I live in a "Dead Zone".
I don't know why it is, but I can't get radio stations ... even local ones .. as clearly in my home as I can from my car after I've driven a few blocks.
When I decided to discontinue my telephone "land line" service and instead use a cell phone, I couldn't use AOL Online as my IP; so I looked into the ability to use a 'wi-fi' connection. No good; there are towers in my town, but their range extends to within 2 blocks of my home, but no closer; I couldn't use wi-fi connections. I had to go to COMCAST CABLE to get a high-speed internet connection.
And my Cell Phone is similarly problematic: sometimes I hear from friends or family, and they say: "I tried to call you the other day, and you never picked up. Are you mad at me or something? Why are you avoiding my calls?" I have to say ... "gee, the phone was turned on, the ringer was on HIGH, and I had it right in front of me on my desk. It never rang, I have no record of your call. I am not avoiding you!"
(Most of my friends have agreed to believe that I never got the call, if I agree to believe that they tried to call me. That's what friends do.)
I go through washers and dryers every few years; they wear out faster than "Street Slick" tires on a Mopar Racing car.
I've installed LAN setups, twice, to allow internet access from my laptop computer via my my desktop. They failed after a few months. A few times I was able to re-activate them. Eventually, they failed so frequently that I quit trying; now I have a 'gizmo' from Verizon which gives me (anywhere there's a cell tower) phone access to the Internet for my laptop ... which is quite expensive, but it works. So far.
The Electrical Utility in my neighborhood has brown-outs "often" .. during the Winter (I don't know why in Winter, but there it is) it happens on almost a weekly basis. During the rest of the year ... it still occurs about once a month. The power company has replaced the local .. whatchamacallet, the power distribution thingie ... several times. It still happens. My computer dies even though I have an expensive UPS unit inline. My VCR/DVD has to be reset, my clocks have to be reset (which is why I have a LOT of battery powered clocks in my house). I've only had total electrical failure a half-dozen times I've lived here.
When I replace a light bulb in my house, I always use a magic marker to record ON THE BULB when I last replaced it. During the winter ... again ... I replace bulbs every two months "sometimes" because they blow out. Not burn out .but blow out with a flash of white light when I turn them on. I have very few bulbs which last more than a year; the exception is my porch light, which is a flourescent 'spriral' bulb. I leave my porch light turned on 24/7/365 because it's cheaper than replacing it so often. All the rest? Sometimes, a light bulb lasts for six months.
I know I've talked about all this before, but not for a couple of years (I don't care to research the last time .. afraid it will kill my computer!) but sometimes I feel like "Joe Bftznicxkt" ... (sp) ... the little guy in the old Superman comic books who always has a dark cloud hanging over his head; if he didn't have bad luck, he wouldn't have "no luck at all".
And lately (in the last 4 or 5 years), I have been suffering from insomnia and some kind of exzema or psoriasis on my hands ... not serious, either; just irritating. I'm still working on that.
The latest thing?
I am writing this article in "normal" (12-point) type-font, but as I compose it looks like 16-point. I have no idea what it's going to look like when I actually publish it, but my preview makes it look like bold type and a different font than I usually use. Oh, yes, and my spell-checker? It's high-lighting words that I know are spelled right; 4 of them in them in this paragraph alone.
So when I tell you that I live in a "Dark Zone"? It's not really whining. It's just a way of saying that ... if I someday just disappear?
Don't be surprised if you hear the faint notes from "The Twilight Zone" when you try to access this blog.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Comcast Sux: A Retraction
This morning I wrote an irate blog article about Comcast Mail.
Sometimes when I rant, it helps me to let off steam. Then I can start thinking rationally again.
I know, it's just me. Nobody else has such a warped personality.
After I vented, I spent the next couple of hours comparing response time with two different browsers: Firefox 11 and Explorer 8. I found that it took about 6 minutes to actually read an email, on Explorer; on Firefox, I still wasn't even getting the entire page-load when I wanted to look at my in-basket ... so after 7 minutes I gave up.
I also checked thoroughly on both browsers for the two emails which had been lost; they didn't appear.
And Comcast has a thing with its cable modem. Sometimes, response time on internet access in general becomes untenably long. I first ran into this several years ago, and called my local Comcast office. They suggested that I follow the following procedure:
But the email access was still hosed.
Then I found a link to a Comcast "HELP" resource which allows you to "chat with a technician".
I connected, and Priscilla came on the line. She had me 'release' my Explorer session after I had reset it, and then I had to reboot my browser session. When I asked how I would get back to my chat session, she said she would email me the URL but since my problem was that I couldn't reliably get email she asked me for a non-Comcast email address. I replied in a very snide manner that I had foolishly failed to provide myself with any other email resources than Comcast. She agreed to send it to my Comcast email address, and hoped that I could read it.
She did, and I did read the email; so far, so good.
When I rebooted my browser and used the URL to re-initiate the HELP CHAT session, I wasn't talking to Priscilla any more, I was talking to Baby Jane (I swear I'm not making this up!)
Baby Jane worked with me for a while longer, and then suggested that I try sending an email to test the response.
So I sent an email to myself, and it worked. And I was able to read the email. Also the page-list of my inbasket loaded immediately.
Problem solved!
I was so elated, that I even agreed to complete their survey form. I rated "HIGHLY SATISFIED" except for the question about whether I was overall satisfied with COMCAST performance; I churlishly gave it only a "satisfied" rating; I was still fuming over lost emails. (If you've read this blog for long, and especially if I've ever sent an email to you, you're probably aware that I tend to ramble on whether I really have anything to say or not! So I wasn't about to try to recreate the brilliance of those two lost lambs.)
Then I went about my business, and didn't get back online until this evening. Checking my blog comments (via COMCAST EMAIL), I found a comment from a person purporting to be:
Mark Casem
Comcast Corp.
National Customer Operations
We_can_help@cable.comcast.com
I'm not revealing any personal information here; he left his message and contact information in the public COMMENTS section of my blog; you can still see it here.
Well, now I'm feeling a little embarassed. As well I should be.
These people were really nice to me. And helpful, and polite, and professional ... and technically competent. They turned this Grumpy Old Man into Bert Lahr ("The Cowardly Lion" in 'Wizard of Oz') with grace and patience. They never ONCE suggested that it might be my fault, or that I had to update my Explorer from V-8 to V-9. Which was what I had expected.
And I never had the grace to go back and delete the extremely intemperate statements I made in my original post.
And I'm not going to delete the post, either. I intend to leave it up both to underline my chagrin, and to provide the context which just might make THIS post understandable.
I am, however, going to leave the comments section in place, and I'll add an UPDATE link to the original post so that anyone who reads it and takes it out of context ... will be able to see that COMCAST may have the occasional technical problem .. but they will not allow it to stand uncorrected.if their customers only use the resources which they HAVE provided.
Thanks, Comcast. You're a better provider than I am a customer.
But I'm still going to create an alternate non-COMCAST email address. Just in case, you understand.
Sometimes when I rant, it helps me to let off steam. Then I can start thinking rationally again.
I know, it's just me. Nobody else has such a warped personality.
After I vented, I spent the next couple of hours comparing response time with two different browsers: Firefox 11 and Explorer 8. I found that it took about 6 minutes to actually read an email, on Explorer; on Firefox, I still wasn't even getting the entire page-load when I wanted to look at my in-basket ... so after 7 minutes I gave up.
I also checked thoroughly on both browsers for the two emails which had been lost; they didn't appear.
And Comcast has a thing with its cable modem. Sometimes, response time on internet access in general becomes untenably long. I first ran into this several years ago, and called my local Comcast office. They suggested that I follow the following procedure:
- turn off the cable modem
- UNPLUG the modem!
- Let it stand for at least 2 minutes (a more recent suggestion on the Comcast "HELP" pages suggested at least 3 minutes)
- Plug it back in, turn it back on, push the start button, and wait until all the little indicator lights come on.
But the email access was still hosed.
Then I found a link to a Comcast "HELP" resource which allows you to "chat with a technician".
I connected, and Priscilla came on the line. She had me 'release' my Explorer session after I had reset it, and then I had to reboot my browser session. When I asked how I would get back to my chat session, she said she would email me the URL but since my problem was that I couldn't reliably get email she asked me for a non-Comcast email address. I replied in a very snide manner that I had foolishly failed to provide myself with any other email resources than Comcast. She agreed to send it to my Comcast email address, and hoped that I could read it.
She did, and I did read the email; so far, so good.
When I rebooted my browser and used the URL to re-initiate the HELP CHAT session, I wasn't talking to Priscilla any more, I was talking to Baby Jane (I swear I'm not making this up!)
Baby Jane worked with me for a while longer, and then suggested that I try sending an email to test the response.
So I sent an email to myself, and it worked. And I was able to read the email. Also the page-list of my inbasket loaded immediately.
Problem solved!
I was so elated, that I even agreed to complete their survey form. I rated "HIGHLY SATISFIED" except for the question about whether I was overall satisfied with COMCAST performance; I churlishly gave it only a "satisfied" rating; I was still fuming over lost emails. (If you've read this blog for long, and especially if I've ever sent an email to you, you're probably aware that I tend to ramble on whether I really have anything to say or not! So I wasn't about to try to recreate the brilliance of those two lost lambs.)
Then I went about my business, and didn't get back online until this evening. Checking my blog comments (via COMCAST EMAIL), I found a comment from a person purporting to be:
Mark Casem
Comcast Corp.
National Customer Operations
We_can_help@cable.comcast.com
I'm not revealing any personal information here; he left his message and contact information in the public COMMENTS section of my blog; you can still see it here.
Well, now I'm feeling a little embarassed. As well I should be.
These people were really nice to me. And helpful, and polite, and professional ... and technically competent. They turned this Grumpy Old Man into Bert Lahr ("The Cowardly Lion" in 'Wizard of Oz') with grace and patience. They never ONCE suggested that it might be my fault, or that I had to update my Explorer from V-8 to V-9. Which was what I had expected.
And I never had the grace to go back and delete the extremely intemperate statements I made in my original post.
And I'm not going to delete the post, either. I intend to leave it up both to underline my chagrin, and to provide the context which just might make THIS post understandable.
I am, however, going to leave the comments section in place, and I'll add an UPDATE link to the original post so that anyone who reads it and takes it out of context ... will be able to see that COMCAST may have the occasional technical problem .. but they will not allow it to stand uncorrected.if their customers only use the resources which they HAVE provided.
Thanks, Comcast. You're a better provider than I am a customer.
But I'm still going to create an alternate non-COMCAST email address. Just in case, you understand.
Comcast Sux
Well, I've been having problems with my IP ... COMCAST.NET ... recently. It takes 'a long time' to send an email. Like ... NEVER!
I composed an email today, which I had to send to DRAFT because Comcast Infinity "SmartMail" won't send it. No reason why, except there's a message popping up which says "the server may be down". It's not the first time I've received that message.
Funny thing, every website that isn't COMCAST works just fine. And so, since it IS my Internet Provider, there's apparently something up.
And I haven't been able to send email off and on for several days. Sometimes it works, sometimes if I just leave the room and go do something else (cook and eat a meal ... you know, something that doesn't take more than an hour or two), when I come back the email has been sent.
A couple of days ago I tried to send an email, and it took so long that I just gave up and went to sleep. When I got up the next morning, the email was gone. I hadn't even been able to send it to the DRAFT file, so it was just lost.
I'm getting pretty sick of this. The ultimate problem is that even if I change my IP from Comcast to ... oh, I don't know ... ANYBODY ELSE! .... all of my online accounts are tied to my Comcast email addresses. Banking, Billing, Amazon, utilities, social websites, games, sports (like USPSA) ... everyone that I contact online knows me by my current IP.
They've got me by the short and curlies, and I don't like feeling so powerless.
Oh, I tried to run a speed test this morning? It failed. I did the 'reboot' procedure, where I not only turn off my cable modem but physically disconnect it for at least 3 minutes. (This is the second time this week that I did it.) Didn't make a bit of difference.
The really funny thing is that ... gee, all of the other websites that I visit) such as Blogger, as you can plainly see) work just fine. There isn't anything wrong with the Internet Connection ... it's just Comcast, itself?
I know there are a lot of people out there who have Comcast for their IP. I'm wondering, is there anyone else who is having trouble with the COMCAST FEATURES, or is it just me?
Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
UPDATE:
Since I wrote this, I contacted COMCAST Technical Support, and they resolved the problem to my satisfaction. Details available here, and I regret that I made public my dissatisfaction BEFORE I gave them a chance to fix it .. online, real time, and with a very professional "problem solving" approach.
I composed an email today, which I had to send to DRAFT because Comcast Infinity "SmartMail" won't send it. No reason why, except there's a message popping up which says "the server may be down". It's not the first time I've received that message.
Funny thing, every website that isn't COMCAST works just fine. And so, since it IS my Internet Provider, there's apparently something up.
And I haven't been able to send email off and on for several days. Sometimes it works, sometimes if I just leave the room and go do something else (cook and eat a meal ... you know, something that doesn't take more than an hour or two), when I come back the email has been sent.
A couple of days ago I tried to send an email, and it took so long that I just gave up and went to sleep. When I got up the next morning, the email was gone. I hadn't even been able to send it to the DRAFT file, so it was just lost.
I'm getting pretty sick of this. The ultimate problem is that even if I change my IP from Comcast to ... oh, I don't know ... ANYBODY ELSE! .... all of my online accounts are tied to my Comcast email addresses. Banking, Billing, Amazon, utilities, social websites, games, sports (like USPSA) ... everyone that I contact online knows me by my current IP.
They've got me by the short and curlies, and I don't like feeling so powerless.
Oh, I tried to run a speed test this morning? It failed. I did the 'reboot' procedure, where I not only turn off my cable modem but physically disconnect it for at least 3 minutes. (This is the second time this week that I did it.) Didn't make a bit of difference.
The really funny thing is that ... gee, all of the other websites that I visit) such as Blogger, as you can plainly see) work just fine. There isn't anything wrong with the Internet Connection ... it's just Comcast, itself?
I know there are a lot of people out there who have Comcast for their IP. I'm wondering, is there anyone else who is having trouble with the COMCAST FEATURES, or is it just me?
Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
UPDATE:
Since I wrote this, I contacted COMCAST Technical Support, and they resolved the problem to my satisfaction. Details available here, and I regret that I made public my dissatisfaction BEFORE I gave them a chance to fix it .. online, real time, and with a very professional "problem solving" approach.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Seventy Percent of NRA Members support "Reasonable" Gun Controls!
It depends on what your definition of "Is", is.
Let's take this question of two levels:
First, what is your definition of "Reasonable" Gun Controls.
Second, what is the political agenda behind that definition?
Taking the second question firsts, there are a LOT of people who think that the word "REASONABLE" means "Highly Restrictive". These are those folks who think that, for example "reasonable" includes Firearms Registration.
Most folks in the NRA are convinced that "Registration equals Confiscation". And yes, there is some history which supports this belief.
The "Keep And Bear Arms" website contains an article which testifies to the 1999 California Confiscation of SKS rifles:
So, the folks that don't believe that "Registration equals Confiscation" ... be warned!
In America, that not only CAN happen, but it HAS happened. Learn from it.
We have learned from that lesson, and so it's difficult to believe that "seventy percent of NRA members support 'Reasonable Gun Controls'.
Essentially, for political or 'other' (is there an 'other' reason besides political?) reason, the politicians in your state ... or in your country ... WILL confiscate your firearms.
"Pay no attention to what they say, but look closely as what they do!"
This is the political wisdom which was imparted to me by a Vietnamese "Boat Person" in the early 1990's. He was speaking about the Communists in Viet Nam at the time, but is there really that much difference?
Here's what 'those people' mean when they speak of 'reasonable gun controls' (From "ThinkProgress.ORG": the folks who provided the terrific quote that started this rant)
In fact, new research released in July by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors against Illegal Guns, finds that gun advocates overwhelmingly support common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:
I'm deliberately not going to 'fisk' this, because on the surface they DO sound "reasonable".
Okay, so maybe I will fisk this just a little bit:
5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence.
Frankly I'm not sure that this isn't subject to abuse. Having been "arrested" for an "domestic violence" is often nothing more than a disgruntled spouse wishing to make trouble for the partner. An actual accusation is not required; if provided, it need not be supported by evidence or testimony. The obvious assumption is that some man is beating up on his wife, Girlfriend, or "Domestic Partner".
What is NOT obvious is that the alleged incident may prevent someone from free exercise of his civil rights, based on hearsay testimony.
The iimplications of the arrest may be that any firearms owned by the arrested spouse may be confiscated, and perhaps never returned .. depending upon the local laws applicable in such cases, which may vary between jurisdictions.
We need not go into the details of the other four fundaments of the assertion that "NRA Members" agree with the "Violent misdemeanors" clause, because we don't know how that question was posed to the "NRA Members" polled. All we DO know is that words may be misleading. And we also understand that although we as honest citizens may need to be very careful about how we respond to questions from a putatively neutral source, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are feeding us null-value questions.
And we have no input into the manner in which our responses may be evaluated.
Let's look at the OTHER four out of five questions which seem to support this assertion:
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 82 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
Answers/responses are
(1) and (2) We're Conservatives; of COURSE we're leary of "terrorists" .. depending on your definition.
(3) That's a no-brainer: yes, we want people to report it when their guns are stolen. The problem is, we don't always notice that a gun is missing. How often do YOU inventory your firearms collection? And if there is a penalty involved if you don't report it in x-number of days .. are you going to report it LATE? And risk a penalty because you "did the right thing" but your acknowledgement didn't fit their arbitrary time frame?
(4) I think that ANYONE who owns a gun should be encouraged to learn safe gun-handling skills. I do this kind of training all the time. To oppose this concept would be to deny my goal of wanting to train EVERYBODY! On the other hand, this sounds as if failure to meet this too-specific goal might result in punitive measures against people who just want to learn to shoot. I teach people as young as 10 years old, and this would deny them the right to learn safe gun-handling skills during the period when they are most likely to best benefit from the teaching. I have been beaten in competition by young persons too often to accept this limitation without protest. Some people just don't understand that teaching kids to shoot is A Good Thing!
I'm pretty sure that the folks who arbitrarily settled on the "21-year-old" rule had their best interests in heart. But they ignore the fact that some 10-year old kids are more mature than some 21-year-old kids. Not all of them, for sure, but enough of them that we're looking at the potential insertion of round pegs in square holes.
When "The Government" gets involved, they feel constrained to establish arbitrary criterea. That doesn't always match reality.
My take on this is that when we allow The Government to establish standards, they usually except the exceptional people who do not meet their standards by the mere fact of age, gender, or other, criteria. This is a valid "Bureaucratic" standard, but if it did not meet the critera that it be adjusted to fit the circumstances, it's flawed.
So .. speaking only for myself, I do NOT accept the principle that "xx% of NRA members support 'Reasonable Gun Control' Measures". I only accept the principle that a significant percent of NRA members MAY have mis-interpreted the questions, and that the results of the "survey" have been deliberately skewed (mus-interpreted) to meet the pre-determined conclusions which the survey takers have established as the private agenda of the survey takers.
Frankly, I doubt the veracity or interpretation of ANY "survey" which may be conducted by "These People". Their motivation is always suspect, their honor is extremely suspect, and I think that any time they open their mouth you can determine their veracity because they lips are moving. They are notorious congenital liars, and anyone who believes a single word they say is a damned fool!
Well ... not to put too fine a point upon it. That's what *_I_* think!
YMMV
Let's take this question of two levels:
First, what is your definition of "Reasonable" Gun Controls.
Second, what is the political agenda behind that definition?
Taking the second question firsts, there are a LOT of people who think that the word "REASONABLE" means "Highly Restrictive". These are those folks who think that, for example "reasonable" includes Firearms Registration.
Most folks in the NRA are convinced that "Registration equals Confiscation". And yes, there is some history which supports this belief.
The "Keep And Bear Arms" website contains an article which testifies to the 1999 California Confiscation of SKS rifles:
Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a $230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter, you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which has been run on local radio stations.
This particular problem started with passage of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. At that time there were two available models of the SKS rifle - one with a fixed magazine, and one designed to accept a detachable magazine, the "Sporter" model.
The Roberti-Roos law banned sales of the SKS Sporter rifle, but owners of the gun were able to keep them so long as they complied with a background check and had the gun registered. Apparently, most records of long gun sales were not retained, but the Sporter was treated differently. Ownership was actually registered, and the records kept.
There was additional confusion over the SKS since there were after-market kits available to convert the unregistered fixed-magazine model to accept a detachable magazine. In response to the confusion, California passed AB48 which granted immunity to SKS owners, but also established a buyback program. As an aside, the buyback pays a higher price than that for which the rifles were originally sold!
So, the folks that don't believe that "Registration equals Confiscation" ... be warned!
In America, that not only CAN happen, but it HAS happened. Learn from it.
We have learned from that lesson, and so it's difficult to believe that "seventy percent of NRA members support 'Reasonable Gun Controls'.
Essentially, for political or 'other' (is there an 'other' reason besides political?) reason, the politicians in your state ... or in your country ... WILL confiscate your firearms.
"Pay no attention to what they say, but look closely as what they do!"
This is the political wisdom which was imparted to me by a Vietnamese "Boat Person" in the early 1990's. He was speaking about the Communists in Viet Nam at the time, but is there really that much difference?
Here's what 'those people' mean when they speak of 'reasonable gun controls' (From "ThinkProgress.ORG": the folks who provided the terrific quote that started this rant)
In fact, new research released in July by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors against Illegal Guns, finds that gun advocates overwhelmingly support common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 82 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
I'm deliberately not going to 'fisk' this, because on the surface they DO sound "reasonable".
Okay, so maybe I will fisk this just a little bit:
5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence.
Frankly I'm not sure that this isn't subject to abuse. Having been "arrested" for an "domestic violence" is often nothing more than a disgruntled spouse wishing to make trouble for the partner. An actual accusation is not required; if provided, it need not be supported by evidence or testimony. The obvious assumption is that some man is beating up on his wife, Girlfriend, or "Domestic Partner".
What is NOT obvious is that the alleged incident may prevent someone from free exercise of his civil rights, based on hearsay testimony.
The iimplications of the arrest may be that any firearms owned by the arrested spouse may be confiscated, and perhaps never returned .. depending upon the local laws applicable in such cases, which may vary between jurisdictions.
We need not go into the details of the other four fundaments of the assertion that "NRA Members" agree with the "Violent misdemeanors" clause, because we don't know how that question was posed to the "NRA Members" polled. All we DO know is that words may be misleading. And we also understand that although we as honest citizens may need to be very careful about how we respond to questions from a putatively neutral source, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are feeding us null-value questions.
And we have no input into the manner in which our responses may be evaluated.
Let's look at the OTHER four out of five questions which seem to support this assertion:
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 82 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
Answers/responses are
(1) and (2) We're Conservatives; of COURSE we're leary of "terrorists" .. depending on your definition.
(3) That's a no-brainer: yes, we want people to report it when their guns are stolen. The problem is, we don't always notice that a gun is missing. How often do YOU inventory your firearms collection? And if there is a penalty involved if you don't report it in x-number of days .. are you going to report it LATE? And risk a penalty because you "did the right thing" but your acknowledgement didn't fit their arbitrary time frame?
(4) I think that ANYONE who owns a gun should be encouraged to learn safe gun-handling skills. I do this kind of training all the time. To oppose this concept would be to deny my goal of wanting to train EVERYBODY! On the other hand, this sounds as if failure to meet this too-specific goal might result in punitive measures against people who just want to learn to shoot. I teach people as young as 10 years old, and this would deny them the right to learn safe gun-handling skills during the period when they are most likely to best benefit from the teaching. I have been beaten in competition by young persons too often to accept this limitation without protest. Some people just don't understand that teaching kids to shoot is A Good Thing!
I'm pretty sure that the folks who arbitrarily settled on the "21-year-old" rule had their best interests in heart. But they ignore the fact that some 10-year old kids are more mature than some 21-year-old kids. Not all of them, for sure, but enough of them that we're looking at the potential insertion of round pegs in square holes.
When "The Government" gets involved, they feel constrained to establish arbitrary criterea. That doesn't always match reality.
My take on this is that when we allow The Government to establish standards, they usually except the exceptional people who do not meet their standards by the mere fact of age, gender, or other, criteria. This is a valid "Bureaucratic" standard, but if it did not meet the critera that it be adjusted to fit the circumstances, it's flawed.
So .. speaking only for myself, I do NOT accept the principle that "xx% of NRA members support 'Reasonable Gun Control' Measures". I only accept the principle that a significant percent of NRA members MAY have mis-interpreted the questions, and that the results of the "survey" have been deliberately skewed (mus-interpreted) to meet the pre-determined conclusions which the survey takers have established as the private agenda of the survey takers.
Frankly, I doubt the veracity or interpretation of ANY "survey" which may be conducted by "These People". Their motivation is always suspect, their honor is extremely suspect, and I think that any time they open their mouth you can determine their veracity because they lips are moving. They are notorious congenital liars, and anyone who believes a single word they say is a damned fool!
Well ... not to put too fine a point upon it. That's what *_I_* think!
YMMV
You can buy them books, but you can't make them read them
The problem with the liberal think-set is, that they are so locked into their mantra that they will not LISTEN to people who disagree with their message.
"Their" message is: "Guns kill people; guns are bad; we must disallow everyone from being able to keep/own/carry guns." That's the "solution" which they have adopted in Great Britain.
"Our" message is: "It's not working out that well; criminals can still get and use guns, but honest people (in your country) cannot."
Someone should compile a series of arguments which refute this Liberal argument.
Someone has.
Anti gun people can NOT defeat this video - YouTube
The fact is, gun control laws only keep honest citizens from being able to defend themselves. Time and again, we see that in violent situations where criminals assault innocent victims, the police are powerless; they show up after the violence is over. The police do not STOP violence.
Only armed "victims" can stop the violence, and we (some of us) know it.
Most of us are unwilling to put ourselves on the public pedestal and make the point vehemently.
A few .. a very few ... people who are in the public eye have made the choice to not only deny the liberal think-set but to speak their opinion so vehemently that they cannot be denied.
Gun nuts?
You can call them that. They don't mind. The truth which they speak is so overwhelmingly obvious based on documentary evidence that their passion makes them less nutty than they may sound to people who are not willing to examine the evidence which is freely available to everyone ... even to the folks who wish to make them appear rabid supporters of an 'unsupportable concept'.
The Brits have more non-fatal crime than do the Amis. British Liberals think this is a valid trade-off.
The victims of violent crime in Great Britain wish they could defend themselves, their homes, and their families without subjecting themselves to civil penalties.
I won't research the many examples of Britishers who have attempted to defend themselves to their ultimate civil detriment (including imprisonment) .. over the years, I've done so and to repeat the effort would be redundant. Search "The Brits" (or just "Brits") on this website and I'm sure you will find more than a few examples.
Yet British Television personalities such as Piers Morgan continue to insult supporters of the Second Amendment rights of American Citizens, suggesting that "you just don't care, do you?"
Not so; Americans do care about the victims. They care so much that they are loath to watch their fellow citizens being murdered in "Gun Free Zones" across the country, because they know that just one honest citizen with a gun could have prevented the proliferation of public massacres in every case. We have seen it happen, and still we don't 'get' the message.
We have guns because it is our right.
It is our right because we are determined to never again allow our government to impose unfair restrictions upon our civil liberties.
That right allows armed citizens to defend unarmed citizens against predators; any local rule which attempts to abrogate that right puts people in danger, because here in America we DO have a large population of crazy people to roam the streets, the malls, the schools and the churches with no effective civil defenders.
(We cannot afford to hire armed guards in every public place, and we would not want them to be there; we just want to be allowed to arm ourselves, to defend ourselves and others; and we don't even require our government to do our civil duty. Is that so hard to understand?)
For that simple understanding, that we would prefer to defend ourselves instead of expecting our failing government to defend ourselves in public ... we have made ourselves the object of approbation by foreign people who have no idea what it is like to be a "citizen" rather than a "subject" of the government.
These foreign people consider the concept of non-governmental citizen defenders to be an aberration. They suppose that having armed citizens present at the site of a potential "Mass Murder" to represent the possibility that even MORE people would be killed 'when the bullets start flying'. They ignore the simple fact that mass murderers will kill and kill again, until someone stops them. Typically, at the first sign of violent resistance, the murderers will kill themselves and thus stop the public executions .. if the resistors don't shoot them first. We have seen this to be true, time and again. Yes this phenomenon is ignored by both the foreign and our own national Liberals.
The Liberal mind-set is constitutionally incapable of understanding that almost universally, public mass-murderers are dependent upon the preposition that they will meet NO resistance when they begin to shoot up the place. The Liberals only know that THEY would not be able to murder dozens of people in a mall, a church, a school .. and so they are constitutionally incapable of 'getting inside' the mind-set of a crazy person.
Why?
Because their own disfunctionality does not match the disfunctionality of the murderers.
Perhaps inside every CITIZEN there is a tiny portion which can understand a murder; Liberals ("subjects") are so focused on 'congenial discourse' and 'collegiality' that they don't realize the existence of otherwise-functional people who want to kill people.
Perhaps they need to allow the proliferation of "rough men" in order to understand them.
The fact remains, Liberals are willing to insult civilized "Rough Men" to the extent that in any other society they would be required to face them on the dueling field. They do so because they are certain that they will not be held accountable for their insults.
Perhaps we need more Dueling Fields before we can resolve this "Philosophical Discourse".
NOTE: I do not personally espouse all of the views of every person cited in this video. I do, however, believe that an attack on Americans who have been so thoroughly vetted by their local police to the extent that they are allowed to carry a concealed weapon IS an attack of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
That document was conceived and dedicated to the protection of the American Citizen against the predations of a rogue government; its purpose was to allow our citizens the right to revolt against its government, which it did in the late 18th Century (when the "government" was King George III of England), and which it may conceivable need do again in the future.
We don't want that .. most emphatically, The United States of America does NOT want another "revolution". But that IS the reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Is it any wonder that British Shock-Jocks just don't "get that"?
Saturday, February 09, 2013
Match Notes: ARPC 1302
I never actually saw the sun today. As I pulled into the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club range at 8:40 this morning, I could see some light on the eastern side of the ginormous gray sky which completely obscured the entire Willamette Valley. This was the hour when the weather.com website had forecast as "partly cloudy" and 38 degrees. By 10am, the forecasters had predicted "cloudy" with a temperature of 43 degrees.
Over fifty shooters signed up to shoot at a club match at a range which just happens to be one of the best "action shooting" clubs in the country; many of them drove upwards of 100 miles to be there despite the dismal weather.
Perfect shooting weather! No rain, no snow, and the wind wasn't blowing targets down. I had three shirts and a heavy parka, and a couple hundred rounds of 10mm ammunition for my STI Edge. (Some of the ammo I had scrounged from various unmarked tubs scattered around my house ... it might even still be good!)
I ran into WhiteFish, who was filling out a squad roster; I asked him to put my name in there along with Bob, who was shooting revolver today. I was glad he wasn't shooting his antique Chinese Norinco 1911 ... he kicks my ass with that dilapidated P.O.S. and I didn't need another lesson in humility from him.(I suspect he still beat me, regardless of what gun he shoots.) WhiteFish had another new open gun, and another huge collection of stories to relate. I was confident that even if I didn't shoot well (which was a self-fullfilling prophecy), it would not be a boring day.
Four of my five students from last weekend's "Introduction to USPSA" class were there, too. Two of the three Fire Department members were there ... don't know what happened to Doug. As it happened, they had already signed up for bigger squads, so I was confident that they would do just fine without me hovering over them like a mother hen. I could just relax and enjoy myself ... which I did.
My only disappointment was when one of the 'premium' batches of ammunition gave me a jam when loading my magazine under the clock on the Classifier stage. That turned an 8 second 7-round stage into an 11 or 12 second fiasco, but at least I didn't get any mikes nor did I hit either of the two overlapping no-shoot targets; I decided to claim that I was sandbagging so I wouldn't lose my B-class rating. (As If!) Nobody even mentioned it. Well, they had watched me get mikes on about half of the stages, so it probably didn't surprise them that I had run into some kind of difficulty.
A couple of guys in the squad following ours commented on the huge quantities of 10mm brass they found on the stages. No, they didn't pick it up; they did, however, take great glee in relating how they could always tell I was on the range when they had to wade through the piles of brass. I had actually made an effort to pick up my own brass, but I couldn't find more than a few pieces here and there. I decided that what they were finding was the brass which kicked over the berm into the bay I had been in the previous stage.
One of the guys in our squad was a student in the 3-months-earlier Intro to USPSA class. This was his fourth match. He came over to chat with me toward the end of the match, and said: "You know, every match the adrenalin rush just gets bigger!"
I know exactly what he means. I've been shooting IPSC for almost 30 years, and that has been my experience, as well. I pretty much quit worrying about being "competitive" a few years ago, when I lost my shooting partner. I've gone from shooting up to 30 matches a year (usually including a few Level III matches) to less than a dozen. I'm there for the congenial company, the exercise, the fresh air, the chance to shoot as fast as I can and hope I got some kind of hits on most of the shots .... which I guess has turned a match from a "sport" to a "social event".
But the rush ... ah, yes. When I lose the rush I'll hang up my guns and just stay home on Saturdays.
That's the day when I start dying.
In a couple of weeks I'll celebrate my 68th birthday. Actually, today was my birthday gift to me.
Over fifty shooters signed up to shoot at a club match at a range which just happens to be one of the best "action shooting" clubs in the country; many of them drove upwards of 100 miles to be there despite the dismal weather.
Perfect shooting weather! No rain, no snow, and the wind wasn't blowing targets down. I had three shirts and a heavy parka, and a couple hundred rounds of 10mm ammunition for my STI Edge. (Some of the ammo I had scrounged from various unmarked tubs scattered around my house ... it might even still be good!)
I ran into WhiteFish, who was filling out a squad roster; I asked him to put my name in there along with Bob, who was shooting revolver today. I was glad he wasn't shooting his antique Chinese Norinco 1911 ... he kicks my ass with that dilapidated P.O.S. and I didn't need another lesson in humility from him.(I suspect he still beat me, regardless of what gun he shoots.) WhiteFish had another new open gun, and another huge collection of stories to relate. I was confident that even if I didn't shoot well (which was a self-fullfilling prophecy), it would not be a boring day.
Four of my five students from last weekend's "Introduction to USPSA" class were there, too. Two of the three Fire Department members were there ... don't know what happened to Doug. As it happened, they had already signed up for bigger squads, so I was confident that they would do just fine without me hovering over them like a mother hen. I could just relax and enjoy myself ... which I did.
My only disappointment was when one of the 'premium' batches of ammunition gave me a jam when loading my magazine under the clock on the Classifier stage. That turned an 8 second 7-round stage into an 11 or 12 second fiasco, but at least I didn't get any mikes nor did I hit either of the two overlapping no-shoot targets; I decided to claim that I was sandbagging so I wouldn't lose my B-class rating. (As If!) Nobody even mentioned it. Well, they had watched me get mikes on about half of the stages, so it probably didn't surprise them that I had run into some kind of difficulty.
A couple of guys in the squad following ours commented on the huge quantities of 10mm brass they found on the stages. No, they didn't pick it up; they did, however, take great glee in relating how they could always tell I was on the range when they had to wade through the piles of brass. I had actually made an effort to pick up my own brass, but I couldn't find more than a few pieces here and there. I decided that what they were finding was the brass which kicked over the berm into the bay I had been in the previous stage.
One of the guys in our squad was a student in the 3-months-earlier Intro to USPSA class. This was his fourth match. He came over to chat with me toward the end of the match, and said: "You know, every match the adrenalin rush just gets bigger!"
I know exactly what he means. I've been shooting IPSC for almost 30 years, and that has been my experience, as well. I pretty much quit worrying about being "competitive" a few years ago, when I lost my shooting partner. I've gone from shooting up to 30 matches a year (usually including a few Level III matches) to less than a dozen. I'm there for the congenial company, the exercise, the fresh air, the chance to shoot as fast as I can and hope I got some kind of hits on most of the shots .... which I guess has turned a match from a "sport" to a "social event".
But the rush ... ah, yes. When I lose the rush I'll hang up my guns and just stay home on Saturdays.
That's the day when I start dying.
In a couple of weeks I'll celebrate my 68th birthday. Actually, today was my birthday gift to me.
Friday, February 08, 2013
The Eyes Of A Murderer
Doubling Down on Anti-Gun News - Brent Bozell - [page]:
"One more school shooting".
That's a frightful Shot In The Dark, isn't it? That some MSM comentators might be wishing .. hoping .. praying? ... for "one more school shooting" to teach we Conservative/Second Amendment advocates that our priorities are just "wrong headed"?
I don't think that Brent Bozell believes that of his Liberal colleagues, nor do I believe it of them. I don't always (okay .. usually) agree with the opinions of Liberal Columnists, but you and I know that the detestation of massacres is universal.
Well, except for The Men With The Guns, of course.
______________________
The thing is .. I know a whole lot more Men With The Guns than Brent and Anna do. Combined. And all of their friends, and all of their friends' friends, for that matter.
Nobody that I know evinces the "eyes lighting up with glee" symptoms of a murderer.
Some of us have been in the military; we have killed our nation's enemies, and we regretted it.
The rest of us cannot imagine us taking a life; we hope and pray that we are never found in the position where we would have to kill some benighted soul to defend our family, although many (most?) of us still stand ready to do so .. reluctantly. We do not talk about it between ourselves, which I think is a good sign that our reluctance is profound.
The thing is, the East Coasters probably don't usually even own a firearm, let along do they have any experience or expertise with gun-handling. That may be a "Left Coast" thing (isn't it odd? That California should share their coast with Oregon and Washington .. and Northern California?)
The Left Coast is, I'm sad to say, largely populated with people who have the ability to Hit What They Shoot At, if not the will. I'm mot saying that East Coaster don't include equally qualified shooters; Good Heavens, I don't know what any other man .. or woman, for all that .. is capable of doing under the right (or "wrong") circumstances. I'm just saying that the 'willingness' to shoot to kill in defense of self and family is evident in my own personal area. Whether or not that same determination .. or "sange froid" .. is as common in the East Coast states, I don't know. I don't even know if I wish they do, or do not, share this personality characteristic .. or moral lapse.
But what I DO know is, I hope that our commentators can find a balance between "Defense of Home and Family" and "Respect for Human Life".
Both are important .. equally important, except that in the final analysis, I firmly believe that the life of my family (and home!) is worth more than the life of some bozo who is so willing to deprive me/us of our well-being and our property (who is to know what is more valuable to him?).
And so, I stand ready to kick his ass. Literally, and figuratively.
But still .. there was a time 40 years ago when I was obliged by my government to take the lives of people I didn't know, and who had no grievance against me except that I was "The Enemy". And so they became my Enemy, and I killed them.
It bothered me not one little whit, except that I grieved for the waste. I don't know if I have that same detachment in me, now. I would rather I did not, but I don't know. I'm pretty sure that it would "bother me" a lot more now, than it did "then", to take a human life.
I made a pledge to myself some time ago that I would never do so again; it's important to me, and if someone were to invade my private life so that I felt obliged to defend myself .. I would be grieved.
Or, in other words .. it would severely piss me off. I REALLY don't want to do that!
______________________
Getting back on our original track: I/we must acknowledge (but not necessarily accept) that some people MAY wish for "On More School Shooting" in order to advance their political agenda of .. whatever. Enhanced Gun Control?
No Guns Ever, Anywhere, Anyone?
Reasonable Measures?
Common-Sense Gun Laws?
It doesn't matter what the rhetoric, it's still all the same: It's much easier (and cheaper, if not more effective) to legislate against civil rights than it is to deal with Mental Health, the Culture of Violence, and people who ignore laws and societal values in favor of doing whatever-the-heck they want to do.
Like ... some people just want to kill people. Not because they harbor any personal animosity against the individuals, but .. be cause they CAN!
There are some people who are Just Evil, and there are some people who are Just Crazy. And there is an overlap of those who are both Evil and Crazy. We can't always tell who is which, and It Doesn't' Really Matter, does it? Evil or Crazy, they do the same evil/crazy things. The same people die, and for the same lack of any reason at all.
I think .. it doesn't matter what their motivation is. All that matters is that we probably can't recognize them until they start doing their Evil/Crazy thing, and then we stop them. Dead. Right There.
The people who I have chosen to tag as "East Coasters" (or "Liberals" or "Clueless" or "Sheeple" .. words don't really count for much in the final analysis) don't, and won't ever, "get this". They MAY not be 'part of the problem', but they will NEVER be "Part Of The Solution". They won't carry a gun into a mall, or a church, or a school, or into any other "Gun-Free Zone" because .. hey, it's against the law!
That would be the same set of laws which the Shooter has already decided to ignore; but never mind. The East Coasters already don't "Get That". and they never will. In a "worst case" situation, they might be hoping for another school shooting so they can justify new Draconian Anti-Gun Laws.
(Oh dear, I had already decided I wouldn't go there, hadn't I?)
Okay, getting back on-line:
And Murderers just don't give a shit. All they are looking for is a target-rich environment with a minimum of risk.
Thesis: There is a severe element of risk in our public areas
Antithesis: murderers will find somewhere else to predate if the public areas are too problematic for them.
Conclusion: make our most important areas (schools, churches, malls?) so dangerous to predators that they will avoid them.
I don't know; it's so obvious to me, I must be missing something. But the solution does not .. to me ... include restricting access to firearms for honest citizens. I'm looking at the Israeli solution, and I see that they have a lot of people who want to kill them, and THEIR solution is to put armed teachers in their schools, on their buses, and in their public places. No teachers have yet gone "rogue", but they have stopped the Crazies in their gracks. Maybe it's too early to tell?
Oh, I don't really know. It's a complicated issue, and I'm not qualified to say whether its safer to have more guns, on no guns in our public areas. All I know is that the "no guns" thing has been demonstrated not to work, and the 'at least one gun" In the case of the Clackamas Mall/Oregon) has been demonstrated to .. at least NOT have a negative outcome.
Ultimately, do we need "one more school shooting" to justify abrogation of the Second Amendment?
I don't think so. "No Guns In The Mall" hasn't worked all that well for us, but "One Gun In The Mall" has.
I'm too tired. YOU do that math!
To be sure, the "news" manufacturers aren't hoping for a school shooting. But that doesn't mean they aren't ready to exploit it. Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen was explicit back in 1999: ""Perhaps it will take one more school shooting to move the majority of Americans into a position more powerful than that of the NRA. Perhaps it will take one more school shooting to move us from people who support gun control to people who vote it."
A new Media Research Center study reviewed a sample of 216 gun-policy stories on ABC, CBS and NBC in the first month after Newtown, from the Jan. 14 shooting through the morning after President Obama's Feb. 16 speech pushing new gun control proposals. The number is instructive. That's not 216 stories in a month on Newtown. That's 216 stories just about the policy "solution" -- more gun control.
"One more school shooting".
That's a frightful Shot In The Dark, isn't it? That some MSM comentators might be wishing .. hoping .. praying? ... for "one more school shooting" to teach we Conservative/Second Amendment advocates that our priorities are just "wrong headed"?
I don't think that Brent Bozell believes that of his Liberal colleagues, nor do I believe it of them. I don't always (okay .. usually) agree with the opinions of Liberal Columnists, but you and I know that the detestation of massacres is universal.
Well, except for The Men With The Guns, of course.
______________________
The thing is .. I know a whole lot more Men With The Guns than Brent and Anna do. Combined. And all of their friends, and all of their friends' friends, for that matter.
Nobody that I know evinces the "eyes lighting up with glee" symptoms of a murderer.
Some of us have been in the military; we have killed our nation's enemies, and we regretted it.
The rest of us cannot imagine us taking a life; we hope and pray that we are never found in the position where we would have to kill some benighted soul to defend our family, although many (most?) of us still stand ready to do so .. reluctantly. We do not talk about it between ourselves, which I think is a good sign that our reluctance is profound.
The thing is, the East Coasters probably don't usually even own a firearm, let along do they have any experience or expertise with gun-handling. That may be a "Left Coast" thing (isn't it odd? That California should share their coast with Oregon and Washington .. and Northern California?)
The Left Coast is, I'm sad to say, largely populated with people who have the ability to Hit What They Shoot At, if not the will. I'm mot saying that East Coaster don't include equally qualified shooters; Good Heavens, I don't know what any other man .. or woman, for all that .. is capable of doing under the right (or "wrong") circumstances. I'm just saying that the 'willingness' to shoot to kill in defense of self and family is evident in my own personal area. Whether or not that same determination .. or "sange froid" .. is as common in the East Coast states, I don't know. I don't even know if I wish they do, or do not, share this personality characteristic .. or moral lapse.
But what I DO know is, I hope that our commentators can find a balance between "Defense of Home and Family" and "Respect for Human Life".
Both are important .. equally important, except that in the final analysis, I firmly believe that the life of my family (and home!) is worth more than the life of some bozo who is so willing to deprive me/us of our well-being and our property (who is to know what is more valuable to him?).
And so, I stand ready to kick his ass. Literally, and figuratively.
But still .. there was a time 40 years ago when I was obliged by my government to take the lives of people I didn't know, and who had no grievance against me except that I was "The Enemy". And so they became my Enemy, and I killed them.
It bothered me not one little whit, except that I grieved for the waste. I don't know if I have that same detachment in me, now. I would rather I did not, but I don't know. I'm pretty sure that it would "bother me" a lot more now, than it did "then", to take a human life.
I made a pledge to myself some time ago that I would never do so again; it's important to me, and if someone were to invade my private life so that I felt obliged to defend myself .. I would be grieved.
Or, in other words .. it would severely piss me off. I REALLY don't want to do that!
______________________
Getting back on our original track: I/we must acknowledge (but not necessarily accept) that some people MAY wish for "On More School Shooting" in order to advance their political agenda of .. whatever. Enhanced Gun Control?
No Guns Ever, Anywhere, Anyone?
Reasonable Measures?
Common-Sense Gun Laws?
It doesn't matter what the rhetoric, it's still all the same: It's much easier (and cheaper, if not more effective) to legislate against civil rights than it is to deal with Mental Health, the Culture of Violence, and people who ignore laws and societal values in favor of doing whatever-the-heck they want to do.
Like ... some people just want to kill people. Not because they harbor any personal animosity against the individuals, but .. be cause they CAN!
There are some people who are Just Evil, and there are some people who are Just Crazy. And there is an overlap of those who are both Evil and Crazy. We can't always tell who is which, and It Doesn't' Really Matter, does it? Evil or Crazy, they do the same evil/crazy things. The same people die, and for the same lack of any reason at all.
I think .. it doesn't matter what their motivation is. All that matters is that we probably can't recognize them until they start doing their Evil/Crazy thing, and then we stop them. Dead. Right There.
The people who I have chosen to tag as "East Coasters" (or "Liberals" or "Clueless" or "Sheeple" .. words don't really count for much in the final analysis) don't, and won't ever, "get this". They MAY not be 'part of the problem', but they will NEVER be "Part Of The Solution". They won't carry a gun into a mall, or a church, or a school, or into any other "Gun-Free Zone" because .. hey, it's against the law!
That would be the same set of laws which the Shooter has already decided to ignore; but never mind. The East Coasters already don't "Get That". and they never will. In a "worst case" situation, they might be hoping for another school shooting so they can justify new Draconian Anti-Gun Laws.
(Oh dear, I had already decided I wouldn't go there, hadn't I?)
Okay, getting back on-line:
- Cops will never get to the scene of a school/church/mall shooting in time to make a difference .. in terms of human lives;
- Liberals will never enter this factor in their "Human Equation", so they will not accede to the concept of "First Responders" (eg: armed teachers/staff) who may be pre-positioned in the target area.
And Murderers just don't give a shit. All they are looking for is a target-rich environment with a minimum of risk.
Thesis: There is a severe element of risk in our public areas
Antithesis: murderers will find somewhere else to predate if the public areas are too problematic for them.
Conclusion: make our most important areas (schools, churches, malls?) so dangerous to predators that they will avoid them.
I don't know; it's so obvious to me, I must be missing something. But the solution does not .. to me ... include restricting access to firearms for honest citizens. I'm looking at the Israeli solution, and I see that they have a lot of people who want to kill them, and THEIR solution is to put armed teachers in their schools, on their buses, and in their public places. No teachers have yet gone "rogue", but they have stopped the Crazies in their gracks. Maybe it's too early to tell?
Oh, I don't really know. It's a complicated issue, and I'm not qualified to say whether its safer to have more guns, on no guns in our public areas. All I know is that the "no guns" thing has been demonstrated not to work, and the 'at least one gun" In the case of the Clackamas Mall/Oregon) has been demonstrated to .. at least NOT have a negative outcome.
Ultimately, do we need "one more school shooting" to justify abrogation of the Second Amendment?
I don't think so. "No Guns In The Mall" hasn't worked all that well for us, but "One Gun In The Mall" has.
I'm too tired. YOU do that math!
Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject Assault Weapon and Large Magazine Bans
NRA-ILA | Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject Assault Weapon and Large Magazine Bans
Reason #1: Semi-automatic firearms are not fully-automatic military machine guns.
Reason #2: Semi-automatic firearms are not “more powerful” than other guns.
Reason #3: As the numbers of “assault weapons” and “large” magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half.
Reason #4: So-called “assault weapons” have never been used in more than a small percentage of firearm-related violent crime.
Reason #5: “Assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans have not reduced crime..
Reason #6: Criminals could easily get around a limit on newly-manufactured magazines.
Reason #7: Criminals could switch to more concealable guns.
Reason #8: Criminals could switch to more powerful guns. Reason 9: The Second Amendment protects the right to semi-automatic firearms and magazines designed for self-defense.
Reason 10: The slippery slope.
Okay, I could have told you all of that myself, in my own words; but actually --- I HAVE told you all of that myself, in my words. Several times, actually; although I might have under-emphasized some of the talking points which I consider "minor". (After all, the NRA needed to come up with "Ten Talking Points" somehow!)
You will follow the links .. or you will not. But it's important to me that you understand the underlying premises, which are:
(a) CRIMINALS are by definition not limited by law; whatever they want to do , they will find a way. If you enact a law restricting firearms (or ammunition .. whatever) ownership, only the law-abiding will abide by that law. What part of that statement is not intuitively obvious?
(b) The people who are so hopeful that enacting MORE restrictive laws, are equally as clueless in their definitions as they are hopeful that outlaws will obey their paper tigers. Specifically, they think that if they can define "forbidden firearms" with sufficient clarity, they will have made a wide range of firearms illegal. Unfortunately [sigh] their cluelessness knows no bounds. The more narrowly they define "forbidden features", the easier it is for firearms manufactures to avoid them .. and still provide the same features.
Face it: Firearms Manufactures are in the business of building and selling firearms. That's what they do. And they pay their lawyers MUCH more than the Federal Government does! If they find that adding a pistol grip to a rifle sells more rifles, they will call it an "ergonomic whatshisname" instead of a "Pistol Grip" and avoid all governmental sanctions. Those who honestly believe that they can ban pistol grips (which have very little ergonomic or military advantages .. but which are great selling factors) by fiat are not only fooling themselves, but are stupid. No, Liberal Lawyers and Governmental Goons can't move faster than Economic Eggheads in the War Against Guns. Accept it. Move On. Retire!
I don't know why Liberal Anti-gun Lawyers continue to accept the outrageous fees from Liberal Politicians and "Special Interest Groups"!
[Snigger}
Yes, of course I do. There's money in it, and a lot of it, and the firearms manufactures pass it on to their highly paid lawyers. Liberals; has it ever occurred to you that Private Interests have more money .. and can hire better lawyers .. than you?
My advise to you is to just be as graceful as possible when you back off and yield the field to your betters. You know you will, eventually, and if you don't spend the money on your lawyers ..... well, then, you can consider your treasure as some convoluted form of "Take-Home Pay". You've done your best, you've lost, so why waste your contributions on ineffectual lawyers?
PS: Some hints which may serve you better than your cheap lawyers:
As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a bunch of Maroons!"
Reason #1: Semi-automatic firearms are not fully-automatic military machine guns.
Reason #2: Semi-automatic firearms are not “more powerful” than other guns.
Reason #3: As the numbers of “assault weapons” and “large” magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half.
Reason #4: So-called “assault weapons” have never been used in more than a small percentage of firearm-related violent crime.
Reason #5: “Assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans have not reduced crime..
Reason #6: Criminals could easily get around a limit on newly-manufactured magazines.
Reason #7: Criminals could switch to more concealable guns.
Reason #8: Criminals could switch to more powerful guns. Reason 9: The Second Amendment protects the right to semi-automatic firearms and magazines designed for self-defense.
Reason 10: The slippery slope.
Okay, I could have told you all of that myself, in my own words; but actually --- I HAVE told you all of that myself, in my words. Several times, actually; although I might have under-emphasized some of the talking points which I consider "minor". (After all, the NRA needed to come up with "Ten Talking Points" somehow!)
You will follow the links .. or you will not. But it's important to me that you understand the underlying premises, which are:
(a) CRIMINALS are by definition not limited by law; whatever they want to do , they will find a way. If you enact a law restricting firearms (or ammunition .. whatever) ownership, only the law-abiding will abide by that law. What part of that statement is not intuitively obvious?
(b) The people who are so hopeful that enacting MORE restrictive laws, are equally as clueless in their definitions as they are hopeful that outlaws will obey their paper tigers. Specifically, they think that if they can define "forbidden firearms" with sufficient clarity, they will have made a wide range of firearms illegal. Unfortunately [sigh] their cluelessness knows no bounds. The more narrowly they define "forbidden features", the easier it is for firearms manufactures to avoid them .. and still provide the same features.
Face it: Firearms Manufactures are in the business of building and selling firearms. That's what they do. And they pay their lawyers MUCH more than the Federal Government does! If they find that adding a pistol grip to a rifle sells more rifles, they will call it an "ergonomic whatshisname" instead of a "Pistol Grip" and avoid all governmental sanctions. Those who honestly believe that they can ban pistol grips (which have very little ergonomic or military advantages .. but which are great selling factors) by fiat are not only fooling themselves, but are stupid. No, Liberal Lawyers and Governmental Goons can't move faster than Economic Eggheads in the War Against Guns. Accept it. Move On. Retire!
I don't know why Liberal Anti-gun Lawyers continue to accept the outrageous fees from Liberal Politicians and "Special Interest Groups"!
[Snigger}
Yes, of course I do. There's money in it, and a lot of it, and the firearms manufactures pass it on to their highly paid lawyers. Liberals; has it ever occurred to you that Private Interests have more money .. and can hire better lawyers .. than you?
My advise to you is to just be as graceful as possible when you back off and yield the field to your betters. You know you will, eventually, and if you don't spend the money on your lawyers ..... well, then, you can consider your treasure as some convoluted form of "Take-Home Pay". You've done your best, you've lost, so why waste your contributions on ineffectual lawyers?
PS: Some hints which may serve you better than your cheap lawyers:
- Deliberately mus-interpreting technical terms is not serving you well; eg: semi-automatic vs fully automatic .. you think your constituency doesn't know the difference?
- "Look-ism" is not acceptable in Liberal politics: eg black vs white, male vs female. So why do you think that you can call a rifle "evil" just because it is black and reliably expect your constituents to not notice that you are racist?
- "Statistics" is the art of lying with numbers. Most of your "Statistics" have been discredited so thoroughly that one would expect you to be embarrassed when you trot out the same old "44%" references. Are you still unclear about WHY the Atlanta Center for Disease Control is not forbidden to render opinions vis a vis gun crime statistics? Answer: they are so obviously biased, and they have been caught in their lies so long, that the Lord Of Flies (the Federal Government, in the person of the Senate and the House) have told them to "BACK OFF". You need to find a new butt-boy, because the CDC is still bleeding.
As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a bunch of Maroons!"
O'Reilly: Debate Over Guns Ramps Up
O'Reilly: Debate Over Guns Ramps Up | Gun Control | Fox Nation
I don't particularly like Bill O'Reilly, nor do I always agree with him.
I feel the same way about Chris Rock.
And I don't agree Chris Rock's assertion that " ... the president of the United States is -- you know -- 'our boss'".
He's not "Our Boss".
File that statement under "Political Posturing". Okay, I agree with O'Reilly there. It's hardly "intelligent debate".
The POTUS is our employee; he's suppose to do simple little things like look out for our best interests, and support our Constitution.
(The statements of Tony Bennet .. who has a wonderful voice ... make me wish he was just singing "I Left My Heart In San Francisco", or something else that he can handle better than anyone else. And please, Tony, don't be talking about "The Great Country of Germany" during the WWII era ... you sound even more like an Alzheimer's patient than *_I_* do!)
Now, here's the salient point of O'Reilly's short statement which is NOT clearly obvious in the accompanying text, and which he stated quickly in obvious hopes that nobody would notice. O'Reilly said:
This was shortly after he (Bill O'Reilly) said:
I don't know what O'Reilly meant by "Talking Points"; I can guess that he meant the Talking Points Memo website.
... but I would probably be wrong. That is a Conservative website, and Conservatives invariably support the Constitution, and thus the Second Amendment.
Still .. when O'Reilly says straight out: "... gun registration and all gun crimes should be federalized.", I get this funny feeling running up my leg that says: "This Guy Is Pro-Gun Registration".
I've talked about gun registration before, especially in reference to the California gun registration scheme of the 1990's. But here's the short story:
California allowed ownership of some firearms (eg: SKS) in the late 1990's, but required that owners "register" these firearms. Shortly after, the Attorney General's office of California determined that these same firearms were "illegal" .. and use those registration lists as a convenient means to force owners to surrender the same guns which were previously deemed 'legeal, but must be registered'. Essentially, Registration led directly to Confiscation.
This has been a lesson to us all: Registration IS Confiscation ... save only a (short, very short) time laps.
So ..... Legitimate (today) gun owners will/must NEVER agree to any form of "Registration", knowing full well that it is only the first short step to "Confiscastion" of (tomorrow) "Restricted" guns. No, we're not being paranoid; we are citing American history. This actually happened in America. It sets a precedent, and it can happen in YOUR state as early as --- tomorrow.
When Bill O'Reilly says "... gun registeration ... should be federalized ...", he is saying that he supports Registration, and consequently Confiscation, on a nation-wide basis. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, eh?
Or to Obama when he says "We don't want to take your guns".
Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians. What can you do?
I leave it to you to state the obvious answer. But I would never counsel you to listen to the fast-talking smiling faces who slip in hard messages in the middle of their soft words.
Obama and O'Reilly. Who knew?
(This O'Reillyopinion was published on February 7, 2013.)
-list celebrities are now weighing in on the gun control issue, but are they adding to intelligent debate or political posturing? Bill O'Reilly examines Hollywood's involvement in the push for gun control.
I don't particularly like Bill O'Reilly, nor do I always agree with him.
I feel the same way about Chris Rock.
And I don't agree Chris Rock's assertion that " ... the president of the United States is -- you know -- 'our boss'".
He's not "Our Boss".
File that statement under "Political Posturing". Okay, I agree with O'Reilly there. It's hardly "intelligent debate".
The POTUS is our employee; he's suppose to do simple little things like look out for our best interests, and support our Constitution.
(The statements of Tony Bennet .. who has a wonderful voice ... make me wish he was just singing "I Left My Heart In San Francisco", or something else that he can handle better than anyone else. And please, Tony, don't be talking about "The Great Country of Germany" during the WWII era ... you sound even more like an Alzheimer's patient than *_I_* do!)
Now, here's the salient point of O'Reilly's short statement which is NOT clearly obvious in the accompanying text, and which he stated quickly in obvious hopes that nobody would notice. O'Reilly said:
"Talking Points has clearly stated clearly stated that "
This was shortly after he (Bill O'Reilly) said:
"Hitler imposed the strictest gun control on earth. The only reason that the Nazi's didn't get further was because (folks in the Balkans and France and) occupied countries hid weapons and used them against the Nazis. (Those people were called .. Partisans.)"Trotting out vacuous .... celebrities --- gets us nowhere" O'Reilly concluded.
I don't know what O'Reilly meant by "Talking Points"; I can guess that he meant the Talking Points Memo website.
... but I would probably be wrong. That is a Conservative website, and Conservatives invariably support the Constitution, and thus the Second Amendment.
Still .. when O'Reilly says straight out: "... gun registration and all gun crimes should be federalized.", I get this funny feeling running up my leg that says: "This Guy Is Pro-Gun Registration".
I've talked about gun registration before, especially in reference to the California gun registration scheme of the 1990's. But here's the short story:
California allowed ownership of some firearms (eg: SKS) in the late 1990's, but required that owners "register" these firearms. Shortly after, the Attorney General's office of California determined that these same firearms were "illegal" .. and use those registration lists as a convenient means to force owners to surrender the same guns which were previously deemed 'legeal, but must be registered'. Essentially, Registration led directly to Confiscation.
This has been a lesson to us all: Registration IS Confiscation ... save only a (short, very short) time laps.
So ..... Legitimate (today) gun owners will/must NEVER agree to any form of "Registration", knowing full well that it is only the first short step to "Confiscastion" of (tomorrow) "Restricted" guns. No, we're not being paranoid; we are citing American history. This actually happened in America. It sets a precedent, and it can happen in YOUR state as early as --- tomorrow.
When Bill O'Reilly says "... gun registeration ... should be federalized ...", he is saying that he supports Registration, and consequently Confiscation, on a nation-wide basis. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, eh?
Or to Obama when he says "We don't want to take your guns".
Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians. What can you do?
I leave it to you to state the obvious answer. But I would never counsel you to listen to the fast-talking smiling faces who slip in hard messages in the middle of their soft words.
Obama and O'Reilly. Who knew?
(This O'Reillyopinion was published on February 7, 2013.)
The baby and the BB gun
Dad arrested after posting picture of himself holding baby and BB gun | Fox News:
WTF?
I wonder what possible law he might have broken!
Oh, right. He was holding a BB gun. That explains it all, Homer. (No word on whether the BB gun was loaded. Or whether it had a pistol grip, muzzle-brake, or a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds.)
THIS is what happens when people get so involved with their own private socio-political views that they lose track of reality. We don't have the photo to evaluate the situation (strike one); and we don't know if the BB gun was loaded (strike two); and we don't know anything about the daddy (strike 3); but we do have the "fact" that someone saw the photo of FACEBOOK (for goodness sake ... what could be more definitive?) so we know that .... someone in a Law Enforcement Agency in Ohio saw the picture and reacted.
Was the gun pointed at the child's head? I don't know. If so, the man is a moron. If not ... not.
Here's a photo from Google:
hmmm ... okay, not pointed at child's head.
how about .. well, where IS the Evil BB Gun pointed?
Oh, HERE is a wider picture:
Oh my, he's holding his Evil BB Gun along his thigh, finger off the trigger, pointed at ... nothing at all. (Well, maybe the photographer, but he kinda got himself into the situation, didn't he?)
This is just MY personal take, but I'm thinking that the morons are among whomever is part of the District Attorney's office in Ohio who directed the police to arrest this guy because .......
whew! I have NO idea why they busted this guy.
Oh, wait a minute! I've got it now!
He's holding a gun, wearing a Black Hoodie. And he is also (gasp!) a BLACK MAN!
Well, of COURSE they arrested him! He's a Black Man, and wearing a Black Hoodie. He's obviously guilty on prima facea evidence of "Holding A Baby And A BB Gun While Black".
No, wait. That's not quite it
The problem is, he's holding a BB GUN.
The fact that there's a baby in his lap is just an excuse; he's a "Cause Celebre", if you will.
I'm not even sure that BB gun is protected by the Second Amendment; it's not usually considered a "deadly weapon". (Well, legally, perhaps it is .. conceivably.). But even if it isn't .. he is still WRONG!
You know why:
The Second Amendment Is The New Black.
An Ohio dad was arrested after police said he posted a photo on Facebook of himself holding his baby daughter and a BB gun, Fox 19 reported.
WTF?
I wonder what possible law he might have broken!
"Domonic Gaines, 22, was charged with child endangerment."
Oh, right. He was holding a BB gun. That explains it all, Homer. (No word on whether the BB gun was loaded. Or whether it had a pistol grip, muzzle-brake, or a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds.)
THIS is what happens when people get so involved with their own private socio-political views that they lose track of reality. We don't have the photo to evaluate the situation (strike one); and we don't know if the BB gun was loaded (strike two); and we don't know anything about the daddy (strike 3); but we do have the "fact" that someone saw the photo of FACEBOOK (for goodness sake ... what could be more definitive?) so we know that .... someone in a Law Enforcement Agency in Ohio saw the picture and reacted.
Was the gun pointed at the child's head? I don't know. If so, the man is a moron. If not ... not.
Here's a photo from Google:
how about .. well, where IS the Evil BB Gun pointed?
Oh, HERE is a wider picture:
This is just MY personal take, but I'm thinking that the morons are among whomever is part of the District Attorney's office in Ohio who directed the police to arrest this guy because .......
whew! I have NO idea why they busted this guy.
Oh, wait a minute! I've got it now!
He's holding a gun, wearing a Black Hoodie. And he is also (gasp!) a BLACK MAN!
Well, of COURSE they arrested him! He's a Black Man, and wearing a Black Hoodie. He's obviously guilty on prima facea evidence of "Holding A Baby And A BB Gun While Black".
No, wait. That's not quite it
The problem is, he's holding a BB GUN.
The fact that there's a baby in his lap is just an excuse; he's a "Cause Celebre", if you will.
I'm not even sure that BB gun is protected by the Second Amendment; it's not usually considered a "deadly weapon". (Well, legally, perhaps it is .. conceivably.). But even if it isn't .. he is still WRONG!
You know why:
The Second Amendment Is The New Black.
"I don't want him to come into the house!"
1 dead after Las Vegas homeowner opens fire on intruders | Fox News:
Chicago ... you who consider "burglary" to be a "minor crime" ... pay attention, okay? THIS is the way it works when *(a)* homeowners are 'allowed' to defend their home and family, and *(b)* police response isn't 3-4 business days.
Betcha the Las Vegas statistics for "home invasion burgularies" go down for a couple of weeks in Las Vegas. (By at least one.)
Goblin Count increased by one; Hero count increased by one.
I know, this is a gruesome story, but I'm sure you think that the headline "1 dead after Las Vegas homeowner opens fire on burgulars" is better than "Las Vegas Family of Three Slaughtered During Home Invasion"?
As Mister Rogers might have said: "I knew you would" .
I wish this guy was MY neighbor.
One of three men who allegedly broke into a Las Vegas home was reportedly killed by the homeowner, who opened fire on the group. Fox 5 reports that Mark Schwendener knew his family’s security was jeopardized when he noticed a stranger lurking around his west Las Vegas home early Monday.
"He was coming this way,” he told the station. “My family was screaming and crying. My daughter was screaming and freaking out because she didn't want me to go outside with a gun. I was like, ‘I don't want him to come into the house.’”
Schwendener, a recent burglary victim, called 911 before retreating into a bedroom to retrieve a handgun, according to Las Vegas Metro Police. He then fired at least one round at the suspects, prompting them to flee. One of the suspects, however, later identified as a Latino male, died at the scene from a gunshot wound.
Chicago ... you who consider "burglary" to be a "minor crime" ... pay attention, okay? THIS is the way it works when *(a)* homeowners are 'allowed' to defend their home and family, and *(b)* police response isn't 3-4 business days.
Betcha the Las Vegas statistics for "home invasion burgularies" go down for a couple of weeks in Las Vegas. (By at least one.)
Goblin Count increased by one; Hero count increased by one.
I know, this is a gruesome story, but I'm sure you think that the headline "1 dead after Las Vegas homeowner opens fire on burgulars" is better than "Las Vegas Family of Three Slaughtered During Home Invasion"?
As Mister Rogers might have said: "I knew you would" .
I wish this guy was MY neighbor.
Bambi-Gate
Couple Charged For Saving Injured Baby Deer:
Only two comments:
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has said it is asking a prosecutor to drop charges against a couple who nursed an injured baby deer back to health. The case, dubbed "Bambigate", has sparked an internet backlash after an Indianapolis man set up a Facebook page in support of the couple that had attracted more than 38,000 supporters by Friday.
Jeff and Jennifer Councellor have been charged with illegal possession of a white-tailed deer - punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine of $500 - after finding a wounded fawn in 2010 and taking care of it on their 17-acre farm. The Councellors found the deer on a neighbour's doorstep suffering from maggot-infested puncture wounds. They named it Dani and kept it in a fenced enclosure while it healed.
Mr Councellor, a police officer, said he and his wife did not know it was illegal to keep the deer and that releasing it into the wild would have guaranteed its death. The couple eventually applied for a rescue permit, but were denied. Dani reportedly vanished in 2012 the day the DNR had planned to put it down.
Only two comments:
- Great timing
- Bad government
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Afghan Girl
Search for the Afghan Girl | Watch the Documentary Film Free Online | SnagFilms
The photo is unforgettable.
The story is exemplary.
The video is an hour long ... but worth the viewing.
This is the story, writ small, of the Afghani people .
The photo is unforgettable.
The story is exemplary.
The video is an hour long ... but worth the viewing.
This is the story, writ small, of the Afghani people .
If you decide it's important ...
Obama sez: "Common Sense Gun Control Measures ..."
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2142692647001/
"... but it will only happen if you decide it's important"
aka: "Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?"
Uh ... how about the economy?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2142692647001/
"... but it will only happen if you decide it's important"
aka: "Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?"
Uh ... how about the economy?
Evil Assault-boot
I know I've been doing FAR too much blogging lately about "assault weapons" and "Gun Control".
Thanks to Larry the Dee, I'm just been informed that there is another, perhaps equally vicious and deadly, military weapon available to the general public with NO Federal Controls.
Perhaps we should stop and think about this for awhile.
Okay, that's enough thinking. Forget thinking about it.
Let's just ... ban it, okay?
Too Dangerous for Civilian Ownership!
That says it all, doesn't it?
Thanks to Larry the Dee, I'm just been informed that there is another, perhaps equally vicious and deadly, military weapon available to the general public with NO Federal Controls.
Perhaps we should stop and think about this for awhile.
Okay, that's enough thinking. Forget thinking about it.
Let's just ... ban it, okay?
Too Dangerous for Civilian Ownership!
That says it all, doesn't it?
Chicago -- don't bother calling the cops
10News - Chicago PD changes policy in responding to minor crimes - Watercooler Story:
Such a short story. A tiny, tiny, inconsequential story which in its brevity answers a few questions ... and also demonstrates just how well that Toddling Town is fairing under the leadership of Rahm Emanuel.
We talked here, a few days ago, about the death by walk-by shooting of a young girl in Chicago. I posited there what some people consider root causes of violence; among them are corruption and a lack of civil liberties.
What I did NOT mention was the unwillingness or inability of municipal government to actively enforce the law. Failure to aggressively investigate "minor crimes" should have been mentioned.
Broken Window Theory: Broken Window Policy
After Rudi Giuliani was elected mayor of New York City in 1993, he hired William Bratton as his new Commissioner of Police. Bratton had just finished a 3-year stint as head of NYC Transit Police. Braxton severely reduced "transit crime" by establishing a "Zero Tolerance" policy on such "petty" crimes as grafitti, fare-hopping, etc. Giuliani asked Bratton to use the same techniques to reduce crime city-wide.
As cited in the Wikipedia article, the aggressive enforcement of the law of the city not only reduced petty crimes, but serious crimes as well.
This new Chicago policy of essentially ignoring "minor crimes" not only ignores the under-lying causes of escalating criminality, but it also fails to consider that the causative link between petty crime and minor crime might be approximated by the link between minor crime and major crime.
The Chicago Police Department has thus announced a policy (presumably allowed, if not embraced by Mayor Emanuel) which essentially minimizes the chance of apprehension and prosecution of "minor criminals" ... and thus increases the chance that a burglary may more frequently be escalated to a home invasion, or burglary of an occupied residence.
Even "Dumb Hicks From The Sticks" can see that the political leadership of Chicago have just assumed the "Dying Cockroach" position.
Chicago might as well roll over and play dead, because it's not a matter of "IF", but a matter of "WHEN" they will completely lose control of the lawless elements. Well, their mayor has already admitted it, if only tacitly.
As Dirty Harry would have said: "You got to ask yourself, Do I Feel Lucky?"
Probably not. But Chicago (and a lot of other municipalities and states and politicians and celebrities) say they want to address the problem of "Gun Violence", yet focus on eliminating the "Gun ... " part of the equation ... at the expense of our Civil Liberties. Perhaps they should look at the " ... Violence" part of the equation. Let's talk about the expense of THAT approach.
Please understand that we do not reduce violence by reducing our civil liberties.
So why do politicians focus on anti-gun laws instead anti-violence laws? And be sure, when you are robbed or when your HOME is robbed, that is violence as sure (if not as immediate, or as physically painful) as Rape and Muggings and Murder. Perhaps the reason that politicians address guns rather than violence is that, in order to reduce lawlessness and especially violent lawlessness, one must provide effective and aggressive police services. But that costs money! If they actually enforce existing laws, they will need to pay for more police, and train them to be more efficient. It's not just the cost of enforcement at the street level, but also prosecution and punishment.
However, if they focus their attention onkeeping honest people from owning guns eliminating the Right To Keep And Bear Arms common-sense measures and reasonable gun-control laws ... they might get a few more home-owners killed but they won't have to raise the funds. Politicians aren't usually re-elected (with the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani) because they reduce crime; they're reduced because they (a) look good on camera, (b) talk tough, and (c) don't spend money. [Okay, Obama has proved that if you have (a) and (b), you can get away with (c). But that's different; he's a Liberal Democrat.]
Even if talking tough about Gun Control doesn't actually accomplish anything, it costs nothing.
Talk is cheap.
And that's all you're going to get from the Chicago Police Department, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama.
And Congress.
So .. if you live in Chicago, and someone robs your home or steals your car, just call ... no, don't call anybody. They aren't answering any more. Instead, go to the Chicago PD "Online Crime Reporting" webpage and fill out the form.
No hurry. In Chicago, when seconds count, the police are only 3-5 days response time away. No, you can't have a gun. But you still have to fill out the form.
I'm so glad I live in the sticks.
UPDATE: Later, the same day ...
AND ...
CHICAGO - The Chicago Police Department will no longer dispatch officers for minor crimes, such as burglaries and car thefts, if the offender is no longer at the scene and there is no immediate danger. Instead, a report will be taken by phone. The department says it hopes the change will free up about 44 officers each day to respond to more serious crimes.
Such a short story. A tiny, tiny, inconsequential story which in its brevity answers a few questions ... and also demonstrates just how well that Toddling Town is fairing under the leadership of Rahm Emanuel.
We talked here, a few days ago, about the death by walk-by shooting of a young girl in Chicago. I posited there what some people consider root causes of violence; among them are corruption and a lack of civil liberties.
What I did NOT mention was the unwillingness or inability of municipal government to actively enforce the law. Failure to aggressively investigate "minor crimes" should have been mentioned.
Broken Window Theory: Broken Window Policy
After Rudi Giuliani was elected mayor of New York City in 1993, he hired William Bratton as his new Commissioner of Police. Bratton had just finished a 3-year stint as head of NYC Transit Police. Braxton severely reduced "transit crime" by establishing a "Zero Tolerance" policy on such "petty" crimes as grafitti, fare-hopping, etc. Giuliani asked Bratton to use the same techniques to reduce crime city-wide.
Bratton received criticism for his work for going after these "petty" crimes. The general statement towards this was "Why care about panhandlers, hookers, or graffiti artists when there are more serious crimes to be dealt with in the city?" The main notion of the broken window theory is that small crimes can make way for larger crimes. If the "petty" criminals are often overlooked and given space to do what they want, then their level of criminality might escalate from petty crimes to more serious offences [sic]. Bratton's work is to attack while the offenders are still green, as it would prevent an escalation of criminal acts in the future. According to the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa, rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years.(Note that "Zero Tolerance", as used here, is not in the same sense as a ten year old boy in Virginia being arrested for bringing a toy gun to school; instead, it refers to a policy of not ignoring "petty crimes", such as public urination.)
As cited in the Wikipedia article, the aggressive enforcement of the law of the city not only reduced petty crimes, but serious crimes as well.
(See also: The National Bureau for Economic Research: "What Reduced Crime in New York City"; and Center on Juvenile and Public Justice "Assessing 'Broken Windows': a Brief Critique")Chicago has serious problem with "serious crimes" ... such as murder! And people think that the way to deal with gun violence is to reduce the number of guns available. So far, that hasn't worked well in the exceptionally violent society which is found in major cities.
This new Chicago policy of essentially ignoring "minor crimes" not only ignores the under-lying causes of escalating criminality, but it also fails to consider that the causative link between petty crime and minor crime might be approximated by the link between minor crime and major crime.
The Chicago Police Department has thus announced a policy (presumably allowed, if not embraced by Mayor Emanuel) which essentially minimizes the chance of apprehension and prosecution of "minor criminals" ... and thus increases the chance that a burglary may more frequently be escalated to a home invasion, or burglary of an occupied residence.
Even "Dumb Hicks From The Sticks" can see that the political leadership of Chicago have just assumed the "Dying Cockroach" position.
As Dirty Harry would have said: "You got to ask yourself, Do I Feel Lucky?"
Probably not. But Chicago (and a lot of other municipalities and states and politicians and celebrities) say they want to address the problem of "Gun Violence", yet focus on eliminating the "Gun ... " part of the equation ... at the expense of our Civil Liberties. Perhaps they should look at the " ... Violence" part of the equation. Let's talk about the expense of THAT approach.
Please understand that we do not reduce violence by reducing our civil liberties.
So why do politicians focus on anti-gun laws instead anti-violence laws? And be sure, when you are robbed or when your HOME is robbed, that is violence as sure (if not as immediate, or as physically painful) as Rape and Muggings and Murder. Perhaps the reason that politicians address guns rather than violence is that, in order to reduce lawlessness and especially violent lawlessness, one must provide effective and aggressive police services. But that costs money! If they actually enforce existing laws, they will need to pay for more police, and train them to be more efficient. It's not just the cost of enforcement at the street level, but also prosecution and punishment.
However, if they focus their attention on
Even if talking tough about Gun Control doesn't actually accomplish anything, it costs nothing.
Talk is cheap.
And that's all you're going to get from the Chicago Police Department, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama.
And Congress.
So .. if you live in Chicago, and someone robs your home or steals your car, just call ... no, don't call anybody. They aren't answering any more. Instead, go to the Chicago PD "Online Crime Reporting" webpage and fill out the form.
No hurry. In Chicago, when seconds count, the police are only 3-5 days response time away. No, you can't have a gun. But you still have to fill out the form.
I'm so glad I live in the sticks.
UPDATE: Later, the same day ...
"City of Los Angeles pension funds should not go to profit companies that produce weapons designed to maximize carnage and death," Mayor Antonia Villaraigosa vowed.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former Obama White House chief of staff, has made the same commitment and gone a step further. Emanuel has authored letters to Bank of America and TD Bank because they maintain multimillion-dollar lines of credit for major gun manufacturers. In the letters, Emanuel urges the banks to use their influence to "push" the manufacturers to go along with the president's tough new gun controls.
AND ...
Feeling bullied by Rahm Emanuel? Bring your business down to Texas.
That's the message Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is sending big banks and firearms companies, after the Chicago mayor urged those banks to stop lending to the gun manufacturers. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/texas-lawmaker-tells-big-banks-gun-manufactures-to-leave-chicago/?intcmp=obinsite
The freshman senator sent a letter Tuesday to the CEOs of Bank of America and TD Bank Group offering up the Lone Star State as a place where they could do business without hassle from the government. He said he understands that, since they do "considerable business" with Chicago, they might be worried about the "risks" of not complying with Emanuel's request.Don't mess with Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)