Heroes: Ricky John Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher

While I'm no fan of HuffPost, I'm grateful that they identified the three brave heroes who stopped the insane murderer on the Portland, Oregon "train".

And those three fine men are all heroes.

2 Men Stabbed To Death Standing Up To Muslim Hate In Portland | HuffPost:

 Portland police identified the deceased as Ricky John Best, 53, of Happy Valley, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche of Portland. Best died on the train, while Namkai-Meche was pronounced dead later at the hospital, police said. The third victim was identified as 21-year-old Micah Fletcher of Portland.

These men suffered grievous knife wounds .. two died in their effort to protect innocents while the third (Fletcher) was fortunate to survive the attack.

These are the heroes.

The pitiful loser who initiated the attacks  ,.. he obviously was someone who sought notoriety by hateful acts when he could not acquire fame by contributing a benefit to society .... should never be named.  I hope he burns in hell knowing that he has not achieved his goal of notoriety.

I won't attempt to profile the heroes here ... HuffPost did a fine job of identifying them.  I'm sure we will learn more about Best, Namkai-Meche and Fletcher.

If they do not receive (at least!) a medal from the hands of the President ... it will be a travesty of justice.

We would hope that any of us would have had the courage to intervene as these three fine men did, but I suspect that most of us would have been, in similar circumstances, frozen by terror and unable to act.  I cannot say that I would  have as well defended the innocent girl were I disarmed.

I doubt that most of us can aver, with certainty, that we would have had the courage and the sense of civic responsibility which was demonstrated by  Ricky John Best,  Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche  and Micah Fletcher!

In passing:   While it may seem that I'm beating the drum for my personal bias, it cannot go without commenting that if just ONE person on that urban train had been a CHL person, that entire tragedy could have been stopped with one accurate shot.

Two fine men would have lived; the third would not be grievously injured.

The evil man would have died .. as he obviously had hoped.

And the young woman ... the subject of the original assault ... might have been traumatized, but not as badly as she obviously was when she was forced to watch the gruesome death of two fine men, and the mutilation of another, for her protection,

Portland is suffering under the unfortunate appellation of "Berkeley North" because of its Liberal politics.  I cannot help but wonder if that might have contributed to this tragedy; the attacker might have assumed that he could attack without any effective resistance, if only because this might be an area where nobody would be armed with a gun (A "Gun-Free Zone" City?)

He was correct, to a point.

But he obviously never envisioned that three unarmed men would throw themselves bodily against an armed man (armed with a knife, which he had already demonstrated that HE had no hesitation to use) in defense of a young woman whom he deemed ... 'different'.

People Sometimes Ask:

"Why do you  carry a gun.  Are you so fearful?  Do you think that somebody will just walk up to you and assault you for no reason at all?   What... do you think you live in The Wild West or something?"

Well .. you never know.

Do you?

No guns for you, no guns for you ... go away kid, you bother me1

California Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-7) is pushing legislation to take away school administrators’ power to allow teachers with a Carry Concealed Weapon license (CCW) to be armed in classrooms for self-defense.

Sez it makes him nervous.

He doesn't spend a lot of time on high-school grounds (note: "NO GUN ZONE" ... duh!)

Well, it's not as if maniacal gunmen waste their time shooting kid on school campiii ...

What's the worst that could happen?

Dem. Assemblyman Pushes Bill to Guarantee Teachers Cannot Shoot Back if Attackers Strike - Breitbart:

About that 2012 Clackamas Mall Shooting .... ARMED CITIZEN!

Oregon Divide | Indiegogo:

On December 11th, 2012 at Clackamas Town Center in Portland Oregon, a lone gunman walked into the crowded shopping mall and started shooting.  He killed two people and wounded a teenager before he placed the barrel of his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

This is a frightfully telling story about a gunman in a public place.

The only element missing is ... why did the shooter kill himself?

Because one armed civilian (even though it was a Gun Free Zone) pointed his gun at the killer.

The Civilian didn't have to fire a shot ... the killer, noticing that he had been 'targeted' .... handled the dirty work.   Blew his own head apart.  (One Alpha)

Gun Free Zones ...  the civilian was NOT prosecuted for carrying in a GFZ!

And you know, the Main Stream Media won't tell you about that Armed Citizen!

(cf: Bearing Arms)

NRA, you got a LOT of 'splaining to do!

In a recent COUNTERPUNCH article, Ken Levy contends that the National Rifle Association is at fault, in part and in whole, for firearms violence in America.

If You Don’t Support Gun Control, Then You Don’t Support the Police:

The NRA and their Republican supporters’ enthusiastic encouragement and passage of lax gun laws and policies over the past 30 years have sadly enabled hundreds of thousands of senseless, needless deaths and injuries. It’s high time, then, that they atone for their destructive influence by renouncing the same old unproductive, callous platitudes and canards and finally getting on board with a sensible multi-pronged approach that includes gun control. In the end, this is really the only way to honor the Baton Rouge and Dallas police officers who were viciously murdered – and to better protect all of the police officers who are still serving.

Ken Levy is the Holt B. Harrison Associate Professor of Law at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.

It will be a fine day when Academics contain their lectures to their classrooms, where they are free to brainwash instruct their mallable students on the canons of Liberalism.

Unfortunately, they often feel obliged to lecture grown-ups as well.  In doing so, they demonstrate their Ivory Tower bigotry and flaunt their assumed intellectual superiority.

The good professor might spend some time with real police officers, who have said, recently and emphatically, that they cannot be everywhere; they cannot counter terrorism alone, and they encourage private citizens to arm themselves in order to promote the general wellfare.

(I think I read that last part here in DC, here in Ohio, here in Florida. )

Levy's polemic includes a duty of the citizen to "... protect all of the police officers who are still serving".

Funny, here's another thing I think I read somewhere:

"To Protect, And To Serve"

Oh, yes, now I remember.   It was written on the door of a police car.  

In fact, virtually all of the police cars in America carry that oath.

Levy confuses the roles which Americans assume with roles which Liberals take for granted.

For example, police assume the role of enforcement of the law.  While they claim to "protect", their ability to protect anyone is exceedingly limited.  They can't stop someone from gettting shot, for example ... even their fellow officers.  They would like to but "we can't be everywhere" is just a truth that we all learn to live with.

Levy's assumed role is, apparently, to criticize the people who are trying to make a difference because they don't meet his standards of ... uh ... "difference-making".

No, he won't criticize the police who cannot 'be everywhere'.  

But he WILL criticize American citizens who choose to arm themselves in defense of themselves and others, even though these people CAN  'be everywhere'.

Levy is laboring under the misguided assumption that, if firearms were universally prohibited, America would truly be a land of peace.

He should take a look at Australia and Great Britain,  the Liberals' best exemplar.   Private citizens there aren not often murdered by firearms (although they sometimes are), but they find themselves in a state of aggressiveness against which they have no defense.   The elderly, women, minorities ... all find themselves targets of hoodlums, and the police cannot protect them.   And they cannot protect themselves.   Witness the increased number of rapes and other assaults in England and Europe.  Those victims have no way to protect themselves, because firearms are forbidden ... and only the law-abiding are disarmed.

The assaults suffered there are "just hooliganism" ... victimization by your neighbors.

Compared with terrorism (where people who don't live where you live, but still they wish to murder as many of you as they can) the "unarmed, law abiding citizen" has, literally, no defense at all.  And like the hooligans, the terrorists know that.

In America ... perhaps the only thing which dissuades terrorists from more frequent, more brutal armed attacks is the fact that they may run into a citizen with a gun.

One thing is certain:   terrorist assaults with firearms only occur in "Gun Free Zones".
Such as California.

Gun Deaths in Gun-Free England?

How is this possible, in oh-so-proudly-gun-free England?


Detective sacked over Mark Duggan gun enquiry - BBC News:

 A detective has been sacked over his failed investigation into an associate of Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked riots in August 2011. The probe centred on Mr Duggan's associate, Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, who beat a man with a gun in east London. Six days after the attack he gave the same gun to Mr Duggan, who was shot 15 minutes later by armed police. The police watchdog found errors in how an officer, named only as DC Faulkner, conducted the initial investigation. The officer was dismissed without notice. Mr Duggan, 29, was shot by police in Tottenham, north London, on 4 August 2011.

What, again?

Two Airmen Fatally Shot at San Antonio Base Identified - NBC News:
(April 09, 2016)

The two airmen found dead in a shooting at a military base in San Antonio were identified Saturday, as the investigation into Friday's apparent murder-suicide continued. Air Force Lt. Col. William A. Schroeder and Sgt. Steven D. ******* were found dead Friday morning at Lackland Air Force Base, a part of Joint Base San Antonio. The FBI said in a statement that ******* was a special agent for two years before resigning in 2013. The attack appeared to be a murder-suicide, Bexar County Sheriff's Office spokesman James Keith told MSNBC Friday.

Curiously, the  only one armed was the attacker: who became the second 'victim' when he committed suicide .. which is probably not of much consolation to the family of the only REAL victim.

A separate account of the incident, posted Saturday morning in a blog posted on the internet and later pulled because of complaints, said that the technical sergeant had been with a senior NCO prior to the shooting. When the assailant, armed with two Glock handguns, produced a weapon, Schroeder told the senior NCO, a first sergeant, to run.
During the struggle, the technical sergeant fired at the first sergeant but missed her as she fled. Schroeder then fought with the assailant and was shot three times in the arm before being shot in the head.

The 'incident' is being described as 'work-place violence' by military officials.

The real victim was not able to defend himself because American bases within CONUS (Continent of the United States) are "Gun Free Zones".

This scenario may seem familiar to some of us.  Not just because it occurred at a base in America, but one sited in Texas.

Clearly, American Servicemen cannot be trusted with firearms in CONUS.

On the other hand, American Servicemen cannot be protected by American Service Units in America.

I do have some concerns about this kind of situation, as I have a family member in the service, currently assigned to a base in CONUS.   Even though he is a Master-at-Arms, he does not typically go armed when he is on duty on base.

For the record .. oh, never mind.  You know how appalled I am.   I'm sure you are, too.

Hashtag This!

Local groups try to stop handguns with hashtags | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio: COLUMBUS, Ohio -

... six women representing a handful of different anti-gun organizations in the state of Ohio ... (are) voicing opposition to House Bill 48, also known as the “Guns Everywhere Bill,” that would allow concealed carry at places like day cares, school zones, airports and police stations. The bill was already passed in the House. “The guns everywhere bill would put guns in places where they simply don’t belong,” Jennifer Thorne said. Thorne is the executive director with Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. To try to stop the bill from moving any further through the Senate, the coalition and about 10 other organizations are having a “virtual lobby day” Tuesday, April 5.

[emphasis and link added]

If the 'virtual lobby day' is successful, the only people who have guns "where they don't simply don't belong belong" would be the people who go there to shoot up infants, school kids and cops.

You know, the typical 'Gun Free Zones' which have already proven themselves to be a mecca for gun violence.

Up In Arms

PART 01:
The question is whether a Methodist college should sponsor a "shooting program".  The Alumni are "up in arms" because they believe that a religious institutions should not promote any activity which involves guns.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

INDIANOLA, Iowa -- A decision to boost a growing program has caused outrage from alumni at Simpson College.Opponents say it not only promotes guns on campus but it’s against the same religious beliefs that the college was founded on. 

While it's not clear what kind of 'shooting sports program' is involved, it seems reasonable to assume that this is a .22 caliber rifle/smallbore/bullseye target competition activity.

In a word, it's similar to throwing darts in a pub.

Oh, wait; that would also be contrary to religious priorities.

PART 02:

Dozens of people gathered at the University of Kansas on Monday to rally against a state law that will allow concealed weapons to be carried on college campuses next year.

"It's clear that the students don't want guns on campus, the faculty don't want guns on campus, the parents of students don't want guns on campus and the we feel the majority of Kansas doesn't want this either," says Meagen Youngdahl with the Kansas Coalition for a Gun-Free Campus.

Oh.  That's okay, then.  If students, faculty, parents AND "Kansas" are all agreed that they don't want guns on campus, the solution is simple, and obvious:

Don't bring a gun on campus.

See how easy that was?

Now, if you can only convince that wild-eyed 18-year-old maniac with a stolen gun that he shouldn't shoot up your campus, there should no problem.

(PS:  You might consider sending an email to ISIS ... you know, those guys with that 'other' religious view ... telling them that they can not bring guns on campus, either.  That should solve THAT problem.)

Shop in a "Gun Free Zone"? You may have legal options in case of injury:

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents:

Sponsored by (Tennesee State) Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose. “It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill states. 

 To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone. The legislation places responsibility on the business or property owner of the gun-free area to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any “invitees,” trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.” The bill does not define defensible man-made and natural hazards.

(NOTE: Also cited by bloggers "Conservative Tribune" and "GunsnFreedom", both of which  deserve credit for originally referencing this article.)

The legal option (in this unique Tennessee Bill) to sue only applies to legal gun owners who have a carry permit and were prohibited from carrying on the premises because of the property owners' posted restrictions.

OPINION:
I'm of two minds about this.

First, I rarely patronize any business which has a "no guns" sign posted;  if they don't trust me, I don't trust them.  Their business, their choice.  My money, I get to choose to whom I give it.   So, generally speaking, I don't care.


Second, this establishes an aggressive response to gun-free businesses, and because I'm a mild mannered person I choose non-aggression whenever I have a choice.

On the other hand, I don't patronize their businesses, I have no say in their business decisions, and I've already voted against them by refusing to do business with them.   Well, perhaps a certain degree of passive-aggression in that I respect their decision and take my business to people who trust me.

OH! WAIT A MINUTE!

Definition of "IRONY"

I know this has been blogged on gunblogger websites (*), but not everybody follows them.
And this is far too pertinent (or impertinent) to risk someone not reading the whole thing.  

Armed Drug Traffickers May Have Returned Fire in Paris Terrorist Attacks - The Truth About Guns:
(November 24, 2015)

The common refrain from gun loving people here in the United States following the terrorist attacks in Paris is that more good guys with guns on the scene would have saved lives. After all, if we can save just one life with concealed carry it will be worth it, right? There are some news reports circulating from foreign media sites which indicate that a couple people in that Paris restaurant were indeed armed and did in fact return fire, killing the terrorists and saving lives. There’s just one problem: they were reportedly drug traffickers.

* (H/T: Joel's Gulch)

The only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is another bad guy with a gun?

Reading the comments section on The Truth About Guns (see the link) it's clear that gun-folks in America have a keen appreciation for the situation.

Don't expect this to play real big in the Liberal Press.
But ... pass it along. This is definitely Another Geek Moment!

Now ... THAT'S Funny!

Obama greeted by hundreds of pro-gun protesters in Oregon:

Welcome to Oregon!  Now .. please go away!

According to reports put out by a pool of White House travel reporters, Obama's motorcade traveled from the local airport to Roseburg High School where he met with families of the deceased. The ride took about 10-15 minutes and he got to the school around 12:45 p.m. There were several hundred people clustered outside the gate to the airport and in the parking lot of a nearby Home Depot. Many of the people were snapping photos with their phones. But others carried signs at this location similar to those lining the highway. About half of the people stationed at this location welcomed Obama to the town. "The other half were negative or seemed to be protesting his calls action to tighten the nation's gun laws," the pool report said. Some of the signs visible from the motorcade: "Please leave us in peace" "Welcome to Roseburg." "We support our Sheriff" "WELCOME" "Gun Free Zones are for sitting ducks" "Obama is wrong" "Nothing Trumps our Liberty" "UCC Strong" for Umqua Community College.

( Photo from OregonLive: "Protestors turn out for Obama in Roseburg" )

Obama: "It Shouldn't Be Routine" vs Bush: Stuff Happens"

Republicans Accept Mass Killings. Gun Control Advocates, Get Graphic. | The New Republic:
October 08, 2015

But even thinking in the most cynical terms, throwing “stuff happens” in Bush’s face to suggest he has no sympathy for victims of gun violence is a tactical error as well as an intellectual one. “Stuff happens,” Bush said. “There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not always the right thing to do.” The trouble with this statement isn’t the phrase “stuff happens,” or even the (completely uncontroversial) observation that sometimes crises and tragedies have no obvious government remedies. The trouble is that Bush both ceded the point that some crises do merit government action, and also suggested that routine mass killings don’t fall into this category. “Stuff happens” wasn’t Bush’s response to the killings in Oregon last week—it’s the essence of his overall gun control policy, and the gun control policy of the entire Republican Party. Killing is senseless, but guns are great, and we must accept killings as a price of our freedom to own them.

Oh, Bullshit!

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone'

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone' Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can't Ban Guns | ThinkProgress:

Yes, it was.
They're liberals, they lie .. but they are so sly and we are so stupid that sometimes we even tempted to believe them!

They say that we CAN carry guns on campus to defend ourselves, but they carefully don't mention the fly in the ointment:   Oregon State Colleges (Universities) can keep you from carrying a weapon on any campus by simply refusing you permission to "carry" inside any building (or all buildings) by simply denying you permission.  And it's legal.

Roseburg, Oregon is in Douglas County, and even the county sheriff  has said that he will not enforce certain Oregon laws which are, in his words, "not enforceable",  But that doesn't mean that the laws are not still in force.

THE PASSIVE/AGGRESSIVE EFFECT OF A NON-COMPLIANT BUREAUCRACY!

Think Progress made an effort to dispute the GUN FREE ZONE issue, which many pro-gun people have cited as the reason why the murderer chose that venue for his massacre,

On Thursday, a shooter reported killed at least 13 people and injured many others at a community college in Oregon. Just minutes after the incident, commentators sought to attribute the incident to the fact that Umpqua Community College was a “gun free zone.” “The gun free zones are the areas that tell licensed gun owners that you are not allowed to carry your weapon in this facility…If you’re going to perpetrate some act, you know that most people are not going to be armed,” CNN “military analyst” Rick Francona said a few minutes after the shooting. A retired Navy Seal, Jonathan Gilliam, also appearing on CNN, went even further. Blaming the “gun free zone” for the scope of the tragedy and adding “the only thing that’s going to stop a gun is another gun.”

Okay so far, but here's the unspoken hitch:  You NEED PERMISSION to carry a gun on campus, and you can get permission; but you have to ask for it.  Oh, like how long is THAT going to take?

Not that they will listen ....

Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage | New York Post:

 A former president of the college said that it has only one unarmed security officer and that the community decided against armed guards last year. “I suspect this is going to start a discussion across the country about how community colleges prepare themselves for events like this,” Joe Olson told CBS.

(emphasis added)

College and University Administrators are scrambling for a safe place in the face of an oncoming firestorm of protest against collegiate rules forbidding self-defense on campus, and at least one former Oregon Administrator has pulled his head out of his Academia to ask:  "Is this going to hurt my career?"

Dear Joe, and all the oh-so-Academic-Joes who have been making life-altering decisions for your students for the past century:

Well ... yes.   There probably will be a 'discussion across the country' about this.  Except that the discussion has been going on for DECADES!  This is merely the first indication that someone in Academia might notice it.   (You sanctimonious bastards!)

Congress will FINALLY trust our troops more than muslim extremists? (Or Will They?)

"You got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?"


July 27, 2015:

Eight days I posted this opinion article:

Congress pushes to allow troops to be armed on military bases - Stripes:

 July 17, 2015 

WASHINGTON – Congressional leaders said Friday they will direct the Pentagon to allow troops to carry guns on base for personal protection following a deadly shooting rampage in Tennessee that killed four Marines and seriously wounded a sailor at a recruiting center.

From here, it sounds as if someone in Washington has finally removed their cranial box from their customary rectal depository, but ... you know Politicians.

If the cameras stop rolling, the suits start strolling.  Usually whistling a tuneless ditty, as if they're merely engaged in a casual stroll across the Capital Mall, and ...

They waffle

"Oh, excuse me?  Sorry, I was misquoted" they say .. if there is any chance that they may NOT have to actually follow through on their promises to arm U.S. military in unsecured public areas in CONUS.

Because our guys are, like, in Gun Free Zones.

(I may have mentioned my dislike of GFZ before.  As in:  February 2008 - May, 2013 ... for starters)

Unfortunately, the Army's Top Brass has less confidence in the quality of our troops than has Congress!
(From Fox News:)

The Army's top officer said Friday they would review security at military recruiting and reserve centers in the aftermath of the deadly shooting in Tennessee, but urged caution amid growing calls to arm more soldiers to protect against these kinds of attacks.
Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.
"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries."

[emphasis added]

A day later, I had this article to reinforce the argument AGAINST arming American Service Persons Domestically.

But wait .. there's more!

Who is in charge here?

The American Congress is willing (if tentatively) to allow American troops to be armed in (some) Domestic venues.

But America's Top Military Command is reluctant to allow his troops to "Carry", citing concerns about safety and gun-handling competence on the part of domestic troops.

WTF?  Who is in charge here?

And if the Army can't train troops to be responsible firearms handlers, what does that say about their leadership?

The Golden Rule

Fort Hood shooting victim denied benefits, despite Purple Heart decision | Fox News:

 The Obama administration has finally acknowledged that those hurt and killed in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings were victims of terrorism -- and not “workplace violence,” as it was previously described. But while formal recognition of that is set for Friday, when victims will receive the Purple Heart, it may only be symbolic.

I find it bizarre that a government denies it's military (who defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic) compensation for injuries while serving ... which as a matter of policy refuses to allow servicemen on duty to carry a weapon ... can deny full benefits for victims of wounds and other injuries.

Surely, some of those injured were not activly "on duty" at the time; but others were.   What's the difference between those who were actively "on duty" (an MP?) and those who were 'on base'?

 When I was in the army, when I was in a military base I was always assumed to be "on duty" even if I was not carrying a firearm at the time.

This was obviously a cost-cutting decision, made with no consideration of how the professional service men and women (the person who cut down the murderer was an MP ... but she couldn't be EVERYWHERE!) would react to this patent lack of faith.

The lesson I learned in the military is that loyalty must not only go up the chain of command, but down.  I guess Obama has no understanding of the concepts of loyalty, duty, honor and country.

We're not talking about "Stand Your Ground" civilians here; we're talking about people who were targeted specifically because they were members of the military!

BUT:

The Golden Rule applies here!

Teaching Gun Safety (The REAL Story)

Some people just shouldn't have guns.  They don't understand the concept of safe gun-handling techniques, but they think it looks easy, so they want to try it out.

That's where I come in.  I teach people how to shoot safely under stress.  Not everybody is quite up to the challenge. If they can't hack it ... by the end of the afternoon, they know it better than I do.

And I know it.  I watch them pass or fail, and I never have tell them that they have failed the course:  I never see them again.   It's as simple as that.

Yeah, I bet you get tired of hearing how excited I am about teaching a new lot of folks how to compete safely in IPSC competition.

But I don't get tired of talking about it, and I don't get tired about the joy of watching new wanna-be competitors having fun shooting even the most mundane (or the most challenging) of live-fire exercises.

I've been doing this for four or five years now.

 Fifty percent of the  people I teach don't attend more than a single match, if that.  They're not all here for the competition; they're as often here to check it (competition shooting) out and see if this is something that they want to spend their time and money on.

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy:  They get some trigger time in, realize that *(a) they don't think they're good enough to do this, or *(b) they think they might be good enough ... in time .. but they don't care enough to spend the time to be 'good at it'.

Sometimes ... enough to make it worth my effort ... they prove to be safe, accurate, interested competitors that I wouldn't mind squading with.

Thank GOD no guns were involved!

Attack in China leaves 15 dead, 14 injured | Fox News: BEIJING –
(November 29, 2014)

Chinese state media say 15 people have been killed in an attack in the country's troubled western Xinjiang region. The official Xinhua News Agency says 14 other people were injured in what it said was a terrorist attack Friday in Shache county. The Tianshan news portal said Saturday that the attackers used vehicles, knives and explosives in the assault. It said the dead included 11 of the attackers. Such attacks have claimed dozens of lives in Xinjiang over the past year. Members of the region's Muslim Uighur minority group have bristled under what they say is repressive Chinese government rule.

Kroger: "If you don't trust me, I wouldn't trust you

(H/T: "Sharp As A Marble")

Last month, when the MOMS started harassing Kroger, I found a convenient place on their (Kroger) website to enter a comment.  (Look it up for yourself.)

I gave them my name, address and phone number.  I told them that I had been shopping for 'almost everything' at my local Kroger store (in Corvallis, that's "Fred Meyers' Store") for over 20 years, and I wanted to tell them how much I appreciated that they did not cave into the anti-gunners' exploitative pressure for the chain to kowtow to their nonsense.

I told them that the reasons I shopped there were many:  Convenient location, competitive prices, great selection of quality foods and other goods.  I get my prescriptions filled there.  Friendly people .. the clerks always ask if I found everything I wanted, and if I didn't ... I mention it.  Next time, or the time after that when I visit the store, they have stocked it again.

Also, I told them that I "may or may not carry" on their premises, but they won't know because if I did, it would be concealed in accordance to local law, and I'm not inclined to frighten other shoppers.  Most of them are my neighbors.

Finally, I told them that I never, ever, enter a store with a "No Guns" sign on their door.  I'm there to spend money: they're there to make money. I don't look for opportunities to be insulted, or make trouble.  I just want to go home with a full shopping cart.

Besides, a "NO GUNS" sign on the door is an incitement to violence.