The NYT would rather see kids shot by invaders than to arm teachers.

The opinion column of the New York Times is always good for a "WTF?" moment.
(SEE: Below The Fold)

Despite the recent (?) spate of school shootings, NYT thinks that arming teachers would:

"... contribute to a climate of fear in schools and note that study after study equates more guns with more injuries and deaths."

It's significant that the wise editors of the NYT use the term "contribute to the climate of fear", which tacitly acknowledges that a "climate of fear" already exists in schools, after reports of predators attacking schoolchildren around the country.

When the only one with a gun is a predator,  it's difficult to imagine how an armed defender could make any student more fearful .... unless the NYT is willing to encourage students to "Pay No Attention To The Man Shooting Your Friends".    Apparently, students should not trust their teachers, but they should trust interlopers.

(Among interlopers, I'm including the sworn police officer who received reports of armed attacks on innocents, and heard the shots fired, but hid in his  police  car under a bridge until the shooting was over, rather than to risk his life defending the public.)

I'm sure there are statistics which report the number of educators who turn on their students with intentions of mass murder.

Oh, I looked it up.  I found ten reports of teachers killing students: worldwide!

Three used firearms    The rest used knives, or various forms of strangulation.   Apparently, when teachers run amok, they use the tools at hand ... some of which are more gruesome than others.  (Many of the reports note an "interpersonal" relationship; the teacher was banging  having an affair-gone-wrong with the student.)

I haven't found any reports of Mister Jones or Miss Smith Niner-ing their Junior High School class on Civics in Dubeque Iowa.

THE FOLD:

LIBERALS ... you gotta love 'em

NOT!





(Hat Tip: Paterico's Pontifications) via Firehand)

I've said before, and I'll say it again: I hate politics.

It makes people crazy, and damages the innocent.

And they say that gun owners are "intractable"!

We see Gun Control Advocates changing directions like an IPSC competitor changes magazines ... if this load of BS isn't working, let's try another load.

Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:

This year’s measure to limit access to firearms for people under protective orders, Initiative 1491, is modeled on legislation that has passed in states like California, Connecticut and Indiana. If it is successful, it too will be exported to other states.

Protective Orders have their own special place in hell for a male partner who has been targetted by his female partner.

When a partnership disintegrates, accusations run wild and courts have neither the resources nor the inclination to investigate the claims and counterclaims.  If a woman states that she fears for her physical safety, courts will first look for records of police visitations to the home, searching for evidence of abuse.  However, if those events are not evident, the court will still almost invariably accept the woman's statement as sufficient to issue a Protective Order.

Usually, the conditions of that order include that the male partner must vacate the family home, maintain a physical distance from the spouse (and often the children, depending on what arrangements Family Services can establish), and continue to provide maintenance.

This is proper; a relationship which has been established with the expectation that the man will provide sustenance and the woman will care for home and children is a common arrangement, and should not be broken merely because the partners are engaged in a contretemps ... one hopes that they are jointly seeking third-party counselling.

However, in any disagreement between the 'stories' told by both parties in those counselling sessions, the story told by the supposed 'abused' female partner will always be believed.

Unfortunately, minor squables become court actions, and a female partner who feels vindictive can rely on the courts to impose crippling conditions on the ousted male partner.

When the condition of separation changes to include unilateral imposition on the partner's Second Amendment Rights (perhaps to the point where his personal firearms must be surrendered, or his legal ability to purchase a firearm is infringed), then a court hearing should be a part of the process.   It should not be sufficient that in a "She Said/He Said" disputation, the female partner's testimony should automatically be held to be true.

Constitutional Rights.

Although the Constition should be considered (and it rarely becomes in issue in lower courts), the possibility that one partner is vindictively painting her former partner in the worst possible light should be examined carefully.   Courts generally take the Second Amendment seriously .. except for when they do not.

When a domestic ruling against a partner (former partner) includes the suggestion that his constititional rights be infringed, that is NOT an issue which should be handled in a lower court.

Stephanie Ervin, who is running the pro-1491 campaign, said she expected a similar measure to appear on the ballot in Oregon. “It feels like we’re at a real tipping point, and folks are really engaging in the dialogue around gun responsibility issues,” Ervin said.

Well, yes, it's a true Tipping Point, and one which should be approached carefully, with respect to the rights of both parties in even (relatively minor) domestic disputes.

It's not easy for Domestic Partners to testify against each other.  Except for when it is. 

And it is very easy, when grudges have been allowed to fester in a relationship, and one (or both) partners have decided that "All Is Fair In Love And War!" for a partner to decide to "stick it to" the other partner.  This is no longer a matter of a fair distribution of wealth, and privacy, and support;  it may become a matter of much greater significanse.

Before a lower-court judge allows a judgement against a domestic partner which violates his or her Constitutional rights, it should be moved to a higher court.

The arbirary ruling which deprives a domestic partner of his or her rights should not be decided in family court.

Support by Gun Control Backers:

 Gun rights advocates, too, believe they are seeing the opening moves in a prolonged campaign by gun control backers. They say the proposals for expanded background checks are unenforceable and represent a slippery slope toward something more sinister, like gun registration. “This is the camel getting its nose under the tent. Before you know it, you’ve got a whole camel in your tent,” said Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey (R), one of the leading opponents of the ballot measure in his state.

The Gun Control folks never saw a Gun Control Law they didn't like.

 Expect a strong surge of support for this kind of ruling by Domestic Courts; one which takes away a constitutional right for domestic suits, without strong support by unbiased testimony.

This is not an issue which rightfully should be decided there.  It should be an issue worthy of advancing to a higher court, on at least a state level.

Yes, that would would overload the courts with a case-load of issues which the judges would consider 'minor'.

But the infringement of a Consititional right must never be considered to be a 'minor issue'.

Perhaps, by requiring a Higher Court to become involved in this kind of suit, it would have the effect (eventually) of stilling vindictive terms of separation by Lower courts.

What's the difference between IPhone Security and Firearms Security?

Forget iPhones, let's require passcodes on guns - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram:

Why is it a 6-year-old child can pick up an iPhone and be prevented from accessing its contents because of a passcode, but that same child can pick up a gun and shoot his 3-year-old brother in the face and kill him by accident? If a judge can order Apple to create software that can unlock phones that are now impenetrable, why can’t Congress order gun makers to lock their guns?

Where do we start?

(1) A child should not initiate a fatal firearms accident ... parental responsibility.   Does it sound too simplistic to suggest that cell phones and firearms should not be subject to the same security protocols?   If you own a firearm and your minor child has access, the consequences are YOUR fault!

(2) "Passcodes" are intended for access restrictions of electronic devices; they are not intended for access restrictions for defense firearms.  ANY protocol which delays immediate access to a defensive firearm cripples the 'defensive' capability of a firearm.  Good people die when artificial restrictions cripple an honest citizen's access to a defensive weapon.  Cell phones .... not so much.

(3) The role of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.  Too often the Liberals think that the job of Congress is to enact "feel-good" laws.  There is a technical term to describe people who conflate personal physical security with cell-phone security.  That technical term is "IDIOTS!"

(4) The job of legislation is to protect private rights, not to limit them.

More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings? NO redeeming factors? Hah!

Study: More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings | RealClearScience:
(February 02, 2016)

After peaking in the 1980s and early 1990s, crime has plummeted in the United States. The rates of forcible rape, murder, violent crime, property crime, and aggravated assault are currently as low as they were in the 1960s.

Some studies have suggested strongly that this reduction in crime can be directly tied to the increase in the number of states which allow concealed carry (and often "open carry" ... where firearms are NOT concealed but in open view ... predominately in holsters) by private citizens.  

("Correlation does not imply causation", but the author of this article uses the word "relationship" in the discussion.   Based on that synchronicity,  it seems reasonable to suggest that some 'relationship' exists between the statistics on violent crime and the increased presence of 'carried' firearms.)

 While these statistics demonstrate that Americans are about as safe from crime as they have been in over a half-century, there is a particularly horrendous type of crime that has been alarmingly on the uptick: public mass shootings. In places like San Bernadino, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roseburg, Oregon, Charleston, South Carolina, and Newtown, Connecticut, innocents have been mercilessly gunned down in great numbers.

However, other studies , such as the Texas A&M study reported here dispute that assumption:

According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime, and specifically violent crime, has been decreasing nationally since 1993, with a similar decline in other Western nations. Some commentators claim the decline in the United States is attributed to the increase in concealed carry legislation. But criminologists point to a variety of factors that have lead to the drop in crime, including changes in policing, punishment, crime prevention technology and socio-economic factors.

The Texas Tribune article, quoting state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat who chairs the House County Affairs Committee, which tackles criminal justice issues asserts that:

“People who commit crimes are less likely to go through that background check,” he said.  It’s also unlikely that a concealed handgun license holder would be in the right place at the right time to stop a crime, Coleman said.

That statement seems a little disingenuous.  The purpose of undergoing a background check to acquire a concealed carry permit is specifically to catch criminals ... who don't want to apply for a license to do the illegal actions for which they need guns.  ("Circular Reasoning" is a difficult concept to explain.)

As to the "unlikely" probability that a CHL holder "would 'be in the right place at the right time" is disproved daily in news reports.  For example, John Lott recently described four crimes stopped by civilian handgun carriers in one week in December, 2915.

And  in April of 2015, Lott (author of "More Guns, Less Crime") published an article titled: 

COMPILING CASES WHERE CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS HAVE STOPPED MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS

(Please follow the links from that starting point ... there is a lot of information, including links to published articles.)

This is all background, presented to establish the statistical evidence that firearms ownership DOES have a positive effect on crime prevention, and introducing another opinion on the question whether (civilian) concealed carry provides another approach to crime prevention.

Delaware Violence: NY Times disappointed in CDC reporting

Delaware has a problem with "Violence" which is among the greatest in America.   That much we can say.

So Delaware asked the Center for Disease Control to research the problem; which the CDC did.

But the New York Times (and people in Delaware) are disappointed that the CDC report covered 'violence in Delaware' rather than "GUN Violence in Delaware'.

NPR said the things that Delaware wanted to say, but the CDC couldn't report that information directly.

The New York Times: (note: unable to append the NYT video interview because of proprietary constraints it isn't available on YouTube) covered the CDC report, but focused  on the disappointment that: ",.. (u)nfortunately they [the CDC] feel like they can only talk about part of the problem, they can’t talk about the gun part of the problem... ”
[emphasis added]

The Wilmington research [by the CDC] sidestepped the funding restrictions, because it was a response to a request and because “it doesn’t focus as much on the issue of guns themselves; it really focuses on these other risk factors and ways to intervene,” said. Dr. Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the C.D.C. She added that it was frustrating to be unable to do an extensive study on gun violence while she was there.
 David Hemenway, a director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said that could be a shortcoming of an effort to look at gun violence. “Unfortunately they feel like they can only talk about part of the problem, they can’t talk about the gun part of the problem,” Dr. Hemenway said, adding, “Looking at the supply side — how do they get these destructive weapons?”
 Questions remain about whether the focus on risk factors before a shooting amounts to profiling people who have not committed a crime, and how exactly to coordinate data, social, health and educational services that could help intervene. Still, public health experts say it is a methodically sound and instructive study, if limited. “If there were adequate funding on firearm-related research, there would have been papers out on this a decade ago, not just in Wilmington, but in many other large cities,” Dr. Miller said.

Shouldn't any report on "Violence" consider all forms of Violence?  Unfortunately, too often news-source reporting will focus on "gun violence" rather than 'all violence'.

Unless you are the 800 pound Gorilla in the story .... the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
And then ... you are congressionaly BARRED from glamorizing Gun Violence

The CDC has found itself constrained from researching/reporting strictly on "Gun Violence" because for a time their research on that subject was unbalanced; they spent their efforts on the negative aspects of firearms ownership while ignoring the positive aspects.  Specifically, they declined to report on the lives saved by individuals who were able to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their possessions because they had legal access to firearms.