As one might expect, there is a rush to justice in the killing of Sam Dubose. That does not mean that a miscarriage of justice will result, it simply means that "guilty until proven innocent" (or perhaps "guilty without a trial") is the new modus operandi.
So - two form Huffington Post:
1. HP notes that the "Cop plead not guilty" to the killing. SOmehow, I doubt he plead not guilty to the killing - it is on video, his hand, his gun, the shot fired, the sad death. For the sake of accuracy, it is more likely he plead not guilty to first-degree murder and will mount a defense based on self-defense. I will not say what his chances are, but let's at least be accurate - he did not say he did not kill him, he is arguing the details of the event. Doesn't look good for him.
2. HP notes that some other LEOs have been quick to condemn this officer and others no so much. What they seem to be saying is "If you are not willing to immediately, on only the evidence you currently have, reflexively condemn this person, then you are evil". I think they prefer the Prosecuting Attorney's approach to making really definitive, pejorative, and premature statements.
I do have to say that I disagree with the Prosecuting Attorney who noted ""I think [Tensing] lost his temper because Mr. DuBose wouldn't get out of his car."
There is no indication that he lost his temper; in fact, he seemed most patient with Mr. Dubose who seemed incoherent, evasive and largely unresponsive to lawful questions. Why and when he would have drawn his gun is another issue. As some commenters online have noted, this was not a dangerous felon and if Dubose had driven away he was not going to get far. As others have noted, there was no apparent lethal threat here (but again, why jump to conclusions); there was an evasive, apparently intoxicated suspect and seeing this form another angle would be useful. The officer was cordial, courteous, and very patient for much longer than many would have been, he behaved in a respectful and reasonable manner until he made the potential mistake of deploying his weapon.
The problem here is that Mr. Dubose's innocence is being assumed, while the officer's guilt is likewise.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Okay - let's see...
So, Los Angeles has decided to control crime by instituting a ban on standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Seems we need to look more closely at whether this will work.
1. So, possessing a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds will be a misdemeanor. As the story notes, the NRA is likely to file suit against the ordinance; as with most such laws, they contend it is likely to affect those who follow the law as opposed to those who a committed to breaking it.
2. In truth, the NRA is correct. Especially given it is a misdemeanor. Let's say you are a criminal (as far as I know you may be), intent on committing armed robbery, assault, or even murder. This law assumes you will go ahead with your plan, but because you might be found guilty of a misdemeanor, you will do so with magazines that can hold no more than 10 rounds. Catch that - you are a mass killer and this will keep your body count down because, although you are about to commit felony murder, you will be forced to carry downloaded magazines due to a potential misdemeanor charge. Right!
3. Still trying to figure out what it means to say, "cities like San Francisco, Sunnyvale and now Los Angeles have taken the issue into their own hands, passing bans on high capacity weapons." What is a high capacity weapon? I suspect this is a reflection of ignorance about what it being discussed.
Bottom line here - let's take the recent LA theater shooter as an example. Imagine he is planning to commit this crime. He surveyed the theater, knew it was a gun-free zone, is confident he will confront no resistance, makes his plan to come into the theater. He has his pistol, a .40 cal S&W with a 13 rounds magazine. Looks down and notes "Oh well, can't carry that into the theater - this magazine holds more than 10 rounds and I might be charged with a misdemeanor".
That is how these people think.
Seems we need to look more closely at whether this will work.
1. So, possessing a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds will be a misdemeanor. As the story notes, the NRA is likely to file suit against the ordinance; as with most such laws, they contend it is likely to affect those who follow the law as opposed to those who a committed to breaking it.
2. In truth, the NRA is correct. Especially given it is a misdemeanor. Let's say you are a criminal (as far as I know you may be), intent on committing armed robbery, assault, or even murder. This law assumes you will go ahead with your plan, but because you might be found guilty of a misdemeanor, you will do so with magazines that can hold no more than 10 rounds. Catch that - you are a mass killer and this will keep your body count down because, although you are about to commit felony murder, you will be forced to carry downloaded magazines due to a potential misdemeanor charge. Right!
3. Still trying to figure out what it means to say, "cities like San Francisco, Sunnyvale and now Los Angeles have taken the issue into their own hands, passing bans on high capacity weapons." What is a high capacity weapon? I suspect this is a reflection of ignorance about what it being discussed.
Bottom line here - let's take the recent LA theater shooter as an example. Imagine he is planning to commit this crime. He surveyed the theater, knew it was a gun-free zone, is confident he will confront no resistance, makes his plan to come into the theater. He has his pistol, a .40 cal S&W with a 13 rounds magazine. Looks down and notes "Oh well, can't carry that into the theater - this magazine holds more than 10 rounds and I might be charged with a misdemeanor".
That is how these people think.
"Face the animal on its own terms..."
Sad case being talked about of an American dentist who killed a famed lion for sport.
Given some of the explicit and implied reactions on social media, it does make me feel the necessity of ensuring that folks out there realize that not all gun owners are hunters nor would we all support such an act. I personally find this act appalling and unnecessary. I am not a hunter. I tend more in favor of a quote from the movie Beastmaster:
"Face the animal on its own terms and you will find you are not so very strong."
I am sure there are those who cannot cognitively parse these ideas - that is, that a pro-gun, pro-self-defense person might be largely anti-hunter. It is really not that complicated and any confusion is ample evidence that they simply do not understand the issues involved for those, like me, who a staunch supporters of the right to self-defense.
1. First, in general, hunting is no longer needed for subsistence. That is not to say that some hunters do not hunt for food as opposed to hunting solely to kill and, in some instances, it seems logical that hunting serves a purpose by controlling animal populations. I cannot claim expertise in such matters, but I am not a hunter.
2. However, in the case of this dentist, this was hunting to kill, ego hunting, trophy hunting of an animal that was not a threat to life, limb, or the eco-system. This animal had to be lured away from safety to be killed for this person's gratification.
3. Perhaps the most difficult part of this for some people to understand is that, as a 2A supporter, my motivation is specifically to "Face the animal on its own terms". The animal I am referring to is the human predator who, like this hunter, will take every unfair advantage to ensure that the disparity of force tips in his favor. So, from my perspective, the 2A is about meeting force with equal force, which is completely compatible with existing self-defense law; deadly force is used only in the face of deadly force.
4. In the end, this "too-wealthy-and-stupid-for-his-own-good" dentist was not a representative of hunters and certainly not gun owners in general. He was actually much more like the active shooters in Louisiana or Colorado, in that he went looking for a victim, capitalized on a situation where his prey was defenseless, and was able to create an environment where he had overwhelming superiority of force, to commit a heinous and barbaric act.
One can only imagine how this story would be presented differently had he been forced to "meet the animal on its own terms" just as each of us who go armed for self-protection would hope to do in a darkened theater or school hallway. I imagine the reaction would have been one of horror that he was killed by this vicious animal, sad interviews with his spouse and children, friends and colleagues, much like gun control enthusiasts react when a law-abiding person successfully defends herself against such predators - proclaiming loudly how unfair it is to the predator.
Given some of the explicit and implied reactions on social media, it does make me feel the necessity of ensuring that folks out there realize that not all gun owners are hunters nor would we all support such an act. I personally find this act appalling and unnecessary. I am not a hunter. I tend more in favor of a quote from the movie Beastmaster:
"Face the animal on its own terms and you will find you are not so very strong."
I am sure there are those who cannot cognitively parse these ideas - that is, that a pro-gun, pro-self-defense person might be largely anti-hunter. It is really not that complicated and any confusion is ample evidence that they simply do not understand the issues involved for those, like me, who a staunch supporters of the right to self-defense.
1. First, in general, hunting is no longer needed for subsistence. That is not to say that some hunters do not hunt for food as opposed to hunting solely to kill and, in some instances, it seems logical that hunting serves a purpose by controlling animal populations. I cannot claim expertise in such matters, but I am not a hunter.
2. However, in the case of this dentist, this was hunting to kill, ego hunting, trophy hunting of an animal that was not a threat to life, limb, or the eco-system. This animal had to be lured away from safety to be killed for this person's gratification.
3. Perhaps the most difficult part of this for some people to understand is that, as a 2A supporter, my motivation is specifically to "Face the animal on its own terms". The animal I am referring to is the human predator who, like this hunter, will take every unfair advantage to ensure that the disparity of force tips in his favor. So, from my perspective, the 2A is about meeting force with equal force, which is completely compatible with existing self-defense law; deadly force is used only in the face of deadly force.
4. In the end, this "too-wealthy-and-stupid-for-his-own-good" dentist was not a representative of hunters and certainly not gun owners in general. He was actually much more like the active shooters in Louisiana or Colorado, in that he went looking for a victim, capitalized on a situation where his prey was defenseless, and was able to create an environment where he had overwhelming superiority of force, to commit a heinous and barbaric act.
One can only imagine how this story would be presented differently had he been forced to "meet the animal on its own terms" just as each of us who go armed for self-protection would hope to do in a darkened theater or school hallway. I imagine the reaction would have been one of horror that he was killed by this vicious animal, sad interviews with his spouse and children, friends and colleagues, much like gun control enthusiasts react when a law-abiding person successfully defends herself against such predators - proclaiming loudly how unfair it is to the predator.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Huffpost and Rick Perry's comment on carry and shootings
For once, a fairly benign observation by Huffington Post on Rick Perry's comments about how concealed carry might help prevent shootings in "gun-free zones" like the one in LA. Fairly benign, if still somewhat off-base.
One comment: "Houser legally purchased the gun used Thursday at a pawn shop in Alabama last year, according to law enforcement officials. He had previously been denied a pistol due to a prior arrest and reports of domestic violence."
If one follows the link to ABC News, it does not say that Houser bought the pistol legally:
"The gun that was used to kill two people and wound nine others in the horrific movie theater shooting in Louisiana was purchased legally in Alabama, police said Friday." Further down the page it says' "Police did not immediately say who made the purchase."
If he had previously been denied, then it is not likely he bought it legally, but that someone else bought it for him to circumvent the law. That is illegal - known as a "straw purchase". So the purchase was not legal if that is the case. UPDATE: Apparently it is now being confirmed that he purchased the firearm. Of course, if he had been denied previously then he should have been denied again - especially after an involuntary commitment. Clearly a failure in the NICS system. So we don't need more background checks - we need accurate reliable ones.
None of that changes the fact that, although what he is saying is blasphemy to the gun control advocates, Perry is correct. There is a reason all of these shootings happen in gun-free zones - it is not random coincidence. Be it Lanza, Holmes, Columbine, Alexis, Hassan, or whoever wherever, those who want to kill as many people as possible choose areas where they can expect the least resistance.
One comment: "Houser legally purchased the gun used Thursday at a pawn shop in Alabama last year, according to law enforcement officials. He had previously been denied a pistol due to a prior arrest and reports of domestic violence."
If one follows the link to ABC News, it does not say that Houser bought the pistol legally:
"The gun that was used to kill two people and wound nine others in the horrific movie theater shooting in Louisiana was purchased legally in Alabama, police said Friday." Further down the page it says' "Police did not immediately say who made the purchase."
If he had previously been denied, then it is not likely he bought it legally, but that someone else bought it for him to circumvent the law. That is illegal - known as a "straw purchase". So the purchase was not legal if that is the case. UPDATE: Apparently it is now being confirmed that he purchased the firearm. Of course, if he had been denied previously then he should have been denied again - especially after an involuntary commitment. Clearly a failure in the NICS system. So we don't need more background checks - we need accurate reliable ones.
None of that changes the fact that, although what he is saying is blasphemy to the gun control advocates, Perry is correct. There is a reason all of these shootings happen in gun-free zones - it is not random coincidence. Be it Lanza, Holmes, Columbine, Alexis, Hassan, or whoever wherever, those who want to kill as many people as possible choose areas where they can expect the least resistance.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Liberalism - sadly - has become a confused ideology living in a fairy land.
I start this by reminding the reader that I was accused of being a liberal throughout the terms of George W. Bush. I voted for Barack Obama twice. I never voted for George W. Bush. I have no party affiliation. Of course, for the last 8 years I have been called a conservative because I openly criticize Obama. I have not changed.
I believed in the promise of Obama, the notion that he would be different, his promise to be the most transparent president ever. I believed, even as others protested otherwise, that he was prepared for the task and would govern all people. It is clear to anyone who reads this (probably only me) that I was wrong, that the illusion was sufficient to hide the nature of the man. His idea of transparency has been to periodically take to social media to answer stupid questions and post videos of himself walking the dog just like ordinary folks. In truth his administration has been one of deception, manipulation, obfuscation, and corruption.
As revelations have shown over his terms - Edward Snowden as both evidence and an example - not only has spying on the American people continued and expanded, but the penalties for being a whistle-blower have become even more severe. After all of it, a picture of Obama emerges as an egotistical man who believes so strongly in the rectitude of his own ideology (adequately described by himself and his history as a community organizer), his own vision of the future, that anyone who does not hold that view is considered evil, is worthy of punishment, of belittling, of whatever consequences can be levied. As a consequence of that approach, the country has been greatly divided along many lines. He envisions this as a war and has, thus created one. As stridently as he avoids confrontation overseas, he seemingly relishes it at home. The most obvious examples of how the country might divide began to manifest as early as election night in 2008, when African-Americans celebrated in the streets, some proclaiming that the white folks would pay now that there was a black president. He eventually took on that role.
As a Bush critic, I always noted that he survived by telling Americans who to fear among their fellow citizens (for us or against us). To his credit this was never along racial lines and upon his election, I saw no whites in the street hailing the coming revenge on some other group (What I did see is some throwing eggs at his motorcade). Bush got his way on many issues by alluding to a cosmic fight between good and evil. Most often, evil was an outside influence, not within our borders. That part of this puzzle has changed with Obama.
Obama has made this into an art-form, but used it to foment change within our own borders. We no longer have disagreements that lead to discussion, we see a belittling, demonization, and delegitimization of disagreement. One might even characterize the response to dissent as "prissy" and "how dare you" (another attitude echoed by his followers). But what is even more troubling is the double-standard we see when it comes to public statements about dissent.
White cop, black youth. Quite frankly, kill or be killed. Ferguson, protests, riots, looting, arson. Rightly, the president and others note that not all protesters are violent, not all are looting and burning, so we cannot generalize to the whole group. Let's be clear, the group was black. That means nothing to me except when we compare it to the response to an all-white group of protesters.
So, when one lone psychopathic white boy commits a tragic heinous murder, a white boy who happened to wear or display a confederate flag (the US flag too, BTW), it means all displays of the flag and all who display the flag are racist in nature and probably potential killers. That flag means nothing to me. Next step, when a group of whites protest the (black) president by flying the confederate battle flag, it means they are racists. I already know the answer to this, but will ask it anyway - if our president was white and attempted to take away this symbol after the Charleston massacre, then the same group held the same protest, would it be racist [I know the liberals are saying yes because they have to]. Point is, their message is "You want this? Well, here it is, come and take it!" - no matter who you are. But it is convenient for the president and liberals to demonize any resistance to Obama and his ideas as racism because that invalidates the criticism in their eyes and the eyes of many Americans.
I will go out on a very long limb and predict something else that demonstrates this double standard. Although the evil that is Dylan Roof and what he did has been transferred to the shoulder of every southern white male gun owner, I will bet that the evil that is the Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez will not be laid upon Kuwaitis or Muslims (gun owners probably). And it should not be, but neither should it have been with Roof. Still, there is a vision of the world, an agenda designed to fit that vision and a narrative designed to fit that agenda. And that narrative needs to vilify some people and exonerate others to serve the agenda and vision. Therein lies the divisive nature of this administration. In order to continue to build the world its leader considers right and true - even if many Americans do not - he must create existential enemies of the disbelievers among his own populace, set them one against the other. Why are white killers devils and Muslim killers unfortunate? (Andrea Mitchell made sure to ask one of Abdulazeez's former classmates today if he had been into guns in school and if he had ever suffered discrimination, clearly trying to find something or someone to blame for his heinous act).
Sadly, Obama's followers revel in this and join him in it enthusiastically, much as some Bush followers did, but only as a prelude to the master. They seem to take great glee in the fact that they can now think of themselves as "in charge" and consider how to punish those they have seen as their overlords. Of course, if there were overlords who wronged people of color, female gender, or differing sexual orientations, we also have to generalize those "isms" to all white, male, heterosexuals. All deserve to be punished, oft-times if only for the sins of ancestors, sins they themselves may not have committed. Balance can only be sought in retribution (which breeds retribution).
What is missed by these people and their idols is the fact that when you make enemies of people to shun them, to bolster yourself within your group, they will, of necessity, have to consider you an enemy as well. So the cycle of retribution continues. Some liberals seem to take great pleasure in their sense that they have the upper hand, in the possibility that those they have objectified as objects of evil, of their hate, might be imprisoned, killed, subjected to other humiliation and, in a figurative sense, neutered and subjugated, made to heel. I have seen many comments on the grand, faceless, and anonymous world of social media where some have drooled at the prospect of exacting their "revenge" for all the slights they feel they have suffered - because it is always someone else's fault even when it is not.
There's a glitch with this that they do not seem able to process. That is, when you make enemies you become an enemy. Some folks don't heel. Those protesting Obama with Confederate battle flags - they are not necessarily racists, but they come from the oppositional stock that founded this country and seceded from the Union when they felt abused (perhaps read some history?). They do not like to be told what to do, that's why their historical ancestors fought a war of independence against the largest and best equipped army of its day. They are waving that flag, not because the president is black, but because he and his followers think that they can simply wipe away the rights that others cherish. waving that flag is their way of saying "This will not do. We will not comply. If you want respect, give respect." As I saw one commenter say, it may have been better if they had simply given him the finger, but either way they are saying "F*** you!". Guess what - it is their right, just as expressing your outrage is yours.
So they think they can take away people's thoughts and feelings by stripping them of symbols they do not like. They think that they are the only ones for whom those symbols have meaning. They think people will be cowed into submission by such harassment, by belittling, by bullying (its okay to bully if liberals do it). They think if they could somehow pass gun laws that mirror those in the countries they hold up as shining examples, Australia or Great Britain, by magically rewriting the constitution that the rest of populace will comply. Kind of like "Well, because we said so!" Perhaps they hope their "enemies" won't comply so they can watch Police and Military forces invade homes and take away flags, guns, ammunition, and their owners (I have seen some say this on social media). They think they are ready for a fight, for the bloodshed such an event might bring. They think that, somehow, they will be immune to it, that it will not have a wider effect. Yes, they actually believe this and are willing to court such chaos to prove themselves right. Such proof was never the point of this nation.
Yes, Liberal-land is indeed fairy land, a place where they envision their power as absolute, their wishes as commands and their fellows as willing to be subjugated to their demands.
I fear this does not end well.
Seven Companies That Invite Criminals Into Their Stores
Ah, sometimes I wonder why I read Huffington Post! I suppose for the same reason that many of my FB contacts (not all of them friends) are anti-gun liberals and I continue to read their drivel and shake my head. I prefer to hone my thoughts and thinking skills by reading contrary points of view. That in itself sets me apart from those liberals.
But I felt I had to mock Huffington's title for this article ("7 Companies That Don't Want Guns In Their Stores").
Let's see:
Tragedy number 1 on today's list - 4 marines killed by a shooter in Tennessee (at this point, no need to note his apparent cultural/religious affiliation). Take a good look at the picture of the front door of the recruiting station that he shot-up. See the "No Guns Allowed" sign? You can't shoot at that! Venue 2, where the tragic killings took place - you do know that military personnel (other than military police) are prohibited from carry on military installations, right? Good enough to carry and kill in foreign lands, our "heroes", yet not trustworthy at home. But that didn't stop Nidal Hasan or Aaron Alexis did it? How can that be?
Recent tragedy number 2: Charleston - 9 parishioners murdered by a young psychopath who was only armed because the liberal-cherished NICS failed. The pastor an anti-gun activist in a state where church carry is illegal without pastor permission. No, that does not mean they or anyone deserved to die. But that didn't stop Dylan Roof did it?
Recent News: Aurora shooter found guilty! Theater banned guns. Didn't stop James Holmes, did it?
Common elements in target selection? Do I need to explain it?
Okay then - but first, to some of the mistaken details in the Huffpost article:
1. Whataburger did not ban guns in their restaurants - they banned open carry. So that is lie number one. they banned the open display because they felt it might hurt the delicate sensibilities of their customers. They're probably wrong, but their right. But, as the article notes, they "asked people not to open carry". That falls far short of saying they "don't want guns in their stores." If I were them I would correct Huffington's mistaken report, before it hurts their business with concealed carriers - especially in Southern States (well, hell, I am probably the only one of us reading HP anyway).
2. Chipotle: As Huffpost itself noted, Chipotle said "The display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers." Not all guns - open display. Lie number 2.
Skip to 5, since Panera and Sonic both seemingly ask customers not to bring any guns to their stores.
5. Chili's: "We recognize that the open carry of firearms creates an uncomfortable atmosphere and is not permitted under many local liquor laws. So, we kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue.” So, they ask customers not to open carry - not to refrain from bringing guns, but open display of them. More misdirection.
So, blah, blah, blah, 3 of the seven listed specifically mention open carry, not simply "guns". And what they are also saying is that they don't want gun owners business. But all of this, while it demonstrates Huffington's tendency toward misdirection and hyperbole, misses the critical point.
Inconvenient Truth 1. Huffington and other anti-gun folks, including these businesses, do not realize that, as noted above, such requests affect only those who are not criminals, who have no criminal intent, people who "follow rules". How many times must it be said - a criminal bent on armed robbery or worse will not be deterred by a law, a sign, or a corporate request that his gun be left outside. Criminals, by definition, do not follow rules (DUH!).
Inconvenient Truth 2. Anti-gun folks also deny what has been shown time and again - that the greater the number of lawful carriers of firearms in a locale, the less violent crime - even more convincingly, longitudinally. Concealed carry has grown over the last 8 years (especially in recent years as the current administration has threatened to curtail 2A rights) , while violent crime has declined (of course, they will not tell you that, preferring to focus on individual tragedies committed by the mentally unwell). Criminals are brazen, but not brave and not stupid. They prefer to ply their illegal trade with as little risk as possible - for the most part, more benefit for as little cost as possible (although more and more of them will kill for no reason, whether appeased or not). That is why your grandma walking the street is a higher probability target than a six foot 250 pound man (unless he is a member of an opposing gang). Wonder why police in uniform are rarely assaulted except when trying to effect arrest, why most criminals run from them if they can; Hint - they are clearly armed and prepared - a criminal knows he may get shot. Criminals seek a disparity of force in their favor, as do all predators, and they work to get it by being callous, cold and uncaring (lots of things we could say about a culture that breeds them) and having increased numbers, larger size or carrying weapons - especially in an area where no law-abiding person will be carrying them.
Inconvenient Corollary 3. Hence, businesses that advertise to criminals that "good law-abiding folks will not be able to defend themselves here" are sending out invitations to them to commit crime. Be it Aurora CO, Newtown CT, Chattanooga TN, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Charleston, Washington Naval Yard, and so on, it is clear that those who want to kill choose to hunt where they are assured disparity of force (firepower) and violence (against helpless unprepared victims). And with the shooting in Tennessee, it also seems clear that it is not only criminals but terrorists who are aware that they can successfully kill with impunity and die a martyr by choosing such areas. For the terrorist, the only measures of success are body count and dying a glorious death in achieving it. Their only fear is dying a failure. What better hunting ground than one where resistance will be minimal.
The Silly Answer: Of course, liberal anti-gun folks will say that if we ban all guns, then the bad guys would not have them to do their dirty work. The short answer to that is the drug war. Years of trying to enforce prohibition of drug use has lead only to capitulation on some fronts (e.g., marijuana) and moves to reduce penalties since it is clear that use will continue despite them. If we, as a nation, cannot stem the tide of illegal drugs into this country then it is foolish to think we could possibly prevent a black market for firearms coming across the borders. So only those who live in that criminal subculture or are willing to do business in it (e.g., terrorists) will have guns. I cannot see how that fixes the problem. Paris has strict gun laws that did not protect those at Charlie Hebdo. Norway has strict gun laws, yet Anders Breivek succeeded in his large-scale massacre.
It is time to give up fantasy solutions and rose-colored glasses about singing kumbaya as a way to wish away the cruel realities of our current world. Be prepared - or not.
But I felt I had to mock Huffington's title for this article ("7 Companies That Don't Want Guns In Their Stores").
Let's see:
Tragedy number 1 on today's list - 4 marines killed by a shooter in Tennessee (at this point, no need to note his apparent cultural/religious affiliation). Take a good look at the picture of the front door of the recruiting station that he shot-up. See the "No Guns Allowed" sign? You can't shoot at that! Venue 2, where the tragic killings took place - you do know that military personnel (other than military police) are prohibited from carry on military installations, right? Good enough to carry and kill in foreign lands, our "heroes", yet not trustworthy at home. But that didn't stop Nidal Hasan or Aaron Alexis did it? How can that be?
Recent tragedy number 2: Charleston - 9 parishioners murdered by a young psychopath who was only armed because the liberal-cherished NICS failed. The pastor an anti-gun activist in a state where church carry is illegal without pastor permission. No, that does not mean they or anyone deserved to die. But that didn't stop Dylan Roof did it?
Recent News: Aurora shooter found guilty! Theater banned guns. Didn't stop James Holmes, did it?
Common elements in target selection? Do I need to explain it?
Okay then - but first, to some of the mistaken details in the Huffpost article:
1. Whataburger did not ban guns in their restaurants - they banned open carry. So that is lie number one. they banned the open display because they felt it might hurt the delicate sensibilities of their customers. They're probably wrong, but their right. But, as the article notes, they "asked people not to open carry". That falls far short of saying they "don't want guns in their stores." If I were them I would correct Huffington's mistaken report, before it hurts their business with concealed carriers - especially in Southern States (well, hell, I am probably the only one of us reading HP anyway).
2. Chipotle: As Huffpost itself noted, Chipotle said "The display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers." Not all guns - open display. Lie number 2.
Skip to 5, since Panera and Sonic both seemingly ask customers not to bring any guns to their stores.
5. Chili's: "We recognize that the open carry of firearms creates an uncomfortable atmosphere and is not permitted under many local liquor laws. So, we kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue.” So, they ask customers not to open carry - not to refrain from bringing guns, but open display of them. More misdirection.
So, blah, blah, blah, 3 of the seven listed specifically mention open carry, not simply "guns". And what they are also saying is that they don't want gun owners business. But all of this, while it demonstrates Huffington's tendency toward misdirection and hyperbole, misses the critical point.
Inconvenient Truth 1. Huffington and other anti-gun folks, including these businesses, do not realize that, as noted above, such requests affect only those who are not criminals, who have no criminal intent, people who "follow rules". How many times must it be said - a criminal bent on armed robbery or worse will not be deterred by a law, a sign, or a corporate request that his gun be left outside. Criminals, by definition, do not follow rules (DUH!).
Inconvenient Truth 2. Anti-gun folks also deny what has been shown time and again - that the greater the number of lawful carriers of firearms in a locale, the less violent crime - even more convincingly, longitudinally. Concealed carry has grown over the last 8 years (especially in recent years as the current administration has threatened to curtail 2A rights) , while violent crime has declined (of course, they will not tell you that, preferring to focus on individual tragedies committed by the mentally unwell). Criminals are brazen, but not brave and not stupid. They prefer to ply their illegal trade with as little risk as possible - for the most part, more benefit for as little cost as possible (although more and more of them will kill for no reason, whether appeased or not). That is why your grandma walking the street is a higher probability target than a six foot 250 pound man (unless he is a member of an opposing gang). Wonder why police in uniform are rarely assaulted except when trying to effect arrest, why most criminals run from them if they can; Hint - they are clearly armed and prepared - a criminal knows he may get shot. Criminals seek a disparity of force in their favor, as do all predators, and they work to get it by being callous, cold and uncaring (lots of things we could say about a culture that breeds them) and having increased numbers, larger size or carrying weapons - especially in an area where no law-abiding person will be carrying them.
Inconvenient Corollary 3. Hence, businesses that advertise to criminals that "good law-abiding folks will not be able to defend themselves here" are sending out invitations to them to commit crime. Be it Aurora CO, Newtown CT, Chattanooga TN, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Charleston, Washington Naval Yard, and so on, it is clear that those who want to kill choose to hunt where they are assured disparity of force (firepower) and violence (against helpless unprepared victims). And with the shooting in Tennessee, it also seems clear that it is not only criminals but terrorists who are aware that they can successfully kill with impunity and die a martyr by choosing such areas. For the terrorist, the only measures of success are body count and dying a glorious death in achieving it. Their only fear is dying a failure. What better hunting ground than one where resistance will be minimal.
The Silly Answer: Of course, liberal anti-gun folks will say that if we ban all guns, then the bad guys would not have them to do their dirty work. The short answer to that is the drug war. Years of trying to enforce prohibition of drug use has lead only to capitulation on some fronts (e.g., marijuana) and moves to reduce penalties since it is clear that use will continue despite them. If we, as a nation, cannot stem the tide of illegal drugs into this country then it is foolish to think we could possibly prevent a black market for firearms coming across the borders. So only those who live in that criminal subculture or are willing to do business in it (e.g., terrorists) will have guns. I cannot see how that fixes the problem. Paris has strict gun laws that did not protect those at Charlie Hebdo. Norway has strict gun laws, yet Anders Breivek succeeded in his large-scale massacre.
It is time to give up fantasy solutions and rose-colored glasses about singing kumbaya as a way to wish away the cruel realities of our current world. Be prepared - or not.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
"Unarmed man"?
When are people going to get the idea that when several LEO have their guns trained on you and are commanding you to put your hands up, that is the time to put your hands up (Story here).
That is not the time to be explaining, to be nonchalant in your actions and certainly not to make sudden moves that might include reaching for your belt line. LEO have no intention of being shot if they can help it.
Now let's be honest, this man did not need to be shot. A well-trained (assumption) officer could have been prepared to move off line if a gun had appeared and taken his shot when he saw it. LEO should be well-trained and do need to accept that there is some risk inherent in their job.
But folks - now that you see this - if they have their guns trained on you and are giving verbal commands, follow them!
That is not the time to be explaining, to be nonchalant in your actions and certainly not to make sudden moves that might include reaching for your belt line. LEO have no intention of being shot if they can help it.
Now let's be honest, this man did not need to be shot. A well-trained (assumption) officer could have been prepared to move off line if a gun had appeared and taken his shot when he saw it. LEO should be well-trained and do need to accept that there is some risk inherent in their job.
But folks - now that you see this - if they have their guns trained on you and are giving verbal commands, follow them!
Thursday, July 2, 2015
And Jim Jeffries is wrong, too (no surprise)
Not so very long ago - an hour or so - I noted that Huffpost was giving Jim Jeffries, a little known and deservedly-so, unfunny Australian comedian, a big sloppy kiss, thinking he was somehow mister clever. It was noted that he said:
""Really? Is that why they are called assault rifles? Is it? I have never heard of these fucking protection rifles you speak of.""
I already noted how he uses his own neologism to make his point, taking a name made up by liberals then using it to attack others. No surprise there.
But, just for the hell of it, suppose that a long rifle of the type that numb nuts is calling an "assault rifle" were to be used in defense of self and family?
Well perhaps, if dumbass can read, he would read about this event that just happened two days ago (Las Vegas Man Uses Iconic Rifle To Successfully Defend Family During Home Invasion).
Excerpts:
"Las Vegas Metropolitan Police were called to the scene of a home invasion Tuesday morning, only to discover that a 23-year-old resident armed with a semi-automatic AKM had already driven off both home invaders, saving the lives of his mother and three siblings."
Just so clueless knows, a semi-automatic AKM is what he and his idiot brethren call an "assault rifle".
Next:
"Despite cries from gun control supporters, agenda-driven politicians, and a smug-but-ignorant media that intermediate caliber, semi-automatic carbines are “weapons of war” with “no legitimate civilian use,” firearms such as the AKM and the ubiquitous AR-15 are in fact excellent home defense firearms, and are the preferred home defense firearm of many tactical firearm trainers and expert shooters."
So jerk-off - your joke is only funny because you are stupid. Some folks are not willing to sit by naked and st there"...staring at the window waiting for machetes to come through" and assault them and threaten to rape their friends. Some folks prefer to stand up to such people. It is up to you if you want to be helpless - it is not up to you to decide that for me.
That is why you will always be a target and prey. If they come through my window, they may win, they may not, but I will be on my feet, while while you go down on your knees.
""Really? Is that why they are called assault rifles? Is it? I have never heard of these fucking protection rifles you speak of.""
I already noted how he uses his own neologism to make his point, taking a name made up by liberals then using it to attack others. No surprise there.
But, just for the hell of it, suppose that a long rifle of the type that numb nuts is calling an "assault rifle" were to be used in defense of self and family?
Well perhaps, if dumbass can read, he would read about this event that just happened two days ago (Las Vegas Man Uses Iconic Rifle To Successfully Defend Family During Home Invasion).
Excerpts:
"Las Vegas Metropolitan Police were called to the scene of a home invasion Tuesday morning, only to discover that a 23-year-old resident armed with a semi-automatic AKM had already driven off both home invaders, saving the lives of his mother and three siblings."
Just so clueless knows, a semi-automatic AKM is what he and his idiot brethren call an "assault rifle".
Next:
"Despite cries from gun control supporters, agenda-driven politicians, and a smug-but-ignorant media that intermediate caliber, semi-automatic carbines are “weapons of war” with “no legitimate civilian use,” firearms such as the AKM and the ubiquitous AR-15 are in fact excellent home defense firearms, and are the preferred home defense firearm of many tactical firearm trainers and expert shooters."
So jerk-off - your joke is only funny because you are stupid. Some folks are not willing to sit by naked and st there"...staring at the window waiting for machetes to come through" and assault them and threaten to rape their friends. Some folks prefer to stand up to such people. It is up to you if you want to be helpless - it is not up to you to decide that for me.
That is why you will always be a target and prey. If they come through my window, they may win, they may not, but I will be on my feet, while while you go down on your knees.
Say what? Jim Jeffries is a moron
So Huffpost is reveling in what they consider a takedown of arguments in support of gun rights by some Australian (now there's someone to critique our gun laws) comedian I have never heard of. I am purposely not going to link it here because it is so stupid and only a fervently anti-gun media source could consider it either effective or newsworthy. If you really want to read it, you can find it. I started to skip it because I knew what I would find.
But to share just one of the "gems":
"Jim Jeffries' comedy act does something dry statistics can't. "The main one is that I need it for protection. I need it to protect me. I need to protect my family," said Jeffries. "Really? Is that why they are called assault rifles? Is it? I have never heard of these fucking protection rifles you speak of.""
This is a lot like the old Dick Cheney approach that folks like Huffpost hated only a few years ago. You know, Dick (or a crony) would say something in one media source and then cite it in another as if that meant it was reasonable and had broad support from other sources. Classic misdirection.
Well, whoever the hell Jim Jeffries is uses his own sleight of hand here - as only good liberal anti-gun folk can do. How? They are the ones who coined the term "assault rifles". And having created and clung to that moniker, he now suggests that it is part of the firearms community's lexicon. We do not call them that, he does (they do). He might as well do a bit on life insurance; it doesn't insure your life, it pays people after you die. Perhaps it should be death insurance (someone probably already did that one).
Well - Just to share one more tidbit before I leave this to the dustbin of bullshit:
""I had a break in in Manchester, England where I was tied up. I had my head cut. They threatened to rape my girlfriend. They came through the window with a machete and hammer. Americans always go, Imagine if you had a gun. Alright, I was naked at the time. I wasn't wearing my holster. I was staring at the window waiting for machetes to come through. What world do you live in where you are waiting constantly fuckin' ready?""
So, since he was/is unprepared - no alarm system, no hardened perimeter, no 911 call, no available defensive possibilities (not even a "protection rifle" - smart ass), that means the rest of us are just as stupid, useless, helpless, and worthless as he is. Your girlfriend should kick you ass to the curb for failing to protect her. What world? I live in a world where assholes with machetes or worse might come through at any minute - so do you, you just choose to ignore it. I am not living in your fairy world where you think magical pixie dust will protect you, where bad shit doesn't happen. So, you were better off delusional and unprepared? Even if being armed would rarely help (which I would not concede), was it better to be unarmed and helpless? Dickhead! They came through the window and you watched them, you let them - you seem to think you had no choice. That's what living in Manchester is all about, I suppose - helplessness. I read this, consider what I would do if it happened (most of us envision these scenarios all the time because we live in the real world) and watching and doing nothing is not among those options. I guess we should all aspire to be a helpless POS like you so we can whine later about those who prefer not to be sheep.
Why am I not surprised that Huffpost would celebrate this neutered moron.
But to share just one of the "gems":
"Jim Jeffries' comedy act does something dry statistics can't. "The main one is that I need it for protection. I need it to protect me. I need to protect my family," said Jeffries. "Really? Is that why they are called assault rifles? Is it? I have never heard of these fucking protection rifles you speak of.""
This is a lot like the old Dick Cheney approach that folks like Huffpost hated only a few years ago. You know, Dick (or a crony) would say something in one media source and then cite it in another as if that meant it was reasonable and had broad support from other sources. Classic misdirection.
Well, whoever the hell Jim Jeffries is uses his own sleight of hand here - as only good liberal anti-gun folk can do. How? They are the ones who coined the term "assault rifles". And having created and clung to that moniker, he now suggests that it is part of the firearms community's lexicon. We do not call them that, he does (they do). He might as well do a bit on life insurance; it doesn't insure your life, it pays people after you die. Perhaps it should be death insurance (someone probably already did that one).
Well - Just to share one more tidbit before I leave this to the dustbin of bullshit:
""I had a break in in Manchester, England where I was tied up. I had my head cut. They threatened to rape my girlfriend. They came through the window with a machete and hammer. Americans always go, Imagine if you had a gun. Alright, I was naked at the time. I wasn't wearing my holster. I was staring at the window waiting for machetes to come through. What world do you live in where you are waiting constantly fuckin' ready?""
So, since he was/is unprepared - no alarm system, no hardened perimeter, no 911 call, no available defensive possibilities (not even a "protection rifle" - smart ass), that means the rest of us are just as stupid, useless, helpless, and worthless as he is. Your girlfriend should kick you ass to the curb for failing to protect her. What world? I live in a world where assholes with machetes or worse might come through at any minute - so do you, you just choose to ignore it. I am not living in your fairy world where you think magical pixie dust will protect you, where bad shit doesn't happen. So, you were better off delusional and unprepared? Even if being armed would rarely help (which I would not concede), was it better to be unarmed and helpless? Dickhead! They came through the window and you watched them, you let them - you seem to think you had no choice. That's what living in Manchester is all about, I suppose - helplessness. I read this, consider what I would do if it happened (most of us envision these scenarios all the time because we live in the real world) and watching and doing nothing is not among those options. I guess we should all aspire to be a helpless POS like you so we can whine later about those who prefer not to be sheep.
Why am I not surprised that Huffpost would celebrate this neutered moron.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)