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.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, September 12, 2014
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.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
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!
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!
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, September 8, 2014
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.
Sounds like a target rich environment.
Not intending to visit again.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)