Friday, September 18, 2015

Problem Presenters Propose A Solution!

City presents report on how to reduce youth gun violence - WWAY TV3:

As investigators look into why the student brought a gun to school, coincidentally community members talked gun violence Thursday night. For about one and half to two years Wilmington city leaders, UNCW staff and other community organizations have been working on a plan to reduce youth gun violence. Thursday night, city officials presented a report pointing out four initiatives to be the focus of keeping kids safe. These four points include prevention and intervention, law enforcement, education and jobs.

For the first time .. well, perhaps FOREVER!  Someone has identified a Problem, presented a SOLUTION, and seem to be actively working toward a RESOLUTION!

I don't know if they can make it work, but they have a plan and they're not just whining about a problem.

What a refreshing change!

We need to stand up to the NRA

Coombs: We need to stand up to the NRA: \\
(August 31, 2015)

It took me almost three weeks to decide that I needed to reply to this "news article" / Opinion Piece.

I'm still not sure I can do it justice, nor that I can add anything new to the dialogue.
But I feel I ought to try.

Here's the crux of the story:

It took only seconds for Facebook and other social media sites to begin their talk about gun control and most of the consensus was that more people need to carry so that these senseless murders can stop. First, there is no way that any one of the three innocent victims would have had time to pull a weapon to prevent what happened. One second they were interviewing a woman and the next second there were shots and screams and two people were dead. The shooter even recorded the murders and posted them online before being identified and pursued until he shot himself. I will never understand these arguments about how carrying weapons can prevent these quick and senseless blasts at innocent victims. The shooters clearly have no respect for any human life, including their own. They rarely do.
Typical liberal bullshit.

You posit that "We need to do something about the NRA", but you not only do not define the 'problem', you fail to posit a solution.  What a retard!

Florida | Stand-Your-Ground | Self-Defense Immunity

Florida | Stand-Your-Ground | Self-Defense Immunity
(September 15, 2015)
: Florida State Representative Dennis Braxley, often referred to as the father of the state’s Stand-Your-Ground law, filed a bill HB 169 that would profoundly alter the effects of Florida’s self-defense immunity law, reports the Orlando Sentinel. (The bill is embedded at the bottom of this post.) As this is only proposed legislation at this point I would normally let it go given my workload, but I’m already seeing so much misinformation about this bill being spread thick over the internet that I feel obliged to set a reality stake in place. First, “Stand-Your-Ground” ≠ Self-Defense Immunity Before we even begin, please note that “Stand-Your-Ground” and self-defense immunity are two entirely different legal concepts, and conflating the two merely demonstrates an ignorance of the law.
 “Stand-Your-Ground” has to do with whether a defender has a legal duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, period. Self-defense immunity has to do with whether a defendant can qualify as immune from prosecution, regardless of whether retreat is an issue in the case. Two. Different. Legal. Concepts.
I have no legal training, and although I understand that this is a quantum-change in the "Self-Defense" standpoint of legal jurisprudence, I am (perhaps naively) still convinced that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  Whatever makes it more difficult to convict an innocent man is not a motion counter to that basic legal concept.

I further believe that it is better that 10 men not be convicted when they are guilty, than that one man be convicted when he is innocent.

Thursday, September 17, 2015


Seattle police chief fires cop who arrested man carrying golf club | The Seattle Times:
(September 15, 2015)
Seattle police Officer Cynthia Whitlatch was fired Tuesday over her arrest of an African-American man carrying a golf club as a cane, in what Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole labeled a case of biased and overly aggressive policing.
Is this a case of .. Driving While Black?

"THEY" find nothing wrong in Crystal Nacht variations

Letter: Was gun-zone letter just a bad joke?:

I find little to laugh about in J.W. Austin's letter ["Try certain registration zones for gun carriers," voices, Sept. 13] but pray it was a bad joke. Austin recommends that citizens in "high crime" areas (determined by government officials) relinquish not only their Second amendment rights but also their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Second Amendment Scholars might find something to object in a proposition that certain geographic areas might be subject to closer scrutiny ... along with more stringent rules of weapons confiscation.

Especially in that a "government official" would define these "areas", or gun zones.

The rest of us find the proposition to be a horrible example of an attempt to bypass constitutional rights by neighborhood.

I'm resisting the temptation to list the 'wrongs' here, so save yourself from having to read a deplorably LONG blog-post and make up our own neighborhood rules for firearms confiscation.

Assuming that you have "drilled down" to this article (which as apparently the genesis of all the other 'opinion" responses:
Katie Coombs said she wants suggestions ["I want your suggestions, not your guns," Voices, Sept. 6].
I'm sorry: this is the response to a response to an original article; As such, it would to be a little complicated.  I'll also resist the temptation to fisk that article

The Original Katie Coombs article is here: "We Need To Stand Up to The NRA".

I'm not sure how the NRA needs to be "Stood up To", but apparently the NRA is some kind of fiendish plan to make America less safe.

Campus Carry: Another First Person Perspective

Guest commentary: Do you support campus carry or do you support rape? - Naples Daily News:
(September 15, 2015)

Opinion from a woman who objects to limitations on concealed carry on college campus.

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center reports 20-25 percent of female college students are victimized by rape, that is 1 in 5. Further, one third of the rapes occur on college campuses. Those facts are being swept under the rug by colleges and universities. If gun-free-zones and whistles worked, why are so many women still being raped? As a woman licensed to carry a firearm for protection, I can defend myself off campus, but the second I step on campus, I no longer have the right to defend myself. I must surrender constitutional rights that guarantee my right to keep and bear arms and of self-defense to get a college education. Effectively, I become a ward of the university but the university has no legal duty or responsibility for my safety. In fact, they hide behind sovereign immunity that protects them from civil suits and criminal prosecution for failing to protect me.
I spent 20 years on college campus, both as a student and as an employee, and I agree with Rebekah that she is unfairly discriminated against when she is disallowed to protect herself in a "Gun Free Zone" ... which is typical of almost every college campus in America.

In fact, as a mature male employee, I was concerned with my right to carry on campus; I typically stayed late at night to complete my work, and found the lack of adequate lighting in EMPLOYEE parking lots to be intimidating.  When I was a student, I just ... tried to look tough.  (That was 50 years ago, and the situation has not improved!)

Rebekah doesn't have that 'looking tough' option; her concerns are legitimate.

College administrators are so worried about Virginia Tech type onslaughts, but they don't seem to understand that their 'campus carry' rules are not providing any protection to their students, staff OR faculty.

Of course, any college that suffers an 'incident' because they haven't rigorously imposed draconian no-gun rules will be held up as a college that "doesn't care about gun violence".  (As if they could stop it!)

This is another Gun Free Zone situation, and there is no good solution.  Armed attacks (or "merely" the common rape and assault patterns on a campus where testosterone rules) will continue, but the first time someone attempts to defend against assault, the store will not be about("ho hum, another boring news day") Campus Rape but about a college that has failed to protect its students against gunfire.

Well, Hell .. there's no good solution for the Joan or Jill who has to decide whether to defend herself against assault, or against both legal and COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE proscriptions.

Any student who decides to protect herself with a gun may perhaps protect her honor, but she will lose her scholarship, her enrollment, and the money she paid to enroll in this death-trap which is the American College Campus.

And she will never again be allowed to enroll in another institution of higher learning in her home state.

And even if she should fail to protect herself, and the story becomes public, she is not only a victim of assault but she is also unable to continue her education at the college level.  Because she tried to use a weapon to accomplish the same degree of self-defense which would be available to her if she was two blocks away from the college campus.

What kind of America is this?

NOTE: In Oregon .. as I have noted previously on this venue ... it is legal for persons with a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) to carry on campus.  If found in possession with a weapon, a CHL holder cannot be prosecuted.

But the college can take steps:  if an employee, the person will be fired 'with or without cause'.
If a student, the enrollment will terminate immediately.  The  fees and registration charges which the student has paid will not be returned.  There will be no option to re-enroll on any other campus within the State University System.

The Castle Doctrine - who does it protect? What if it's not active in your state?

It's The Bee's Knees:
Kelley, who was 63 years old and 286 pounds, began shoving Kimball, a man 111 pounds smaller than he and seven years his senior on that day in 2013. Kelley pushed Kimball 35 or 40 feet down the road. The prosecutor would later argue that there was plenty of room for Kimball to continue his retreat. This appears to be the case. He could have retreated in any direction not blocked by Kelley. Maine does not have a “stand your ground” law. After being pushed 35 or 40 feet down the driveway, away from his family and his vehicle, Kimball drew his Ruger .380 and fired three times. Kelley died in the ambulance in route to the hospital.
So, a younger and bigger man physically intimidates an older and smaller man .. foolishly, as it happens, The victim (for whatever reason) used his personal carry pistol to defend against  his attacker.

Who is right in this situation?  Who is wrong?

The consequences of this story might give you pause.

Or it might make you think about what you will say when you appear before a jury, if you are ever called upon to defend yourself legally ... as well as physically .

"It is better to be tried by twelve, than buried by six."


Exquisite Reaction of an Anonymous Commenter to GUN WATCH article

GUN WATCH: "Government Shutdown" Propaganda ineffective with Second Amendment Supporters:
(September 17, 2015)
Polls are often used to create public opinion, rather than to measure it.
 One extraordinary exception to the ability to use this sort of propaganda to forward the leftist agenda, has been the destruction of the Second Amendment.
 The Second Amendment is so clear that a significant percentage of the population rebelled against being told to ignore the plain wording of the Constitution and to believe what they were told to believe.  They ignored the admonitions that only the "experts" could know what the Constitution actually meant.
This is a significant writing, and deserves to be read.

But it might perhaps have been slightly overwhelmed in its intensity by a commenter, who (regretfully) identified himself as "ANONYMOUS".  I have a great deal of respect for ANONYMOUS, the most frequent contributor in the world, but sometimes I wish he/she would self-identify so that the rest of us could shake his/her hand ... as is the case here.

Just a short excerpt from this comment, you should go read the whole thing:

Wednesday, September 16, 2015


September 11, 2015

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus on Friday criticized a Marine Corps study that showed that female Marines in a mixed unit did not perform as well as men in several key areas.
The report study showed that the women tested were (a) selected because they had scored high on early PT (Physical Training) tests, and (b) they were intrinsically motivated to score well on the subsequent tests which evaluated their ability to perform on a par with men who were not selected for their ability to score high based on their physical abilities, but for their tendency to perform well when paired with women in teams..

Performance of the female participants in these trials was not only below that of their male counterparts, but were sub-par over all.

The study showed that females in the unit were injured twice as often as men, were less accurate in shooting and were not as good at removing wounded troops off the battlefield.
(Navy Secretary Ray Mabus) argued that other studies, including one by the Center for Naval Analysis, say there are ways to mitigate gaps in performance "so you have the same combat effectiveness, the same lethality, which is crucial."
Mabus said some of the report's conclusions were based on generalizations and not the women's performance.
"Part of the study said women tend not to be able to carry as heavy a load for as long, but there were women who went through the study who could," he said. 
The Secretary of the Navy was disinclined to accept the conclusions from this test period.
"They started out with a fairly largely component of the men thinking this is not a good idea, and women will not be able to do this," [Mabus] said in n interview with NPR.
"When you start out with that mindset, you're almost presupposing the outcome," he said. 

The thing about "tests" is, you don't start out with a pre-determined conclusion.  You start out with a hypothesis, and the test results are intended to prove or disprove the hypothesis.  It's a simple little thing called The Scientific Method.

The Secretary of the Navy, however, has it all back-assward.  He started out with a "truth", and then directed his subordinates to validate .. not prove, but validate .. the truth which he had pre-ordained.

You know when your boss says PROVE THAT X =Y and your job depends on 'your performance', not on 'the truth'???  That's the way it works in the military.   And even if it doesn't "work" .... well, if you have ever served in the military, you know,

But here, the truth was tested and rejected.  By "The Boss".  Only because he is "The Boss".

Doesn't speak well of the military, does it?

Doesn't say much for The Boss, either.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

EVIL gun laws in Arizona!

David Codrea at The War On Guns takes note of an article in the International Business Times which bemoans the lax gun control laws in Arizona which allows almost ANYONE to own and use a firearm!!  And they don't need a license to own a firearm, or to register the gun, or ANYTHING!
(Imagine that .. what is this country COMING TO???)

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on whether you wish the author to be considered an authority, or at least a competent reporter of "facts"), the author makes some serious errors in these  .. well, facts!

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the testicles of liberal east-coast journalists!

Phoenix Freeway Shootings: Amid Manhunt, Arizona Gun Laws Are Among The Country's Most Lenient:
Most guns are legal in Arizona, which only outlaws firearms that shoot more than one shot automatically from one pull of the trigger without a manual reload, rifles with barrels longer than 16 inches, and shotguns with barrels longer than 18 inches.
{emphasis added}

Obvious (to people who are either smarter than a stump, or are conversant with gun-control legislation over the past 50 years), the usual gun control laws regarding barrel length have been applied to barrels SHORTER than a given length ... not LONGER. (Shorter barrels make it easier to hide or disguise long-guns, or so we are told by people who aren't a helluva lot smarter than this author.)

And these restrictions are imposed at a federal level .. they are not unique to the state of Arizona.

Are we to assume that the Liberal Press is stupid, or deliberately skewing the facts to fit their agenda?

Perhaps the two categories are not mutually incompatible.

Monday, September 14, 2015

No, Lady, this IS Texas but that is NOT Legal Carry!

Woman with loaded handgun in vagina charged with unlawful carry in Texas | Fox News Latino: WACO, TEXAS (AP) – September 09, 2015

Police in Texas say they removed a loaded handgun from a woman's body during a cavity search.
It's amazing that only two weeks ago I was pontificating about the potential hazards of "Appendix Carry".

In this world, it doesn't pay to express your indignation; there are always "worse things".

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Egyptians Kill Mexicans

Egypt says 12 Mexican tourists killed by security forces in accidental shooting | Fox News:

September 14, 2014
At least 12 people were killed and 10 injured in Egypt's southwestern desert Sunday when armed forces mistakenly fired on a group of Mexican tourists, Egyptian officials said. The Mexican Foreign Ministry confirmed the incident and said at least two of the dead were Mexican nationals. It said in a statement that the victims were still being identified, and Foreign Ministry personnel were working with the families of the victims. The Egyptian ministry said that police and armed forces were pursuing terrorist elements in the area and fired on four cars that turned out to be carrying tourists. The ministry said the victims were Mexican and Egyptian.
Well, at least the Egyptians had the grace to claim that the shooting was the result of an error in identifying their victims before killing them.

This is much more laudable than the explanations which Mexico typically publish when they kill a dozen of their own.

Apparently, there are still regions in the world which are more deadly to Mexican nationals than their own homeland.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out that these dozen Mexican nationals were refugees seeking asylum?

Still tragic, yes; but  ironic.

"IPSC Competition is safer than High School Football" - PROVEN!

Cops probe high school football players who blindsided ref | Fox News Video:

Sep. 09, 2015 - 4:17 - [Video]

I don't care for spectator sports.  If I can't play, I am not interested.
I do compete in IPSC/USPSA matches ... not well, but it has been my personal 'work-out' activity for over 30 years.

And I've been conducting Safety (and 'rules of competition') classes for the past years.  One of the reasons I volunteer my time to present this class is because I want my Sport Of Choice to continue that promise ... that IPSC is, and shall continue to be, safer than High School football.

Then this happened.

This headline might have been:

Young Men Convinced Of The Righteousness Of Their Actions Blindside a Hated Enemy:  
HOW Are They Different From The 911 Attackers?  Not in the Quality of their actions; only in Quantity and Degree of the effects of their actions.

I honestly don't believe that the young men who perpetrated this 'sneak attack' understand just how much they have betrayed the lessons which their elders have tried to teach them.

Football players are suppose to be aggressive .. which is one reason why it doesn't interest me.

But this ... THIS ... is quite beyond the pale (as our English friends would say it).

I'm not ready to blame the Coach, or the Referees, but I am prepared to blame the people who hit the ref.  (Two hit him, but another was READY to hit, and arrived 'too late'.  That may have saved his future, as he will perhaps not be tarred with this same brush..)

The latest reports indicate that the football official may (or may not) have "... used a racial slur before (and) after the incident".  [More VIDEO, and DISCUSSION]  (Doubtful; such folks are not usually allowed to supervise school sports .. at least, not for long.  But  W don't know.)

Apparently, team members other than those who were directly involved in the attack were witness to those 'racial slurs'.  Without further information, it's not only impossible but unfair to judge.

Except for this one thing: even if these allegations are true, then the "incident" has NOT acquired some kind of societal "justification";  it exacerbates the gravity of these young men.

1st Amendment: Is "Unpopular Speech" now justification for brutality?  Is this a Constitutional Question?
These young men boys have therefore demonstrated that if someone says something to you that you don't like, it justifies a brutal response.

Is that what we're teaching our children in America today?