It wasn't that many years ago that a local woman was arrested and ostracized for driving away from the scene of an accident where she accidentally ran over three young children. Seems a terrible thing to do, to drive away from such an accident.
Of course the story is much more than this and the things one cannot say about how or why it happened need to be heard before one can really judge her.
Let's say it all starts with thinking about Reginald Denny. You know, a white truck driver in the "wrong" part of town when people are rioting over the Rodney King verdict. Wrong color, wrong place, wrong time, pulled out of his truck, beaten senseless, all because of his color. Now think about this girl in her early 20s, driving through the "wrong" part of town (as with Denny, "wrong" because, in the eyes of the residents "she" and her kind do not belong there). Any of us who have driven through there know this and also know that people cross this street with little regard for their own safety, daring you (regardless of color) to hit them. She accidentally and tragically hits a group of young children who are crossing the street, panics and drives away.
Now, read this story and tell me that she should have stopped to try to render aid. Sadly, in the minds of some people, there are no accidents and the response to any accident is prejudice, violence, and mayhem. And, as recent events clearly suggest, for them that is okay because it can all be justified. I can say with certainty that this would not happen in the "other" part of town. So what's up with that?
Until such time as this primitive impulse to mob action and revenge can be quelled, there will be no peace and people will feel compelled to take sides and defend themselves. Until that can happen, I know I would not stop in the "wrong" part of town, not because I value anyone less than myself, but because I know I am valued less there, where I am seen as nothing more than a representative of my race who is to be assaulted, to be an object for revenge over real, imagined, current or past wrongs I did not commit. Perhaps some will see this as cultural elitism, that I am suggesting that certain cultures and their norms are disruptive to good order. Perhaps they are right.
Equality implies two sides of the equation; it does not mean one group falls back to allow another to occupy the field.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
But it will lead some to be intimidated - and foolish!
To those of us who have watched the liberal insanity of the past few years, it is almost a certainty that the response to today's tragic shootings in Ottawa Canada, regardless of the rhetoric to the contrary, will be cowering in fear and cries for disarmament.
Despite the strong words of the Canadian Prime Minister: "This will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts and those of our national security agencies to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats" one can have little doubt that anti-self-defense forces will move quickly to condemn the gun that was used by this terrorist, not the individual involved. We can safely bet that his religion will be absolved of all guilt in favor of blaming the tool he used in service of his ideology (of course they will not blame the car for the recent attack on two soldiers in Quebec). Guns are fair game, but ideology that devalues the life of all but its devotees is off-limits, untouchable.
Some will point to the tragic killing of a soldier at the War Memorial to suggest that an armed populace would not help prevent such attacks (it is not clear to me that this soldier was armed). However, it was clearly an armed "Sergeant-at Arms" that ended this siege on the Parliament building; a good guy with a gun! Imagine that!
Nonetheless, there will be those who call for new levels of gun control, using this event to forward their agenda in contradiction to the facts on the ground. Once again, these people will fantasize that somehow a law that would forbid this terrorist from having a gun would make it so, would be more potent than the laws that forbid him from killing another.
Quite frankly, I and many others, would prefer the option to stand and fight over running and cowering. Don't get me wrong - those of you who prefer to be unarmed, to run and hide and pray that you are not a victim, are welcome to do so. What you are not welcome to do, and I will not let you do, is disarm me so that I have no choice but to join you in your terror and helplessness. I would rather die defending myself and others than live knowing I did nothing. I could not live the years I have left, knowing that I survived by hiding while others died.
Some of us were born, bred and built to go out on our feet, not on our knees.
Despite the strong words of the Canadian Prime Minister: "This will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts and those of our national security agencies to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats" one can have little doubt that anti-self-defense forces will move quickly to condemn the gun that was used by this terrorist, not the individual involved. We can safely bet that his religion will be absolved of all guilt in favor of blaming the tool he used in service of his ideology (of course they will not blame the car for the recent attack on two soldiers in Quebec). Guns are fair game, but ideology that devalues the life of all but its devotees is off-limits, untouchable.
Some will point to the tragic killing of a soldier at the War Memorial to suggest that an armed populace would not help prevent such attacks (it is not clear to me that this soldier was armed). However, it was clearly an armed "Sergeant-at Arms" that ended this siege on the Parliament building; a good guy with a gun! Imagine that!
Nonetheless, there will be those who call for new levels of gun control, using this event to forward their agenda in contradiction to the facts on the ground. Once again, these people will fantasize that somehow a law that would forbid this terrorist from having a gun would make it so, would be more potent than the laws that forbid him from killing another.
Quite frankly, I and many others, would prefer the option to stand and fight over running and cowering. Don't get me wrong - those of you who prefer to be unarmed, to run and hide and pray that you are not a victim, are welcome to do so. What you are not welcome to do, and I will not let you do, is disarm me so that I have no choice but to join you in your terror and helplessness. I would rather die defending myself and others than live knowing I did nothing. I could not live the years I have left, knowing that I survived by hiding while others died.
Some of us were born, bred and built to go out on our feet, not on our knees.
Monday, October 20, 2014
It supports the RKBA, too!
Yes, numbnuts, it may be that the equal protection does that - certainly some will debate the inference that the equal protection clause extends to gay marriage. However, it is clear and unequivocal that the Second Amendment confirms and protects the right to keep and bear arms - no inference needed.
So how about we uphold the clearly written rights that the constitution protects before we start making inferences? Support all of it, not the parts you like.
So how about we uphold the clearly written rights that the constitution protects before we start making inferences? Support all of it, not the parts you like.
Monday, September 29, 2014
"Mike the Gun Guy?" Really?
Ah, Huffpost and your wonderful, if lacking in insight and intelligence, commentators! This one calls himself "Mike the Gun Guy". Not sure who elected him - probably people who liked his opinion.
For instance, this piece of drivel regarding the FBI report I wrote about last week:
"The fact that 21 of these shooting situations were terminated by unarmed civilians as opposed to a single incident that ended because a good guy had a gun might come as a big surprise to the NRA..."
You see, what partisans like this fail to recognize is that the vast majority of these events happen in places where guns are either illegal for "common" civilians to possess (e.g., schools, military bases) or where they are not allowed as a function of private property owners' prohibitions. You know the kind of places that people like "Mike" and Moms Demand Disarmament are intent on expanding around the nation. Hence, they have to jump through hoops to make their case. So he parses things, like suggesting many of the locales for these events were "not readily understood to be gun-free zones". "Readily understood"? So he really thinks that a private property owner or an employer has right to set policy and no effect on the carry of a firearm in their establishment or workplace? Does he realize how many employees have been fired for carrying (and in some cases, using) concealed firearms in their place of business against company policy? So would he say, in this case, that Starbucks, Target, and others are not understood to be "gun-free" zones, that people who typically carry may choose not go go there and spend their money? If not, then why all the action to try to force such places to adopt such counter-productive policies?
The reason these events go on as long as they do, the reason that so many are not halted by police, but by the shooter, is because people like "The Gun Guy" have worked hard to prohibit armed self-defense in these areas, whether it is by statute or assertion or a property owners' rights. They do not want people to be able to defend themselves with a firearm there and then they use the lack of such defenses in past events as some kind of bizarre evidence. Well each person who dies between the time an armed civilian response could have stopped the attack and then it ends is on you.
Here is the list of the four events with the highest "body counts". Notice any similarity?
■ Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado:
70 (12 killed, 58 wounded), July 20, 2012.
■ Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia:
49 (32 killed, 17 wounded), April 16, 2007.
12
■ Ft. Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center in Ft. Hood, Texas:
45 (13 killed, 32 wounded), November 5, 2009.
■ Sandy Hook Elementary School and a residence in Newtown, Connecticut:
29 (27 killed, 2 wounded), December 14, 2012.
- The Cinemark theater was posted "no firearms allowed".
- VT had a no firearms on campus policy.
- Concealed carry is prohibited on US military bases.
- Sandy Hook was a "no firearm" zone.
Not much need to go on; Both law and business policy disarm many people every day. Active shooters usually look for defenseless victims. The conclusion is clear.
There is no data in this report to support the idea that, if an armed civilian were present, these events could not have been stopped sooner. You cannot prove such a thing. The fact that they were stopped in some cases by unarmed civilians is a godsend and a testament to a combative mindset and will to live even when disarmed and at great disadvantage. But it is not evidence that they might not have been halted even more expeditiously by an armed civilian "good guy". The fact that they were stopped by unarmed civilian "good guys" does not address this at all.
The study "The Gun Guy" cited by Kleck is really not relevant to a study of active shooter events; Kleck and Tark (2005) looked at rape completions and "Mike" really needs to read it again (and so do you if you are taking his summation as accurate), since he misrepresents its findings (and, of course, his audience at HuffPost is not likely to go read it). For instance, the summary of findings in the Abstract notes that: "...we believe that rape victims’ self-protection actions significantly reduce the probability of rape completion and do not significantly increase the risk of serious injury." The actions they are referring to are both forceful and non-forceful.
But beyond the usual motivated attention deficit and misrepresentation, there is also conceptual error; We are not talking about individual survival in this FBI report, as Kleck and Tark were in their study. So even if there was some data to suggest that "running away" was a better tactic, we are talking about stopping the killing and dying of an active shooter event, not just running away to leave others to die. I recognize that people like "Mike" and his readers are more focused on their own survival, saving their own worthless skin, than they are on stopping others dying. I can imagine he would have been jumping from the windows at Columbine while his students fended for themselves. I know that the idea of sacrifice, of heroism, is a foreign concept to them. The only killing they are motivated to thwart is their own.
So, here's a quote from a LEO in relation to the events at Vaughn Food Processing in Moore OK last week:
“This was not going to stop if he didn’t stop it. It could have gotten a lot worse,” Lewis said. “The threat had already stopped once we arrived.”
Damn good thing he didn't opt for The Gun Guy's strategy of saving his own skin. Damn good thing he was there and was armed.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)