Friday, November 20, 2015

Don’t Turn Our Tragedy Into Hate

UC Merced mourns stabbing spree attacker Faisal Mohammad, seeks to understand him - The College Fix:
{NOVEMBER 18, 2015}
‘People were quick to sympathize with the attacker,’ student says Many at the University of California-Merced are mourning the 18-year-old student who went on a vicious stabbing spree before being shot and killed by a campus police officer, with a “R.I.P” tribute to Faisal Mohammad on Facebook gaining massive support among the campus community.
(H/T: Irons)

Lambs To The Slaughter?  Or Innocents?  Who knows why young people decide to "sympathize" with someone who viciously assaulted their fellow students?  The article doesn't say whether any of those who were stabbed felt any sympathy for their attacker.

"Rest In Peace"?

How is Faisal Mohammad important to us?

How about stabbing people on a college campus.  Does that count?
"A Male UC Merced student stabbed four people with a large hunting knife on the campus Wednesday morning before he was shot and killed by university police, authorities said."
While I have great respect for those who wish to forgive the individual who terrorized their campus, I still believe that the way we live must be measured against the way we would wish to live.

My wish is that people on college campii would please stop their maniacal, murderous ways and treat their fellow man the way we would each prefer to be treated.

Which includes not being stabbed on our way to our next class.
That's got to really hurt, in addition to messing up your classroom attendance record!

Moral Equivalency:

When we publicly "forgive" a wanna-be murderer, we accept that his actions (regardless of his reasons) are "acceptable".  Or, at least, "understandable".

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Who is this, who tells me that I MUST denounce firearms ownership?

In BALTIMORE, one of the most violent cities in America, the Catholic Church will propose a Fatwa against law-abiding owners of firearms in America.  Isn't THAT ironic?

Is the Pope U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops aware that the level of firearms violence in MOST of America is not comparable to BALTIMORE?

Protect life: limit access to guns - Baltimore Sun:

Next week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will meet in Baltimore to update its "quadrennial statement on political responsibility, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." The document, which is essentially a voters guide for American Catholics circulated before presidential elections, outlines key church teachings, areas of emphasis that should inform how Catholics decide upon various candidates. The bishops must urge the faithful to support candidates who stand up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advance the cause of gun control.
   A "Voters Guide for American Catholics" makes Peck a Bad Boy?

If I (we) are Bad .. it is NOT because "they" (you and I) are trouble makers ... but because we have a similar level of interest in firearms ownership as criminals who use their guns for violent actions (while we keep them for sporting purposes, and to defend ourselves against violent action).

So why is the Catholic Church in America picking on me?  

I am so very proud to have been singled out by "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship".
As if I have no conscience, and am not a citizen (regardless of my "Faith", which is none of your business thank-you-very-much).

Yes, I am insulted. I resent the insinuation that because I own guns I am a faithless marauder.

 Gun violence in America disproportionately afflicts the poor and marginalized, especially impoverished black communities in our cities. Jeffrey Goldberg writes in the Atlantic that between "1980 and 2013, 262,000 black males were killed in America," the vast majority from guns. The murder rate for African Americans is eight times higher than it is for white Americans and 12 times higher than other developed nations, reports statistician and blogger Nate Silver; the closest comparable murder rates are found in the developing world. Urban murder rates have soared again this year — especially here in Baltimore, right under the bishops' noses.
"The murder rate for African Americans is eight times higher than it is for white Americans and 12 times higher than other developed nations."

Yes. Well, I haven't murdered anyone for ... oh, I can't say; it has been SO LONG since I have murdered anyone I can't even remember it.  Am I bad?

Maybe the Catholic Church should go to those "impoverished black communities in our cities", and take a close look at exactly WHO is responsible for that disproportionate level of Gun Violence.

Here's a hint:  They Are Not Catholic!

I live in a college town in the Pacific NorthWet, and I suppose I should not feel offended by this sweeping accusation.
But I do.
Most of my friends are Friends Of Guns.  We have shooting competitions regularly. Many of my friends hunt regularly.

None of my friends murder people regularly.

Where in this "Document" does it mention that the majority of Americans do no indulge in frivolous mayhem?

The bishops must urge the faithful to support candidates who stand up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advance the cause of gun control.
What is this word, "must"?

MUST!  Is this, like, a Mandatory thing?  One Catholic Priest decides that the entire community which he heads must follow his arbitrary lead?  And he is unaware of the upset he has allowed in his community?

[Out of respect for the faith, I have deleted several dozens of lines of comments regarding the above subject matter]

My friend, The Hobo Brasser (who happens to be a Catholic) must find himself in something of a quandary here.  He knows that all of the hundreds of "gun nuts" among his plethora of friends are honest, responsible firearms owners.  But still, the Leader of his faith *(or his designated minions)* has declared that my friend MUST hold his nose and vote for the illegitimate bastards who would undermine our constitutional freedoms.  (Is my friend the only conservative voter in his church?)

Which draws a schism between himself and his duty to his church.  (And also between him and me, because my faith does not require me to make such schismatic decisions.)

I haven't been a member of the NRA for 20 years, but only last week I joined just because  I hoped it would piss off the hoplophobic people who denigrate me and my ilk because of our own personal beliefs about our constitutional rights (which are, I remind you .. "God Given".)

Now THE POPE is on record against me?

Brother, I take this as a personal slight.

My best friend must decide who to trust: his religious leader, or his friend of 20 years.

And is my friend going to get rid of his guns?  Well, neither of us are very good at our sport, but we enjoy both the activity and the community of pistol shooting.  I know what I'm going to do .. but what is HE going to do?

In truth, I'm only insulted.  Chagrined.
Dumb-struck by this unexpected shot in the back. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

But my Catholic friend ... I am concerned because this proposed document puts him in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to obey his spiritual leader, or do what he knows in his heart is the right thing to do.

How many other devout Catholics find themselves in the same quandary?

And how must the leader of a proud and righteous faith reconcile his good intentions with the harm which his arbitrary, unilateral pronouncements have imposed upon his followers?

I would like to say that I speak more in sorrow than in anger, but that whole anger thing kind of gets in the way of my good intentions.

it's never a waste of time to watch a Liberal politician make a total ass of herself in public.

Dem Lawmaker Schakowsky: ISIS Paris Attacks "Chilling Reminder" that US Needs Stricter Gun Laws (VIDEO) - The Gateway Pundit:

Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky from Illinois told SiriuxXM radio that the Paris terrorist attacks last week were a “chilling reminder” that the U.S. needs more restrictive gun laws. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the West. Only terrorists and criminals are packing heat. Via News Alert:
Sometimes the best I can do is to find someone who has pertinent information, and just pass it along.
This is one of those times.

Go Clicky.  It's not long at all.

You'll enjoy it. Trust me.

(For more idiocy from the same source:  See Here!)

"Smart" Guns

Is the U.S. ready for smart guns? - CBS News:
(November 01, 2015)
Every time there's a massacre at a school, like the recent one in Oregon, it reignites the debate for more gun control -- not only because of the mass shootings, but because of the hundreds of incidents of gun violence every day on our streets and in our homes. One idea that keeps coming up is smart guns. These are firearms that only work when they're fired by their owner. It seems that "gee whiz" technology is seeping into every corner of our lives. Why not guns? *

CBS had a "feature" about Smart Guns, which did not convince me that they are the "wave of the future"/

Why am I not convinced?

I have a Smart Phone.  It turns itself off and on willy-nilly, and I have no idea why.  So I have to wait a few minutes for it to sort itself out.

Which might not ever happen; too often, I have to turn it off and wait "a while", whether I would prefer to or not.

That's marginal in a cell phone; that's unacceptable in a defensive weapon.

If I have the need to use my firearm, I am not willing to 'wait a minute' for it to sort itself out.

Whether in a competitive environment (when two seconds is an eternity) or in a home defense situation (when two seconds is LITERALLY the difference between a few more years of life, or an eternity without it) ... firearm reliability is always ALWAYS the most important characteristic of a gun I can bet my life on.  Whether it's appropriate to shoot?   Whether the target needs to be engaged?

 That determination is MY job;  If I make a mistake, at least I know I won't die waiting for the chip to warm up!

For me, Gun Control means that I'm in total control of my firearms.  It doesn't mean that I willingly relinquish my ability to use my defensive (or hunting, or competitive) firearm when, where and how I require.

* It seems that "gee whiz" technology is seeping into every corner of our lives. Why not guns?

Cell phones are just toys; guns are weapons.  And whenever we relinquish control of our weapons to 'technology', we put our lives on the line.

I'm not willing to abrogate my life to (an reliable) computer chip.

Are you?

(For More Information Press 1.  If that doesn't work, Press 2.  If that doesn't pfffsszzzzzzz ....)


The Guns Of Parisian Law Enforcement - The Firearm Blog:

 Let it not be said that when provoked, Paris won’t respond in kind. Following the cowardly attacks on the city last week, the French National Police came out in force armed with several different kinds of firearms,
From the Wikipedia definition:
Cowardice is a trait wherein fear and excess self-concern override doing or saying what is right, good and of help to others or oneself in a time of need—it is the opposite of courage. As a label, "cowardice" indicates a failure of character in the face of a challenge.[1]Many military codes of justice proscribe cowardice in combat as a crime punishable by death (note the phrase "shot at dawn").
As a retraction of a virtue that many cultures may expect or have expected, cowardice rates as a character flaw which society or its representatives may variously stigmatize or punish.
The assault on unarmed citizens (and visitors) in Paris last week was an entirely unjustifiable predation on innocent civilians.  It should never have happened, and the predators who were the primary actors of the attacks demonstrated a terrible lack of compassion toward their victims.

But the predators had their own agenda, and they went about their assigned "chores" regardless of any human feelings they might have had.  It was not difficult for them, as they had no human feelings.

No compassion, no love of their fellow man; merely an intention to slaughter "unbelievers".

They had no "fellows", other than those of their companions who wanted only to kill anyone who did not ascribe to their particular set of values (which were no values at all).

No, these individuals were not physical cowards;  they had no expectation that they would survive their villainy.   They were fully willing to sacrifice themselves, if only they could take a few 'unbelievers' with them.

Their only goal was to predate their neighbors, to prove that even their neighbors were not safe, if the values which THEY embraced were not shared.

I have no room in my heart for those who embrace villainy.  Which, in a way, is exactly the message these murderers were attempting to disseminate .. except from the other perspective.

How does that make me any better than them?

I don't kill people.  They do.

"Forget all the self-serving bullshit that terrorists feed their media groupies.  The fact is, they're nothing but murderous psychopathic human sewage."

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Don't shoot at me. I take it personally.

Unsafe or Good Training? - The Firearm Blog:
 I don’t think blasting off rounds at your feet is a valid training tool.
I agree,

 (see the link to view the video .. I don't have the patience to work through the technical crap needed to embed the video.).

If someone shoots at me (or in the near vicinity of my precious lily-white body) I don't have time to think it through, I'll shoot the fucker.

Which is probably a good argument for me to NOT sign up for this kind if "extreme training".

I'm not saying that the people who sign up for this kind of "training" are Desk Jockeys or Weekend Warriors who don't have the perspective or experience to understand when they are physically threatened for the sake of "training", I'm just saying that the assholes who are shooting full-automatic rounds in the face of their students are unsafe and full of hubris;  they assume that they will never have an accident (a rock in the ground which they haven't found, and a round bounces into the face of a student?).

That's not part of their syllabus.

Maybe.   Or maybe they're just willing to accept the risk.  Wanna bet that they have a lawyer who has written an iron-clad  disclaimer which prevents the students and their family, etc. from every suing them for the consequences of an 'accidental discharge'?????

In reference to the "instructors", and at the risk of repeating myself:  Fuck 'em.  They're a bunch of arrogant assholes who believe that they will NEVER make a mistake.

(Yes, this may be acceptable in training an elite military attachment, but it is entirely unsuitable for a civilian training course.  Because I said so, that's why!)

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Can our nation have meaningful gun debate? (Do You Feel Lucky?)

Letter: Can our nation have meaningful gun debate? - Opinion:
Posted: Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:00 am

Guns. You’re either for them or against them.
You’ve already decided which. The whole Second Amendment “basis” we all like to natter on about is so much pseudo-intellectual smokescreen. (We pretend to be constitutional scholars when it comes to that amendment. We “know” what it means and —through a remarkable bit of telepathic communion with our long-dead Founding Fathers—we even know what these eminent figures thought and meant. We are fond of trumpeting these certainties. Remarkable.)
Does anyone sincerely believe that the whole gun argument is about the U.S. Constitution anymore? 
Well Rob Huffman, it's obvious that you are against them.

And for me, the U.S. Constitution isn't really the point.  
It's living or dying that's the point.

And for the sake of the argument which you seem to be inviting; I will declare that I am "for them".

Guns, that is.

Because I've been shot at, and missed; and I've shot back, and hit.
So the funny looking little guy who was trying to kill me was thwarted, and I prevailed.
And he died.

And I lived.


(It probably sounds insensitive to you, to hear that I am celebrating having killed a fellow human being.  But frankly, I'm alive and he isn't, so I think I just captured the moral high ground.  Unless, of course, you don't think that living is better than dying.)

Frankly, I was pretty darned happy about the outcome, 'cause if I hadn't shot back (and hit), I wouldn't be here to to discuss the whole meaningful gun debate with you.

But that doesn't matter to you, because you've never been shot at.  Obviously.
Had you been shot at, and missed, and you didn't have a way to defend yourself .... the Bad Guy (and there ARE Bad Guys out there) would have kept shooting at your defenseless ass until he killed you.

And then you wouldn't be here to promulgate this here debate on whether guns are a benefit or an evil.

I will be reviled for saying this, but I don’t think anyone really believes guns save lives.
Despite right-wing talk radios efforts to promote this fantasy and its echoing repetitions through the darker recesses of the often septic Internet blogosphere, no one really believes this. It’s convenient to say so if you’ve decided that you are pro-gun and you don’t wish to irritate the National Rifle Association and its fans.
Awwww .. you really shouldn't be talking about this shit when you obviously don't know your ass from a hole in a ground.

That hole in the ground, by the way, is the grave that neither you nof I are currently occupying.
You, because you are an ignorant dork who has never found yourself on the pointy end of the stick;
I, because I got lucky and the guy who was trying to kill me .... didn't.

He died,

I lived!
.. and I think that sort of makes my point that I really like having a gun when I need one.

I will be reviled for saying this, but I don’t think anyone really believes guns save lives. Despite right-wing talk radios efforts to promote this fantasy and its echoing repetitions through the darker recesses of the often septic Internet blogosphere, no one really believes this. It’s convenient to say so if you’ve decided that you are pro-gun and you don’t wish to irritate the National Rifle Association and its fans.
 I don't revile you for what you say.  I only lament your ignorance.


There was a time when we use to do these bizarre drills in USPSA/IPSC matches.

You know; when you had to perform some kind of meaningless task which had NOTHING to do with the target-engagement; but it made the Course Of Fire more demanding?

As I age, I'm glad that I don't have to do that shit any more.

But I suspect it's just because I don't think I CAN do that shit any more!

I know I'm getting old and feeble, but unfortunately I also think that USPSA (or the local practitioners there-of) may be getting old and feeble, too.

Lately, I've noticed that there are very few physical challenges in USPSA Courses of Fire.

I've come a long way from where I was five or ten years ago, when I complained that match stages seemed to be "too much" focusing on physical capabilities.  You know, like the ability to run 100 yards down range to a shooting position, and then engage a plethora of targets .. sometimes in shooting positions which are uncomfortable?

That sort of thing.  The physical tests, to make the shooting tests more  (dare I say it?) "PRACTICAL"!

I think the current version of the sport is becoming overly yuppified.   They're all "Stand And Shoot", or perhaps "Move And Shoot" stage designs. The worst challenge is often whether you can successfully engage targets from an "awkward" shooting position.

Pat McNamara on Range Theatrics

Surprising even myself, I rather appreciate the droll reality of this video.

I've always thought there was something just a little bit ... wrong ... with the "check your three o'clock and nine o'clock" drill, but I never knew what it was (except it seemed a bit ostentatious).

So when I found a reference toe the P.McN.... series, I viewed it with no expectations except that I couldn't get to sleep and maybe this would help my insomnia.

Hmmm ... no.  It's more interesting than that,  Not EXCITING ... but certainly more reasonable:

Pat McNamara on Range Theatrics - YouTube: Published on Sep 16, 2015

So maybe I won't be drowsy for a while yet, as I go check out some of the other (short, but informative) instructional videos in the series.

 For more from Pat McNamara, check out his instructional video, Make Ready with Pat McNamara: Carbine TAPS

For Whom The Bell Tolls

I'm still trying to figure out who is responsible for the Parisian Slaughter of the Innocents.

Never Yet Melted suggests that it may be the Amish.

Well, of course.  It all seems so clear to me now.

I thought it must have been some Religion Of Peace.

But the Liberals demand with certainly the cause of the bloodbath could not possibly have been religious intolerance.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Despite all this horror, the European Union elites are bringing into Europe millions of these savages. I have warned for years about this coming jihad. For doing so, I was attacked, smeared, and marginalized. We were right about it all, and yet still my colleagues and I are blacklisted. Hundreds are dead, and the war has just begun. We did everything in our power to save lives. But the political, media, and academic elites aligned with the savages. And now hundreds more are dead in Paris — and you ain’t seen nothing yet.

-- Sarah Geller

Welcome to Hell!

Here's your Hand-Basket:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos:

. BREAKING NEWS: FRENCH AUTHORITIES IDENTIFY one of the eight Paris assailants who created havoc in the city Friday night, killing 128 people and wounding more than 300 others, as 29-year-old Ismael Omar Mostefai, according to Sky News. Mostefai was reportedly a French citizen who was living in Chartes, just southwest of the capital.
.  CONFERENCE HEATS UP: Obama expected to come under pressure for more
ISIS involvement at G20 summit
. ARRESTS TIED TO PARIS ATTACKS: Belgium makes three arrests linked to Paris attacks
. NO MERCY: France's Hollande responds to Paris attacks that leave at least 129 dead
. DC VIGIL: French ambassador to US joins hundred in Washington vigil for those killed in Paris
. KERRY: World leaders take step to end
Syria war and spreading terror concerns, but disagreements persist
. LIVE BLOG COVERAGE OF PARIS TERROR ATTACKS | France-bound plane grounded after tweet
.VIDEOS: French president confirms
ISIS behind attacks | ISIS claims responsibility for Paris attacks
. VIDEO: Heavily armed police gather outside Paris hotel
. 'IT WAS CARNAGE': Survivors describe horrific scene in concert hall

I know, it's  easy to blame this on "Extremist Muslims", but according to at least one source, it's NOT THEIR FAULT!

SOLON: It's all the fault of Right Wing Exploitation!

According to that article in Solon:

We must mourn all victims. But until we look honestly at the violence we export, nothing will ever change

Any time there is an attack on civilians in the post-9/11 West, demagogues immediately blame it on Muslims. They frequently lack evidence, but depend on the blunt force of anti-Muslim bigotry to bolster their accusations.
Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than two percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated. In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature; in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.

Actually, Americans have been rather sensitized by the events of 9/11/01.
Which was .. ahem ... universally acknowledged to have been caused by Muslim extremists.  Most of whom came from privileged backgrounds.

mmm   I'm not convinced that this isn't a "Three-Percenter".   We've had other news reports since the Salon article was published which suggest that it wasn't an attack by Christians, or Jews, or Budists,  And I didn't see anyone in Saffron Robes wielding an AK47 in the photos.

Actually, some people are relating this to the 2008 Mumbai attacks.  But what do they know?

The article goes on to state:

As soon as the news of the attacks broke, even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers, a Who’s Who of right-wing pundits immediately latched on to the violence as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
In a disgrace to the victims, a shout chorus of reactionary demagogues exploited the horrific attacks to distract from and even deny domestic problems. They flatly told Black Lives Matter activists fighting for basic civil and human rights, fast-food workers seeking liveable wages and union rights, and students challenging crippling debts that their problems are insignificant because they are not being held hostage at gunpoint.
More insidiously, when evidence began to suggest that extremists were responsible for the attacks, and when ISIS eventually claimed responsibility, the demagogues implied or even downright insisted that Islam — the religion of 1.6 billion people — was to blame, and that the predominately (although not entirely) Muslim refugees entering the West are only going to carry out more of such attacks.

Oh, that's so slick   It's a work of art to conflate "Black Lives Matter" and the slaughter of over a hundred innocent victims in Paris.

But since I'm a WASP, I guess it's obligatory for me to jump to the conclusion that because this massacre was aimed at a group of citizens of a nation which has been accepting muslim refugees in record numbers in the last few years, the violence has been due to the national reluctance to support said muslim refugees.

Most of those refugees, though, have 'forted up' in neighborhoods where even the French police are loath to enter.
 The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 7, 2015
A backdrop to the massacre in Paris on Wednesday by self-professed al Qaeda terrorists is that city officials have increasingly ceded control of heavily Muslim neighborhoods to Islamists, block by block.
France has Europe’s largest population of Muslims, some of whom talk openly of ruling the country one day and casting aside Western legal systems for harsh, Islam-based Shariah law.
“The situation is out of control, and it is not reversible,” said Soeren Kern, an analyst at the Gatestone Institute and author of annual reports on the “Islamization of France.”
That sounds like it could have been written on November 14 rather than January 7, doesn't it?

But no, it's part of the reporting on the Charlie Hebdo attack.  It's not as if we ... and Paris ... hadn't been warned.

Apparently, it's reactionary to assume that if Muslims attacked Paris in January, and people using the same (or similar) terror tactics and equipment attack Paris in November ... oh, I can see that I am SO NOT Politically Correct, for I am jumping to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been ascertained.  (But after all, I remember this "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" racist cultural heritage that drives my knee-jerk reactions to large-scale public massacres by groups of individuals.)

Unfortunately, France continued its irresponsible Right Wing Exploitation (apparently by allowing unrestricted immigration of Muslim 'refugees'), and so of course it deserved every thing it got.