SALON has performed admirably its duties toward advancing the Liberal Leftist program of attacking the Second Amendment, while enjoying in full the liberties of the First Amendment.
In today's article, it features Ad Hominem arguments which dismisses gun-owners as fearful, insecure, immature, sexually frustrated, socially incompetent, and a tool of the notorious gun-maker shill .. the National Rifle Association. The Santa Barbara whack-job is posited as the poster boy for the NRA, and it manages (in the 3rd paragraph) to squeeze in the long-disputed argument that "if you have a gun in your home, you are 43 times more likely to die from it, than to be saved by it". (See the previous article "43 times" for the details of this disputation by the Center for Disease control, 2004/)
The gun industry, through its direct marketing and through industry front organizations like the NRA, has settled on a marketing scheme they’ll never openly admit to but which is completely evident in their press releases, advertisements and other marketing materials. They target men who have high levels of insecurity when it comes to issues of masculinity and power, and suggest that buying guns will make them feel powerful and manly and chase those insecurities away. The centerpiece of the pitch is the fantasy of putting down a home invader. Anxious men are encouraged to believe there’s a high chance that someone will break into their home—their castle—for some raping and pillaging, and that they can play the role of the brave and stalwart hero by shooting the invader. (A corollary pitch is the power fantasy of armed resistance to some vague government “tyranny,” where the insecure man gets to imagine himself as a brave resistance fighter, his masculinity put beyond a shadow of a doubt as he gets to play at being a revolutionary.)
That a gun in the household is far more likely to cause an accident, or be used for suicide or interpersonal violence than to fend off a home invader doesn’t matter. It’s a fantasy of masculinity, used to paper over insecurities, and facts cannot compete.
Rave on, SALON. We're amazed that you didn't accuse gun-owners of buying high-value sports cars to compensate for our inadequate penis size. *(Was that because of penis envy?)*
Oh. We don't, do we. Instead, we tend to buy big cars like SUV's and pick-em-up-trucks .... having nothing to do everything to do with the need to have cargo room to haul our insecurity-blankets and big guns to the hunting grounds, and game back home for the dinner table.
Admittedly, the meat we bring home (game, silly boy, not what you're thinking!) is probably more expensive than grain-fed beef from the Chicago Stockyards, but it's a cultural thing. You wouldn't understand.
We're willing to travel thousands of miles for a good hunt, and then cut and wrap both steaks and roasts for the big old freezer in the garage. Admittedly, we usually save the cut-offs for the local butcher to make into hamburger, sausage, or whatever form we most favor. Some of us like to ... oh, I'm sorry. You don't eat meat, do you Salon? Sorry ... you wouldn't understand the difference between venison-burger and tofu. Hey, it's all protein; so what if you choose to have some illegal alien harvest your soy-beans. At least you don't have to get your hands dirty scavenging dinner.
But you don't like us, SALON, because we play with guns. Yes, truly, we do. Some of us like to shoot in competition, such as Practical Pistol and IDPA and bulls-eye shooting. It's like playing darts, except you get the loud, rude noises. And the company of people who have similar values. \
Yes, competition; it's not just "A Guy Thing" ... women compete, as do children (under close supervision .. but then, everybody who competes is under close supervision.)
Some people just go out to the wildnerness and shoot holes in tin cans. It's called "Plinking", and it's a lot of fun. Most of us gun-owners have guns which have never been used to hunt. The overwhelming majority of us have guns which have never been pointed at a living being. Darts, noise .. you get the picture? It's fun, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
Salon, if you want to point fingers at anybody, try .. oh, I don't know ... high school football. Wow! Now there's a dangerous sport! Every year, young men are killed playing football.
I shoot in Practical Shooting Competition, which is a world-wide sport. So far (since the 1970's), nobody has ever died while practicing this sport. You think shooting is dangerous? How about helmet-to-helmet contact in any state you would care to name.
Do people die from gunshot? You bet they do. Usually, someone was breaking a law. Or they were terminally stupid. (eg: "Hey Bubba, Watch This!)
But you, Salon, choose to point out the imagined falacies of gun owners who you think are ridiculously over-concerned about home invasions. Which you suggest never happen.
Guess what? They do happen ... every frigging day. If you live in New York City you probably don't worry about that very much. Because you stand a better chance of being mugged in you wander into the 'wrong neighborhood'. How many locks do you have on your doors? Three? Five? Six? Do you have that little brace from the door to the floor which prevents anyone from breaking your door down? Do you set it every time you come home?
I bet you do. You're just so fearful, insecure and paranoid, and I bet your multiple door-locks will help you "chase those insecurities away".
A curse on you, and all your descendants .... if you are capable of having any. Everybody is aware that bad things happen to good people. We who own guns are not willing to expect the police to arrive before the door breaks down.
Count your own security procedures, before you point the finger at others. And by the way, do you play darts in your nightly tavern forays?
Maybe you could understand. You just don't want to admit it.
If you have a gun in your home, ARE you (as Kellerman claims) "43 times more likely to die from it"?
The CDC has historically been biased in favor considering gun ownership, and injuries/deaths resulting, as a disease. This is the reason why CDC has been prohibited for the past ten years from researching the subject; they have exhibited a political bias toward skewing their research toward a pre-determined conclusion.
(Center for Disease Control study: February, 2004)
Some of the research conducted to date has found a higher risk of a violent death in homes with handguns and unlocked and loaded guns (13, 17, 19). However, many studies have either not examined the risk associated with specific firearm-related characteristics (e.g., type of gun or storage practice) (14, 15, 18, 23, 24) or have found no significant differences (16). In our study, the risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide or suicide was greater in homes with guns, but this risk did not vary by specific firearm-related characteristics. Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home. Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear. Previous research suggests that proxy respondents and nonusers of firearms are not always knowledgeable about the number or types of guns in the household or the storage practice and may be inclined to give socially desirable responses (27–29).
Note that the study is paying close attention to the question of "Homocide vs Suicide" ... which is not differentiated in the Kellerman study. In other words, if you are bent on suicide, and there is a gun in your home ... you are more likely to choose that vehicle. More on this later.
LOS ANGELES — Just days after a 22-year-old killed six college students and himself near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, state lawmakers are championing legislation that would permit law enforcement officials and private individuals to seek a restraining order from a judge that would keep people with a potential propensity for violence from buying or owning a gun. The process would be similar to the one currently used for restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.
This is not a surprising response to yet another massacre. And on the surface, it sounds like a "Reasonable Restriction" on firearms ownership. We all know that there are people out there who are too loony, or too out-of-control, to be trusted with a firearm.
Who decides who they are?
Assuming that this legislation is accepted and enacted .. who has the time to review each 'restraining order' to determine its validity?
But California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, could go even further. The legislation, known as a gun violence restraining order, would allow people to notify courts or law enforcement officials if they are concerned that a family member or friend is at risk of committing violence. Gun control advocates have recently started pushing for such restraining orders in statehouses across the nation, expanding on similar laws that have passed in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas.
Oh. Right. A "family member", or a "friend".
Who vets these people, who call themselves "friends" of the accused? Is there a judicial hearing involved? Are witnesses called? Who speaks for the accused?
Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the California Senate, said in an interview on Wednesday that he was not familiar with the details of the restraining order legislation, though he foresaw concerns being raised about civil liberties. Such a bill “would have to be very carefully crafted, because you do not want the law to get into the middle, or just to be used as a pretext or excuse for leverage in an intergenerational family fight,” he said. “You could see the potential for abuse.”
On the other hand, Mr. Steinberg said: “There might be circumstances where it is appropriate for this additional protection. I think this is worthy of a real serious conversation.”
[emphasis added]
Well, finally somebody speaks up (however he qualifies his warning) about the possibility for abuse of this measure.
Abuse? Oh my yes.
A very close friend of mine was married to a lady who had 'issues'. She once pulled a gun on him in their home, and threatened to shoot him. Subsequently, she spent time as a resident at a "mental health care institute", and was later released.
Later, she died.
But ... weeks after the death of his wife, my friend was visited at his office by a Deputy Sheriff. He was served with a restraining order. Under state law, any person can initiate a restraining order upon their spouse without need to prove claims of abuse, or any other situation on which the restraining order has been based. My friend objected; he noted that his wife was dead. The Deputy replied: "It doesn't matter. You got to sign the order anyway." As it seemed to be a moot point, my friend signed the order and the Deputy left. There were no subsequent consequences.
Open Letter To Mike Lupicia, contributor to the NY Daily News:
I would have addressed these comments to you personally, were it possible. But you don't have any link to your personal address here, and the NYDN doesn't have a convenient link for personal comments. So I do apologize in advance for this IM-personal "Blogger" approach.
I do understand your pain in reaction these egregious murders. Partly because of the "Impersonal" tone of the murderer's testimony, and even more because of the random nature of the attack, I am as appalled as you are. I know you won't believe it, because I am a Conservative Constitionalist who believes in the value of the Second Amendment. I'm one who thinks that the Second Amendment .. which recognizes my right to 'keep and bear arms' ... is equivalent to you belief in the First Amendment ... which recognizes your right to express yourself in public.
The First Amendment allows both of us to say how we feel, what we think. We don't necessarily agree, however, on validity of the Second Amendment as fervently as we agree on the validity of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You think that the 2nd Amendment allows too much freedom to American Citizens. You think that there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to own and carry firearms.
It may surprise you to learn that I agree with you.
(A small note about my personal background: I teach a class in firearms safety for people who wish to participate in competition. Some of the people who show up at my classes have no business having a firearm. Still, they have the right, so I show them how to do so safely , to the best of my capability .. which includes 30 years of experience in competition, and over 50 years of experience bearing arms.)
---
In my opinion, this young man ... this CREEP .. should never have been allowed near a firearm!
But that is hind-sight. If you had known him a week before, would you have made the same judgement?
I'm not sure I would; and honestly, would YOU have been able to discern that he was capable of murder?
I don't think I would, but it's impossible to be sure. Would you have? Again .. impossible to be sure. Neither of us are likely to have been willing to make the judgement against his culpability, until he had proven himself unworthy of our mutual approbation.
In hindsight, and seeing the videos of his final days .. I wouldn't have allowed him near my daughters, my grand-daughters, or anyone I know.
Do we agree that he's a Creep? I think so.
No wonder he couldn't get a date! It's not a "Woman" thing. It's just judgement .. in his case, faulty at best. But who had seen his video statements before, except his family, and the police to whom they had reported his aberrant behavior?
You? You, who are so critical about the current laws, but have no alternatives to suggest except perhaps that NOBODY should be allowed to possess a gun? Do you think that Criminals would obey that law, while there are 200+ million guns in this country for them to steal?
If you mandate the confiscation of all guns, how many do you think would be submitted meekly to the mandage of the government?
Three?
(Assuming that you and your two friends own three guns between you.)
----
It's true. The process is flawed. How would you change it?
Would you make all firearms forbidden to all Americans? There are 190 millions of Americans who own firearms, and have never been a danger to their friends, family and neighbors. Would you deprive them of their rights?
How would you do that? Would you confiscate their legally owned firearms, even though they have never shown any signs of aberrant behavior? That would be on a par with not allowing their to own knives, with which to cook their food; or to own an automobile, with which the commute to work every day.
Yet this ... person .. used a knife to kill three people, and his automobile to attack several other people.
Extended to their logical absurdity, you might make the case that knives and cars are necessary to the normal requirements of every day living, even though they are demonstrably "weapons of Mass Destruction".
If you would, let's talk about ...
RHETORIC:
If I suggested that "If Guns Were Outlawed, Only Outlaws Would Own Guns!"
I'm reasonably certain that you would dismiss this statement as "Sheer Rhetoric!"
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"?
"Balderdash! The job of the police is to protect us." "The right of The People shall not be infringed?"
"That was about flintlocks, not Assault Rifles!" "A man's home is his castle?"
"I know where you're going, and that's just more NRA justifications for putting guns in the hands of madmen!"
"If you were attacked by this E, Rodger creep, and if you had a gun, you could defend yourself?
I know you cannot respond to this; you cannot even read the question.
But if you could, I would ask you .. what if you were one of the people who were attacked? Would you feel comfortable knowing that guns are always available to people who had no respect for the law .. who would in fact disobey the law joyfully because it only added to the joy of killing you or someone you loved .. and yet you had the option of picking up a gun and fighting this person to defend yourself or your family ........
What if he attacked not you, but someone whose health, peace and well-being was more dear to you than your own life?
Which would you choose?
To go quietly into that good night?
Or would you rage, rage against the night?
You can say that this would never happen. But we have just seen that it COULD happen. Without cause, without any justification. Randomly against the most vulnerable among us.
What would you do?
What would you have ME do, under the same circumstances?
Would you deny me my right to defend my children? My grand-children?
There are no sure safeguards against madness, but it does not change the fact that it's too simple for sick people to get guns — legally or illegally — especially the kinds of semiautomatic weapons that Elliot Rodger used in his shooting rampage in Isla Vista, Calif.
So this is Memorial Day in 2014, when we are supposed to remember and honor those who died serving this country and end up mourning the latest to die at the hands of a madman with guns in America, this time in Isla Vista, Calif., near the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Once again, the only true gun control in America is when the shooter finally puts one of his guns to his own head and blows his own brains out.
Wayne LaPierre, the gun nut who runs the National Rifle Association and is so often the face and voice of that association, likes to say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, as if the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the late Dawn Hochsprung, could have saved herself and those children if she’d just been packing.
But the reality of a country that gets lousier with its own stupid gun culture by the day is that too often we have to wait, after more killing, for the bad guy with the gun to stop himself.
That is what finally happened with Elliot Rodger, 22, after six more innocent people were slaughtered, the last four — including the shooter, who had to kill some people because he couldn’t get a date — with semiautomatic weapons that always make the killing good and fast.
You are already hearing that the background checks for which gun control advocates practically have to beg for in America really don’t work, because Rodger passed background checks and purchased his SIG Sauers and Glock 34 legally. You are hearing that it’s a waste of time to put limits on magazines and ammunition, because here was this horny college kid with 41 10-round magazines in his possession; and that the killing started for Rodger with him knifing three people to death.
It makes you think all over again that those who preach sanity on this subject are doing nothing but shouting at the ocean, or just trying to be heard over the sound of more gunfire.
It happens at UCSB this time. The vigil for the dead this time is held in Isla Vista at Anisq‘Oyo’ Park. This is what the school’s chancellor, Henry Yang, says on Memorial Day weekend, 2014, now that gun violence finally finds its way to his school, his town, as it tours the country like the old Ice Capades:
“We are here to share our sorrow, shock and pain.”
ELIZA HALLABECK/APSandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the Newtown massacre.
But there is no longer any shock when it happens again. How can there be? It is the last week of May in Isla Vista. It was the first week of April in Fort Hood, when Ivan Lopez started shooting. It was supposed to be about Lopez being turned down for leave. Elliot Rodger finally snapped after being turned down for dates. Adam Lanza slaughtered elementary school children in Newtown and not college kids the way Rodger did. Lanza’s psychotic break had occurred long before he walked through the doors of Sandy Hook with his Bushmaster rifle, another real good gun for real fast killing.
Obviously there are no sure safeguards against madness, especially if the shooter uses this kind of rampage as a form of suicide, willing to go out guns blazing, sick little Facebook posts and videos sometimes left behind. But it does not change the fact that it is far too easy for these people to get guns, legally or illegally, especially the kinds of guns that Elliot Rodger used to kill the people he killed and wound 13 others.
Mother Jones, which has done such fine work and told the truth about guns for a long time, reports that since 1982 in this country, there have been more than 70 mass shootings, across 30 states, and that nearly three dozen have occurred since 2006. They occur in malls and movie theaters and at Army bases and the Washington Navy Yard and Sikh temples and elementary schools and college campuses.
The numbers say that so many of these guns used on innocent people, dead because they went to work or went to school, were purchased legally. It means that the real insanity in the greatest country in the world, the one for which my father and all those like him fought, is this:
That we are somehow sane on the subject of guns.
We think we can police the rest of the world while the rest of the world looks at us like the Wild West; while those here who say this is all a way of protecting the Second Amendment are the ones making a mockery of its original intent, and ideals.
This is Memorial Day 2014 then. We mourn more dead college kids along with those who laid down their lives for our freedoms, mourn more innocents gunned down on the real modern battlefield:
I would have addressed these comments to you personally, were it possible. But you don't have any link to your personal address here, and the NYDN doesn't have a convenient link for personal comments. So I do apologize in advance for this IM-personal "Blogger" approach.
I do understand your pain in reaction these egregious murders. Partly because of the "Impersonal" tone of the murderer's testimony, and even more because of the random nature of the attack, I am as appalled as you are. I know you won't believe it, because I am a Conservative Constitionalist who believes in the value of the Second Amendment. I'm one who thinks that the Second Amendment .. which recognizes my right to 'keep and bear arms' ... is equivalent to you belief in the First Amendment ... which recognizes your right to express yourself in public.
The First Amendment allows both of us to say how we feel, what we think. We don't necessarily agree, however on validity of the Second Amendment as fervently as we agree on the validity of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You have made the entirely valid statement that: "that the background checks for which gun control advocates practically have to beg for in America really don’t work, because Rodger passed background checks and purchased his SIG Sauers and Glock 34 legally. ".
September 20, 1969, through September 20, 1970, I spent my leisure time in the Republic of South Vietnam.
The last four months, after the First Infantry Division was transferred back to the states, I was the "Labor NCO" in the Admin Company of the 25th Infantry Division. It was a soft job, except for the cockroaches who would chew through a package of Marlboro's overnight, even though I put it on the 2x4" brace that framed the NCO hooch I was staying in there. Three hots and a cot .. man, that's living!
Before that, they tried to put me into the position of Tank Commander in a war-wagon that I never even learned the nomenclature of, let alone how to "command" it.
Before that, they put me into a field job where I was tasked with doing what I knew how to do best: running a very small unit on night ambush. We set up booby traps, we stayed at 50% security all night, and during the day we roamed the boonies looking for ... well, trouble. It was a soft job, like the other two mentioned above. Unfortunately, the 25th INF. didn't really understand the 'small unit tactics' that I had learned in my Real Job, so they just shunted me back to the base camp. And that was fine with me, I had enough of drama by then; I remembered that I liked daily showers, I just didn't remember what they felt like.
-----
Before that, I was the Platoon Sergeant of Third Platoon, Lima Company 1/16, First Infantry Division. Also known as The Big Red One.
("No Mission Too Difficult, No Sacrifice Too Great: Duty First")
---
I use to observe Memorial Day by going to the nearest War memorial at 11pm with an unbroken pack of Marlboro cigarettes, and a six-pack of Budweiser beer. I'd drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, then leave the other opened pack and rest of the 6-pack on The Wall.
Now, I'm too fucking old to stay up that late and sneaky-pete around in the dark.
The push for gun control after the Santa Barbara attack
As usual, the media news stories got fundamental facts wrong here. Of particular interest, half the people killed here were stabbed to death. Also, you won't hear this much in the news, the magazines that the killer used were also apparently limited to holding no more than 10 rounds (note that the Sheriff said that all the magazines were legal under California law). Obviously neither point fits the gun control check list.
Here at Geek Central, the editorial policy is:
"Rant 'til your fangs fall out; then click 'publish'."
Fortunately, with the good research skills and the input of more information (being a good writer probably helps, too), John Lott has provided a much more nuanced, pithy and accurate picture of the "Mr Rodger's Shooting" at UCSB.
Initial reports didn't mention that of the six people killed during the rampage, the first three were men who were killed by being stabbed ... repeatedly .. to death in what investigators called "a gruesome scene".
Of the other three fatalities, only one was a female student. That suggests that Mr. Creep's online manifesto was was even more bullshit than we thought. He wasn't after the girls that wouldn't date him, he was just on a murder spree. (Okay, we already had figured that out, hadn't we?)
And there were all those people he attacked with his car. WTF? How are the Hopolophobes going to handle that Unfortunate Truth? Wasn't it the mere fact of firearms possession that drove him to madness? Apparently not. Maybe there's a good case to be made here for "Beemer Control".
Firearms Automobile Manufacturers should be sued for not controlling their product more strictly at the retail level. Shouldn't the dealer at Santa Barbera Beemer Shop & Racing Emporium be held responsible for vending a deadly weapon to an obviously out-of-control purchaser? Did they do a background check? Didn't the Manufacturer provide guidelines on who they should allow to buy their Assault Car?
And by the way, who needs a car capable of driving more than 65 miles an hour? (Oh ... the full-auto attacks were on city streets? Never mind.) But still .. who needs a gas tank that will carry more than ten gallons of gas? If he had to stop to refill his tank, somebody could have jumped him, maybe taken his car keys away. That would have fixed him!
Ultimately, the facts bear out your original suppositions: that wasn't about societal injustice, latent homosexual tendencies, or "retribution". This was "It's All About ME!"
And that's all I have to say about that.
Except ... our hearts go out to the families of the victims, and we hope they sue the people who sold him the knife.
Seven people were killed, including the gunman, and seven others injured on Friday night after a bloody drive-by shooting on the crowded streets of a small college town near Santa Barbara, as a man the police described as mentally disturbed methodically opened fire in a 10-minute spasm of terror. The gunman was found dead with a bullet wound to his head after his black BMW crashed into another car. He had exchanged gunfire with deputy sheriffs in Isla Vista, near the University of California, Santa Barbara. A family lawyer tentatively identified the gunman as Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old son of a Hollywood director. The lawyer, Alan Shifman, told reporters gathered outside the home of Mr. Rodger’s father that Mr. Rodger’s parents had called the police about a month ago to express their concerns over his YouTube videos “regarding suicide and the killing of people.” He said that police officers had interviewed Mr. Rodger, but concluded that he posed no danger. The lawyer said they had found him to be a “perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human.”
... As of February 2014, Santa Barbara County had 53 permits out of an adult population of 337,000 -- a rate of 0.016 percent. The rate was virtually unchanged from 2011.
Nobody, not even the police, were able to stop him until he was ready to be stopped.
Nobody wanted to be his neighbor. Nor his girl-friend, either:
Rejected by women, he posted several videos on YouTube (all since deleted by YouTube as unsuitable). The NYTIMES has posted a copy of the video, as did the LA Daily Times. And a southern news paper, and probably several other publications. His "day of retribution" speech, filmed in the drivers' seat in his Beemer, was smug and vitrolic. It was carefully staged. He was obviously quoting from a speech which he had pre-written and practiced over and over ... compulsively.
Why couldn't he get a date?
He was a creep! Pronounced sane, but still a killer?
Wounded seven people at random, and in the process killed six other people. Whether he killed himself, or was killed by police in the second shoot-out, is not known now.
It's time that people started out with the familiar question: "WHY?"
Good looking, cool car, what's not to like? (Except that he was creepy.)
The idea that police and psychiatrists can predict future actions is ludicrous. And in this case, nobody knew that he was capable of murder.
I have had a number of people send me notes asking if I would test a rumor that they heard about the Korean War.
It seems that it was rumored that the North Korean Commies wore thick clothing and that in the freezing rain, the outside, which was wet, froze.
It was then said that the .30 Carbine would not penetrate this frozen clothing, but would bounce off like an over-cooked string bean hitting an anvil.
(Okay, I just threw in that part about the string bean and the anvil).
Well, I don't have any authentic North Korean Army clothing from that time period, but I do have some cotton terry cloth towels. So, I did the following ....
I've been a devoted fan of "The Box O' Truth" for centuries, literally, so I was delighted to see that [H/T] Oleg Volk (in an article titled "The Perceived Inadequacy of M1 Carbine", had an actual link to a new episode which I had not yet seen.
It hadn't a lot to do with the penetration of the 10mm, which I was most interested (boo to Oleg Volk for an article which ... most irreverently .. suggested that the Mighty Ten would not penetrate aluminum as easily would the lowly M1 Carbine poodle-shooter round), but it was interesting in that it (the box-o-truth entry) did address penetration in a general sense.
You'll have to go follow the grout trail yourself to determine whether you found it as entertaining as I did.
After obtaining my concealed carry weapons permit, I was unable to find the right holster. I was frustrated at the lack of options for women. So I decided to make one.
I wanted ONE holster that can be worn ANYWHERE on the body without having to buy more than one. Budgets are tight these days.
They are EXTREMELY concealable, even in tighter clothing. Visit www.lethallace.com for more information on how to wear this unique holster. It can by worn with any type of clothing.
I have no idea how actually PRACTICAL this "holster" is ... but it certainly attracted my attention.
A 27-year-old man was arrested Monday evening in downtown Corvallis for allegedly assaulting a man, his wife and their dog with rocks and a stick, then leaving with the woman’s purse and bicycle. Dennis Richard Becker was booked Monday on charges of robbery, theft, assault, animal abuse, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and attempted escape. Becker, who doesn’t have a fixed address, provided authorities with identification from California, according to Capt. Dave Henslee of the Corvallis Police Department ...
Op Ed from the Brady Bunch to Ban Branches:
The attacker (a member of the local "Living-Under-A-Bridge" community) used unregulated, unlicensed weapons in a classic stick-and-rock attack.
It was a horrendous attack. Something should be done. Why aren't Sticks and Rocks licensed in Oregon?
It could have been worse. The attack might have taken place in a gravel parking lot or a forest, where multiple rounds are immediately available.
Who knows how many lives might have been placed at risk when a single handful of gravel might contain more then ten rocks, and reloading is easy and immediate.
And have you noticed how many sticks are immediately available in a forest? Remember, there is no law which requires universal background checks on purchases at stick-shows.
OP-ED from the New York Slimes:
Our hearts go out to the victim, Dennis Richard Becker, who was unjustly unceremoniously incarcerated for the simple need to make a living in a cruel world. At the tender age of 27 years, he was turned out of his family home by an uncaring, unfeeling father who refused Dennis's unspoken (or at least incoherent) cry for help.
Gunsnfreedom.com published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America pressure other restaurants into becoming. According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime."
The suspects are still on the loose. When Chipotle announced their intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," Breitbart News responded with a simple question: If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun which which to fight back?
This is only the latest of a spate of fast-food joint robberies ... in which the establishment "posted" the gun-free-zone signs on their door.
They might as well have posted this sign:
or ... this one would be more honest:
PS:
John Lott has something to say about this sort of thing, here.
On Wednesday, [May 1] gun control supporter and Fox News contributor Juan Williams appeared on the Lars Larson radio show and shared with listeners a personal incident that will hopefully have him questioning his long-held anti-gun positions. Williams told Larson, "My wife went to the gas station, and while she's trying to put the credit card in some guy rushes by her, gets in the car, and drives off with the damn car." Williams then noted that his wife's response to the situation was, "I wish I had a gun."
The article goes on to cite Williams' earlier statements (2008) objecting to the Heller decision, and (2000) referring to the Constitution as "a living document".
In his 2000 he specifically said: "I don't understand why we're piddling around. We should talk about getting rid of guns in this country."
Mister Williams, you should talk to your wife about this "piddling around" thingie. Maybe you'll listen to her.
You missed Mother's day, but Father's Day is coming up real soon.
Perhaps she'll buy you a gun, and then borrow it for shopping trips. Then you'll both be happy.
As far as Fox’s The Five co-host Bob Beckel is concerned, black Americans should not look up to Condoleezza Rice as a “symbol,” because she grew up in a “middle class family.”
Obviously lost on Beckel was the fact that Condi’s parents achieved success in America. So she is to be discredited for that, Bob?
Incidentally, Dr. Rice grew up in Birmingham, Alabama in the segregated South, graduated from college at age 19, became a provost of Stanford University, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of State.
Bob, dude, your liberalism is showing – loud and clear.
Bad scene: A Chicago policeman hits a handcuffed, kneeling woman in the head, while another one shouts racially-charged comments at her. And threatens she’ll be murdered, no less.
Even worse – for the cops – the whole thing was caught on surveillance camera video, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court:
Bullying occurs at many levels.
None of them .. either in a Chicago massage parlor or at a New Jersey university commencement ceremony ... are conducive to civilized dialogue.
(May 20, 2014 ... NEWSMAX)
P.J. O'Rourke says he knows why college campuses stifle free speech — such as Rutgers University, some of whose faculty and students got former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to back out of delivering a commencement speech. "If you're looking for the fundamental problem, it would be the old coots my age, victims of the '60s, the real loser element,'' O'Rourke told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
--- Rice, who was invited to speak to graduating seniors, pulled out after some faculty members and students accused her of allegedly misleading the nation on the Iraq war and condoning torture during her time in the Bush administration.
__
In a move which surprises absolutely nobody, Condoleeza Rice declined to deliver the Commencement Address at Rutgers University, where she had previously been invited to speak.
Her concern was apparently the violence offered by protesters (both students and faculty) when it was announced that she would be the featured speaker.
It was expected that she would keep the reported $30,000 honorarium which accompanied the invitation.
After reading the announcement, it's difficult why members of the New Jersey state college student body and faculty objected to inclusion in the commencement ceremonies.
Except that, of course, she is black.
And a woman.
And a conservative.
And this is a Liberal School, which in its "Points of Pride" webpage asserts that:
We Have a Renowned FacultyThe Rutgers faculty includes winners of the National Medals of Science and Technology, MacArthur “Genius” Fellowships, Guggenheim Fellowships, and Fulbright Scholarships. We Are Highly Diverse According to U.S. News & World Report, Rutgers University–Newark boasts the most diverse campus in the nation, reflecting the rich array of people who call New Jersey home.
(The comment about being "highly diverse", of course, refers only to physical characteristics; apparently not to intellectual, philosophical, or political diversity.)
I bought Col. Cooper's "Gargantuan Gun Gossip" ... first two volumes, anyway ... and paid a lot for them. Later, they were available online via a website which appeared to be British.
Just lately, I discovered that "Traction Control" had correlated links to which purport to be ALL of the commentaries.
(The 1993 - 1997 links shown here are only included for illustrative purposes. There are "a large number" more, at the website shown above.)
I recommend that you bookmark this link. You'll be glad you did!
Burglars and thieves hit last weekend's Orlando gun show at the Central Florida Fairgrounds, according to police.
While gun buyers looked for bargains at the Southern Knife and Gun Show, burglars broke into vehicles parked at the West Colonial Drive fairgrounds and stole guns, ammunitions and other items worth about $10,000, a report stated.
The burglars smashed car and truck windows worth about $1,000 to take recently bought handguns stored inside the vehicles.
If this isn't blogged, and commented in Gun Control websites (and the national news, etc.) a lot in the next week, I'll be very surprised.
LOTS of talk in the comments section, about the efficacy of car alarms. Which, as noted, are commonly ignored.
I remember going to a movie ... "The Burbs", w/ Tom Hanks .. a decade or two back. When the movie was over, I found my 1987 Porsche with driver-side window glass all over the seat. I talked to the ticket taker about why nobody responded to my horn-beeping car alarm: "Oh .. " she said, "Car alarms go off all the time. We don't pay any attention to them any more. It's .. like .. so common."
Things have changed since then, apparently. Comments (see above) suggest that now there are car alarms which call your phone to announce that your alarm has been activated.
Sounds if this is an idea whose time has come.
But back to the gun show: no, the parking lots are not commonly patrolled. The off-duty policemen who are hired to provide "security" generally (in my experience) restrict their attention to the entries. They're there to make sure nobody brings a loaded weapon into the gun show.
Obviously, we don't trust folks NOT to do the "Negligent Discharge" thingie ... you know as well as I do that there is a lot of gun-handling at gun shows, and an ND is a serious no-no.
On the other hand .. carry is permitted at most gun shows. And loaded magazines in magazine carriers are typically allowed, too. The idea isn't to compromise self-defense, but to prevent NDs.
We're not afraid of guns; we just want to give the IDIOTS among us to practice safe gun-handling.
Gun shows and gun shops remain among the safest venues, vis a vis shooting incidents.
Monday evening’s Town Hall Seattle forum featuring top local and national spokesmen for gun control might better have been a discussion about world-class hypocrisy, since a sign on the door advised that guns were prohibited, and yet the anti-gunners were protected by armed security.
Headlining the event was Brady Campaign President Dan Gross and Washington CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli. Town Hall Seattle had a sign in the glass door stating “No firearms allowed in the building. Thank you for your cooperation.” Inside was a visibly armed security guard.
Definition of "Hoi Polloi:: ordinary people : people who are not rich, famous, etc. Does this sound just a little ... arrogant ... to you? It certainly does to me. Welcome to Seattle: The Emerald City. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I don't live in Seattle, but if I did and had I observed such condescension, I would have been insulted. It's bad enough when out-of-towners come to visit and require participants to follow their rules (Washington has had Concealed Carry laws for decades); it's worse when these visitors think that they are 'bravely' risking their lives to do so ... and hire armed guards to protect themselves from the very people they travelled to meet. Oh Brave New World, which has such people in it! I have no issue with those who fear Physical Harm; they're not necessarily afraid to stand up for their beliefs, they just don't want anybody to hurt them.
Had they held an open meeting, with no restrictions on perfectly legal activities on the part of their attendees (eg: CHL holders who carry), we have to grant them the courage of their convictions. If they simply declared it a "Gun Free Zone" and posted signs to that effect, the attendees have a choice to obey their preference or not to attend ... which serves the ill purpose of having adequate representation of BOTH sides of the issue. But when they propose to discus "Gun Control", and then post an armed guard to protect themselves ... that's both Hypocrisy and Moral Cowardice. If you want to talk about Gun Control, and don't restrict access to people who legally care firearms, it demonstrates that you welcome opinions from both sides of the political issue. And when you don't? You're no longer inviting a public discussion, but only preaching to the choir.
Well ... the choir, and a few people whom you cannot possibly sway to your point of view.
In doing so, you have confirmed their opinion of your moral, intellectual and personal self:
You, sir, are an idiot, and never will convince your audience othereise.
Gilbert Arizona -- Last week, Knife Rights filed an appeal of a U.S. District Court's absurd ruling in its ongoing Federal Civil Rights lawsuit against New York City and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. The 62-page legal brief can be viewed at:
www.KnifeRights.org/Knife_Rights_Appeal_Brief.pdf
The lawsuit challenges the City's practice of treating common folding knives as prohibited "gravity knives," then arresting and prosecuting law-abiding knife owners and intimidating retailers into paying large cash "sanctions" to avoid prosecution. Under the City's vague and subjective approach, it is impossible to know whether any particular knife will be treated as legal or prohibited.
2014 Candidate Ratings
Oregon Firearms Federation Political Action Committee candidate ratings for Oregon House and Senate races are attached. Please keep in mind that these ratings are almost exclusively for members of the major parties. “Minor” or “third” party candidates are typically chosen at their conventions.
The process of rating candidates can be very complex and while we do our best to provide the best overview of a candidate, in some cases it simply cannot be done.
It's sometimes complicated trying to keep track of the candidates. In the case of this Oregon, it's difficult to keep track of the elections!
That's why I'm grateful that OFF is providing some information ...
.... and also to David. Codrea at War On Guns for providing a timely link to the website.
Let me make this perfectly clear: when y'all are determined to test the efficacy of a (previously untested) "Bullet Proof Vest", the best thing it not to drape said vest over the person of yout (ex) Best Friend!
My daughter phoned me this afternoon. She lives in San Diego, and she told me that the fires are both frightening and fearsome.
But she is driving toward them, anyway.
She is "working" a golf tournament in Carlsbad, because the extra money is worth the effort; she and her family are planning to move to Northern California in a couple of months, and they need the money for the move.
She assures me that the fires are nowhere near the country club, and "they haven't cancelled the tournament, so there it must be safe, there". She may be right; country clubs are the last bastions of American society, right?
She assures me that she will be in no danger; I told her to lock her car. She replied that there's nothing of value in the car, and if it gets burned up the "only thing of value in that car, Dad, is me".
What you are thinking, is what I said. I hope that she understands that when I say "Lock Your Car", I meant "Keep Your Escape Options Open".
So I phoned her back, this evening. Worried that she might be at risk..
She's having fun at the event. She said she met a lot of celebrities, including one guy who was her "teen-age heart throb" (No, I never heard of him and didn't recognize the name .. apparently he's at television star from the nineties) and otherwise having a grand time .. although her job doesn't warrant any "tips".
But she says she is not in danger.
She's still working for The American Dream: a few extra dollars to finance the next step toward moving to a better place. It's not exactly 'financial independence' in the next step, but perhaps it's a place to go where the salary is higher, and where the jobs are better and the future of her children is more assured. They have A Plan, and she and her husband .... they aren't afraid of hard work.
And her mother needs her, due to medical 'sithuations', so next month my daughter is going to where she can provide support in turn. She's moving to Central Californa, "where life is beautiful all the time"
I'm very proud of my children. Her brother is "Davy, who's still in the Navy, and probably will be for life". He's working steady in Puget Sound; they will soon both be within six or seven hours travel time of where I live, so I'll probably get to see my children, and my grandchildren, more often. That's important to me.
For tonight, I'm worried about my daughter's safety. But I .. I was about to say "I'll never let her know".
Too late, she already knows that. I wish I could phone her again, without making her feel self-conscious.
This is an interesting poll conducted by an organization that I'm not familiar with ... isidewith.com.
The results of this specific poll are automatically accessible by several poll-taker criteria, including state, major city within state, political affiliation, ethnicity, income level, and education level. It's worth taking a look at.
Interesting, the 'general' question was a clear decision. Broken down by state (Oregon), it also seemed clear. But when you look at the responses from the "major city" (Portland) ... the results were reversed. Portland residents did NOT feel obliged to support the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. In point of fact, they rather liked the idea that the State might abrogate the Constitution, as long as the state of Oregon continued to import overlook illegal immigrants as long as the grape harvest was completed in a timely manner.
(Yes, I am projecting. Sue me.)
Tentative conclusion: residents of Portland are less concerned with "Gun Control" than other issues; among them the social issues of immigration, birth control, and public support of loafers and other "In Need" individuals.
When it deals with broad questions, it does all right. So I took the poll myself. And .. there were a plethora of other questions besides Gun Control, and I took those questions, too.
Unfortunately, the polls are generally simplistic and do not offer enough choices for a reasoned response; there were issues in which I seemed in turn to agree with the Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, and Libertarians. No, I'm not making this up.
I think I'm getting a sick headache.
PS: Oh, they were clear that I don't agree with "Gun Control". Glad we got that straightened out!
The world has “500 days to avoid climate chaos,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said alongside Secretary of State John Kerry at the State Department on Tuesday. “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos,” Fabius said. “And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success in this very important matter.”
No, it's not the latest "climate chaos" scare mongering that we have to worry about.
It's that our Frenchified Secretary of State, the Right Honerable John [bleep] Kerry is openly cohabitating with The French.
It's probably A Good Thing that Mr. Kerry has openly come out as both a Francophile and a weasel ... not that everybody didn't already know that.
It's that Kerry And His Friends will be officially joined at the hip ... one way or the other .. next Winter:
The organizers have high hopes for the Paris event known in U.N. jargon as the 21st conference of the parties (COP21) – the parties being the signatories to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. “By the end of the meeting, for the first time in over 20 years of U.N. negotiations, all the nations of the world, including the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, will be bound by a universal agreement on climate,” the French foreign ministry said around the time it offered to host the conference.
Invited to respond Tuesday to Fabius’ 500-day warning, White House press secretary Jay Carney pointed to the National Climate Assessment released last week which, he said, “made clear in the view of the science that climate change is upon us and the effects and impacts of climate change are being felt today.
So now, it is official. This is the first time in modern history in which any nation has surrendered to The French (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest their scrotums) rather than the other way around.
This is a sad day for America.
Say ... who actually signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for America?
Right now, an American can walk into a gun dealer and buy a brand new, ultra reliable Glock 19 or 26 in 9mm for between $480 and $530. Like Walthers and Rugers, the Glock line of handguns is one that families of all socioeconomic backgrounds can afford to purchase and use for self-defense. But that all changes when a state mandates that an $1,800 .22 pistol has to be sold in place of the $480 Glock. Once that mandate takes place, only the wealthy will able to afford guns, while the poor will be left to hope the locks on their doors are strong enough to keep home invaders out.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Just this past Friday, I explained how I like to extend certain subject matter into open-ended series, if for no other reason than so often, the same stuff comes up again and again. Said another way, shit doesn’t just happen; it happens over, and over, and over. Nowhere is that more true than in the sphere of American gun nuttery[emphasis added], and it’s no mystery why. In fact, I consider it a guiding principle of human nature, as basic to understanding the behavior we see around us as knowing that those who abuse drugs often have addictive personalities, or that fat people have a tendency to eat more than slim people do. As simple as I can make it, this guiding principle would read: Not only do stupid people do stupid things, they never learn to stop doing them. As this principle relates to gun nuts, how many times do we have to hear of some guy showing his piece off to friends with the assurance, “Don’t worry... it’s not loaded,” seconds before he puts a slug through his ceiling—if he’s lucky—or his wife’s head (if he’s not)?
The Second Amendment takes notice that all Americans have the right to "keep and bear arms".
Unfortunately some people are unable to responsibly exercise this right.
This is also true of the First Amendment rights recognized by the Constitution. Some people are completely incompetent to speak in public, and for one simple reason:
They are idiots.
SPEAKING OF IDIOTS:
The First Amendment preserves the right of "The People" to express themselves freely, even when their speech addresses "unpopular" opinions. For example, burning the American flag is protected speach, according to the Supreme Court.
And I think the court was right, in this interpretation. You may not like the image of people burning the flag ... I don't either .. but the flag is a symbol. And .. well, they're idiots; what can you do?
Folks burn a flag in protest of the nation which is so free that they get away with it, and they don't even get a poke in the nose. At least, they are not harassed by jackbooted storm troopers sent by their government to stop protest which some people consider offensive.
By example, here's a guy who rails against the Second Amendment because it allows idiots to possess firearms, even when they are incompetent.
And it doesn't even make me want to poke him in the nose.
Because you know what? He's right.
I train people in firearms safety (in the USPSA context); now and then I see people who make me cringe because they are inadequately trained, or insufficiently skilled, to be safe shooters under pressure. It's never because they are actually idiots, but because they don't know how to safely handle their pistols. Yet they think they are ready to attempt to enter a stressful, moderated environment with limited skills.
I don't have time, during classes, to teach them how to handle their guns safely. So I try to correct the most egregious gun-handling habits. When they perform a maneuver in a manner which is unsafe to others (more often, unsafe to themselves), I stop them and give them immediate feedback. Then they try again, until they get it right.
The process is often frustrating to the shooter. We call it "Good Training". Wish we had time to give them more of it, but instead we just refer them to a Basic Handgun training program, which is designed to deal with
The good news is that this specific environment is self-regulating: those people who don't quickly develop good gun-handling skills are weeded out by the process of Match Disqualification. Some people process the feedback, and decide that they're not all that interested in being 'closely monitored'.
About half of the people who take the class never attend a match; a smattering of those who do, and who are disqualified at their first match (often during the first stage of the match), also seek to find less demanding competitive sports.
Actually, that's about 99% of the people who have not independently developed good gun-handling skills.
The good news is that this weeds out most of these unfortunate people, and may encourage them to seek training. The bad news is that not all of them are willing to accept the judgement given by their own experience. This doesn't mean that they are incompetent people; it only means that some people just shouldn't have a gun ... either because they are unwilling to learn the skills, or because their personality is not up to the grave responsibility.
They either learn, or they quit coming to matches. The feedback mechanism works, at least in the field of competitive marksmanship.
Getting back to the "gun owners are idiots" article:
Yes, the author is correct in saying that some people should not be allowed to own guns! It's just like "some people should not be allowed to drive cars", although the 'right to drive' is not on the same level as the "right to keep and bear arms".
But the author of the original article keeps coming back to his theme of depicting "gun nuts" as incompetents.
And this just pisses me off.
Why?
Mostly, I'm irritated because the person who wants to compete with a firearm is among the 90% ["they" can make up their statistics, I can make up mine] of shooters who are responsible gun owners. The cited article completely ignores the "good"; instead, it emphasizes the "bad", for the sole purpose of making a political point.
As long as we all understand that authorial bias, I have no problem with the article.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -
A man was shot Monday night after he says a man approached him and tried to sell him drugs in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant.
The incident reportedly happened outside of Jack In the Box located at 1504 Hampton Street, not far from West Trinity Lane northeast of Nashville.
The 43-year-old victim told police he was walking across the parking lot when he was approached by a black male who offered to sell him drugs.
The victim said he refused and got into a verbal argument with the gunman, an arrest report states.
During the argument, the suspect pulled out a handgun and fired two shots.
The victim was grazed in his right shin and sustained non-critical injuries.
Not saying the man wouldn't have got shot if Jacques Dans le Boite hadn't established a 'no guns' policy post demo in Texas.
My friend The Hobo Brasser invited me to go hunt "Sage Rats" in the SE *(sagebrush)* part of the state next week, and so I mosied over to my local Bi-Mart to buy a couple of bricks of .22 LR
Well, they had seven bricks there, and sold me one. "Sorry, only one to a customer, per day" they said.
So I went back the next day, and they were out of stock. "Come back next week", they said.
When asked, they said that they wouldn't get any replacement ammo until their next stock shipment .. next Tuesday. "But I can't guarantee that we'll receive any then, either."
It has been four weeks, and I still can't find any more .22 LR ammo.
