Cheryl

Cheryl was a friend of mine. I didn't actually meet her until our acquaintance was very nearly at an end, and it was my loss.

Cheryl ran an internet/mail/phone Shooter Supply business in Plano, Texas. When SWMBO started competing in Open Class, I discovered that this was a whole lot more complicated than just having a pistol and some magazines. Magazine carriers, reloading components, dies, holsters -- there's a lot of stuff that you can't get "just anywhere".

My friend Dave (no relation to Cheryl, but A Friend) suggested I try Cheryl's company as a general source of stuff intrinsic to IPSC Competition ... this was late in 2001 ... and so I took the phone number and gave Cheryl a call. It cost a lot of money to start up with a new competition rig, and accessories, but it took a lot more time on the telephone to get the order completed.

In fact, it took about an hour, because when Cheryl got on the phone you were an instant "Good Ol' Boy". And there is more "Good Ol' Girl in Cheryl than in anyone else I've never met.

Actually, that's not entirely true, but that part comes later.

Over the years I would call Cheryl for some powder, magazines, whatever. I would work with some other local shooters and combine orders for (for example) Montana Gold Bullets. Cheryl would pay shipping on a ten-case order, and it didn't have to be a commercial address. I once received an order of 850+ pounds of jacketed MG bullets at the office of my university address. I pitied the poor U.S. Mail carrier who had to cart all that heavy stuff to the counter in the department office, but it was very convenient for me.

And when I went to Open Class, Chery supplied magazines, magazine carriers, extra Safariiland belts (inner and outer), some 'other stuff' and threw in a three-dollar dust cover for the pistol actually free.

During the course of our business, I discovered that (a) the fastest way to get an order in, and out the door, was to place the order by phone; and (b) that getting off the phone in less than an hour required the customer to be darn near rude.

In 2005, Chery and her husband organized the Shirley Skinner Memorial Make-A-Wish match in Waco, Texas. SWMBO and I went down there as guests of Dave (who also lives in Texas) and at the banquet at the end of the match we not only got to meet and chat with Cheryl, we shared a table with her, and with Dave, and with some other folk who were generally left, as SWMBO and I were, in the role of conversational audience. It's hard to tell whether it was Cheryl or Dave who had the most to say, and the most interesting ways to say it. Nobody complained. Everybody who knew both of them were charmed sockless and while the conversation was often overwhelming, it was rarely boring.

Things kinda went downhill for Cheryl from then on, it seems. A combination of personal, family, business and 'other' stuff grew too heavy for Cheryl to bear and one day she just took off.

Cheryl left the building.

Left suddenly, with no warning, and no word of where she was headed or what she was going to do. Cheryl was always a lot better with "Hello!" than she was with "Goodbye".

---

It has been several years since I last heard anything from or about Cheryl.

Tonite, I received a broadcast email from Dave.

Cheryl will be buried on Wednesday, September 2, 2009. Services are at St. Katherine's Church at (if I remember it correctly) Blanconia, Texas. Visitation will be the day before, 6-8 pm, Moore Funeral Home, Refugio, Texas.

I have no information on the circumstances of her passing.

I hope that Cheryl found peace in her life and that her passing was gentle. She was a friend and an effusive personality.

I've grown accustomed to missing her. My phone bill is a lot smaller, now that I can place in order in under an hour; but life is less interesting. Money is easier to replace than friends.

Goodbye, Cheryl. Someone should sing "Oh Danny Boy" for you. But if I tried it, you would laugh your ass off and Saint Peter would join in because he just couldn't help himself.

Stumble It!

Libya Uber All-o-Us

Two Swiss businessmen detained in Libya for over a year ago will be allowed to leave. - swissinfo
In July, 2008, Swiss police detained Hannibal Gaddafi (the son of Libyan Dictator Moammar Gaddafi) and his wife for having beaten two servants while the Gadaffi's were in Switzerland.

Two days later, the Gaddafi's were released on bail after having been charged with "inflicting physical injuries against the servants"; they immediately left the country. The two accusing servants dropped all charges after they were "compensated" (financially, presumably by persons acting in the interests of Gaddafi's son ... one wonders who that would be).

Later in July, 2008, two Swiss businessmen in Libia were arrested in Libya, where they were working, for "Visa violations". They were later released from jail, but their exit visas were canceled.

Later in 2008 Swiss airline flights are no longer allowed to land in Libya; Libya airlines reduce their flights to Switzerland.

In June, 2009 Libya withdrew most of its assets from Swiss banks.

On August 20, 2009, Swiss President President Hans-Rudolf Merz apologizes to Tripoli for the arrest. Within the week Libya "gives assurances" that the two Swiss Businessmen will be allowed to leave Libya. As of this date (August 27, 2009) they are still in Libya.

Golly, that must be embarrassing for the Swiss.

_____________________

Also in August, 2009, Libyan Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi -- the only man ever convicted and imprisoned for the 1988 Lockerbie airplane bombing applied for his release from the Scottish prison where he had been housed since 2001, on compassionate grounds. He is dying of cancer and is said to have only three months to live. "The 57-year-old was jailed in 2001 for the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988. "

The United States protested strongly objected and demanded of Great Britain and Scotland that al-Megrahi not be released, due to the enormity of his crime.

On August 20, 2009, "Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill explained his decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

He said the Libyan, who has terminal prostate cancer, would be allowed to return to his homeland ..." ... on "compassionate grounds".

President Obama personally and through a States Department spokesman stated that al-Megrahi "should not be given a hero's welcome." "Mr. Megrahi is a terrorist, not a hero. If Libya chooses to lionize him it will affect our future relationship."

That must have scared the shit out of the Libyans, because upon his arrival in Tripli al-Megrahi was given a hero's welcome in a "festive greeting by thousands" including Seif al-Islam el- Gadhafi, son of Libyan leader Libyan leader Moammar Gadhaf.

The latest word is that the prognosis of al-Megrahi's prostrate cancer may not be exactly that he has "only three months to live", which is one of the conditions for early release.

And suggestions that the doctor who gave the prognosis may have been employed by the Libyan government emerged in the report's notes. It said that a professor from Libya had been involved in Megrahi's care and the medical officer who wrote the report had been "working with clinicians from Libya over the past ten months".

Rumors abound that Great Britain encouraged the release as a step toward finalizing a favorable concession for Lybyan oil.
(See here for PJTV video)

Golly, that must have been embarrassing for the Americans.
______________________________________

Imagine, two of the greatest and strongest, and one of the richest, countries in the world being humiliated within days in two separate political coups by the same self-proclaimed dictator of a third-world country.

Leadership can do wonders, can't it?

Whatever happened to "No Blood for Oil"?

Sure wish we had a competent leader. I wouldn't even mind if he was a madman.

Oh, wait: he's just not competent.

Never mind.
_______________________________
UPDATE: August 29, 2009
It's just a bit of a Technical thingie, actually. I removed the "color=transparent" HTM code from the bottom quarter of the article, after I noticed that the finished product didn't show any black letters after the final block-quote. It actually comes to a somewhat smoother when it doesn't look like this:

No Blood for Oil

O

Stumble It!

SWMBO Report: Organizing Boston Mass First Trip

It has been three weeks since I last reported on SWMBO's battle with Lung Cancer, and today we see that she has been battling the Bureaucracy more than the Cancer.

I regret that report may have mislead readers to assume that her Oncologist was inept. To the contrary, he is diligent, professional, concerned, highly qualified and doing the best he can to find a cure for her health.

Unfortunately, this is a complex situation. He has gone as far as he can in offering ameliorative treatment for her condition, and now he is working hard (7 days a week, and on-call ) to provide her and all of his many patients with the best health care available. In a small town, (pop: 50,000) and without many Oncologists, his options are limited.

Fortunately, SWMBO (I've given up referring to her as "Sandie", which is her true name, because she has reverted to full Range Officer Mode) is not too shy to pick up the administrative baton and run with it.

The most recent occurrences incLude that (Boston) Massachussets General Hospital [MASS GENERAL]has determined, from the tissue samples sent to the, do not indicate that she is a candidate for the ALX type of lung cancer which has been successfully treated with drugs which are normally used in the treatment of another kind of cancer. (Skin Cancer?)

I had taken her to Saturday Lunch a couple of weeks ago when she received this news via a cell-phone call from her Oncologist, but while we were both very disappointed we managed to enjoy our lunch anyway.
___________________________

During the past two weeks, SWMBO has been talking to her Oncologist, the Genotyping facility and UC Irvine (Ca) and the MASS GENERAL administrative staff.

SWMBO eventually got word that she is "enrolled" in the Cancer Genotyping Experimental program there. She needs to get a lot of information (a CD of the scans, more test results, personal medical records, etc.) moved from the local Oncologist to MASS GENERAL.

During the past week and weekend, SWMBO has spent much time and effort attempting to gather the medical history information required to (a) complete qualification for the experimental program, and (b) provide as much medical information as necessary for MASS GENERAL to completely understand the technical nature of her affliction, as well as the pharmaceutical history of her treatment.

(The rest is going to be long and boring, but if you wish to read ... do please feel free to skip to to the bottom of the article.)

I know I'm going to get some of this wrong, but here's the background.

She doesn't know yet (well, not until today) whether MASS GENERAL has received all the information needed ... which should have been sent from her Oncologist last week.

This morning she tried to phone her Oncologist's office to determine whether all records had been sent. She couldn't get through, so at 8am she drove from her home to the Oncologist's office.

When she walked in the door, the Office Manager said something like "Oh Oh".

During the ensuing discussion SWMBO discovered that not all of the required information (including the CDs of the various electronic scans) had not been sent to MASS GENERAL.
She responded to the office manager thus:

"I'm tierd of hearing excuses an it should have been done by now. So I would appreciate you doing it now while I'm here."

This is Full-Power SWMBO, taking charge and getting things done. Which is why I have stopped referring to here as "Sandie". It's not as much a take-charge name as "She ... Who Must Be Obeyed".

By the end of the day, SWMBO had heard from the Oncologist's office to the effect that all required information has been sent to MASS GENERAL .

We don't know how long it will be before MASS GENERAL replies with a definite 'first meeting' date. What we do know is that the first appointment will probably be just gathering patient history, assessing the patient. SWMBO has expressed to me the thought that she will probably spend one day traveling (by airplane, from the West Coast to the East Coast), a second day with the east-coast doctors being interviewed, and a third day traveling back to the West Coast, and to Home.

Usually, it's no great problem to fly from Coast to Coast, even in these post-2011 days. But her local Oncologist requires that she travel with an "Oxygen Generator", even at the 30,000 feet altitude thes large passenger planes go.

The airlines aren't comfortable with that.

For each airline she boards with her Oxygen Generator, she must produce a letter from her doctor that the air generator are mandatory, she must have it within reach, and before and after her flight as long as she has no general access to supplemental oxygen.

That comes in the form of an "Oxygen Generator", as I have said before. It is available from the local supplier ... but they need 3 week s in advance notice to reserve it. They're not cheap.

And SWMBO didn't now when she needed to travel s she reserved it today.

Her appointment is for September 15 ... which she only just learned today, and only by dint of pushing the system.


So she'll leave on the 14th, stay overnight again at Boston with her sister (who is giving up her September 15 birthday celebration to accompany SWMBO to Massachussetts), make her appointment of the 15th, stay overnight again at Boston, and come back to Oregn on the 15th.

Hopefully, MASS GENERAL willl have completed all necessary test and interviews on the single day and she won't have to go back until MASS GENERAL has completed all testing and has found a cure for her disease.

We don't know if that will ever happen. We just wish and hope for it.

And if nothing can be found to stop the course of the cancer in her lungs ... well, it's better to know. Y'know? Not much we can do about it if the Doctors can find a cure, so we find ourselves clinging to the not-so-faint hope that they can find a cure.

Stumble It!

IPSC Haiku: Archive It

I just wrote an article which linked to "IPSC HAIKU", presented on Jeff Maass' webpage.

Ordinarily I would not steal material from another webpage, but since Jeff has decided to go out of the "IPSC LOADS" publication venture and other IPSC and shooting-related stuff (I don't see a link more recent than 2006), I decided to duplicate the material here, rather than to lose it. I don't feel too uncomfortable "stealing" this, because I contributed a significant amount of the material. Besides, it includes material from individuals who have been shooting IPSC and/or USPSA competition for a ong time, and you may recognize some of them.

If you have a new IPSC Haiku, I hope you will send it to me (see email addy at the bottom of the page) so I can continue to grow this innovative, interesting ... inane ... compilation.

I have a new host for my archival files, but until I learn how to use it I'll just post it here where I can always find it.

This is, as Jeff has stated, taken from a 2001 thread on the Unofficial IPSC List.
___________________________________

By Vince Pinto

Darth Alexakos
From the Dark Side of the Force
Has a great vision.

#########

Offer more options
To all the competitors
To broaden our sport.

#########

But keeping the old
Such as targets and scoring
Everybody smile.

#########

Long live the great Darth
And his faithful servant Vince
Woof, Woof, Woof, Click, Wheeze.

************************************************

By Tom Frenkel

Things are quiet here;
no one writes me anything;
I will take a nap.

************************************************

By Jim Boemler

The Geek do haiku
Better than you and me do
Nails the creepers too

#########

Powder saved for naught
Bullet is but a feather
One seventy four

#########

Nick and Vinny plot
Rob and Mikey do see red
We wait and wonder

#########

Scoring and targets
Conspiracy theories
Tempests in teacup

#########

Lots of lead downrange
More, reload, more, reload, more
Steel stands proud and tall

#########

Earthworm tumbles down
Bullets choke in the barrel
Pizza saves the day

#########

This haiku addicts us
Each phrase ridiculous
Two alpha it's gone

#########

Open-gun fire storm
Bullets whizzing everywhere
Targets unafraid

#########

Errant syllable
Embarrassment surrounds us
Time to hit the sack

#########

Targets with no heads
Scores different from before
Hell in handbasket

************************************************

By "Jerry The Geek"

Brown cardboard target
Needs two holes. I see just one.
A perfect double!

#########

Gravity Turner,
What did I do to you, eh?
That you fall so fast?

#########

Wind blows the steel down.
Range Equipment Malfunction!
I get a reshoot.

#########

The Safety Area ...
you can't handle ammo there.
Okay to dry-fire.

#########

Your SV Fails you.
Should have bought an STI.
Dave Skinner says so.

#########

Area One is
Having a tournament soon.
A Space Oddity!

#########

The 2001
RO Examination
Has a trick question.

#########

Rain drops, mud puddles,
Soggy cardboard bends its head.
Put on plastic bags.

#########

Exciting IP_SiC
Adrenaline flows like wine.
You are drunk with speed.

#########

Just one bullet hole?
Cry: "It's a Double, Dammit!"
RO will believe you.

#########

Eight shots through Port "A",
Make mandatory reload;
Else, procedural.

#########

Sunshine and gunsmoke
And the company of friends.
What more could you ask?

#########

You're getting tired of
Taping holes with masking tape?
Go buy a tape gun.

#########

The RKBA
Issues are a distraction:
We just want to shoot!

#########

Classifier is
Ten Percent over your class.
Too bad. Throw it out.

#########

Run fast, Grasshopper!
Double-tap all ten targets
In under twelve seconds.

************************************************

By Millard Ellingsworth

Quality unknown
Better relative to what?
More poems for you.

#########

Ten rounds only, frown.
Equipment race is over.
Must now learn to shoot!

#########

Level playing field:
I Don't Practice Anymore
What have you done, Bill?

#########

High Cap STI:
It's Kalifornia Dreaming!
Boring guns pass test.

#########

Fuzzy outline seen.
Sights wobble, pull trigger now!
Speed is what matters.

#########

Complaining endless.
Where to gather for big match.
Weather keeps them in.

#########

Les Baer poster boy,
Wise one says: move fast, shoot slow.
Scores continue climb.

#########

No window constrains.
Three iron bars bisect it.
A-zone has two holes!

#########

Optics for sissies
Or old men with failing eyes.
Limited best way.

#########

Focus shift too slow.
C-More so that I see more
Red dot shows the spot.

****************************************************

By Robert J. Woolley

Eight-shot revolver
Outlawed by the new rulebook
Better luck next time

#########

But does it matter?
Can't reload fast anyway.
Will make do with six.

****************************************************

By Gene Bray

shooting faster As
shooter saunters to new box
fast shots, ringing steel

****************************************************

By Scot Johnson

standing reload, damn
curse it, curse it, little plate
dodges lead tsunami

****************************************************

Stumble It!

Hitler Banned at Brian Enos forums.

From Youtube, courtesy of USPSAnonymous:
"Hitler's persistent picking at the IDPA, Revolver, and Airsoft crowd has forced the banhammer on his head at the Enos forums. He is not taking it very well..."

Many cleaver Geeks have picked up on this all-german-language movie scene and have provided their own running sub-titles, but this is the first I've seen which is centered on IDPA/IPSC/USPSA/Revolver/Glock subjects. And a fine job it is, as well.

This is the only video post to date on YouTube from USPSAnonymous, but I do sincerely hope he/she finds reason and opportunity to continue with this delightful start.

I can't list all my favorite lines here ... there are too many. But it's a fine start. (Kind of reminds me of "IPSC Haiku", only the 21'st century version and from a single source.)

I got here from a YouTube email telling me that "YouTube user theknightoflight2000 has just subscribed to your videos! YouTube Subscriptions allows a user to be notified when another user adds new videos." I went to the webpage and found that the subscriber content seemed to have little to do with IPSC/USPSA/Competition Shooting (etc.), and that he had only one video (Japanese martial cartoons, I can't even remember the correct terminology) and two subscribers. The second was USPSAnonymous. As soon as I get done writing about this, I'll go check out the other subscriber.

You might try that too. Its good to try new things. Even if you decide it doesn't suit your personal taste you will know something you didn't know before.

As as one of JerryTheGeek's Aphorisms go:
"It's Better to Know, than Not To Know"

Stumble It!

Blogger Memes

Bloggers who are on each other's Links List (eg: "Sidebar") are often so referenced because they share common cultures, values, attitudes or priorities.

As I went through my "Bloggers I Read Every Day" list tonite, I was struck by the number of quality posts and observations which I read more than once. It is as if one person found a seminal/original thought, and one or more people who like to read him/her was impressed by the profundity found there ... BING! There's another post on the same subject, often with comparable or exact quoted content.

Since I don't know how many of my small coterie of readers bookmark my favorite bloggers, I'll provide links for you and if you like what you see, you may be encouraged to also become regular readers of these Blogs.

(My only concern is that you will recognize that these people are much better than I at writing about "interesting things", and will tend to read them instead of me when time is short during an evening of reading. On the other hand, if you think it is a net advantage to you ... why not?)

Heavyweight vs Bantamweight
The first meme I noted was originally penned by Munchkin Wrangler.
This is not a blog I regularly read. Who am I kidding? This is the first time I have ever read the man's work. But it won't be the last. He goes on the Sidebar tonite.

"Marko" (?) wrote "A vote for gun control is a vote for Thunderdome", a reductio ad absurdum editorial piece exploring just why restrictions on the ability of lawful citizens to legally own a firearm moves us just one step closer to barbarism ... a la Mad Max.

This was not only cited on Michael Bane's Blog, (who also linked to the delightful ZootShooters Gazette, which I fully intend to explore more fully when I'm done here) but was also prominently featured on August 25, 2009, on the GeekWithA45 (no relation) "Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves".

The Marine and The Politician: Town Hall Rocks
The second meme was posted on August 23 by The Smallest Minority, under the title "Quote Of The Week" (a regular feature by TSM) and was also posted on that same date by The Lawdog Files under the title "For that which you are about to receive, may you be truly grateful". Lawdog actually adds more commentary to the YouTube Video, but it does stand on it's own. I am sorely tempted to provide the link and embed the original video, because it's a bombshell. However, I think you deserve to reward the 'original' bloggers for their efforts if providing you with quality information, so you'll just have to click on one of the titled links. The authors deserve your recognition, measured by your visit as part of their statistics.

(Besides, it's almost as much fun to read the comments from their readers as it is to view the video.)

Both of these subjects are doubtless featured elsewhere on the Blogsphere, but I'll only refer to them in passing ... however much I highly recommend them.

BTW, while you're reading The Smallest Majority (if you do so choose), I also highly recommend two of his recent posts: "I Will Not Register" explores the proposals of firearms registration and firearms licensing; and "Abandonment Or Ass-Covering?", in which a CBS Opinion Piece admits that "There Will Be No Cost-Saving" in Obama's ObamaCare bill. Kevin's comment: "Holy $hit! Honesty in the MSM!"

Or ... you can just do what I do. Put these bloggers on your "Read Every Day" bookmark, and don't miss another stanza of their beautifully Purple Prose, a phrase which has come to have a whole new meaning given the increasing popularity of the Internet, and the formatting of links which is regrettably, often rendered in The Color Purple.

Stumble It!

'Truth' vs. 'facts' from America's media -- latimes.com

'Truth' vs. 'facts' from America's media -- latimes.com

The LA Times is a handmaiden to the NY Times, and this opinion article proves it.

It reads like a spoof article from The Onion, but one cannot help but assume that it was constructed by a man who firmly believes everything he writes. And so do the editors and the Publisher of the L.A. Times. God Help Them ... and Us.

Here's the crux of the opinion piece:

... As we head toward next month's congressional face-off on a national healthcare bill, the news media are infatuated with town hall meetings. Over and over, we see angry citizens screaming about a Big Government takeover of the healthcare system, shouting that they will lose their insurance or be forced to give up their doctors and denouncing "death panels" that will euthanize old people.

Of course, none of this is even remotely true. [emphasis added here and elsewhere] These are all canards peddled by insurance companies terrified of losing their power and profits, by right-wing militants terrified of a victory for the president they hate and by the Republican Party, which has been commandeered by the insurance industry and the militants. But the lies have obviously had their effect. Recent polls show that support for healthcare reform -- reform that would insure more Americans, would force insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and prevent them from capriciously terminating coverage, and would provide competition to drive down costs -- is rapidly eroding.

Maybe Americans should know better. Maybe they shouldn't fall for the latest imbecilic propaganda and scare tactics. Maybe. But a citizenry is only as well-informed as the quality of information it receives. One can't expect Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or the Republican Party or even the Democrats to provide serious, truthful assessments of a complex health plan. Truth has to come from somewhere else -- from a reliable, objective, trustworthy source.

That source should be the media, and there has been, in fact, some excellent coverage of healthcare, especially by our better newspapers and especially lately when the untruths have become a torrent, rousing reporters to provide a corrective. But overall, the coverage has not been exactly edifying.

The Author (Neal Gabler) is entirely unconcerned about his facile diminishment of a National protest against what the protesters obviously consider a Federal Take-over of fiscal responsibility.

Look at the emphasized and hi-lited phrases. These are the rhetorically loaded phrases by which attack-liberals commonly use to denigrate the outrage of private citizens. Liberals can't stand the light of righteous indignation, so they ignore the issues and attack the individuals, or groups in an "Ad Hominem" manner.

Stumble It!

Extreme ShepHerding

NEWS DEFAULT VIRAL ST_UIP

This is the best time-waster video I've seen this year, especially considering the it only runs for less than 3 minutes

Stumble It!

Selling Firearms Seized by Police - Yay or Nay?

IPSC List member Stan P. notes that Colorado Springs Police May Sell Seized Firearms.

Apparently, some police are seeing budgetary crunch as a rationale for
selling confiscated guns rather than destroying them. Guns would be sold/auctioned to licensed firearm dealers, which means their re-entry to the public would occur through normal channels.
These guns were not used in crimes, AFAIK, as those weapons would be retained as evidence in the criminal proceedings.

Here's a bit of what the article offered:

The Colorado Springs City Council is expected in coming weeks to approve the final details of a program that would allow the Police Department to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed gun dealers. Police have already stopped melting down the hundreds of guns they collect from crime scenes, drug houses or civilians who don't need them anymore.

The sales are projected to bring in about $10,000 a year, only a slight dent for a city that faced a deficit of one-quarter its $200-million annual budget this year. But it still helps, said Vice Mayor Larry Small, who proposed the gun sales.

Colorado -- especially the Denver/Boulder area -- are notoriously Liberal in their politics. And Colorado Springs tucks in nicely south of the Denver/Boulder area, both Politically and Geographically.

Still, the article points out that:

... Scott Knight, who helped formulate the association's [International Assn. of Chiefs of Police] policy on gun sales, said, "We understand, particularly in this economy, that some departments need to recoup budget losses.
Knight's police department, in Chaska, Minn., about 20 miles southwest of Minneapolis, is one such agency. The department upgraded its rifles recently and the only way to pay for the guns was to sell the old ones to licensed firearms dealers."

Among the reasons for citizens, Municipal Leaders and Police Departments to deplore this decision are:

• it may return guns to the hands of criminals;
• "... the small amount of money they could bring in is outweighed by the risk that a gun sold by the city could one day be used for a crime."
• "There's all kinds of ancillary issues, one of which is the politics of being in the gun-selling business ... The other is not introducing another weapon into the community." (Colorado Springs PD Lieutenant)
  
• the small amount of money the (city) could bring in is outweighed by the risk that a gun sold by the city could one day be used for a crime. (Colorado Springs dissenting City Council Member.)
  

Still other American Cities have been reselling confiscated firearms for some time, with little or no down-side in terms of "Gun Violence".

Whether or not this decision to resale confiscate firearms may lead to an increase in "Gun Violence", one thing is sure:

The department upgraded its rifles recently and the only way to pay for the guns was to sell the old ones to licensed firearms dealers.

There is a balance between budget, assets, resources and politics. In this city (375,000 citizens), the decision might help criminals to re-arm themselves, although the guns will only be sold to licensed dealers who are required to use the NCIS system to vet customers.

But it will definitely help the Colorado Springs Police Department to replace it's ageing weapons inventory with newer, better, more reliable weapons to support the CSPD in their imperative "To Protect And To Serve".


H/T: Stan P.

Stumble It!

Travel Icon Says He'll Avoid Arizona Because of Gun Laws

Travel Icon Says He'll Avoid Arizona Because of Gun Laws

Well-known travel icon Arthur Frommer said he'll avoid visiting Arizona because state laws permit "thugs" and "extremists" to openly tote guns. [emphasis in the original quote]

On his blog, Frommer says:

I am not yet certain whether I would advocate a travel boycott by others of the state of Arizona; I want to learn more about Arizona's gun laws and how they compare with those of other states. But I am shocked beyond measure by reports that earlier this week, nearly a dozen persons, including one with an assault rifle strapped about his shoulders and others with pistols in their hands [emphasis added] or holsters, were openly congregating outside a hall at which President Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

If people were carrying firearms "in their hands" at a political rally, I have no better understanding than does Mr. Frommer whether that is a legal manner in which firearms may be carried in public. Arizona firearms laws are probably similar to that of other states, which are generally not friendly to folks who wander about with a gun in their hand. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case in Arizona, so I feel comfortable in assuming that this "in their hands" business was just a bit of hyperbole in which the author indulged.

Mr. Frommer goes on to say, in an ingratiating manner:

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

If the author is uncomfortable, of course he should abjure states which recognize the Second Amendment rights of its citizens to the point (which Frommer seems to consider extreme) of allowing "... civilians [to] carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest."

Frommer continues:

According to the Phoenix, Arizona, police, people with guns including assault rifles do not need permits in Arizona, but can simply carry such weapons with them, openly and brazenly[emphasis added] , when they gather to protest a speaker at a public event. The police also acknowledge that about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with an AR-15 assault rifle, milled about outside the event at which President Obama spoke.

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs [emphasis added] attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists [emphasis added] carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people should carry guns to a public debate or speech? If Ronald Reagan were delivering a political talk in Phoenix, Arizona, would they have felt it was proper for protestors [sic] with guns to mill about outside the hall from which he would leave?

Frommer's reference to the late President Ronald Reagan suggests that, in his mind the situation smacks of the circumstances depicted fictitiously in the movie "Taxi Driver", the 1976 movie in which actor Robert DeNiro portrays the disturbed hackie Travis Bickle who wore army surplus clothing and a hide-out gun powered by kitchen-drawer hardware to a political rally ... for reasons which are not clear.

I wonder if Mr. Frommer considers the possibility that people who are bent on political assassination do not carry their weapons openly, nor do they station themselves outside the line-of-sight locality of the political speaker.

Let's re-visit Frommer's closing statements:

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate.

Looking at that pair of sentences from another viewpoint, isn't it possible that the armed "protestors" [sic] are not thugs? Perhaps they are merely concerned citizens who have chosen this method to call attention to their message. The method of protest which these "extremists" is certainly dramatic, yet they abide by the letter of the law and are careful to position themselves outside of the main arena (not in sight of the "speaker") ... and thus do they not "intimidate" the speaker directly.

They have no intention toward political assassination, which is the thinly disguised charge which Frommer is to careful to avoid ... but which he obviously accuses.

The only viable conclusion to Frommer's objection, considering who he is and how he makes a living ... is that he is a man easily frightened, and he is willing to use the prominence engendered by his public persona to influence a similarly "uncommitted" audience to listen to their fears, rather than to acquaint themselves with the facts.

This (admittedly judgmental) conclusion is supported by his statement that " I want to learn more about Arizona's gun laws and how they compare with those of other states. "
There is no evidence that he has made an effort to do so, which suggests that while he accepts that this would be the responsible thing to do ... he has not yet made the effort. He would rather judge the actions of Arizonans based on his personal bias, and in doing so infer that the people he is talking about are "extremists" and otherwise acting outside the law, than to determine whether the people he calls "extremists" are, in fact, acting in a law-abiding manner.

Arizona Gun Laws

Ultimately, Frommer has fallen into the Neo-Liberal mode of frightening the casual reader, rather than t0 assure his readers that the "Extremists" have acted in a manner which is not only legal locally, but encouraged by the Constitution of the United States.

That last document is an embarrassment to the Liberals, because they don't want to accept that certain rights are not subject to abridgment to their personal bias. In fact, although they don't want to acknowledged that they are biased against Personal Rights they will use any argument (as we see here) to undermine our Constitutional Rights.

Stumble It!

ANOTHER Right Wing Nut with a Gun near the Prez

The more we read of "Opposing Views", the more we become enamored of their style.

Yesterday we wrote about the "The New Turks" video (Have we reached the Tipping Point?), and today we read about yet another "Right Wing Nut" who brings a firearm to an Obama appearance.

Here is the link to the original news story (via Bloomberg):

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Armed protesters asserting their right to bear arms, including a man with a rifle slung over his shoulder, gathered yesterday near [emphasis added] a Phoenix convention hall where President Barack Obama spoke, a police spokesman said.

The protesters were taking advantage of an Arizona law that allows people to carry unconcealed guns, Phoenix Police Department spokesman Andy Hill said. Police made no arrests.

“Plainclothes police officers continually monitored the situation and no threats, either physical or verbal, were made,” Hill said in an e-mail.

The incident marked the third occasion in a week when guns have been linked to an Obama event. On Aug. 11, police arrested a man for having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car near a New Hampshire school where Obama later held a health-care forum, USA Today reported. In a separate incident, another man outside that event displayed a gun in a holster on his leg, the paper said.

New Hampshire law allows people to carry unconcealed guns and the protester wasn’t arrested, said U.S. Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley.

The armed protesters weren’t a “cause for concern,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters today.

“There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” he said. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.”

The staff at Opposing Views wrote an article presenting both the legal facts (state law allowing "Open Carry") and anti-gun opinion. From Opposing Views:

Is it the start of a disturbing trend that could end in disaster, or just people exercising their constitutional rights? People are beginning to bring guns to President Obama's events.

The latest incident was Monday in Phoenix, where a dozen people, including a man with a military-style assault rifle, openly showed their guns at a protest outside a convention center where Obama was giving a speech.

Arizona is a so called "open carry" state, where anyone who can legally own a gun can carry it around, as long as it is out in the open. A person would need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

There were no incidents at Monday's event, and no one was arrested. The man with the rifle told The Arizona Republic [link added] that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

"Because He Could."

Those three words should be cast in bronze and displayed in every governmental building and edifice across the country.

But wait! What about the "Opposing Opinion"?

But others say this is a disaster waiting to happen. "To me, this is craziness," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone. The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening."

The "Opposing Views" article did a great job of presenting both sides of the controversy, in the "Fair and Balanced" sense which Fox TV supposedly strives to achieve, but rarely manages.

The really interesting part of the article, though, was found in the COMMENTS section of the article.

Pay attention now, because this is the real point of this article.

The free exchange of ideas and opinions in the COMMENTS section was a profound demonstration of the Principles of Freedom, as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, which makes this country great.

The dialogue there consisted of three parts:

1. The 2nd Amendment is a right, and what can be wrong in exercising our rights?
2. There is no excuse for carrying a firearm at a public political event, especially a Presidential Event, and only Right Wing Nuts and hot-doggers would do that.
3. You're an Idiot!

Forgive me, point (3) actually was distributed among people advocating both points (1) and (2).

But while the discussion occasionally dipped below the limits of polite dialogue, the people expressing their views did tend to stick to the subject and only rarely used (3) to support their viewpoint, the important thing is that there were hundreds (?) of people who got together to state their opinions. During this discussion, nobody was physically harmed, or even personally threatened. Even though group (2) obviously suspected that group (1) contained a fair number of intransigent neanderthals, nobody seemed frightened (or threatened) by the obvious fact that they were arguing vociferously with people who carried guns!

There must be a moral to this tale, although I'm not sure what it is.

Unless ... could it be? ... no matter how people may disagree on these important Societal and Cultural issues, in this country no man need live in fear because he has had the temerity to argue his case in a public forum.

There it is: Hope You Can Believe In.

I love this job.

Stumble It!

Bisley Long Range Rifle F-Class World Championship

Savage Arms Team Wins World Championship in F-T/R Class


Savage Arms announced that it's F-class team of Long Range Rifle Shooters have won the 2009 F-T/R World Championship at Bisley, England this July.

Shooting at ranges from 800 to 1000 yards, the four-man team from Oregon racked up impressive scores (see PDF here) prevailed over teams from Great Britain and Ireland.

We here at Cogito Ergo Geek are especially proud to note that our local USPSA "The Usual Suspects" team member BigDawg was points leader for the Savage Arms team.


For detailed information of F-Class shooting, click the image below.


(The Shooting Wire has the story here.)

UPDATE: 20-AUG-2009
Just received an update from BigDawg:

FYI on the "detailed information of F-Class shooting, click the image below" part. This is for F-Open class which ended up in 2nd place in the Open Class with the Britts coming in first. Here is our (F-T/R) web site. Not as nice as the open team stuff. We need to up date our page.

http://www.usftrclass.com/

Just wanted to you to know that there is a difference:-)

Stumble It!

TYT - Have We Reached the Tipping Point on Gun Violence?

YouTube - Have We Reached the Tipping Point on Gun Violence?

The Young Turks ... you gotta love 'em.

TYT is a "liberal radio and internet talk show airing on Sirius satellite radio" (although they would probably prefer the term "progressive", if not "moderate") which never misses a chance to stick it to the "Right Wing Nuts".

If I seem to overstate my estimation of their political position, go to their website. They have a constant-running podcast during which the expressions "Right Wing" and "Progressive" are rarely omitted during interviews. Or if you don't want to listen to any more of their political agenda than is minimally necessary, just look at the blogroll on the left sidebar.

Well, their sidebar would be on the left side of their webpage, wouldn't it?

Still, they work hard to present their point of view, and you can't help admiring their energy.

(Excuse me while I pause to stop their annoying constantly running podcast. There doesn't seem to be any way to shut it down except to cancel the website.)

In this particular YouTube presentation (April, 2009), the presenter describes five " Shootings over the weekend", and then asks whether it isn't time for the NRA and the Gun Control Advocates to get together and say: "Hey, things are getting a little out of hand!"

Here are some of the points presented:

"... he committed suicide after he murdered his children, I aways wish they would reverse it."

"You know when your guns get taken away? When you use them against police officers. (...) So he killed three cops, basically in an ambush. (...) Look, I don't know how much we're suppose to say or not say it, but obviously he bought into the Right Wing ideology ... come on, the guy is clearly a Right Wing Nut that thinks Obama is going to take his guns away so he uses them against cops. ... So look at it, we had someone who is basically a Right Wing Nut who shot three police officers in the head."

"So that's five massive shootings within the span of a couple of weeks. (...) When do we get to the point when we say: 'We've gotten to the tipping point?'"

"Hey, wait a minute. Maybe it doesn't really help ... if all these people are armed. That if we don't allow everybody to get a gun so damn easy in this country, that perhaps it doesn't help that one (turns up hurting?) in terms of violence."

"I don't know if it's in the American tradition to ban all guns. But do we have to get stricter on guns? Absolutely! These should be the hardest things to get. You should have to go through a helluva lot of (trips?) to make sure that you're a guy we can trust. Instead, they hand them out at WalMart! They're the easiest thing in the world! You come in, you're like I'd like a gun here da-da-da boomp boom you're walking out with a gun."


"So my point of question in this regard is this: what will it take for the NRA and Gun Rights Advocates to say 'hey you know what? Maybe this is getting a bit out of hand. Maybe we should have some reasonable regulation of ... of guns in this country."

"At some point you say hey you know what? Maybe it's a dumb idea to give everybody a gun ... really really easy. Because it turns out a certain percentage of the population is a little unbalanced."

"Uh well I'm sure that politically we have NOT got to that point, so our politicians will continue to bow down to the NRA ... because the Democrats are so deathly afraid to touch this (stuff?) ... so we're going to get NO action on it and I don't know when we finaly say 'enough is enough'."

Okay, so I've been grabbing sound-bites like mad and I'm afraid I may not have transcribed the talking points as precisely as I might have wished. You view the video, let me know where I've quoted it incorrectly. But I'm pretty sure I've got the gist of it.

I'm not going to tell you what to think about this video. Still, there are a couple of points which just cry out for response.

Guns should be the hardest thing to get. Instead, they're the easiest thing to get.
I don't think so. Name one single consumer product, the acquisition of which is more fraught with government regulations.

Your car? I don't think so. You only have to pass a driving test, which is in your Skills Suite, not among your Legal concerns.

If you have had a Domestic Violence charge levied against you, you cannot legally possess a firearm ... even though you legally possessed it before the charge was accepted by the courts. You must dispose of weapons if you are convicted of a felony, and there is no mechanism for reimbursement of the value of the objects.

No, a firearm is the only object which absolutely requires that your personal record be reviewed to insure that you are not a felon (past or present), do not have a Domestic Violence charge on your record, and you are not ... for want of a better phrase ... a "Mental Case".

You can be a convicted felon, a wife beater and a pedophile, and psychotic: and you can still own a car and legally drive it if you can pass the driving test.

Might we point out that driving a car is legally a "privilege", while owning a firearm is a "right". There are distinct legal differences between the two terms, and if you don't understand the differences ... just try to buy a shotgun in America.


Some of the points made in the video are not controversial in my mind.

* Are you feeling grouchy and unloved, inclined to take up a weapon to kill your family and then yourself? I agree with the presenter. Why not kill yourself, and if that doesn't resolve your upset THEN look around for victims. (No, I don't advocate suicide except in situations when the alternative is homicide.)

* Killing other people is bad; killing policemen undermines our thin veneer of civilization and should be universally condemned.

*"At some point you say hey you know what? Maybe it's a dumb idea to give everybody a gun ... really really easy. Because it turns out a certain percentage of the population is a little unbalanced." Yeah, we don't allow crazies to own guns. So you tell me, Mr. Presenter, how we determine who is crazy and who is just eccentric.

I think this last point is seminal. The Young Turks advocate for " ... making it really, really" difficult to buy a firearm. There should be some sort of checks on who can buy a gun.

Well, there ARE background checks against everybody who buys arms from a licensed dealer, and still there are "mass murders" of innocents by people who in retrospect should not be allowed to possess a firearm.

The Young Turk we see here today has NO solutions to offer. All he has is rhetoric and emotion. Sure, we feel sorry for the children and the Alzheimer patients and the other innocents who fall victim to Gun Violence. We're all looking for a solution. The Young Turk has nothing at all except the old familiar Liberal Left admonition: "If it saves just one child ..."

Here, as an alternative, is a list of solutions:

• Marry and love your spouse
• Support your family, nourish your children
  
• Teach your children that some values are absolute, teach them the difference between Right and Wrong, and encourage them always to Do Right
• Give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and admonish your children to do the same in their turn
• Love your brother and your sister, keep them happy and prosperous

If you find that difficult to remember, there are always the Ten Commandments to keep as a moral guide.

NOW let's go to the video.

Stumble It!

(under the NHS) you are treated as a sublicant and expected to be grateful for anything you get

From The Smallest Minority

"All of these things serve to make America less American."

Daniel Hannan, conservative member of the European Parliament for Britain gives a speech at the Army-Navy club in August of this year. Worth your time:

I find so many trenchant sound-bites in this three-piece, 27-minute YouTube Trio that I find I am unable to do it justice from a simpe "Fisking" of the video.

The speaker is a self-professed "British Conservative" speaking to an audience which he apparently takes to be an audience of "American Conservatives". (The Army-Navy Club.)

Sounds reasonable to me.

These videos describe a "Brave New World" which has been a dominating factor in the 21st British Century ... if not before.

They ("The Brits") have seen a continuing decline in services from the National Health System (NHS).

We ("The Americans") are pondering the establishment of a similar National Health System.

His message?

Hey, we messed this up big-time. What makes you think you can do any better?

Good question.

Stumble It!

Monster Hunter International

The LawDog Files: MHI

Because I am a faithful reader of The LawDog Files, I noted his July 26, 2009 recommendation of Larry Correia's book "Monster Hunter International".

And with no small trepidation (Geeks buying 700+ page novels for less than $8? Scandelous!) I decided to order it from Amazon.

It showed up in my mailbox last week, and Sunday night I started reading it in bed to help me get to sleep.

It started out a little slow ... it seemed as if the author was still trying to get a handle on his subject ... so I had no problem reading a couple of dozen pages before I turned out the lights and went to sleep.

The next morning (Monday), I pulled it off my nightstand to read a few more pages with my morning coffee.

Big mistake.

Drank my coffee.
Drank grape juice, and water.
Ate breakfast.
Smoked cigarettes.
Ate lunch.


Buy this book.

Hey HEY HEY!

When you get the book, wait until the weekend before you start reading it.

I lost a day of work, because I just ... couldn't ... put ... it ... down.

Just so you'll know.

PS: Looks like there will be a sequel.

Stumble It!

Gym Shooting Proves Concealed Permit Holders Do Kill

One of my favorite sources of controversial subjects is "Opposing Views".

They'll accept/select opinions from anyone, and then let you to track down the sources to make up your own mind.

One of the problems with this (excuse the expression) "Shotgun Technique" is that most many of the cited articles are written by individuals or organizations with cultural bias. Another is that most many of these articles fail to present reference links which allow the reader to examine the original statistics by which the authors' conclusions are reached.

It has been my experience that, unless the article (or White Paper) includes such a link ... usually as a citation rather than an actual link, it's all too easy to accept the prejudices of the author(s) as fact.

This article (see the link at the top of this page) is no exception to the general rule. In fact, the articles usually present links, which are supposedly offered to support their claim, from their own in-house opinion pieces! (See

Let's dig into this and see if we can't find some truth we can believe in.

The original (July 20, 2009) opinion piece by the Violence Policy Center (verified expert) asserts:

Concealed Gun Holders Kill 7 Cops, 44 Citizens in Two Years

Washington, DC -- Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf) released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).


This is, of course, a National Tragedy. Make no mistake, murder of either police officers or private citizens is a problem that we must all work to eliminate.

The question is whether the portion of the problem committed by "Concealed handgun permit holders" is so endemic and so overwhelming that the obvious solution (as is hinted at by the VPC article) that issuing Concealed handgun permits to citizens should be abrogated.

The purported genesis of this article is this (hence the title of this blog-article):

CHICAGO – Yet another concealed weapons permit holder and “legal” gun owner, George Sodini, with no prior criminal record, committed mass murder. On the evening of Aug. 4, Sodini attacked an aerobics class at the LA Fitness gym outside Pittsburgh where he used three handguns, two of which used high-capacity ammunition magazines that could hold up to 30 rounds, to gun down three women and wound nine others before killing himself.

The shooting tragedy is yet another indisputable example that, despite gun lobby rhetoric, “law-abiding” gun owners and carrying concealed permit holders do commit crimes, including homicides and rampage shootings.

I do encourage you to go to the link for this article, follow the story and entirely familiarize yourself with the background.

(And you might dwell for a moment on the COMMENTS engendered by this article. Not everyone seems to accept the VPC interpretation of the raw story.)

Essentially, the facts as stated seem to be correct.

However, the implications as stated seem to be ... skewed to support the VPC basic precepts:

• guns are bad,
  
• guns in the hands of civilians are bad,
  
• fewer guns available would result in fewer deaths of police and civilians,
  
• and (in this specific instance) that no measures to keep guns out of the hands of outlaws yet allow their possession by 'honest citizens' are adequate to prevent outrageous murder.

Well, on that final concept, we can only accept that no practice or policy or procedure is perfect, and even in the realm of the NCIC (which The Brady Bunch and VPC have supported with few reservations since it's original inception) ... there are bound to be a few wackos infiltrating the system.


Still, is it reasonable to expect that a program being conducted under the auspices of the Federal Government be "perfect"? (Despite voluminous reports by the FBI detailing how the NCIC system prevents criminals, maniacs and other 'undesirables' from being allowed to purchase firearms.)

What are you talking about Willis?

Who here expects any better than mediocrity from the Federal Government? These are the people who brought to us MediCare, MediCaid, the U.S. Postal Service, Social Security, the Income Tax, Cash for Clunkers, and with a lot of lobbying going around ... ObamaCare.

Sorry, I digress.

No governmental program is perfect, and perhaps the most nearly perfect Governmental Program is that which has not yet been enacted.

So you got to ask yourself; do I feel lucky?

After all, how well has the National Instant Check System and (more important) the Concealed Carry program on the state level ... been administered.

With our federally mandated, state-level programs to allow Concealed Handgun Permits really working? Are we filtering the "Honest Citizen" from the General Population, and vetting these Honest Citizens to the benefit of the general population?

Or is this only a program supported by the Right Wing-Nut Conservatives in support their own nefarious agenda?

Maybe, somewhere, we can find some real "Statistics", from a "reputable source", in our Search for Truth.

For sure, we can't find Truth in the Popular Media.

Or can we?

---

During my research, I found that even the most egregious left-wing anti-gun websites sometimes cannot resist the urge to cite their sources. Sometimes, it does not reflect their particular agenda in the very best light.

---

Let's look at: "Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Permit Holders"

It's only when you get very near the bottom (look for "The Tennessee Experience") that you see ... curiously, a link to a "Conviction Rates for Concealed Handgun License Holders, Texas Department of Public Safety, Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm"

Now select "2007 Conviction Reports Rate (PDF)".

Texas may be considered one of the most "liberal" (excuse the expression) issuers of Concealed Handgun License in the nation but surprisingly the Texas state reports do not, to my jaundiced eye, reflect a preponderance of crimes committed by Handgun Permit Holders.

In their report:

Conviction Rates for Concealed Handgun License Holders
Reporting Period : 01/01/2007 - 12/31/2007

... Texas listed a mere 0.2612% of CHL holders cited for 'offenses' (160 offenders for 61,260 offenses committed). No, that's not 26% ... that's a tad more than one quarter of one percent of 5,000+ offenses a month being committed by CHL holders.

Curiously, of the 160 offenses committed by CHL holders, there are some which seem less than than immediately threatening to the community:

IMPROPER PHOTO/VISUAL RECORDING AROUSE/GRA - 16 - 2 - 12.5000%
This might be interpreted as taking photographs (not of children, that's another category and does not list by CHL holders as participants) which might be likely to cause arousal. Of 16 offenses, two (12.5%) were committed by CHL holders.

UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER 15 9 60.0000%
"Unlicensed carry of handgun"?? I don't know what this can possibly mean, unless it means carrying a handgun in an area which is not permitted by the terms of a CHL. Whatever, it means that 9 of the 15 offenders hold a CHL, for a whopping 60%. This is the largest congestion of CHL offenses, which makes one wonder ... how did the other six get bundled into this category?

UNL CARRYING WEAPON 3,738 29 0.7758%
Here's another category which denies interpretation. "Unlicensed Carrying a Weapon"? One can only assume that 29 (out of 3,738) offenders chose that day to carry a weapon which was not a Concealed Handgun covered by their CHL,

PROH WEAPON SWITCHBLADE/KNUCKLES 939 4 0.4260%
This must be closely related to the previous two offenses. Apparently 4 out of 939 offenders were CHL holders who, on that occasion, chose to carry a switchblade knife or Brass Knuckles rather than/in addition to ... the handgun which they were permitted to carry concealed by the Great State of Texas. [Maybe they wanted a "non-lethal" alternative"? If they were police, we would consider this a virtue, wouldn't we?]

In this small sample we see in 4248 of the relatively minor offenses (nobody got shot, or even had a gun pointed at them) 46 were committed by CHL holders ... who didn't even have a gun with them at the time of the offense. Uh ... that represents just over one percent of the total offenses, doesn't it? Isn't that a big part of the 0.26+% of the total CHL Holder offenses? Let me see: 40/1560 = 28.75%. Yep, more than a quarter of these offenses have nothing to do with Concealed Handgun usage.

How about plain old, everyday "murder"?
MURDER 371 2 0.5391%

Two of the 371 murders were committed by CHL holders.
Something to think about, eh?

Yet according to the VPC, during the 1/96-10/97 period, Texas CHL holders were arrested for 946 crimes 263 of which were felony offenses.

The keyword here is "Arrested". That doesn't mean "Convicted". In fact, that doesn't even mean "Charged". (If they were found innocent at their trial; if they were released before trial; or if they were released before they were even taken to booking ... it still counts as an "arrest".)

It only goes to prove that statistics can mean whatever you say they mean, especially if you don't feel obligated to prove the validity of your statistics by citing source of the data.

I don't have the specific figures for how many citizens within the Great State of Texas actually
have applied for, and have been approved to legally carry a concealed weapon. However, if YOU are willing to do the research, I would be very interested in any data you can provide to prove that more than 00.26% of the citizens in Texas have a CHL.

Bottom Line:
Yes, we have some Bad Boys in CHL lists; but their number is exceedingly small. Far beyond their representation in the General Population.

The Brady Bunch and VPC have campaigned for tightened restrictions on private civilian firearms ownership for YEARS, and when the Federal Government has replied in accordance to their desires, these NGO organizations, instead of acknowledging that the Feds are working hard to respond to their concerns ... have only become more strident in their calls for more restrictions, and less acknowledgments that the general populace of the United States of America actually includes reasonable, sane people who are not driven to mass murder by the simple possession of a firearm.

(Do NOT postulate this to a member of VPC or The Brady Bunch; it would ruin their day and drive them to madness, with who-knows-what consequences to Law Enforcement Officers and Private Citizens.)

UPDATED 17-AUG-09 to break down the statistics from the TEXAS sources, and correct numerous typographical errors.

Stumble It!

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision

TheHill.com - Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision:

Here's good news for Olde Pharts:

"The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as 'death panels' to encourage euthanasia."

Why is this "Good News"? Well, it saves you from a bunch of Socialist LugNuts who want to talk to you to, instead of that MRI your doctor says you desperately need? Just try taking Tylenol 3 for the rest of your short happy life.

The "Bad News"?

Well, they 'just aren't going to talk to you about it".

Instead, they're just going to deny your request for an MRI. Because it may not be available. Who's going to pay for it?

The Brits
The Brits like this, because under the rules of National Health Care (NHC), if you are too old and need 'special treatment', they just won't give it to you. And if you have 'retired out of country' (although you have contributed to NHC for your whole life), or if your drugs are "too expensive", they won't give it to you.

Perhaps you have paid privately for a drug which may extend your life, because can afford the payments for a specific treatment which the British NHC has denied you? Then you can (and apparently, WILL) be denied ALL other heath care benefits regardless of your previous participation and contributions to NHC.

The Canadians:
How about the many stories that Canadians pay less for health care?

We recently wrote about Canadian Health Care, and the summation (if you believe the source, which I find not entirely unreasonable), if you want to get 'fixed' in Canada, it won't cost you much money. On the other hand, actually GETTING the Health Care may not happen within a time-frame which meets your "immediate care" needs. That is, Health Care may be cheap, but if you can't find a doctor who can treat you before you lose a leg or two ... how much help is that?

The sad fact is that when you can't belly up to the bar, mates, the cost of the drinks is immaterial.

There are lots of articles suggesting that Canadian Health Care is superior to American Heath Care, but they're built upon the same fallacy: talk about the cost, not about the abundancy of health care plans which are available ... now ... when you need it.

There's one guy (Arthur Salm in San Diego, as a GOOGLE-chosen example), who claims that "Canadians Are Not Dying By The Milions").

Good to know, but misleading. Hell, we all die sooner or later. What counts is the Quality of ife.

Let's take a look at Mr, Sam's assertions:

... in Canada, everyone is covered. No one worries about how they’ll pay for medical care, no one is afraid to leave their job because they’ll lose coverage, no one is bankrupted by medical bills, no one has to choose between a prescription drug and putting food on the table. The Canadian government doesn’t mandate or guarantee health insurance; the Canadian government mandates and guarantees health care. Doctors receive payment from, but are not employed by, the state. No “government bureaucrat” determines what test or treatment a patient will receive; if a doctor orders it, the patient gets it. Period.

Lots of stuff in that single paragraph.

And in the entire article, because the author doesn't even mention the difficulties involved in getting in to see an actual DOCTOR, not a NURSE. (Doctor can initiate health-care procedures; nurses can filter access to over-worked doctors.) People with "non-elective" health-care problem get attention in Capitalist America; people in Socialist Canada with the same problem go piss up a rope. If you only have a leg to stand on, in Canada they'll saw off the healthy leg first.

Is this what Fox News means when they say "Fair and Balanced". Should it be the primary health-care criteria in America? I think not. I think if you have one bad leg and one good leg you should let 'em take the bad leg first. Then wait and see what happens to the good leg later.

I only mention this seemingly facetious story because it (a) is described in a previous link, and (b) may illustrate the point that medical care in Canada does not derive from the goal to "be the best physician in the Provence" but from "I get paid the same as a doctor whether or not I provide the best health care".

This is the essence and substance Socialistic Health Care.

Doctors don't have to be 'good' to attract a customer base (patients ... who incidentally don't even have to be able to pay, they just have to show up). Doctors who show up at the beginning of office hours and stay until the end of office hours are paid the same as those who can save lives.

Socialist Medicine is not a meritocracy; on the contrary, it rewards mediocrity.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I take my Ford Explorer to the dealer and ask him to do a brake job and check the suspicious quiver in my front wheel bearings, it's not as important to me as trying to find a doctor who can tell me "your left leg is gangrenous due to diabetes, and we have to take it off NOW because if we don't amputate it now the gangrene will spread and we will have to remove both legs."

And even more important, I want to have confidence that the doctor will amputate the gangrenous leg before the healthy one.

Am I overstating my point?

Good.

Are you paying attention?

Good.

That's all good because the point I am trying to make is that the Doctors in America are not only profit-oriented, they are ego-oriented. That's a good thing in a Doctor, when compared to doctor who don't really care because there is no economic incentive to attract new patients other than to fill their day.

Let me say that in another way:
Good doctors want to save patients. Mediocre Doctors want to save customers..

In a Socialist state, the doctors who attract new patients often are those doctors who have room on their schedule; the doctors who are more than marginally competent are probably not accepting new patients.

I would rather be considered a Patient, than a Customer.

Wouldn't you?

Stumble It!

No Blood For Oil

Families Outraged Over Possible Release of Lockerbie Bomber - Political News - FOXNews.com

Families of the victims of the infamous 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing are outraged that the Libyan man responsible for killing 270 people -- most of them Americans -- may soon be released.

Officials in Scotland said Thursday they are considering early release for Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is the sole person convicted in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. The former Libyan secret service agent, who is serving a life sentence in a Scottish prison, has terminal cancer and could be freed as early as next week on compassionate grounds -- much to the dismay of the U.S. State Department, which said Thursday al-Megrahi should remain in jail.

"It's absolutely grotesque and hideous," said Susan Cohen of Cape May Court House, N.J., whose 20-year-old daughter, Theodora, was aboard the London-to-New York flight.
--

"We have had nothing you would call justice for the mass murder of 270 people -- the worst terrorist attack before 9/11. And this has nothing to with compassion -- it's all about oil," Cohen told FOXNews.com.

She said Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi will feel vindicated if al-Megrahi is allowed to return to Libya -- and that the U.S. and other countries will do little to intervene because of oil interests in the Middle East.

"The powers of the world believe that Qaddafi has to be pacified, and part of that has to do with al-Megrahi's release," Cohen said. "The man is a tyrant, but he has oil."

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that Mrs. Cohen has a point here.

We have endured cries of "No Blood For Oil" since the Iraq war started over 5 years ago, and that was one of the catchphrases of those persons of the Liberal persuasion who demanded out support of the "Bush Lied, People Died" school of thought.

Yet here, in the early days of what seems likely to prove the most Liberal administration since FDR, a friendly government appears to be willing to release a proven terrorist and mass murderer .. and one cannot help wondering it this may just be an attempt to achieve the "most favorite nation" status in regards to a trumped-up despot of the middle east.

Muammar al-Qaddafi (the infamous terrorist-supporter, agent of terrorism, supporter of Arab Nationalism, supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization, author of the 1986 Berlin Discotheque Bombing and the terrorist bombing of the 1988 Pan Am 103 flight explosion over Lockerbie Scotland (which killed 270 people and led to international sactions) and the 1987 bombing of French Flight 772 which lead to a further 170 deaths... is not a nice man.

The West has no reason to love him, or his agents.

Yet here we see that The Brits is prepared to release one of his terrorist agents "on compassionate grounds.

How much "commpassion" has Qaddafi -- or his agents -- shown the West?

Stumble It!