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.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Ah, Chicago
From Huffington Post:
1. "In an interview with WGN on Monday evening, Jackson said the city is in "a state of emergency" after the closing of 50 of its public schools, the shuttering of dozens upon dozens of grocery and drug stores and a growth in the number of vacant lots, particularly on the city's south and west sides where much of the weekend's violence occurred. "We need not just more policemen, but more teachers and more coaches and some plan for an economic reconstruction," he said. "There's nothing wrong with the people, the structure must change."
Actually don't you think it is time we started to look at the people, be sure there is not something wrong with the people. Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming the people or even saying it is their fault. But the systems - the "structure" - is the people. They create the structure, they emerge from the structure, they are duped into supporting the structure. They are lead to believe that they cannot handle this on their own, cannot be trusted. Jackson's tried and true strategy of getting more money thrown at abstract issues instead of looking at the behaviors of the people is on full display here. The people are waiting for some structure to come and help them, they are not encouraged to or amendable to the idea of helping themselves. It is someone else's problem to fix. It is time to let the people themselves protect themselves, not convince them to hide in the shadows waiting for someone else to do it. The cavalry is not coming.
2. "In response to the violent holiday weekend -- during which more than 60 people were wounded and 11 killed in shootings -- Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said lax gun sentencing laws were playing a major role in the continued bloodshed. Mayor Rahm Emanuel called on all the city's residents to "take a stand" against violence."
Oh, Rahm: Take a stand with what? How? By standing shoulder to shoulder with you in denying themselves the right to protect themselves? Those words mean nothing when uttered by someone who wants to disarm every law-abiding citizen and leave them at the mercy of criminals. Perhaps you and your superintendent of police should pay attention to what he said; stop trying to find new and creative ways to punish law-abiding citizens, to prevent them from defending themselves and "taking a stand" and start really putting criminals who illegally possess and use firearms in jail for long periods of time. Law-abiding Chicagoans are left to live as prey and the criminals are slapped on the wrist and sent back to prey on them.
1. "In an interview with WGN on Monday evening, Jackson said the city is in "a state of emergency" after the closing of 50 of its public schools, the shuttering of dozens upon dozens of grocery and drug stores and a growth in the number of vacant lots, particularly on the city's south and west sides where much of the weekend's violence occurred. "We need not just more policemen, but more teachers and more coaches and some plan for an economic reconstruction," he said. "There's nothing wrong with the people, the structure must change."
Actually don't you think it is time we started to look at the people, be sure there is not something wrong with the people. Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming the people or even saying it is their fault. But the systems - the "structure" - is the people. They create the structure, they emerge from the structure, they are duped into supporting the structure. They are lead to believe that they cannot handle this on their own, cannot be trusted. Jackson's tried and true strategy of getting more money thrown at abstract issues instead of looking at the behaviors of the people is on full display here. The people are waiting for some structure to come and help them, they are not encouraged to or amendable to the idea of helping themselves. It is someone else's problem to fix. It is time to let the people themselves protect themselves, not convince them to hide in the shadows waiting for someone else to do it. The cavalry is not coming.
2. "In response to the violent holiday weekend -- during which more than 60 people were wounded and 11 killed in shootings -- Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said lax gun sentencing laws were playing a major role in the continued bloodshed. Mayor Rahm Emanuel called on all the city's residents to "take a stand" against violence."
Oh, Rahm: Take a stand with what? How? By standing shoulder to shoulder with you in denying themselves the right to protect themselves? Those words mean nothing when uttered by someone who wants to disarm every law-abiding citizen and leave them at the mercy of criminals. Perhaps you and your superintendent of police should pay attention to what he said; stop trying to find new and creative ways to punish law-abiding citizens, to prevent them from defending themselves and "taking a stand" and start really putting criminals who illegally possess and use firearms in jail for long periods of time. Law-abiding Chicagoans are left to live as prey and the criminals are slapped on the wrist and sent back to prey on them.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Score one for Christie
Nope, not much of a Chris Christie fan. But this is one glimmer of hope that a more rational approach to violence can be had (and who would ever have thought the words "rational" and "Chris Christie" would be in the same sentence). Funny how when he hugs Obama the democrats love him, but when he thwarts their citizen control efforts, not so much. In both cases, he is acting on his own conscience (assuming he has one). seems a moderate thing to do. His suggestion that limiting magazine size would not be effective but increasing resources to identify those who commit atrocities makes sense to me as a law-abiding firearm owner and psychologist.
Especially interesting and irrational are the comments by Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democrat: "This veto sounds like it was geared more for a national audience, rather than crafted for the streets of New Jersey." Actually the comments in Christie's veto echoed some common sense notions - notions that would not have been controversial through most of the history of this nation: People commit violence, not tools, and most of those who commit such violence are ultimately found to have suffered mental health challenges.
Citizen control in NJ has been a fruitless exercise of the left. New Jersey has had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation for many years. Still crime has gone up and the state is home to many of the nation's most dangerous cities. I am sure politicians would prefer that this not be seen as a function of a bad economy, moral failings, bad government, and mismanagement. Much better to blame it on guns. Still crime has risen while gun control has increased, so logic would tell us that crime and mass shootings are not being deterred by blaming tools instead of people.
Of course, it is likely that Sweeney is one of those who believes that the use of guns in crime in NJ would end if only all guns were illegal everywhere else, in all states. But why does crime not spiral out of control in those states where gun ownership is not restricted as it is in NJ? Guns are guns after all - it is not like the ones that get into NJ are somehow more malicious than others - it is the hands that use them. So, is it the people in NJ that are the issue? Is it the policies? Does the likelihood of unarmed prey increase the commission of crimes? Do we really think that because people in NJ cannot create policies that prevent violence, the rest of us should be forced to live at their level?
For those who really think that a federal law outlawing private ownership of handguns in the US (Oh, how they love to point at Australia or Great Britain) would solve this issue or even that further restrictions on gun ownership will solve this issue, I would ask you to look toward our southern border and the war on drugs (remember that those are island nations) . How many tons of illegal drugs and thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border every year? How well are we handling that? If you cannot stop these transgressions of the border, do you really think a national ban in handguns or firearms would not create a black market for firearms coming across that border? At that point, only those who are breaking the law will be armed (which is an apt description of the situation in Mexico right now with the cartel death squads). How well has the war on drugs worked out ion our own country? Do you really think a war on firearms will work out any better?
If you do, might I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look around?
Especially interesting and irrational are the comments by Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democrat: "This veto sounds like it was geared more for a national audience, rather than crafted for the streets of New Jersey." Actually the comments in Christie's veto echoed some common sense notions - notions that would not have been controversial through most of the history of this nation: People commit violence, not tools, and most of those who commit such violence are ultimately found to have suffered mental health challenges.
Citizen control in NJ has been a fruitless exercise of the left. New Jersey has had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation for many years. Still crime has gone up and the state is home to many of the nation's most dangerous cities. I am sure politicians would prefer that this not be seen as a function of a bad economy, moral failings, bad government, and mismanagement. Much better to blame it on guns. Still crime has risen while gun control has increased, so logic would tell us that crime and mass shootings are not being deterred by blaming tools instead of people.
Of course, it is likely that Sweeney is one of those who believes that the use of guns in crime in NJ would end if only all guns were illegal everywhere else, in all states. But why does crime not spiral out of control in those states where gun ownership is not restricted as it is in NJ? Guns are guns after all - it is not like the ones that get into NJ are somehow more malicious than others - it is the hands that use them. So, is it the people in NJ that are the issue? Is it the policies? Does the likelihood of unarmed prey increase the commission of crimes? Do we really think that because people in NJ cannot create policies that prevent violence, the rest of us should be forced to live at their level?
For those who really think that a federal law outlawing private ownership of handguns in the US (Oh, how they love to point at Australia or Great Britain) would solve this issue or even that further restrictions on gun ownership will solve this issue, I would ask you to look toward our southern border and the war on drugs (remember that those are island nations) . How many tons of illegal drugs and thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border every year? How well are we handling that? If you cannot stop these transgressions of the border, do you really think a national ban in handguns or firearms would not create a black market for firearms coming across that border? At that point, only those who are breaking the law will be armed (which is an apt description of the situation in Mexico right now with the cartel death squads). How well has the war on drugs worked out ion our own country? Do you really think a war on firearms will work out any better?
If you do, might I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look around?
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Target - off target.
Target announced today that it will "...respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law" (see Target's statement here). Although they specifically mention open carry in their statement, they do not make it very clear whether they would include concealed carry in this request.
I am no open carry enthusiast - for a number of reasons I will not enumerate here, but certainly one of them is that we live in a world of sheep and, as one commenter on the announcement noted, those sheep get scared and like to scare others. When they get scared they whine and cry a lot and no one likes to hear whining. So Target made a gesture - no more, no less.
Let's be clear - this is nothing more than a request. They do not mention whether they will actually post signs to this effect. But even if they do, depending on where one lives, a private entity's sign denying the right to carry on their premises may not have force of law - law defines where carry is and is not legal. In many states, their only recourse should one deign to carry on their property would be to ask the person to leave and then, if they do not, press charges for trespass; that is, for not leaving when asked to do so. We can only guess as to whether Target will want to go down that road. I suspect the individual stores will find this more or less appealing.
Of course, Target insults those who carry firearms by suggesting they are creating "...an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience..." Target desires. What families? So, friendly families do not shoot together? None of your workers own firearms? Firearms owners do not have families and friends they love and cherish? Once more a corporation has succumbed to the illogic and insult promulgated by groups like Moms Demand Action that all firearms owners are crazy and criminal.
If you really want to be both entertained and appalled read some of the comments. Speaking of illogic, one of my favorites, in response to a carrier who says he will be carrying there anyway, says " doing God's work, are you, scaring little kids?" God's work? Oh, dear! You will pardon my saying so, but if the kids are scared it is because you are scared, because you have shared your immature fears with your children. Why would I say this? Because not all kids are scared of firearms - only those whose parents are afraid of them. Be a parent and teach your children, not frighten them. [Of course, these are the same people appalled by legal hunting].
Many of the commenters need to read this blog post. Not because they will agree with it, but because they do not understand the law nor did they read Target's statement without putting their own fears on top of it. This does not "promote public safety."
Please note again from their statement: "But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law." They did not prohibit it, they requested it. This means that, unless they go further, nothing has really changed. Of course, Target is really making a bet here - that bet is that firearms owners are more civilized than their detractors.
For all of this, one thing that firearms owners need to remember is that if we expect people to respect our rights we need to respect theirs. Target's stores are their private property and they have the right to prohibit firearms if they wish to do so. We should remember that the Second Amendment guarantees that the government shall not infringe on our right, not private entities. We may think this is a wrong-headed decision, but a belief in the rights of others must lead us to accept it.
Of course, one thing that corporations like Target need to remember is that we all have the choice as to whether we shop at Target or somewhere else. I absolutely hate the Walmart atmosphere and some of their practices - but perhaps the best way to respond to Target's wishes is to do as they ask; do not bring your firearm OR your money into their stores. Consider how people would respond if Target said gay couples could not show affection, hold hands or kiss in their stores - because it scared my children. [It would not and I would not care - this is simply illustrative].
BTW - note to all criminals - Target has now, nominally, defined itself as a defense-free zone. Of course, this logic is also well-beyond most commenters; as one noted "Thanks Target for creating a safe place to take my family shopping." So, how is it there in fantasy land? Let's be clear - although clarity will make no difference: If true legal prohibitions of carry of firearms, say in schools or even military bases, cannot deter criminals from using them to kill others, do you really think Target asking criminals "please" is going to make any difference? Do you really think the people who want to do you harm are going to care? All this has done is create a target-rich (pun intended) and defense-deprived environment, where all of you can graze together waiting for the wolves.
I wonder though; if I were to go unarmed to Target (which, in truth, I would not) and be robbed in their stores or parking lots, I would have to ponder (should I survive) whether they bear some civil liability for my inability to defend myself. Am I shopping at my own risk or have they put me at risk?
I am no open carry enthusiast - for a number of reasons I will not enumerate here, but certainly one of them is that we live in a world of sheep and, as one commenter on the announcement noted, those sheep get scared and like to scare others. When they get scared they whine and cry a lot and no one likes to hear whining. So Target made a gesture - no more, no less.
Let's be clear - this is nothing more than a request. They do not mention whether they will actually post signs to this effect. But even if they do, depending on where one lives, a private entity's sign denying the right to carry on their premises may not have force of law - law defines where carry is and is not legal. In many states, their only recourse should one deign to carry on their property would be to ask the person to leave and then, if they do not, press charges for trespass; that is, for not leaving when asked to do so. We can only guess as to whether Target will want to go down that road. I suspect the individual stores will find this more or less appealing.
Of course, Target insults those who carry firearms by suggesting they are creating "...an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience..." Target desires. What families? So, friendly families do not shoot together? None of your workers own firearms? Firearms owners do not have families and friends they love and cherish? Once more a corporation has succumbed to the illogic and insult promulgated by groups like Moms Demand Action that all firearms owners are crazy and criminal.
If you really want to be both entertained and appalled read some of the comments. Speaking of illogic, one of my favorites, in response to a carrier who says he will be carrying there anyway, says " doing God's work, are you, scaring little kids?" God's work? Oh, dear! You will pardon my saying so, but if the kids are scared it is because you are scared, because you have shared your immature fears with your children. Why would I say this? Because not all kids are scared of firearms - only those whose parents are afraid of them. Be a parent and teach your children, not frighten them. [Of course, these are the same people appalled by legal hunting].
Many of the commenters need to read this blog post. Not because they will agree with it, but because they do not understand the law nor did they read Target's statement without putting their own fears on top of it. This does not "promote public safety."
Please note again from their statement: "But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law." They did not prohibit it, they requested it. This means that, unless they go further, nothing has really changed. Of course, Target is really making a bet here - that bet is that firearms owners are more civilized than their detractors.
For all of this, one thing that firearms owners need to remember is that if we expect people to respect our rights we need to respect theirs. Target's stores are their private property and they have the right to prohibit firearms if they wish to do so. We should remember that the Second Amendment guarantees that the government shall not infringe on our right, not private entities. We may think this is a wrong-headed decision, but a belief in the rights of others must lead us to accept it.
Of course, one thing that corporations like Target need to remember is that we all have the choice as to whether we shop at Target or somewhere else. I absolutely hate the Walmart atmosphere and some of their practices - but perhaps the best way to respond to Target's wishes is to do as they ask; do not bring your firearm OR your money into their stores. Consider how people would respond if Target said gay couples could not show affection, hold hands or kiss in their stores - because it scared my children. [It would not and I would not care - this is simply illustrative].
BTW - note to all criminals - Target has now, nominally, defined itself as a defense-free zone. Of course, this logic is also well-beyond most commenters; as one noted "Thanks Target for creating a safe place to take my family shopping." So, how is it there in fantasy land? Let's be clear - although clarity will make no difference: If true legal prohibitions of carry of firearms, say in schools or even military bases, cannot deter criminals from using them to kill others, do you really think Target asking criminals "please" is going to make any difference? Do you really think the people who want to do you harm are going to care? All this has done is create a target-rich (pun intended) and defense-deprived environment, where all of you can graze together waiting for the wolves.
I wonder though; if I were to go unarmed to Target (which, in truth, I would not) and be robbed in their stores or parking lots, I would have to ponder (should I survive) whether they bear some civil liability for my inability to defend myself. Am I shopping at my own risk or have they put me at risk?
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Hobby Lobby and the disingenuous whining of sheep...
This is clearly disingenuous whining.
While not a Christian or a religious person (I insist that Christians notion that they have some kind of monopoly on morals and values), even I can see the issue that leads to the Hobby Lobby decision. At the center of this is whether government can make laws that tell a person what they can practice and choices they have. The Bill of Rights does note that the government can not tell a person how they may practice their religion. But even more clearly than that, if government can continue to discover new rights that are not specifically enumerated (such as gay marriage - and to be clear I do not care who someone loves or marries) then it is on thin ice when it starts denies those with genuine religious convictions what behaviors they need to support.
I am not anti-choice and am not pro-abortion. I am pro-responsibility and that responsibility in the case of contraception and pregnancy termination falls clearly on the shoulders of the individual. Clearly the government can collect our taxes and put them to the use those currently inhabiting the legislative and executive branches of government see fit; my taxes can support wars and spying I oppose and be used to enforce gun control laws I disagree with. But we are not talking about taxes here; we are talking about an employer whose beliefs mean they cannot in good conscience financially support an employee's right to choose certain treatments. Can the government tell a privately held corporation how it will spend its money? Perhaps this is at the root of the problems with Obamacare - it is a socialist health care system that cannot support itself, so requires the private sector to do so. One mus be blinded by partisanship not to see some problems with that; with a law that tell you how to spend your money.
I will agree that this may be a slippery slope, but that is hardly a reason to allow for further over-reach. the law itself created this slope. Will Jehovah's Witnesses be able to deny funding for transfusions and will Scientologists (Is that really a religion?) be able to deny psychotherapeutic medications or therapy? Of course, Grim's argument from absurdity is more comedy than substance. And, really, haven't all the decisions on gay rights really already opened Pandora's box on most of this? Humanism is really as much a religion as Scientology (that's sarcasm folks) and this argument springs forth clearly from a degree of hedonism that knows no bounds.
This is, of course, the result of having employer-funded health care system. You can't have a government that tells employers how they will spend their money.
First, this is a matter of definition; we need to consider where lifestyle choices end and health care begins. Clearly, for some women, contraceptives serve a health-related purpose beyond preventing pregnancies (or as a function of preventing pregnancies). We can define that as an issue of "medical necessity" and it is obvious that not all contraceptive use is of "medical necessity". In fact, most is a matter of "lifestyle necessity" or, more accurately, "lifestyle convenience".
But, to be honest, I think it would be extremely hard to make a case that using drugs that are meant to terminate pregnancies fit under the heading of "health care." In fact, it is likely a sick society that would think so.
So consider this in light of the fact that Hobby Lobby is not saying they do not want to fund "birth control"; they are saying their do not want to fund life termination. Oh, one can leap through many hoops to somehow make them the same, or they can argue from absurdity to garner laughs and distract from facts. Hobby Lobby has no concerns about funding a vast majority of "pregnancy prevention" methods, but do not want to fund the small number of options that do not prevent pregnancy but abort one. Unwanted pregnancies are a public health issue, but not an individual disease (well, perhaps some see it that way and see abortion as excision of an invading parasite). Of course, we gave up on preventing them, our society long ago "decided" that unwanted pregnancies, unwed mothers, "baby daddies", and everything that goes with them were not really problems; that it was part of a "do what you want" society where you can count on someone else fixing the problem or supporting your children. We surrendered to it.
Again, I am not pro-choice, but even I can see their issue and do not see it as limiting choice - it simply means certain choices are "on you".
Choice means responsibility, being pro-choice means being pro-responsibility. Of course, we live in times where responsibility is an archaic notion, something people like me talk about and the younger people around us shake their head and smile at the feeble old man, living in the past. we live in a time where the message is "Do what you want" and someone, someone somewhere will pay for it, pay to fix it. No rules, no limits, no need for forethought, no need for concern.
Another sign of our times. If Hobby Lobby hung up signs forbidding the carry of firearms, concealed or open, in their stores, these champions of individual rights would nominate them for an award.
While not a Christian or a religious person (I insist that Christians notion that they have some kind of monopoly on morals and values), even I can see the issue that leads to the Hobby Lobby decision. At the center of this is whether government can make laws that tell a person what they can practice and choices they have. The Bill of Rights does note that the government can not tell a person how they may practice their religion. But even more clearly than that, if government can continue to discover new rights that are not specifically enumerated (such as gay marriage - and to be clear I do not care who someone loves or marries) then it is on thin ice when it starts denies those with genuine religious convictions what behaviors they need to support.
I am not anti-choice and am not pro-abortion. I am pro-responsibility and that responsibility in the case of contraception and pregnancy termination falls clearly on the shoulders of the individual. Clearly the government can collect our taxes and put them to the use those currently inhabiting the legislative and executive branches of government see fit; my taxes can support wars and spying I oppose and be used to enforce gun control laws I disagree with. But we are not talking about taxes here; we are talking about an employer whose beliefs mean they cannot in good conscience financially support an employee's right to choose certain treatments. Can the government tell a privately held corporation how it will spend its money? Perhaps this is at the root of the problems with Obamacare - it is a socialist health care system that cannot support itself, so requires the private sector to do so. One mus be blinded by partisanship not to see some problems with that; with a law that tell you how to spend your money.
I will agree that this may be a slippery slope, but that is hardly a reason to allow for further over-reach. the law itself created this slope. Will Jehovah's Witnesses be able to deny funding for transfusions and will Scientologists (Is that really a religion?) be able to deny psychotherapeutic medications or therapy? Of course, Grim's argument from absurdity is more comedy than substance. And, really, haven't all the decisions on gay rights really already opened Pandora's box on most of this? Humanism is really as much a religion as Scientology (that's sarcasm folks) and this argument springs forth clearly from a degree of hedonism that knows no bounds.
This is, of course, the result of having employer-funded health care system. You can't have a government that tells employers how they will spend their money.
First, this is a matter of definition; we need to consider where lifestyle choices end and health care begins. Clearly, for some women, contraceptives serve a health-related purpose beyond preventing pregnancies (or as a function of preventing pregnancies). We can define that as an issue of "medical necessity" and it is obvious that not all contraceptive use is of "medical necessity". In fact, most is a matter of "lifestyle necessity" or, more accurately, "lifestyle convenience".
But, to be honest, I think it would be extremely hard to make a case that using drugs that are meant to terminate pregnancies fit under the heading of "health care." In fact, it is likely a sick society that would think so.
So consider this in light of the fact that Hobby Lobby is not saying they do not want to fund "birth control"; they are saying their do not want to fund life termination. Oh, one can leap through many hoops to somehow make them the same, or they can argue from absurdity to garner laughs and distract from facts. Hobby Lobby has no concerns about funding a vast majority of "pregnancy prevention" methods, but do not want to fund the small number of options that do not prevent pregnancy but abort one. Unwanted pregnancies are a public health issue, but not an individual disease (well, perhaps some see it that way and see abortion as excision of an invading parasite). Of course, we gave up on preventing them, our society long ago "decided" that unwanted pregnancies, unwed mothers, "baby daddies", and everything that goes with them were not really problems; that it was part of a "do what you want" society where you can count on someone else fixing the problem or supporting your children. We surrendered to it.
Again, I am not pro-choice, but even I can see their issue and do not see it as limiting choice - it simply means certain choices are "on you".
Choice means responsibility, being pro-choice means being pro-responsibility. Of course, we live in times where responsibility is an archaic notion, something people like me talk about and the younger people around us shake their head and smile at the feeble old man, living in the past. we live in a time where the message is "Do what you want" and someone, someone somewhere will pay for it, pay to fix it. No rules, no limits, no need for forethought, no need for concern.
Another sign of our times. If Hobby Lobby hung up signs forbidding the carry of firearms, concealed or open, in their stores, these champions of individual rights would nominate them for an award.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)