past events as some kind of bizarre evidence.  Well each person who dies between the time an armed civilian response could have stopped the attack and then it ends is on you.

Here is the list of the four events with the highest "body counts".  Notice any similarity?

■ Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado:
70 (12 killed, 58 wounded), July 20, 2012.
■ Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia:
49 (32 killed, 17 wounded), April 16, 2007.
12
■ Ft. Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center in Ft. Hood, Texas:
45 (13 killed, 32 wounded), November 5, 2009.
■ Sandy Hook Elementary School and a residence in Newtown, Connecticut:
29 (27 killed, 2 wounded), December 14, 2012.

- The Cinemark theater was posted "no firearms allowed".
- VT had a no firearms on campus policy.
- Concealed carry is prohibited on US military bases.
- Sandy Hook was a "no firearm" zone.

Not much need to go on; Both law and business policy disarm many people every day.  Active shooters usually look for defenseless victims.  The conclusion is clear.

There is no data in this report to support the idea that, if an armed civilian were present, these events could not have been stopped sooner.  You cannot prove such a thing.  The fact that they were stopped in some cases by unarmed civilians is a godsend and a testament to a combative mindset and will to live even when disarmed and at great disadvantage.  But it is not evidence that they might not have been halted even more expeditiously by an armed civilian "good guy".  The fact that they were stopped by unarmed civilian "good guys" does not address this at all.

The study "The Gun Guy" cited by Kleck is really not relevant to a study of active shooter events; Kleck and Tark (2005) looked at rape completions and  "Mike" really needs to read it again (and so do you if you are taking his summation as accurate), since he misrepresents its findings (and, of course, his audience at HuffPost is not likely to go read it).  For instance, the summary of findings in the Abstract notes that: "...we believe that rape victims’ self-protection actions significantly reduce the probability of rape completion and do not significantly increase the risk of serious injury."  The actions they are referring to are both forceful and non-forceful.

But beyond the usual motivated attention deficit and misrepresentation, there is also conceptual error; We are not talking about individual survival in this FBI report, as Kleck and Tark were in their study.  So even if there was some data to suggest that "running away" was a better tactic, we are talking about stopping the killing and dying of an active shooter event, not just running away to leave others to die.  I recognize that people like "Mike" and his readers are more focused on their own survival, saving their own worthless skin, than they are on stopping others dying.  I can imagine he would have been jumping from the windows at Columbine while his students fended for themselves.  I know that the idea of sacrifice, of heroism, is a foreign concept to them.  The only killing they are motivated to thwart is their own.

So, here's a quote from a LEO in relation to the events at Vaughn Food Processing in Moore OK last week:

“This was not going to stop if he didn’t stop it. It could have gotten a lot worse,” Lewis said. “The threat had already stopped once we arrived.”

Damn good thing he didn't opt for The Gun Guy's strategy of saving his own skin.  Damn good thing he was there and was armed.

The killing and dying in an active shooter event happen before police can intervene

Did we really need a study to confirm this?  Are we that stupid? Well, no, not all of us!

It is unlikely that Huffpost will ever really understand what this means because they have an agenda that is inconsistent with the solution.  But for many of us it is a real no-brainer:  this is why gun-control is a fool's paradise.  This is why people need to protect and exercise their right to self-defense and and to keep and bear arms.

"Overall, 66.9 percent of the incidents had ended before police even arrived at the scene and could engage the shooter."

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

It is not their fault, and it is not their job.  Don't believe the slogan:  To serve, perhaps; to protect, an empty and impossible promise meant to make people feel safer when they are not. The only ones they protect are those who merit their continual attention; the wealthy who can provide their own security or the public officials who have police protection.  We - those of us who live in the real world -  cannot allow ourselves to believe that those benefits redound to us; we cannot abrogate our responsibility for our own safety, we cannot pass it on to someone else.  We can pretend it is so, but reality will have its way.  This article and study show that.

In the best of all possible worlds, no evil would befall us.  In case you have not been paying attention, choose to avert your eyes and cover your ears, we do not live in that world.  You can try to pray it away, protest it away, meditate it away, chant it away.  You can choose to look at the beauty around us and deny the ugliness.  You can find righteousness in pacifism in the face of the threat, hoping that turning the other cheek will earn you a place in heaven (sounds a lot like martyrdom to me).  That is your individual right and I would not deny it to you. Your life may mean so little to you that you will give it up willingly in the hope of some fool's reward.

But my right is to stand up, not to lie down and accept it.  It, the evil, may kill me, but it will not find a sheep for easy slaughter, I will not go quietly.  I have too much to fight for.

Lack of understanding

El Presidente today at Mac Dill says that US Forces deployed into Iraq "do not and will not" have a combat role.



What he does not seemingly understand (or hopes others will not) is that there are no front lines in this war, there is no rear area when one is in country, there are no "advisers".  If they are there, they will be targets, they will face fire and IF you define their ROE in such away that they cannot engage, cannot fire back, then you may as well behead them yourself.

Rant redux

I linked to this blog a year or so ago in a post, but as the next election approaches (seems one is always approaching) and the more I read, I think it is now  appropriate to link it again.  In the last few days I have seen some comments on some blogs where anti-gun folks basically said “When you support gay rights and abortion, I will support gun rights”.  I do not believe you.

Many of my friends or friends of friends disagree with me on the second amendment.  I know my colleagues in academia certainly do.  But I don’t much care.  I have found, lo these many years, that no matter which side one hears from, the lyrics change, but the beat remains the same. It is one of control.

Because it is consistent with this thought and the blog I linked above, I will point this at the “liberals” in the house, a group in which I have often mistakenly been thought to hold membership at various times in my life.  Why would people think I am liberal?  I support rights, like those noted above. They are not rights in which I have a personal stake, but I believe rights define freedom.  I need not benefit personally to believe a right should be defended (We all benefit in the end when we strengthen our freedoms).  But liberals think like just conservatives in a central way; they love to tell others what is right, what is wrong, what we can say and can’t say, and what we are supposed to believe.  They love to tell us we need “change”.  The message is the same; “We know what is right for you”; you need to think like we do, you need change, “these rights are good, but those are not”.

Well, I am happy with who I am. I do not need platitudes and meditations, do not need some form of communing with the cosmos, do not need your Tibetan monks, or magic potions, some improvement in my connection to all of mankind.  I respect people for who they are, AS LONG AS THEY RESPECT ME.  I do not need to be told who I should be and that what I am is not good enough.  I do not need to be treated like a criminal.  Isn't it interesting that when LEOs treat peaceful protesters like criminals, because a few among them commit crimes, there is a loud outcry.  Yet when a few people with guns commit crimes, all gun owners are seen as criminals and the left find nothing inconsistent in that.  Again “Rights for me, but not for thee”.  

I will chart my own course, now as I always have.  If you think you know the truth, go forth and do well, but keep it to yourself.  I do not need you to tell me what rights I have – they do not come from you.  You wonder why people call some folks “elitists”? What else would you call someone who thinks they know better than everyone else?

My biggest problem with this is one the Williamson blog identifies; the realization that most people are not really interested so much in “rights” after all.  They are selfish.  And, in the end, those who have bailed on me will have to fend for themselves.  I will no longer stand on the wall for those who would take my rights away.  When I am, in essence, called a criminal for exercising my rights then I give up on you.  You want to be selfish?  I guess I have to be, too.  See you when it all goes down.

They don't discharge all by themselves!

Once more a gun owner, a concealed carrier, is handing the anti-gun forces - here most ably represented by Huffington Post - ammunition to use against us.

Note:

"Officials say a Utah elementary school teacher who was carrying a concealed firearm at school accidentally shot herself in the leg when the weapon discharged in a faculty bathroom."

Weapons do not discharge by themselves.  As much as people want to think that they have minds of their own and can be evil in and of themselves, they cannot do anything without human intervention.  There is only one way it went off; a finger got into the trigger guard and the trigger was manipulated.  it is a negligent discharge.

Safety people! Chances are this was not in a holster, probably loose in a purse.  Always in a holster, trigger guard covered!

Oh, and btw, can anyone be surprised that in the "Also on Huff Post" section at the bottom of the story, the prominent picture is "Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting".

One of these things is not like the other!

This is how screwed up we are...

So, 7 months after the fact and only because a video was released, Ray Rice is now history.

See, this is the dumbshit that people try to create to explain why they waited until now to do this.  This story has been known for a long time, the facts of it were known then. No video was needed to corroborate the details. Why did it take all that time and a video to get people to act, to take this seriously.

Even sadder point 2:  So now take a look at how Shaneen Allen is being treated in NJ as opposed to Ray Rice. Rice was offered Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) so as to avoid criminal prosecution, incarceration, and a criminal record even though the assault was clear.  Its good to be famous and have money - and have the backing of the Baltimore Ravens and NFL.  They clearly hoped they could sweep this all under the rug for the sake of the product.

Shaneen made a mistake.  She drove from Pennsylvania into the People's Republic of New Jersey with a loaded firearm she lawfully carried in PA.  She was stopped for an "improper lane change" - pardon me, but that sounds lie some made up shit - and when approached by the LEO, informed him she had a loaded firearm.  Of course, in the PRNJ, that is a no-go.  Yes, as I noted above, ignorance is no excuse and each of us who carries a firearm needs to know the local laws when we travel.

But let's be clear: We have Ray Rice, who knocks his then-fiance out (and man if you want to read some ironic shit, read her recent comments about this whole affair and how terrible it is that he is being banished - ain't it grand what money can do for your relationships? The green can overcome the back and blue) and he was tapped (not even slapped) on the wrist, while this mother of three with no criminal record was denied the same PTI opportunity. The prosecutor insists on prosecuting her and seeking jail-time, while he let Rice get diverted.

Ah, New Jersey (and who know how many other places)!  Beating your girlfriend/fiance/future wife - I mean knocking her out - gets leniency, no big deal, please don't do it again, take a couple of games off.  Committing no, none, nada, violent acts but not realizing that you cannot even carry that firearms in NJ gets you treated like a mass murderer.

Panera Bread

How many of you gun totin' folks (of the law-abiding variety) go to Panera anyway?

Sounds like a target rich environment.

Not intending to visit again.

Unsafe gun handling is OUR problem

Please, please, my second amendment supporting brethren:  learn how to carry and handle a firearm safely.

I know and I agree:  The foolishness and carelessness of others should not limit my freedom.  There are a plenty of freedoms that we all enjoy that some people do not handle well - often with tragic consequences.  Hell, people absent-mindedly step off of curbs into traffic.  But we all know the social climate we are dealing with and how any accident, any negligent discharge, will be enthusiastically grabbed and used by others to try to limit our rights, to limit rights to only those they wish to exercise.

Seriously folks - and I didn't need to get certified as a pistol instructor to know this - a handgun should always be carried in a holster that covers the trigger guard in order to avoid negligence like this.  Just imagine the tragic consequences fore this professor and one of his unfortunate students if this negligent discharge had hit someone beside this moron. Dude, you have become the masturbatory fantasy of every Mom Demanding Gun Stuff.

Note, from the article:

"It’s not yet clear what caused the firearm to discharge; Lt. Paul Manning of the Pocatello Police Department told The Daily Beast that the unnamed professor’s handgun was “pocketed, but not holstered” when it went off in class in front of some 20 students in the Physical Science department."

"Pocketed, but not holstered" Never. Ever.

I think it is clear what caused it to discharge.  First, as advanced as they are, modern firearms do not sit in your pocket and go off by themselves.  It is clear he was monkeying with the gun, maybe adjusting its position in his pocket and his finger got into the trigger guard, negligently discharging the firearm.  Put it in a good pocket holster, where it will stay secure and not need adjustment, and then leave it alone unless you need it.

We are still fighting for the right to carry concealed firearms on campuses in many states and were most envious of Idaho when they passed law to allow it.  It is sorely needed.  But even if this negligent incident does not lead to a change in Idaho law, it will be used by every anti-campus-carry organization in other states as a reason to deny that right when legislation is introduced.

Be responsible. Be smart.  Stop doing dumb shit.

Why you takin' and savin' them nekkid pitchers anyways? UPDATED

What I'm thinking is, why do you take those naked pictures in the first place and what makes you feel they are secure out in the ether somewhere on a server?

Come on now - you want to be looked at and loved and paid lots of money.  You like to do the whole cheesecake things for the cameras in the red carpet. You are foolish enough to think that saving naked pictures on the web is secure?

I remember I had a friend who had a girl friend who let him take naked pictures of her.  Ah, forever love!  Well, not so much and soon the picture was a conversation piece among the guys.  Shocking.  Not at all chivalrous, very dastardly.

Let this be a lesson to you kids.  Don't strip down and take pictures of it - don't let anyone else take them. If you do, someone you do not want to is somehow going to see them at some point.

So don't do it.  And stop whining.

UPDATE:  So, in the words of Huffington Post, what I am saying above might be interpreted as "slut slamming" and apparently, the Daily Show would like to take people who think like me to task.

Problem is, this is the same bull shit argument that I was talking about with regard to sexual assault.

Folks - even those like Jon Stewart, who should be smart enough to know better - who live in fantasy land, let me once more spell it out to you:

There are people out there who do not care about you, they wish you harm, they wish to violate you in any way they can find.  In the case of sexual assault, this means there are those out there who will take advantage of you if you let them.  yes, it would be great if those people did not exist.  But they do and you can hold your breath over it until you are unconscious and then they will rape you.  So you must take care of yourself - not expect others to take care of you.

Same with this much less than tragic nekkid picture scandal (sorry all you nekkid folk, but this is simply not on the same scale).  It would be nice if privacy were the rule and everyone valued everyone elses' privacy.  Alas, as we have seen, we have a government that does not respect individual privacy and there are a lot of clever folks out there with nothing better to do apparently who do not either.  Again, you can wish it were otherwise and hold your breath and take a picture of your face turning blue, just so someone can hack in and then post it - but it will not change things.  So you have to take care of yourself.  Do not create, save, or post shit you would not be willing to share in the open.  this is really an "I failed to look both ways and stepped into the street and can't believe someone hit me" kind of moment.

Folks, neither your government nor Apple can or will take care of you.

I could care less what pictures you take; but if you take them in today's digital world, you accept a risk others will see them, too.  Not like that has not always happened even with hots old homemade Polaroid porn shots.

Oh, Jon - all seriousness aside )(which is where you have set it) - what a whiner you have become.

Kids have fun in lots of things...

...that can, on a rare basis, also lead to someone being killed.

OMG! Up in arms!  The NRA dared say that "Kids can have fun at the range"

But it's true.  Kids engage in a lot of different behaviors that can end up with some dying.  We all do.  If every time an accident happened it created one more thing we cannot do, then we wouldn't be doing much.

As I noted yesterday; yes, this was tragic.  Yes, this instructor lost control and paid with his life.  But this fantasy world (you know, the one where no crime would happen if we would all just get along) where nothing bad should ever happen does not exist.  There is risk in everything.

They'll feel that way until the shooting starts

So, as usual, HuffPost is up in arms: This time it is because a school district in Texas has allowed some teachers and staff to be armed - and put up a sign announcing it.

But what was interesting, as always was the quote from the obligatory gun-phobe:

"Exponentially more schools have said, 'Thanks but no thanks, we'd rather not have guns on school property,'" Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told WSJ. "If you talk to most teachers and educators, their response is, let teachers teach and let law-enforcement officers do their jobs."

What does that mean, anyway?  Most schools have not been given a choice on this issue.

And, yes, I am sure the teachers and educators will feel this way until the shooting starts.  Then there will be a great outcry over why we let this happen.  Well, there's your answer. Unless you basically have a LEO unit in every school, then who is going to be there to slow things down in those golden minutes, to hold the ground until the reinforcements come?  No one.

Oh - BTW, I am an educator (and as noted in another post, a certified firearms instructor) and would really prefer that I could be armed so I could protect my staff and students.

Actually...

...it has everything to do with this situation.

No, whether he was an angel or not, no one should revel in the death of Michael Brown.

But Huffpost notes:

***
"No angel" struck many as a very jarring descriptor to insert. The reaction was swift: of course Brown was "no angel," because he was a regular human being, but what did that have to do with his death?
***

This case, from the beginning and much like the Trayvon Martin case, has been billed as the poor "good boy" who was shot for no reason.  Of course, as the data became more clear, it also became obvious that Trayvon was the not little cherub that the media and his family had tried to depict him as.  So should we celebrate his death?  Of course not.  But we do need to recognize that a child's, a man's, any child or man's, demeanor will influence their ends.  And so, if Michael Brown was no angel, then perhaps he did "do something" that set in motion this tragic sequence of events. And if he did, if he was, as the video of him suggests, inclined toward crime, strong-arm tactics, toward dominating others with his size, then he is easily conceivable as playing a part in this tragedy.  And, then to insist that he should not have been shot is to suggest that the officer should have allowed himself to be beaten, perhaps disarmed, and even shot.

Not every youth, no matter his race, is an angel.  We can talk about killing a child, a teen, but then we need to realize we are talking about a teen in a grown man's body (much bigger than most grown men). That turns out in many cases to be a really bad combination.  The disinhibited behavior of a teen male combined with the body of an NFL defensive lineman.

And, quite frankly, those teens who get in altercations with the police are even less likely to be angels (or it is clear that the definition has changed).  Bad shoots by LEO happen.  But not every black man who is killed by a white man or a white cop is innocent and not every such shooting can be avoided by the person who shoots. At some point a event is set in motion, and in such events someone is going to die; the arguments now really boil down to whose life one thinks was more important.

Of course, no mother and father who lose a child will say their child was no angel, certainly not say he deserved to die. And those (e.g., Rev. Al) who are motivated to see Brown as a victim of LEO violence are not inclined to see him as having any role in his death.  Just as with the idea that women can behave in ways that can help them stay safe, the idea that one is responsible for his own behaviors is a foreign concept.

Its a shame, because an unwillingness to see that side of this man, whether reflected in his parents' denial or the anger of the larger culture, means nothing is learned from it.  That a parent says he was a good boy, when video and other evidence show he was involved in crime, is as much a factor in his ultimate death as were the bullets that killed him.  The fact that his violence was accepted as normative in his local culture was as much part of his death as was the action of a white LEO. Excusing his behavior post-mortem teaches a dangerous lesson to others his age - you are not going to be held to account for your actions, you are immune from the natural consequences of your behavior.

Two cultures failed Michael Brown. His own prefers not to see its role.

Sad, all around

Terrible story out of Arizona where a firearms instructor made a terrible mistake that cost him his life and is bound to create long-term psychological problems for his 9 year-old student. As terrible as his death is, the consequences for the child are more unsettling to me.

I won't recount the story since you can read it at the above link, but there are a number of cautions here.  I would hate to come away from this questioning the wisdom of having one's child learn firearms handling at the range.  But I question whether the novelty of having a 9 year-old handling an Uzi on full automatic is worth the potential risk to child or others on the range.  We do not know what experience this child had with firearms and, to be honest, that might be somewhat irrelevant.

I certainly question the instructor in this case for how this went.  More than one round on semi-automatic was called for.  Having her fire multiple shots on semi would have been a good middle step.  And the position he took while coaching the child - I am not an expert on Uzis but the video clearly suggest that knowing the direction of the twist in the rifling would have suggested a recoil up and to the left - right where he kept his head.  A lesson for all instructors (and, yes, I am a certified firearms instructor) - behind and low, supporting the shooter from behind, looking over their shoulder.  Correct fundamentals between shots.  Of course, one had to consider mitigating recoil for an burst of fire from an Uzi in the hands of a 9 year-old shooter, supporting her shoulders and,perhaps, even keeping a hand on the gun! A complete and fatal lack of situational awareness.  On the range, one can never let their guard down.

The other sad consequence - not to speak ill of the dead, but this is the kind of instruction that gives all firearms and firearms owners and instructors a bad name.  You can never be complacent.  Anti-gun groups are scared of firearms - there is a reason for that; they can be dangerous if misused.  Foolish and deadly events like this merely reinforce those beliefs, as well as the belief that even law-abiding and experienced people cannot control them. From that point on, those of us who are trained, have served in the military, and are certified as instructors see our claims to competence diminished.  It may not be logical or fair, but it is what it is. Especially when one has a child on the range.

In the end, mostly I feel sorry for this child who will have to live the rest of her life with the knowledge that she was holding the firearm that did this.  She will take more responsibility for it than she deserves because that is the way children are.  There will be the memory to haunt her and a  video to follow her through life.

But wait...

Wasn't it Huffington Post who thought showing the video of Michael Brown stealing in a local convenience store and assaulting a clerk minutes before his confrontation with an LEO and ultimate death was unfair?  Why then is it okay to discuss where that LEO started his career?

Is there no sense of shame that partisan outrage allows for such a blind double-standard?

Both are data and if they are relevant, they are relevant.  If not, then not.  Why must people persist not in helping to find facts, but manipulate feelings via distortion.

Then...

Get used to the staring and comments and someone saying "She chose poorly!"

From Huffington Post:  I'm a fat girl who wears revealing clothing - get used to it!"

FG listed 5 things we need to know and what we should do.  I'll tell her, in return, what I will do:

Here are five things you need to know about interacting with fat fatshionistas:

1. You Need to Get Over It.

Actually no I don't - sounds like you need to get over it.  You can certainly walk around dressed however you want - it is part of the new society and culture.  I, on the other hand, can walk around making comments about how you and anyone dress and take obvious pleasure in finding it more than a little bizarre.  You cannot escape accountability for your choices.

2. Don't Stare. I'm a Person, Not Eye Candy.

Oh, I don't think anyone is mistaking you for eye-candy.  Think of it this way:  People like to stare at unusual things - whether it is unusual beauty, like the Grand Canyon, or the unusually grotesque, like car wrecks.  How many millions have viewed the video of a recent beheading? (I have not).  But you do know why we all slow down to peer at car wrecks, don't you?  If you are dressed like you want and people stare - well I suggest you get over it.  Part of having a right is living with the consequences of our choices.

3. Keep (Most, But Especially Negative) Comments To Yourself

Nope - can't do it.  You like to dress like you do and I like to make comments about everyone I see - mostly out loud.  Again - get used to it!  Although you may have been born into or grown up in an era where the rule seems to be "I can do what I want and no one can say anything about it" you be wrong!  You have a right to dress as you wish and I have a right to be rude, if I wish.  In essence, your right to befuddle me with your bad choices does not trump my right to express my befuddlement.

4. Never, EVER, Fat Shame Me

Damn, you sure think you are in charge.  Is that where the phrase "Large and in charge" came from?  And if I decide to, what are you going to do?  Sit on me?  Probably get used to it, I imagine!  Maybe you will hold your breath until you are red in the face.  What the hell do you care what anyone else thinks?

5. Let Me Know I'm Doing Some Good

I am sorry that I do not know what good you are doing.  Is it good that you are standing up for people who want to do what they want and not have anyone else notice or comment on it?  Look like you want, but you not only sound like a study in victimhood but you are obnoxious about it.

And, wow - where the hell does Huffpost come up with this stuff?  Is this Arianna land in Mika world?

Pondering Ferguson

It’s really a symptom of a sad future – the fact that every event that has a white participant and black participant ends of being a “racially-charged incident”.  I know that I am not authorized to have an opinion on this because I am white and, therefore, do not understand.  But, I have an opinion and the right to express it.

It is possible that a black man can be shot for justifiable reasons.  Are there no black criminals?  I know there are plenty of white ones.  Does that mean racism no longer exists?  No.  Does that mean that any and all police shootings are justified?  No.  But there will be times that such a shooting is justified.  Does race justify crime? Should a white officer or civilian allow himself to be beat and potentially killed because his assailant is black any more than he would if her were white?

Still, we are now two weeks or more and counting on the assumption that a white police officer had no reason to shoot Michael Brown.  I do not know if he had a reason or not.  I know that depending on which set of evidence pans out he could have a good justification but also might not have.  Does suggesting that this officer in this case had justification mean that there has never been an unjustified shooting?  No.  But it means that evidence should be heard, presented and not dismissed out of hand if it does not agree with the popular explanation.

Would Michael Brown deserve to be shot for his actions in the neighborhood store before the incident? No.  Are those taped actions informative on his behavior and demeanor? Yes.  Just as was discovered in the Trayvon Martin shooting, a man just might shoot another in self-defense – even when that man is assaulted by someone who thinks he is defenseless.  I know that some will suggest that rather than shoot “this child” that man – Zimmerman or Wilson - should have been willing to die.  We do not yet know in this case whether this police officer’s life was in jeopardy when he fired.  If it was, then it was him or Brown and it is foolish to suggest he should not have defended himself.  

Do we wonder why anyone would want the job of an LEO?  How would any of us handle rolling up on a couple of kids walking in the middle of the street, one the size of an NFL lineman and probably outweighing the officer by over 100 pounds.  So you roll up, tell them to move, probably getting told to “F*** off” and then unexpectedly get assaulted.  That is one plausible scenario, consistent with the wound pattern, and I wonder how any of us would handle it any differently.  What should that officer do, regardless of his race? What do we think his job is and at what point can he defend himself in the fulfilling of his responsibilities?

Should the LEO just walk away?  Is the message - that young men should be left to behave as they wish and not challenged?  What message does that give, what kind of grown men do we get with that strategy?  Are we saying that police may not intervene in criminal or disorderly conduct, especially if they are white and the potential perpetrator is black?  Is that what we are saying – that a certain group of people have more leeway?  If you were an officer who was in this situation and a young man over 6 feet tall and 300 lbs. started assaulting you and reaching for your gun, what would you do – die or defend yourself?  What do we expect him to do?

Did it happen that way?  We do not know.  Could it have?  Yes. If it is found that this LEO shot a man who was not threatening his life, then he should be punished, just as would I if I did so.  However, until the data are available, all the rest, the conviction and sentencing prior to the trial, are no more than the people acting out the role of oppressor themselves.  But if you want to see the true goals of this affair, then watch what happens if it is shown that Brown was the assailant and was shot in self -defence.  We will find then that there is no justification for shooting a young black man, whether he is threatening your life or not.  And if that is the world we are living in, then there really is no dream of equality.

The sad part is that charges of racism and our sad history of it have come to be seen as get out of jail free cards.  It is becoming clear that there is no justifiable shoot if the target is a black man and the shooter is white,  that the default assumption is racism and murder, even with no evidence (other than Brown’s friend who was also clearly an accomplice in the larcenous actions. Are we really saying that there is no time that a black man will assault a white man and if he does, the white man deserves it?  How do we respond to cries for justice, when the absence of evidence means we do not know how justice can be served, when the goal is not justice but something else – revenge perhaps?

Note that none of this justifies rolling in the armor and pointing weapons at protesters.  There is a fairly clear line between doing one’s job, defending one’s self, and treating protesters as if they are insurgents.  But, folks – looting and burning will get a response, so don’t act like it is all one side.

There are clearly some issues here to discuss, but there are no adults in the room to discuss them.  How do we think this is going to go if all the evidence points in the direction of justifiable shooting?

And the idea that a grand jury should be black or the police force should be black - are we not then hearing arguments for back-door segregation?

UPDATE: But Al - did you blame Obama?

So - Al Sharpton "slams" Chris Christie for partying while Ferguson burns.

Did he blame President Obama for playing golf at the same time?  Did he blame Obama for playing golf instead of attending the burial of a Major General killed in Afghanistan?

So, basically, Al is a tool.

UPDATE:  Well, Al is certainly happy with the fact that White House representatives were at the funeral of Michael Brown.  Now some will call this race-baiting - and I can't say that it isn't.  My problem is that a Major General died in Afghanistan and his funeral did not merit White House representation.  Why?  And if it did not, why did Michael Brown's?

What is the message here?  well, you're smart enough to figure it out.  But it has something to do with how the current administration and president value the military v. their base.

Truly sad!

This is one reason we need a Second Amendment

This is why the right to Keep and Bear Arms is so important.

People, whether in anger or depravity, will sometimes seek to take what is not theirs, to attack indiscriminately.  Be in individual immorality or the madness of groups, when that time comes, good people need to be able to protect themselves.

As this story notes, "The group arrived to find a gang of thieves ransacking a Dollar General in the same strip mall that houses their businesses. Mr. Weinstein said the looters attempted moving toward the shop, but were scared off by the guns. Then the police arrived."

What would have happened if they were not armed?

Yes, but...

I am all against the militarization of the police force and the atrocities they commit with impunity.  I am also, on the other hand, all against people burning out each other, stealing shit that is not there, hurting the small business people who are willing to set up shop in their neighborhood, or punishing other people who have nothing to do with it.

There needs to be a clear line drawn between "protest" and "looting" - lawful protest and criminality.  I am not talking criminality as defined by an overzealous police force, the kind that is "follow my orders or get beat", but the kind that is clear criminality, as noted above (burning out your neighbors, looting private business.  That is not protest, and most hopefully is not going to garner support for one's cause.

You see, its like the events surrounding the Rodney King verdict and the experience of Reginald Denny.  The man was beaten because he was white.  The man was beaten for revenge. the man did nothing wrong except end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.  That was not protest. It was lawless and paints a picture that feeds stereotypes and stereotypical reactions from police.

I do not know the truth of the death of Michael Brown; chances are we will never know, because each side has a reason and a bias toward their own facts, their own truth.  But I do know that acting lawlessly, with disregard for others, fulfills the stereotype that some would suggest.  Indiscriminate anger is not righteous, it does not buy justice; It is child-like, immature.

Why shouldn't they?

Numerous insinuations (e.g, this) that it is wrong of the Ferguson PD to withhold the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown (circumstance still under dispute).  But lets be honest; given the way the populace has reacted, in rioting and looting, the fact that numerous twitter posts have been made suggesting that revenge be taken on white business, homes and families who have nothing to do with this event, why would anyone think it would be a good thing to identify this officer.

He may be guilty and, if so, needs to be held accountable, as should LEOs for a lot of recent events.  But given the "crowd" reaction, do we think his family will be safe if his identity is publicized.

Huffington also bemoaned the fact that Ferguson is being treated like a war zone.  But who made it a war zone and who seems intent on spreading that war?

Lots of people see the injustice in the system.  Grievances need to be redressed.  But attacking those - of whatever race - who have nothing to do with it - is not going to further the cause.  If anything it fulfills their prophecies and negative stereotypes.

Let's be clear; my sympathy has limits (as I noted in many previous posts).  Take that shit out on me and mine and things will get a whole lot worse for some folks. This ain't no game.

Congratulations Sheriff Clarke!

Good news today, as it has been announced that Sheriff David Clarke, of Milwaukee County Wisconsin, defeated his Bloomberg-backed primary challenger (a story here).

Of course, this story is even more important in light of my post yesterday about self-defense.  It is interesting how those who would disarm us are also those who would insist that reality not play a factor in our lives. wish it all away!

"Bloomberg spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Wall Street Journal on Monday that he decided to get involved in the sheriff’s race because it allowed him to shape policy on a local level."

Sheriff Clarke is an unabashed supporter of self-defense and it was good to see him win over the challenge of Bloomberg's money.  At some point one might think that the diminutive billionaire would realize that people do not appreciate his intrusions and cash-infusions into their local affairs.  All the money in the world does not mean we want him deciding what we can and cannot do. Whether in Colorado, where he could not protect the politicians he bought, or Wisconsin, where the voters decided that their sheriff knows better than New York's former mayor, it seems clear that the people are not impressed with Bloomberg's attempts to buy the world he wants; the one where he has well-paid armed security and the rest of us are left defenseless.

Let the local people shape local policy!

Rape happens! Does the moral high ground make it feel better?

This poster has apparently drawn a lot of flack:

The popular, if thoughtless, response on how it should have read is this:

Aw, shit - here I go as a male, having an opinion that the meat between my legs means I am not allowed to express.  But you would have to be clueless as a reader of this blog not to know how I feel about personal defense.  

So the problem here is one I've noted before; it begins with the fact that everyone, including "miss neverjessie" reads the top one as blaming the victim.  It is not blaming, it is identifying a means whereby risk is increased. It is like telling you that you have a greater chance of dying in a car crash if you are intoxicated. Murder, robbery, rape all happen when someone decides to commit the crime.  Are you really suggesting then that we should not try to teach people how to behave in safer ways? The natural conclusion (I guess it should not surprise me) is that we should not teach people to defend themselves, not teach them awareness and how to avoid danger; we should all pretend evil does not exist or that it is self-correcting. By this logic, we should not even look both ways at 4-way stops signs.

Hmm - no, no one should rape and, yes, rape happens when someone evil decides to commit it.  But evil people decide to and do commit evil acts all the time and it is up to each of us to do whatever we need to do for ourselves and to them to protect ourselves.  Be safe!  Be aware!  If that means, don't drink, then don't drink.  Is it somehow morally superior to make yourself an easy victim of an evil person who should not have done what they did?  I prefer not being a victim of evil to refusing to acknowledge that it exists and insisting it not. Until that magical day comes when evil people no longer thrive among us, I suspect we had better take care of ourselves.

So, what missjessie is demanding is her right to put herself at risk, to deny the real world of evil people and go blissfully along counting on the good will and morality of others while she is incapacitated or unconscious.  Good luck with that.  Shit, if I go to a party, get shitfaced drunk and pass out, chances are someone might rape me (well, not my ugly ass - probably just steal my shit). If I do that, then I have decided to put myself there. Does that excuse criminal behavior? No.  But, while I am not sure about missjessie, I do know that I will not feel somehow more righteous when I stand up later, say I did no wrong, but am missing my stuff.

You wait around, missjessie, insisting on your right to behave in risky fashion, to put yourself needlessly at risk, for the time to come when evil people stop doing evil shit all on their own.  You live in that fantasy land where you can demand that we not try to help people recognize and mitigate risk.  You enjoy the moral superiority of victimhood, when a bit of preparation and education might have avoided it. And, while you are at it, take responsibility for all the others who cheer on your message.

For those who prefer to avoid rape as opposed to expecting it to simply disappear when rapists get a conscience - get some training, learn to be vigilant, and don't get drunk or unconscious around groups of people, especially then they are drunk, too.

Take care, be safe.

Jerry Jones?

Doesn't this say at least as much about the women in the pictures as it does about Jones?



Yea, he's an asshole and in this age of cameras everywhere, also a moron. But, really; can you blame all of this on him.  He'd be cupping thin air if there weren't someone to put some breasts there for him.  He'd be grabbing his own crotch if some young'un hadn't put her head in the way. Men are beasts who think with their dick; women will do damn near anything with an old geezer if he's rich.

Says a lot for all of us.

So where are they?

Where are the anti-knife violence folks on this one?

"A Florida woman is accused of stabbing her 7-year-old grandson to death as he begged for his life.
Authorities said 63-year-old Martha White was babysitting the boy and his 8-year-old brother Tuesday at their Tallahassee home when she interrupted their video game to say she had a surprise for them.
White then took Mason Rhinehart into a bathroom, locked the door, and stabbed him to death, investigators said."

Where's the every town for knife safety? Where's the background checks for knife purchases (she probably would have passed it)?  Where are the screeching moms demanding action?  How come when someone does this with a knife it is just a crazy person committing a crime and on one is out there yelling about "the children"?

Because all of them use knives and know that they would not do such a thing.  Well, it is clear it is not about violence then - it is about guns that they do not own and do not use.  But let me tell you, as someone who owns and uses both knives and guns - only crazy people and criminals use them to kill others.

Say it ain't so Joe!

Talking about the recent issues with our southern border, Joe Biden was noted as saying"

"These are not somebody else's kids. These are our kids."

No, Joe, they are not my kids, they are not your kids, they are the children of others who may or may not care for them.  There are many like them around the world.  But we cannot become the caretakers of the world's children.  We cannot really take care of our own in this country.

To assuage his guilt...

So, the inventor of the holy grail of gun control, the smart gun, is really on a quest to assuage his own misguided guilt over the fact that people have used his products to kill others.

I know the arguments against this firearm are well beyond the comprehension of those who are simply against all firearms.  Those would like to see a smattering of them can go here among other places. the point is that the opinion of those who do not carry, do not want to carry and, in fact, hate firearms, about such a firearm is worthless.

I would ask you to simply consider that there are no law enforcement or military organizations who are clamoring to purchase this handgun.  Why?  Lack of reliability of the mechanism?  Lack of stopping power?  Lack of practicality?

Be honest; you do not know anything about firearms in general and even less about this one.  Yet, because we can attach the word "smart" to it and because the idea of it allows you to denigrate all others, you like it.

As I have done previously, I will allude to the analogy of this to the drug war.  This is your licit drug (for the moment, although it is really step one on your road to making all of them illegal). It is your marinol.  Yet, while you have made your licit analogs, our porous borders have been hit with an unstoppable flood of illicit drugs.  So, change your laws to where the only firearm law-abiding citizens can possess is a temperamental (Sometime sit works, sometimes it doesn't, won't work if the watch in on the other hand, you can be disarmed by being stripped of the watch), under-powered (.22 caliber), low capacity pistol, while criminals will continue to own the firearms they chose since the law will not affect them.

Yes, I know the rules make sense to you, but then you choose to be disarmed anyway.

And what's even funnier?

Ah, Huffington wants us to know how stupid it would look if tabloids treated men the way they treat women.

The real thing is, I suspect, that if they were to do so, men would not give a shit.

And let's be honest - the women who are on those covers - many of them - have made their living by being tokens and images.  You cannot profit from being a public image when you want to and then bemoan the fact that you are a public image.

A better answer is - it's all bullshit!  No real reason to blame men for this - I do not imagine that they are the major consumers of this garbage.

So - Target?

So - Target - all for gay folks getting married, but don't carry your weapons here?  I have to wonder - since the request for people to not carry in your stores had to do with family atmosphere; how will it go when little Johnny or Janie ask why those two boys are kissing and holding hands?

Outed for the anti-gun folks you are.

As opposed to...

Is this as compared to losing a child to say, knife, violence, bludgeoning violence, or even motor-vehicle violence.  Where's Huffington's coverage of the missing teen-aged girl here in Central Florida whose body was recently found by the side of the road and is a victim of sexual violence?

Yea, yea, yea, I know  - you have a thing against guns.  Too bad you don't have a thing against violence.

The Useful Idiot

Yes, I know - its comedy!  But it really cheapens the discourse.

Yes, Boehner is a fool for suing the president for executive actions while suggesting he should be taking executive action.

But what do we do about the border, Jon?  Do we simply drop the idea of a border and make it all one big continent?  Is it productive to make others' idiocy the butt of jokes while offering no good alternatives?

Yes, it's comedy, but just like any other form of entertainment it stirs emotions that often have little to nothing to do with finding meaningful solutions.

Trump IS an idiot, but let's talk

Yes, Donald Trump is the master of being an idiot, but we probably do need to talk about this and it would be a shame to let the messenger overshadow the message.

His tweet (I hate the word):

"The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far away places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences!"

Clearly rings of the usual Trump lack of empathy, but shouldn't we consider the risk we are taking when we allow empathy and emotion to convince us to drop our guard against such a plague?  There is a risk assessment to be made here, whether it is made by those who take the risk of going into areas where such pathogens exist for humanitarian reasons or the risk our government takes for us when it allows brings those infected into our borders.

So we end up with quotes like this:

""I hope that our understandable fear of the unfamiliar does not trump our compassion when ill Americans return to the U.S. for care," said Dr. Tom Frieden, according to The Associated Press."
 

Let's be honest - the assured self-confidence of our government agencies has more than once lead to problems and there is some history of the control of such pathogens being less than stellar.

The fact the heartless Donald Trump is the messenger here only serves to make it difficult for us to ponder this question; he is such an asshole about most things that valid questions get lost because of the shit he usually talks.

It will be interesting to see how the emotion shifts if we should go from compassion for those who sacrificed to help others, to ebola is on your doorstep.

Common (not so common) sense, Round 2

Not a lot to be said of it, except that this story comes along and further demonstrates the lack of common sense.

I cannot know, but only try to imagine, what it is like to lose a sister in this way:

But let's be honest:

1.  This abuser could have committed this crime with a knife, a hammer, a machete or even used his vehicle to run over her and anyone else around. He could have burned the house down with her in it.  Yet we are not asking to outlaw those methods.  You would think an NRA member would know that there are many tools people us to commit violence.  But let's remember that asking the bereaved and grieving relative of someone who has been brutally murdered - no matter what the weapon of choice was - is not likely to get us rational workable solutions, but instead ideas based on guilt and grief.  Loss and grief are real and painful, but they are not a credentials.

2. I am wondering why this NRA member did not work with his sister, who he seemingly new was at risk, to help her devise better ways of defending herself than trusting in a piece of paper to protect her. As an NRA member, this gentleman should have known that those who commit violence do not care about rules or papers; in fact, it is likely no law - even an advanced judgement that would not made it illegal for him to procure a firearm - will stop someone who wants to obtain a firearm and kill another person. He could have gotten her to some good effective training and helped her to find ways to protect herself, to be prepared.  And such training and strategies need not always include a firearm; the NRA offers courses (as do other places) on how not to be a victim for those who would like to learn more about personal security but are not ready to use a firearm to defend themselves.

It is important to note this paragraph from the Huffington Post article:

"The two bills being considered in the Senate, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would strengthen federal gun prohibitions for convicted domestic abusers and those deemed by a judge to be a physical threat to a woman. Klobuchar's bill would include physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers in the category of persons who are prohibited from buying or possessing a gun. Blumenthal's bill would ban guns for those who have been issued a temporary restraining order by a judge for domestic violence."

How would this have helped in any way?  Their bill, if made law, would have banned him from obtaining a firearm in a lawful manner.  Do we think that this killer would have, therefore, not sought a firearm in some other way (I'll say again - how's that drug war going for you?)?  If you think so, then welcome to fantasy land.  Bad people are going to do bad things.  We cannot build a wall of laws around them big enough to keep them from preying on us.

So what gun law is going to guarantee you are always safe?  A law against murder did not stop this killer - it does not stop others.  A restraining order did not do so  - they never do - and it is a legal document.  The police who "protect and serve" cannot always be there and are not, by law, required to protect you, to guarantee your safety.

It is really about time (well it has been) that we realize that no one, no government, no law, no web of complex prohibitions, can create a world where no violence occurs, where we are not all at risk, much less those whose situation places them in even greater peril.  We, as a decaying society, seek solace in blaming the violence on "things" we do not like, rather than people who do violence and the society we have built that seemingly fosters it.  We, as a society, go with what "feels" right to us, not what is real. We teach by example that life has little meaning except for fulfilling our own individual pleasures, and then are surprised when people no longer value others' lives.  We sit in our little hovels, looking for someone to take this burden of being responsible for our own safety off of our shoulders. What are they going to do with no more laws can be made and still they are left to hide, when they have traded every shred of their freedom for a security that does not and cannot exist.

I, for one, am not waiting for that time or for some miracle end to the predatory violence that surrounds us.  I suspect that this poor man's testimony to congress was a reflection of his guilt over not having recognized his sister's peril and been more proactive in helping her prepare to defend herself.  It is time we were all proactive.  My questions about such events are less about why the predator did it, but why wasn't she prepared to defend herself, why no one told here the truth, was honest with her and helped her be ready.  The obvious answer is because the fearful, hiding under their beds, waiting for the law to save them, convinced her as they have convinced many others in their naivete, that absolute safety without personal responsibility was a reality, that a piece of paper was enough.

They all share the guilt with her killer.

Do we need some common sense on the subject of domestic violence?

We are most interesting as a society in that we often believe in magic and engage in magical thinking.  This has become more prevalent in recent years and one has to wonder if it has emerged due to a general sense that the problems are bigger than we are.

A first example; a meaningful portion of our society thinks that making a law makes it so.  In truth, laws are liked locked doors; they keep the honest and law-abiding honest.  We all lock our doors, yet home invasions and burglaries continue.

I am sure it is no surprise that I would use a gun-based example, but it is an obvious one to anyone who can think clearly.  Sarcasm mode on:  Murder is illegal - that is why no one is ever murdered.  Robbery is illegal, and so we have ended it as a crime in our modern society.  Many classes of drugs are illegal and so addiction to illegal drugs is no longer a social problem and the related gang crime has also disappeared. Sarcasm mode off.  Still, in our modern fairy tale world, some believe that we can ban firearms and that doing so will prevent violent crime.  Let's recap:  violent crime is already illegal (I think that's what "crime" means).  Commit it with a knife, a club, a bomb, or a firearm and it is still illegal.  If someone is intent on robbing or murdering you, the legal prohibition of possession of a firearm is just not going to deter them - violating it is part and parcel of violent crime.  And, in the fairy tale world where fools think that a national ban on firearms could prevent this by eliminating all firearms, I ask simply how the ban on drugs has worked out.  If we cannot stop illegal drugs and illegal people from crossing into our country, do we really think firearms will not do so as well?  Do we really think this will not create a black market of firearms and a new revenue source for cartels?  Then, as the saying goes, "...only outlaws will have guns" and we will become a country just like the ones those crossing the border are purportedly escaping; we will have joined the third world.

A second version of this:  We start with the absolute truth that no one should be subject to violence, not you, nor I, nor any woman or child.  Domestic violence is not to be tolerated nor excused nor ignored.  There is no excuse for any partner to batter or do violence to another other than in true self-defense of life.  In a legal and absolute sense, no provocation short of deadly physical assault can justify such actions. [This is my disclaimer to assert that I am in no way trying to justify the perpetration of domestic violence by men - or women].

That being said, a great uproar has emerged surrounding a sports commentator's suggestion that women learn about the "elements of provocation."  Poor choice of words - provocation certainly suggests initiation - but let's redefine that as learning about "things that put you at risk for violence".  This is probably not a lot different than discussions of "things that put you at risk for rape - another form of violence". I am sure it will be as controversial.

So, why the uproar in fantasy land?  Well, not speaking about or on behalf of said sports commentator, the issue seems to be that, in fantasy, land suggesting that there are behaviors that can engage in that put one at risk is akin to saying one is "at fault" for the outcome.  If we are to move away from the Utopian fantasy that making a law against violence ends violence and that educating people (well, men) that battery and rape are not acceptable (does any batterer or rapist really think what he is doing is all right?  I doubt it.  this is not a matter of men, but a matter of certain men), then we need to "arm" (figuratively and, I believe, literally) those who are high probability victims.  I can only hope that most people realize that being in the right is little consolation if one is injured or dead.

In personal defense, we talk about awareness and levels of awareness, about being aware of your surroundings and what is going on, recognizing how your own own behavior might communicate vulnerability and enhance your risks, and how to avoid or escape danger.  We worry little about whose fault it is that a bad person is intent on doing us harm, but focus on what we can do to mitigate risk, to be safer.  General admonitions include not going where danger is more likely and not engaging in behaviors and interactions that might lead to violence, not provoking violence.  Although elements of provocation" was a poor choice of words, the message is an important one; being right and righteous is no substitute for avoiding violence by knowing when it is more likely and not acting in ways that enhance its probability.  For instance, shouting at and insulting someone, perhaps wagging your finger in their face and maybe even shoving them, may not justify their striking you, but it does increase the likelihood that they will.

I do not know the particulars of the Ray Rice fiasco and do not care to know.  I only know he was treated very leniently for what he did.  But the lessons here are clear:  First, many men have now learned that money and prestige equal power and some semblance of immunity from prosecution and punishment.  A construction worker or plumber would not have gotten the lenient treatment he received.  Second, we learned that some people do not learn from experience or history - his fiance is now his wife.  Of course, this is also likely a function of wealth and prestige.  But will we all be shocked if an assault happens again, that she has not acted to mitigate her risk for assault?

I hope that all of those out there who may be at risk for violence - men, women, children - will be willing to contemplate how they can avoid it through their own actions instead of relying on the knowledge and moral character of those with whom they interact.  It is not tantamount to accepting blame to recognize what you can do to protect yourself, including avoiding confrontation and knowing how others will, however inappropriately, react to your behavior.  Your first priority should be safety; once safe, you can move on to righteous indignation.