Oregon State University has 'issues' with respect to staff, faculty or students carrying firearms on campus.
Concealed, or otherwise.
Oregon State Law allows students/faculty/staff to maintain a firearm within his/her vehicle on campus ... but University Regulation obviate that State Law.
A 2012 announcement in the Campus Newspaper ("The Daily Barometer) includes the Official Policy of the University in regards to firearms possession.
While the announcement purports to announce a "new" policy, in truth it is the same policy which has been in effect for decades. If you are a student, staff or faculty member of the university, and are found to have in firearm in your possession (which includes a firearm locked in your car!), you are subject to dismissal, regardless of your relationship; student, staff or faculty.
Oregon State Law allows possession of a firearm if you have a CHL (Concealed Handgun License), so if you are found to have a handgun on your person or on your vehicle (on campus), you are not subject to any legal ramifications from the state.
Except from the University. Who will cancel your ass in a New York Minute! Student, Staff or Faculty, you are Adios University!
I carried for 15 years on OSU campus .. either in my car or on my person .. and there was nobody I could feel comfortable with revealing that I had a firearm. Which was perfectly okay, because if someone knew I was carrying .. it wouldn't be concealed, now, would it?
The thing is, that in 2011 there was a lawsuit by a student who was a veteran (Marine), one Jeffery Maxwell, who was .... well, I'll let you read the details, but essentially he was arrested for carrying a derringer on campus.
The court found him "not guilty" of any crime .. but the University, in it wisdom, " ... Maxwell was suspended from the college for violating its rule against firearms."
He was a student, and he lost his 'privilege' to attend the state university. He was a veteran, but he was not considered competent to safely carry a firearm.
The University giveth, and The University taketh away.
The University Sucketh, and I'm damn happy that I'm no longer associated with that medieval establishment!
And if I was still associated with that bunch of old maids, I'd still be carrying every damn minute I was on their precious campus!
(Just saying .....)
Tuesday, July 08, 2014
5 shooting drills to practice; and .. I don't want to DQ New Shooters!
5 shooting drills to practice:
The first drill wasn't just the ordinary "shoot one shot at the target" that I've been using for the past few years; instead, I outlined the Upper A-zone area of the target and challenged the four class members to actually HIT their (very small) .... 2" x 4" .... aiming point.
Two of the four shooters managed it the first pass; the other two needed a couple of tries before the cut the perf of the Upper A-zone on a "Metric" target at five yards.
This gave me a simple way to evaluate the accuracy of my students; I wanted to encourage them to shoot for ACCURACY first, which doesn't always happen when the class is focused on shooting FAST!
(They usually have preconceptions about IPSC competition, and it's difficult to change their mindset from FAST to ACCURATE.)
Then .. after I got them focused on actually hitting the target, I immediately switched them to shooting FAST.
The second drill was to shoot five shots as quickly as they could. And I put an IPSC ("Metric") target in front of them ... but I didn't require that they actually shoot at the target. They just assumed that was The Thing To Do. Kewl!
WTF?
It may or may not have been obvious to you, from the previous description, but what I was trying to do was to counter the previous misconceptions of my students in last weekend's Introduction to USPSA class. Many of my students have actually visited the range at ARPC (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club; Albany, Oregon) and in their observation they have got the impression that the thing to do is to shoot just as fast as you can.
Well ... yes. But they have usually missed the perception that the people who shoot fast, and accurately, have a lot more experience. The Very Good Shooters have learned how to shoot accurately, and eventually learned how to do so 'quickly'. New shooters think it looks easy, and try to do what they have seen. The thing to do, is to dissuade them from the "Spray And Pray" school of IPSC shooting, and convince them that they need to learn how to shoot accurately, all the time.
The speed? That will come to them. Later.
Much later.
So what we did was to encourage them to shoot as fast as they could, at a target, consistent with actually hitting the damn target! Fortunately, I didn't have any "Goofy Guys" in the class, so they all were more focused on hitting the brown-boards rather than looking good on the timer. (I DID run the timer .. but I didn't tell them what their times were.)
The good news: they all shot safely!
The bad news: they were discouraged when my volunteer "Demonstrator" (Michael M.) made them all look like grandmothers.
The VERY good news was .. the demonstrator was a 'graduate' of the previous month's class, who had shot exactly ONE match! This showed the class members that a Quantum Leap in competence was within their grasp, and the ability to shoot much better than they did during the class was merely a matter of experience.
That's important in teaching an Introductory class.
I've given up trying to be my own "Demonstrator". I can shoot better, faster, more accurately than most of my students ... and I am a mediocre shooter, at best. I don't want to discourage my students; it's a positive experience when they see one "new shooter" with a minimum of experience, who has learned so much from a single match that he ... well, he doesn't actually make them look bad, but he shows them how quickly they will learn from experience.
The "Final Exam", the last half-hour of the class, is always when I challenge the students to shoot the "El Presidente" stage. I cheat a bit ... I don't tell them that it's a Virginia Count stage. But nobody takes an extra shot, because they already know that "stage time" is important.
So it's not a surprise when my Demonstrator, with one match under his belt, does so much better than ANY of my class members do on the El Presidente Stage.
He's the hero of the day. He knows what it's like, and he has the experience (one match!) which makes all the difference in the world.
All they have to do, they see, is to get "One Match" under their belt, and they will be GOLDEN!
Well, they will be a helluva lot better shooters than they were when the walked onto the range this weekend.
That is; if they don't DQ, because the sad truth is that half of the New Shooters will DQ on their first match.
Either they can't remember to keep their finger off the trigger when reloading (or moving), or they break the 180.
But for those who can survive the embarrassment of the Evil DQ, they usually come back again and shoot safely on subsequent matches.
Which is why I don't shoot a lot of IPSC matches any more; because frankly, I just don't have the heart to DQ new shooters.
x
Being able to hit your targets is one of the most important first steps in learning to shoot well. A great drill that I’ve done during almost every practice session is to either start or finish with group shooting.I learned a lot from this short bit of advice, and I took it to my "Introduction to USPSA" class last weekend.
1.) Shooting groups is a slow-fire drill. You’re trying to hit the target — not go fast.
2.) You should shoot groups at lots of different distances. I suggest starting at 5 yards and moving out to 25. At 5 yards, you’re looking for accuracy. At 25 yards, you’re looking to keep all of your bullet holes in a space about the size of the palm of your hand.
3.) Trigger control is as important as sight alignment. To make sure that you’re squeezing the trigger and not jerking, dry fire a few rounds before live fire and after. While dry firing, the gun should stay perfectly still during the entire trigger pull.
The first drill wasn't just the ordinary "shoot one shot at the target" that I've been using for the past few years; instead, I outlined the Upper A-zone area of the target and challenged the four class members to actually HIT their (very small) .... 2" x 4" .... aiming point.
Two of the four shooters managed it the first pass; the other two needed a couple of tries before the cut the perf of the Upper A-zone on a "Metric" target at five yards.
This gave me a simple way to evaluate the accuracy of my students; I wanted to encourage them to shoot for ACCURACY first, which doesn't always happen when the class is focused on shooting FAST!
(They usually have preconceptions about IPSC competition, and it's difficult to change their mindset from FAST to ACCURATE.)
Then .. after I got them focused on actually hitting the target, I immediately switched them to shooting FAST.
The second drill was to shoot five shots as quickly as they could. And I put an IPSC ("Metric") target in front of them ... but I didn't require that they actually shoot at the target. They just assumed that was The Thing To Do. Kewl!
WTF?
It may or may not have been obvious to you, from the previous description, but what I was trying to do was to counter the previous misconceptions of my students in last weekend's Introduction to USPSA class. Many of my students have actually visited the range at ARPC (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club; Albany, Oregon) and in their observation they have got the impression that the thing to do is to shoot just as fast as you can.
Well ... yes. But they have usually missed the perception that the people who shoot fast, and accurately, have a lot more experience. The Very Good Shooters have learned how to shoot accurately, and eventually learned how to do so 'quickly'. New shooters think it looks easy, and try to do what they have seen. The thing to do, is to dissuade them from the "Spray And Pray" school of IPSC shooting, and convince them that they need to learn how to shoot accurately, all the time.
The speed? That will come to them. Later.
Much later.
So what we did was to encourage them to shoot as fast as they could, at a target, consistent with actually hitting the damn target! Fortunately, I didn't have any "Goofy Guys" in the class, so they all were more focused on hitting the brown-boards rather than looking good on the timer. (I DID run the timer .. but I didn't tell them what their times were.)
The good news: they all shot safely!
The bad news: they were discouraged when my volunteer "Demonstrator" (Michael M.) made them all look like grandmothers.
The VERY good news was .. the demonstrator was a 'graduate' of the previous month's class, who had shot exactly ONE match! This showed the class members that a Quantum Leap in competence was within their grasp, and the ability to shoot much better than they did during the class was merely a matter of experience.
That's important in teaching an Introductory class.
I've given up trying to be my own "Demonstrator". I can shoot better, faster, more accurately than most of my students ... and I am a mediocre shooter, at best. I don't want to discourage my students; it's a positive experience when they see one "new shooter" with a minimum of experience, who has learned so much from a single match that he ... well, he doesn't actually make them look bad, but he shows them how quickly they will learn from experience.
The "Final Exam", the last half-hour of the class, is always when I challenge the students to shoot the "El Presidente" stage. I cheat a bit ... I don't tell them that it's a Virginia Count stage. But nobody takes an extra shot, because they already know that "stage time" is important.
So it's not a surprise when my Demonstrator, with one match under his belt, does so much better than ANY of my class members do on the El Presidente Stage.
He's the hero of the day. He knows what it's like, and he has the experience (one match!) which makes all the difference in the world.
All they have to do, they see, is to get "One Match" under their belt, and they will be GOLDEN!
Well, they will be a helluva lot better shooters than they were when the walked onto the range this weekend.
That is; if they don't DQ, because the sad truth is that half of the New Shooters will DQ on their first match.
Either they can't remember to keep their finger off the trigger when reloading (or moving), or they break the 180.
But for those who can survive the embarrassment of the Evil DQ, they usually come back again and shoot safely on subsequent matches.
Which is why I don't shoot a lot of IPSC matches any more; because frankly, I just don't have the heart to DQ new shooters.
x
Dude .. is this your cup?
Authorities: Military member with concealed carry permit shoots attacker - chicagotribune.com:
Chicago, July 07, 2014:
Chicago, you think you're bad? You have a lot to learn about BAD.
Not everyone is impressed with your gangsta' style. Lookin' bad isn't the same as BEING Bad!
Maybe this is the answer to Chicago Hoodlums.
Chicago, July 07, 2014:
A Gresham man fired on a group of people leaving a party, only to be shot himself by one of the victims, a military service member with a concealed carry permit, authorities said.You got to ask yourself .. do I REALLY want to get into a gunfight with some body who doesn't just wave a gun?
As Mickiel fired at the victims’ vehicle, the military member retrieved his gun and took cover near the vehicle’s front fender, according to Hain. Two unidentified people also shot at the group, she said.Cover, Concealment, and accurate fire.
Chicago, you think you're bad? You have a lot to learn about BAD.
The military service member fired two shots and struck Mickiel twice, she said.This may explain a lot of Chicago shootings; "Spray And Pray" just ain't workin' for you, when faced with a Veteran.
A 22-year-old woman in the group was injured by Mickiel in the shooting, suffering wounds to the arm and back, according to court records and Hain.
Not everyone is impressed with your gangsta' style. Lookin' bad isn't the same as BEING Bad!
Maybe this is the answer to Chicago Hoodlums.
Monday, July 07, 2014
More in sorrow than in Anger?
States look to gun seizure law after mass killings | Fox News:
Okay, the "state officials" say ... if you "shall not comply", we'll simply come take your guns.
This, in the country whose Liar-In-Chief Commander-In-Chief made it a point to publically state:
HARTFORD, Conn. – As state officials across the U.S. grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.This is happening in the "Shall Not Comply" state.
Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.
Okay, the "state officials" say ... if you "shall not comply", we'll simply come take your guns.
This, in the country whose Liar-In-Chief Commander-In-Chief made it a point to publically state:
"I will not take your [guns] away."
Friday, July 04, 2014
What "Independence" REALLY means
A Completely Different Proposal for Gun Control:
Seems reasonable, doesn't it?
Read further:
"We All Doin' What We can!"
Having read all the above, you have to ask yourself: isn't this the same situation as that which Americans faced at Lexington and Concord in 1775?
(And of course, that is exactly what happened ... to the result which most Americans today are celebrating!) Exactly how would "Rose City Rose" have reacted if she lived under the British Boot 238 years ago, instead of in the insulated, protected environment which America represents today?)
To me it seems sort of ... I don't know, kinda/sorta like ... UNPATRIOTIC for Liberal Democrats to be biting the hand that feeds them (given Food Stamps and other social programs .. literally) on the day when we celebrate our Independence from Foreign Rule.
First of all, it is constitutionally-sound to keep weapons out of the hands of those who might be reasonably assumed to have violent tendencies; otherwise, the background checks we already have would never have stood up to the battering they would have undergone in the courts by zealous gun lobbyists.
This means that people who belong to factions that openly advocate or have a history of violence against US citizens or government agencies, or individuals who openly express such ideas, can and should be prohibited from owning firearms.
Obviously, simply being a skeptic or critic of the US government alone would be insufficient; but those who unambiguously express violent tendencies should be subject to an explicit legal requirement to surrender their firearms.
Seems reasonable, doesn't it?
Read further:
Second, we must remember that the US constitution explicitly gives the government the power to suppress revolts. Most gun nuts seem to hold the constitutionally unsound idea (which no serious scholar of constitutional law agrees with) that the Second Amendment is somehow about their right to fight against a "tyrranical government" but in reality, the federal government actually has sweeping Constitutional powers to keep the peace. It seems logical to me that it should be within the powers of the US government to seize firearms and prevent the sale of weapons to people who advocate the violent overthrow of the government for this reason as well. Our government, however, has been incredibly lax in using this power and I think it's time they used it. Bundy Ranch and Leith were our wake-up call: there are violent, dangerous people who want to overthrow our government and impose something far worse than our borderline plutocracy on each and every one of us, they are armed, and it would be criminal to allow them to continue owning firearms of any sort.Oh yeah, the emphasis is definitely added!
"We All Doin' What We can!"
Having read all the above, you have to ask yourself: isn't this the same situation as that which Americans faced at Lexington and Concord in 1775?
About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were ordered to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.Hmm ... confiscation of privately owned firearms. To the fanatics at The Daily Kos, that sounds like a "violent overthrow of the government".
(And of course, that is exactly what happened ... to the result which most Americans today are celebrating!) Exactly how would "Rose City Rose" have reacted if she lived under the British Boot 238 years ago, instead of in the insulated, protected environment which America represents today?)
To me it seems sort of ... I don't know, kinda/sorta like ... UNPATRIOTIC for Liberal Democrats to be biting the hand that feeds them (given Food Stamps and other social programs .. literally) on the day when we celebrate our Independence from Foreign Rule.
Thursday, July 03, 2014
Trash Shooters: Arizona's Hunter and Ash Canyons Closed to Shooting
The "two percent" who are irresponsible ruin it for the 98% who are responsible.
Shooting Wire:
(July 02, 2014)
Arizona's Hunter and Ash Canyons Closed to ShootingSIERRA VISTA, AZ -
ANOTHER part of Public Lands is closed to shooters, because of the activity of 'some' shooters'.
And the inactivity of other shooters.
Apparently, this area in the Coronado National Forest in Arizona has been closed to "all recreational shooting" due to the irresponsible conduct of a few members of what we may choose to to call "The Shooting Community".
I know there must be responsible members of "the shooting community" which also use this National Forest land for shooting. If so, I imagine that they try to clean up the area when they visit it. But if the Trash Shooters outnumber the Real People, it's impossible to keep up with the mess those "other people" leave behind.
Perhaps the Real People are outnumbered, and only the Trash Shooters use that area now; in that case, the Forest Service folks have taken the only remaining solution --- to close the area to ALL shooters.
Arizona, you need to clean up your act. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the Forest Service can not, and will not, monitor the activities of everyone who uses that area. (And no, I am not familiar with the situation; "all I know is what I read in the newspapers".)
I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done to resolve this situation. I hate to see any area of public range/forest closed to shooting. If anyone is deprived of the opportunity to shoot, and the Forest Service can't keep up with the damage ... then it seems up to the few (?) who are responsible to take it into their own hands to maintain the area.
The use of Tannerite on public lands is, in my mind, entirely responsible.
This is our land, folks. We're responsible for what happens there, even (or especially) if we are not the people who are making the mess.
Otherwise ... no matter how responsible you are, you are not part of the solution.
Shooting Wire:
(July 02, 2014)
Arizona's Hunter and Ash Canyons Closed to ShootingSIERRA VISTA, AZ -
ANOTHER part of Public Lands is closed to shooters, because of the activity of 'some' shooters'.
And the inactivity of other shooters.
Apparently, this area in the Coronado National Forest in Arizona has been closed to "all recreational shooting" due to the irresponsible conduct of a few members of what we may choose to to call "The Shooting Community".
Beginning July 1, 2014 the Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista Ranger District, will close Ash and Hunter Canyons to all recreational shooting.This announcement speaks for itself.
The emergency closure is being implemented due to excessive resource damage to trees and other vegetation in both canyons and large amounts of trash, shells and lead being deposited in trees and on the ground.
Closing the area to shooting will allow the area to recover, improving vegetative growth and wildlife habitat, and allow for cleanup of damaged hazard trees as well as lead, shells and shooting debris.
The closure order will remain in effect until July 1, 2015 or until it is rescinded. During this time the Sierra Vista Ranger District will develop an overall Shooting Management Plan for all of the canyons along the east side of the Huachuca Mountains.
The emergency closure prohibits discharging a firearm, air rifle or gas gun in the restricted area. Binary explosives such as Tannerite remain illegal in all areas of the Coronado National Forest at all times of the year.
I know there must be responsible members of "the shooting community" which also use this National Forest land for shooting. If so, I imagine that they try to clean up the area when they visit it. But if the Trash Shooters outnumber the Real People, it's impossible to keep up with the mess those "other people" leave behind.
Perhaps the Real People are outnumbered, and only the Trash Shooters use that area now; in that case, the Forest Service folks have taken the only remaining solution --- to close the area to ALL shooters.
Arizona, you need to clean up your act. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the Forest Service can not, and will not, monitor the activities of everyone who uses that area. (And no, I am not familiar with the situation; "all I know is what I read in the newspapers".)
I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done to resolve this situation. I hate to see any area of public range/forest closed to shooting. If anyone is deprived of the opportunity to shoot, and the Forest Service can't keep up with the damage ... then it seems up to the few (?) who are responsible to take it into their own hands to maintain the area.
The use of Tannerite on public lands is, in my mind, entirely responsible.
This is our land, folks. We're responsible for what happens there, even (or especially) if we are not the people who are making the mess.
Otherwise ... no matter how responsible you are, you are not part of the solution.
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
"The Last Round You'll Ever Need" ???
Has someone (link at G2 Research) invented the ultimate "Self Defense Bullet"? They seem to think so, and so does the author of this article on the Radically Invasive Projectile.
- See more at: http://rare.us/story/this-is-the-last-bullet-youll-ever-need-watch-and-see-the-technology-for-yourself/#sthash.Wr2xVdgR.dpuf
Personally, I give it "Two Yawns Up" --- just another version of the hollow-point, except that it fragments rather than expands. The separated base of the bullet continues through as a mass for penetration --- with 'radically' lighter mass, which might be an advantage if penetration is an issue in, for example, an apartment building.
The originators seem inclined to bill it as a one-shot/one-kill bullet, and I haven't seen enough evidence to evaluate it. (Video, and links to other videos, presented at the bottom of this page.)
Still, reactions at the YouTube site are mixed; a lot of people tend to consider this "scary" and "shouldn't be used except by the military" (note: does violate the Geneva Convention).
Blue Nation Review provides a little black humor in their social evaluation:
Meet the RIP round from G2 Research. Not only does this bullet look scary, it does scary things. It was intended to be used for gun-toting women against would-be attackers, and it’s guaranteed to kill anyone dumb enough to assault anyone who has this in the chamber.
G2 calls it “the last round you will ever need” and describes its effects as “radically invasive.” As you’ll see in the video, the bullet doesn’t just stay in one piece upon entering it’s target. The round uses its forward momentum to send the edges of the bullet ripping apart into your attacker. This not only puts a round into the target, it also sends shrapnel into various parts of the body as well, effectively destroying vital organs.
Personally, I give it "Two Yawns Up" --- just another version of the hollow-point, except that it fragments rather than expands. The separated base of the bullet continues through as a mass for penetration --- with 'radically' lighter mass, which might be an advantage if penetration is an issue in, for example, an apartment building.
The originators seem inclined to bill it as a one-shot/one-kill bullet, and I haven't seen enough evidence to evaluate it. (Video, and links to other videos, presented at the bottom of this page.)
Still, reactions at the YouTube site are mixed; a lot of people tend to consider this "scary" and "shouldn't be used except by the military" (note: does violate the Geneva Convention).
Blue Nation Review provides a little black humor in their social evaluation:
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
"No Weapon Is Taken From Anyone":
Feinstein on assault weapons ban: “No weapon is taken from anyone” - Salon.com:
(January 24, 2013)
Legislatures can do only one thing: make laws. They don't solve problems, they don't resolve crises, they don't stop crime. They only punish. Too often, the people they punish are the only ones who respect the law.
This is the story of a Lawmaker who has long ago quit trying for "right", but now only wants to preserve her office by seeming to be "Doing Something" while she is in office:
It's offered here as a reminder that the Gun Grabbers will never, NEVER give up!
(And they call ME paranoid!)
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, it is!
The problem with the 1994 gun ban, according to Senator Feinstein, was that it was "too easy to work around". In other words, it was insufficiently strict.
(January 24, 2013)
Legislatures can do only one thing: make laws. They don't solve problems, they don't resolve crises, they don't stop crime. They only punish. Too often, the people they punish are the only ones who respect the law.
This is the story of a Lawmaker who has long ago quit trying for "right", but now only wants to preserve her office by seeming to be "Doing Something" while she is in office:
In a press conference Thursday, Democrats unveiled a new version of the assault weapons ban that they will introduce into the House and Senate, which includes a ban on 158 specifically named military-style firearms. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who sponsored the Senate version of the bill and who worked on the assault weapons ban from the ’90s that expired in 2004, said in her remarks that this will be a “tough battle,” but she is “incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again in this country.”Yes, this original article was published over 18 months ago.
It's offered here as a reminder that the Gun Grabbers will never, NEVER give up!
(And they call ME paranoid!)
_______________________________________________________________
The legislation specifically prohibits 158 types of military-grade firearms, as well as other semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can have a detachable magazine and have at least one military characteristic. As Feinstein explained, the 1994 version of the law had a two-characteristic test for a weapon to be banned, but that was “too easy to work around.Is this a reference to the 1994-2004 "Compromise" legislation, which was only enacted if a "Sunset Provision" which allowed the gun/magazine ban to be deleted if (after ten years) it was found to have no effect on the "Violent Crime Rate"?
Yes, it is!
The problem with the 1994 gun ban, according to Senator Feinstein, was that it was "too easy to work around". In other words, it was insufficiently strict.
Oldie but Goodie: Michael Z on things that you have to "believe, to believe in Gun Control"
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters:
Tonight I re-viewed Michael Z. Williamson's:
"It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control"
As usual, I enjoyed his caustic wit. I must have read this a dozen times over the years. While some of the issues have changed slightly .. every item is a dead-on (excuse the Politically Incorrect verbiage), scathingly accurate analysis of the Progressive "cognitive dysfunction" demonstrated on a daily basis.
NOTE that he has also co-authored with John Ringo and Tom Kratman.
You can get them all from Amazon, or you can borrow them from me.
Hmmm ... not. Go to Amazon. My books are MINE!
Tonight I re-viewed Michael Z. Williamson's:
"It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control"
As usual, I enjoyed his caustic wit. I must have read this a dozen times over the years. While some of the issues have changed slightly .. every item is a dead-on (excuse the Politically Incorrect verbiage), scathingly accurate analysis of the Progressive "cognitive dysfunction" demonstrated on a daily basis.
That manufacturers are not responsible for damages caused by their products, unless that product is a gun.If you think he's caustic here, you should read some of his books.
That trigger locks and other devices make guns safer, which is why the police and military refuse to use them.
That registration of guns will help law enforcement, because that way they won't need probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search.
That registration of guns, which makes their existence a matter of public knowledge under the FOIA, isn't dangerous to owners.
That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal.
That private citizens making private sales of private property is a "loophole."
That the existence of weapons not banned by previous laws is a "loophole." That making it harder to get a license to sell firearms legally will reduce the number of people selling illegally.
That it's safer to do nothing than resist with a gun, which is why the military wins so many wars by not fighting.
That we must close shooting ranges because of the noise, but ban silencers because they are quiet.
That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician.
That guns are an "epidemic" even though we can't treat them with penicillin.
That there's no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority.
That suggesting teachers be armed is an outrageous suggestion for a "civilized" society, which is why the Swiss and Israelis do it.
That making it harder and harder for even cops to have guns on school property will somehow make it harder for lunatics to kill the utterly helpless students.
NOTE that he has also co-authored with John Ringo and Tom Kratman.
You can get them all from Amazon, or you can borrow them from me.
Hmmm ... not. Go to Amazon. My books are MINE!
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Final, Official on USPSA Scandal
Letter from USPSA President Phil Strader on the Paul Hendrix cheating scandal | Gun Nuts Media:
I think that this is a solid, reasonable, and balanced response. Lacking any way to prove that Hendrix colluded with others conclusively, the punishment should fall squarely on his shoulders, and a lifetime ban is the only appropriate punishment. My only question is why this was posted on Facebook, and not emailed to the entire membership at large\Posted by CALEB, June 27, 2014
I agree ... why did I have to search the internet to find this?
Oh, go to the link at the top of the article to see Pres Phil's statement.
No "I'm Sorry/You're Forgiven".
No "rehabilitation"
No "acknowledge your continuing commitment over the years"
Just "Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out."
It all goes back to my very first comment:
Why cheat at USPSA?
Thursday, June 26, 2014
"She No Longer Works There"
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2014/06/25/omission-control-n1855230
"Reporter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there."
---
You can find the John Stossel article by following the embedded links, and decide for yourself how much you believe. (Or you can read "BIAS", by Bernard Goldberg; I'll loan my copy to personal friends.)
While I'm not entirely certain that I buy the story as written, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum:
EVERY attempt to do the "Blog This" function of Google failed. I finally had to resort to manually copying the weblink, creating a new post, and building it from scratch.
It worked, eventually, but I was surprised that Google/Blogspot didn't treat this article the same as every other article I've BLOGGED for the past ten years.
I know, It's Just Me, and I did something differently from the way I've blog-referenced the past FOUR THOUSAND ARTICLES ... (most of which actually made it to print, by the way.)
Just saying.
"Reporter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there."
---
"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.
I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.
I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.
You can find the John Stossel article by following the embedded links, and decide for yourself how much you believe. (Or you can read "BIAS", by Bernard Goldberg; I'll loan my copy to personal friends.)
While I'm not entirely certain that I buy the story as written, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum:
EVERY attempt to do the "Blog This" function of Google failed. I finally had to resort to manually copying the weblink, creating a new post, and building it from scratch.
It worked, eventually, but I was surprised that Google/Blogspot didn't treat this article the same as every other article I've BLOGGED for the past ten years.
I know, It's Just Me, and I did something differently from the way I've blog-referenced the past FOUR THOUSAND ARTICLES ... (most of which actually made it to print, by the way.)
Just saying.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Grapes of Wrath
I just finished reading "Grapes of Wrath" .. the 2014 re-published "75th Anniversary" issue.
Has it been three quarters of a century since John Steinbeck wrote this accolade to The Human Condition?
I know only one thing; this was the most difficult novel to read in my (mumble-mumble) decades of reading everything I could get my hands on. I usually read a book a day. This one took me sixteen (16) days to complete its reading.
It's not that it's hard to read ... it's a beautifully written story about Hard Times in America.
And that's just what made it so DAMN hard to digest.
Anyone who can witness this difficult period in American history, learn how hard-scrabble honest folks were deliberately starved to death (by their countrymen) without a tear in his eye .. well, I don't want to know him.
It wasn't that "people" weren't capable of being sympathetic to the folks they called "Okies" (as a term of derision; they perforce considered them subhuman, because if they didn't, they might have to give up their own sustenance to support staring Americans.) It's just that everyone was frightened during the Great Depression about the very really possibility that they were just one paycheck away from starvation and destitution, for themselves and their children.
People were thrown off their homes by armed deputies; a bulldozer would come through and crush their shacks to rubble, and then continue to plow the entire property because The Bank had to make a profit, or the bankers would find themselves on the road, too.
Damn! I'm glad I wasn't alive during the Thirties!
I saw the movie, with Henry Fonda, years ago. But that has little to do with the book (except for one scene). The Joads were images in monochrome there. In the book, they became real to me.
I've been a critic of "Social Support" programs, because in the Modern Era they often seem nothing more than a Political Boondoggle.
But it could happen again, and in a rich country (which America was NOT, in the Great Depression), I now understand why there has to be some kind of .. at least a "BootStrap" program for folks who really want to work, who are to proud to accept charity, and find themselves having to do "The Hard Thing" because ... that's all they have.
So, what's the country going to be like in 20#? See here for a slightly different viewpoint, in a modern version of The Grapes of Wrath.
Teaser Quote:
(H/T: Larry Codrea)
Oh, you have got to go reread Grapes of Wrath!
Has it been three quarters of a century since John Steinbeck wrote this accolade to The Human Condition?
I know only one thing; this was the most difficult novel to read in my (mumble-mumble) decades of reading everything I could get my hands on. I usually read a book a day. This one took me sixteen (16) days to complete its reading.
It's not that it's hard to read ... it's a beautifully written story about Hard Times in America.
And that's just what made it so DAMN hard to digest.
Anyone who can witness this difficult period in American history, learn how hard-scrabble honest folks were deliberately starved to death (by their countrymen) without a tear in his eye .. well, I don't want to know him.
It wasn't that "people" weren't capable of being sympathetic to the folks they called "Okies" (as a term of derision; they perforce considered them subhuman, because if they didn't, they might have to give up their own sustenance to support staring Americans.) It's just that everyone was frightened during the Great Depression about the very really possibility that they were just one paycheck away from starvation and destitution, for themselves and their children.
People were thrown off their homes by armed deputies; a bulldozer would come through and crush their shacks to rubble, and then continue to plow the entire property because The Bank had to make a profit, or the bankers would find themselves on the road, too.
Damn! I'm glad I wasn't alive during the Thirties!
I saw the movie, with Henry Fonda, years ago. But that has little to do with the book (except for one scene). The Joads were images in monochrome there. In the book, they became real to me.
I've been a critic of "Social Support" programs, because in the Modern Era they often seem nothing more than a Political Boondoggle.
But it could happen again, and in a rich country (which America was NOT, in the Great Depression), I now understand why there has to be some kind of .. at least a "BootStrap" program for folks who really want to work, who are to proud to accept charity, and find themselves having to do "The Hard Thing" because ... that's all they have.
So, what's the country going to be like in 20#? See here for a slightly different viewpoint, in a modern version of The Grapes of Wrath.
Teaser Quote:
Another young American soldier is being buried while family and friends watch, having been killed by an Improvised Explosive Device while attempting to suppress "insurgents"—in Ohio. He was trying to keep them from shooting the bulldozer drivers demolishing suburban neighborhoods, clearing the land for a "return to nature" under a United Nations mandate.
(H/T: Larry Codrea)
Oh, you have got to go reread Grapes of Wrath!
Your Cell Phone Is Constitutionally Protected
John Lott's Website: Note that the Obama administration supported police being able to search people's cell phones without a search warrant:
The Constitution still stands, and it's a "living document" in the sense that your private communications cannot be examined without a warrant.
(Thanks to John Lott for keeping us informed about this.)
What this means is that the Law enforcement people who have braced you for ... say ... allowing your dog to run unleashed in the county park, cannot casually browse through your text messages to determine whether you INTENDED to do so.
And they cannot use any information they found there as evidence of any other information; including evidence of a felony.
So if you just bought a new shotgun and you've used your phone to tell your best friend how neat it is, they can't start their own 'unofficial' Gun Registration Database using information gathered there.
Does this apply to email? Well, if you sent the message to your friend, that's presumably banned. If you have accessed your email through your computer? Since the phone is able to send email as readily as your computer, it's a logical extension to assume that is also constitutionally protected.
However, I don't have any references to specifically declare it. So if you have the tagline saying "Sent from my IPOD" or "Sent from my ANDROID" ... it wouldn't hurt to delete that default setting.
The Constitution still stands, and it's a "living document" in the sense that your private communications cannot be examined without a warrant.
(Thanks to John Lott for keeping us informed about this.)
What this means is that the Law enforcement people who have braced you for ... say ... allowing your dog to run unleashed in the county park, cannot casually browse through your text messages to determine whether you INTENDED to do so.
And they cannot use any information they found there as evidence of any other information; including evidence of a felony.
So if you just bought a new shotgun and you've used your phone to tell your best friend how neat it is, they can't start their own 'unofficial' Gun Registration Database using information gathered there.
Does this apply to email? Well, if you sent the message to your friend, that's presumably banned. If you have accessed your email through your computer? Since the phone is able to send email as readily as your computer, it's a logical extension to assume that is also constitutionally protected.
However, I don't have any references to specifically declare it. So if you have the tagline saying "Sent from my IPOD" or "Sent from my ANDROID" ... it wouldn't hurt to delete that default setting.
Not Safe For Work ... according to the EPA (And They Should Know!)
EPA Employees Told to Stop Pooping in the Hallway - Fedblog - News - GovExec.com:
Boehner plans to file suit:
AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT ....
How about Lois Lerner's "My Dog Ate My Email" defense?
Computer Expert tell us what we already know: "No way in HELL there are no backups!"
(Okay, not a direct quote.)
The latter two links are to videos.
Media Bias?
I think ... um, gee, I'm not sure ..... (another video).
Environmental Protection Agency workers have done some odd things recently. Contractors built secret man caves in an EPA warehouse, an employee pretended to work for the CIA to get unlimited vacations and one worker even spent most of his time on the clock looking at pornography.
It appears, however, that a regional office has reached a new low: Management for Region 8 in Denver, Colo., wrote an email earlier this year to all staff in the area pleading with them to stop inappropriate bathroom behavior, including defecating in the hallway.
Boehner plans to file suit:
Republicans have voiced frustration with Obama's second-term "pen and phone" strategy of pursuing policy changes without Congress -- particularly environmental rules via the Environmental Protection Agency.
AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT ....
How about Lois Lerner's "My Dog Ate My Email" defense?
Computer Expert tell us what we already know: "No way in HELL there are no backups!"
(Okay, not a direct quote.)
The latter two links are to videos.
Media Bias?
I think ... um, gee, I'm not sure ..... (another video).
Monday, June 23, 2014
Map Of Self Defense Stories Using Firearms | Guns Save Lives
Map Of Self Defense Stories Using Firearms | Guns Save Lives:
Guns Save Lives has a map of self-defense stories ... go take a look at it. It's interesting to note where the incidents tend to 'cluster'.
H/T: The War On Guns
The map below shows all of our stories geo tagged on a map. Many stories do not give the exact addresses for obvious reasons, but we try to get the points as close as possible with the information provided. The map shows incidents recorded from August 1, 2011 – Present. There may be handful (less than a dozen stories) recorded prior to that.
Guns Save Lives has a map of self-defense stories ... go take a look at it. It's interesting to note where the incidents tend to 'cluster'.
H/T: The War On Guns
Paul Hendrix resigns from USPSA under allegations of cheating | Gun Nuts Media
Paul Hendrix resigns from USPSA under allegations of cheating | Gun Nuts Media:
Posted on June 23, 2014 at 13:48
By now you’ve heard of Paul Hendrix, the USPSA Range Officer accused of cheating. Posted on the Area 6 Facebook page today, here is his “apology” and resignation:
As posted by Caleb, the author of the original article. Go HERE for his comments.
Posted on June 23, 2014 at 13:48
By now you’ve heard of Paul Hendrix, the USPSA Range Officer accused of cheating. Posted on the Area 6 Facebook page today, here is his “apology” and resignation:
To the members of USPSA Area 6. I have spoken with people that I trust and respect their views. In review it appears that I have fallen short in safeguarding the trust and duties place with me in this sport. I apologize for those shortcomings. I accept the full responsibility for my shortcomings, as well as, any pain or embarrassment caused. I have resigned my membership in this great organization. At some point in my future I hope to rebuild that trust.
Humbly Submitted,
Paul Hendrix
As posted by Caleb, the author of the original article. Go HERE for his comments.
Fifty Five OH Thousand Dollars Worth of SQUAT in Chicago!
Money for nothing: State paid UIC $498,355 for subpar study | Early & Often:
(June 21, 2014)
Unfortunately, our expectations were somewhat higher than his; we would have expected (had we knowb the effort was being made) that some suggestions to resolve the situation would have been made.
It's not an entirely BAD result; that SOMEBODY was at least recognizing that there Is A Problem in Chicago (not that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has noticed) can be counted as A Good Thing.
Too bad no solutions were offered by the study.
Too bad that a bunch of weasels ignored the situation long enough for the contract to run out.
Too bad nobody took the problem seriously.
Too bad that kids are still shooting each other on the Mean Streets of Chicago.
But HEY! Somebody noticed that there was a problem; should have been worth something!
I'm been blogging about Chicago Hoodlums for quite a while .. I would gladly have identified the SYMPTOMS of Chicago's murder rate for ... oh, I don't know .. 10% of the cost?
What a bunch of freaking morons .., they spent enough to buy every gun on the street a hundred times over, and for NOTHING?
Chicago (Mayor Rahm ...) here's the solution and I give it to you for free. It isn't Gun Laws; it's societal fixes.
Make jobs for kids, and for fathers. I don't care if it's for fixing the potholes in the streets or .. I don't know, finding lost dogs?
It will cost you a LOT less than the price of of incarcerating Kids Gone Wrong. And it will give your people some pride ... which they can now only find by shooting each other.
For $500,000, what could you have done for Your People?
Never mind, it doesn't matter. You have already thrown away your best chance to really Make A Difference.
Of course, it wouldn't have looked as sexy in the newspapers as having Funded A Study ... even if it did come up bonkers.
Freakin'' Liberal Dorks!
You don't even know how to run a STUDY!
I wonder how much of that $500,000 went into your pockets!
Never mind; I expect Mayor Rahm to be buing a new penthouse or something RSN
He'll probably sublet it out to The Pres next month.
And they wonder why we hate them so?
H/T: SAYUNCLE
LATER: FOLLOW UP BY CLAYTON CRAMER
(June 21, 2014)
The state spent almost half a million dollars on a flawed study of Gov. Pat Quinn’s now-defunct anti-violence program — the Neighborhood Recovery Initiative — after officials rejected a more rigorous evaluation that would have been free, auditors say.Of course we're glad that the Governor of Illinois has made some effort .. not matter how feeble, to reduce the level of "Gun Violence" (Which equates to Violence regardless of the mechanism) in Chicago.
Unfortunately, our expectations were somewhat higher than his; we would have expected (had we knowb the effort was being made) that some suggestions to resolve the situation would have been made.
It's not an entirely BAD result; that SOMEBODY was at least recognizing that there Is A Problem in Chicago (not that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has noticed) can be counted as A Good Thing.
Too bad no solutions were offered by the study.
Too bad that a bunch of weasels ignored the situation long enough for the contract to run out.
Too bad nobody took the problem seriously.
Too bad that kids are still shooting each other on the Mean Streets of Chicago.
But HEY! Somebody noticed that there was a problem; should have been worth something!
I'm been blogging about Chicago Hoodlums for quite a while .. I would gladly have identified the SYMPTOMS of Chicago's murder rate for ... oh, I don't know .. 10% of the cost?
What a bunch of freaking morons .., they spent enough to buy every gun on the street a hundred times over, and for NOTHING?
Chicago (Mayor Rahm ...) here's the solution and I give it to you for free. It isn't Gun Laws; it's societal fixes.
Make jobs for kids, and for fathers. I don't care if it's for fixing the potholes in the streets or .. I don't know, finding lost dogs?
It will cost you a LOT less than the price of of incarcerating Kids Gone Wrong. And it will give your people some pride ... which they can now only find by shooting each other.
For $500,000, what could you have done for Your People?
Never mind, it doesn't matter. You have already thrown away your best chance to really Make A Difference.
Of course, it wouldn't have looked as sexy in the newspapers as having Funded A Study ... even if it did come up bonkers.
Freakin'' Liberal Dorks!
You don't even know how to run a STUDY!
I wonder how much of that $500,000 went into your pockets!
Never mind; I expect Mayor Rahm to be buing a new penthouse or something RSN
He'll probably sublet it out to The Pres next month.
And they wonder why we hate them so?
H/T: SAYUNCLE
LATER: FOLLOW UP BY CLAYTON CRAMER
It's all about what the meaning of "IS", is .....
When school shootings are anything but:
well ....
we've got people on both sides of the fence talking about what constitutes a "School Shooting".
The Gun Grabbers are hollering that "74 School Shootings This Year", and the Gun Rights folks saying it's "Only 15" or "Only 3" or whatever number you choose to use to present your side of the argument.
That's not likely to happen, because there's too much chatter and most of it is vituperative. It's a Zero-Sum Game here, and nobody is willing to say "you're right" because that means the same as "I'm Wrong", and that is NOT going to happen today. (As much as both sides, occupied by responsible and reasonable adults, would dearly LOVE to find a middle ground .. this week, there ain't No Such Thing"!)
The Left Side (anti) goes on to say about the Right Side (pro):
It's pretty clear that the "Progressive, Liberal, Democratic, Near-Sighted 'if it saves just one child' (and 'never mind our Constitional Rights') folks consider the Right-Wingnuts to be immoral and selfish and not socially responsible.
On the other hand, the "Right-Thinking Americans Who Want To Preserve Our Constitution Regardless of the Liberal Progressive Pap-thinking Leftests" are not entirely unable to sling a few stones. ("If It Saves Just one Child" misses a lot of important stuff in the middle!)
Gets confusing, doesn't it?
Maybe we can forget the sides for a minute? Lord knows *_I_* can't keep track of who's slandering whom!
To continue:
It comes down to 'the slaughter of children', every time.
The Right says: " hey, you're talking about Gang-Bangers in Chicago".
The Left says: "no, we're talking about children who have access to guns in their home and shoot themselves and others by accident or ignorance".
What we're really talking about is .... both issues, and ignoring each other.
I've got my own opinion, and I can quote statistics with the best of them.
Statistics don't tell the whole story, though.
We probably will never find a common ground between the people who are "afraid of guns", and the people who are 'afraid to be without guns'. (And you can be outraged about either description ....for or against either position ... but that ain't helping. So just STFU and listen for a minute, dammit!)
I don't know if it's possible to find a Common Ground between the two groups. I DO know that there are less people in every demographic who are killed by guns via suicide or accident (defining 'accident' as somebody shooting themselves or others with no understanding that the gun may fire) than are killed by deliberate homicide. And you know that's true, so let's just talk about the folks that shoot other folks for a while, okay?
And I know that "accident" may also be defined as "knowing the gun may fire, but not intending to shoot the person who is hit". (Which strongly suggests "Shooter Negligence" more than "Shooter Inexperience" .. if it becomes a Talking Point.)
But if we can define a common ground, let's talk about something which is "Do-able". Not something which is pie-in-the sky unfeasible, such as taking all guns away from everyone except for Police of Military.
Those two groups are (forgive me for saying so) not necessarily all that competent; and suggesting that they're more responsible than your average citizen is also not necessarily true. Can we agree on that?
Probably not. and that may be the crux of the issue. So, we're basically talking about possession of firearms by private citizens, okay?
What about if you have a group of private citizens who have proven .. by whatever means you choose to measure competence (training, whatever) that they are responsible and competent to own a gun.
Not only are they 'competent' and 'reliable', but they are 'experienced' (by another debatable measure.)
Would everyone agree that this group might conceivable be "allowed" to possess a firearm, under whatever restrictions we might agree on?
That's the REAL crux of the question.
Because, you know, we can't wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear .. however much you might wish so devotedly that it was possible.
Ain't gonna happen. We will never get rid of all the guns in the country.
And there will STILL be unstable people in possession of firearms.
So .. why don't we quit farting around with the petty crap, and start talking about what WE can do when unstable people start shooting people? Rely on the police, who aren't there? Or rely on the stable responsible that we've decided are "okay" to own a firearm" (Or haven't we agreed that there are some people, even if they are a minority, who can be trusted?)
The NRA has a very unpopular saying: "The Only Solution to a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun".
The Left has a real problem with that.
Does The Left have a better solution to offer? (And remember ... I am NOT going to give my guns to The State: Didn't work in Australia, didn't work in England, and didn't work in Canada!)
Anyone?
I'm running out of steam. Pushing a rock up hill here. Can I get a "Well ... maybe ..." from someone on the side that wasn't want ANYONE to have a gun?
Well, we’re all for whatever allows people to sleep at night. But the bottom line is that every parent in the world is really only interested in the likelihood that their children are walking around near people bearing arms.
well ....
we've got people on both sides of the fence talking about what constitutes a "School Shooting".
The Gun Grabbers are hollering that "74 School Shootings This Year", and the Gun Rights folks saying it's "Only 15" or "Only 3" or whatever number you choose to use to present your side of the argument.
Both sides are in agreement ... sort of ... that there's a Semantic element involved; most of us agree that it would be nice (but perhaps not necessary) if we could agree on terms. Such as: "What Defines A "School Shooting"?
It doesn’t matter to them whether an incident was an accident, an assault, a homicide or a suicide. All they know is bullets are flying, or might fly, near their children. To some small extent, we can empathize with the gun lobby’s desperation.
That's not likely to happen, because there's too much chatter and most of it is vituperative. It's a Zero-Sum Game here, and nobody is willing to say "you're right" because that means the same as "I'm Wrong", and that is NOT going to happen today. (As much as both sides, occupied by responsible and reasonable adults, would dearly LOVE to find a middle ground .. this week, there ain't No Such Thing"!)
The Left Side (anti) goes on to say about the Right Side (pro):
It doesn’t have much to stand on, from a morality standpoint, and that’s why we’re seeing these attempts to control the ethical environment. From a practical standpoint, however, don’t expect anything to change, because they’re also sitting pretty on a pile of craven politicians and lobbying organizations.Did I forget to mention that it gets ugly, down there in the Trenches?
It's pretty clear that the "Progressive, Liberal, Democratic, Near-Sighted 'if it saves just one child' (and 'never mind our Constitional Rights') folks consider the Right-Wingnuts to be immoral and selfish and not socially responsible.
On the other hand, the "Right-Thinking Americans Who Want To Preserve Our Constitution Regardless of the Liberal Progressive Pap-thinking Leftests" are not entirely unable to sling a few stones. ("If It Saves Just one Child" misses a lot of important stuff in the middle!)
Gets confusing, doesn't it?
Maybe we can forget the sides for a minute? Lord knows *_I_* can't keep track of who's slandering whom!
To continue:
But, unlike the gun lobby, we don’t believe the occasional slaughter of children is an acceptable price to pay for unfettered access to firearms. Unlike politicians who take money from gun lobbyists and the gun industry, we don’t believe that dead or traumatized children are worth extra votes on election day.That's the real Money Quote, isn't it?
It comes down to 'the slaughter of children', every time.
The Right says: " hey, you're talking about Gang-Bangers in Chicago".
The Left says: "no, we're talking about children who have access to guns in their home and shoot themselves and others by accident or ignorance".
What we're really talking about is .... both issues, and ignoring each other.
I've got my own opinion, and I can quote statistics with the best of them.
Statistics don't tell the whole story, though.
We probably will never find a common ground between the people who are "afraid of guns", and the people who are 'afraid to be without guns'. (And you can be outraged about either description ....for or against either position ... but that ain't helping. So just STFU and listen for a minute, dammit!)
I don't know if it's possible to find a Common Ground between the two groups. I DO know that there are less people in every demographic who are killed by guns via suicide or accident (defining 'accident' as somebody shooting themselves or others with no understanding that the gun may fire) than are killed by deliberate homicide. And you know that's true, so let's just talk about the folks that shoot other folks for a while, okay?
And I know that "accident" may also be defined as "knowing the gun may fire, but not intending to shoot the person who is hit". (Which strongly suggests "Shooter Negligence" more than "Shooter Inexperience" .. if it becomes a Talking Point.)
But if we can define a common ground, let's talk about something which is "Do-able". Not something which is pie-in-the sky unfeasible, such as taking all guns away from everyone except for Police of Military.
Those two groups are (forgive me for saying so) not necessarily all that competent; and suggesting that they're more responsible than your average citizen is also not necessarily true. Can we agree on that?
Probably not. and that may be the crux of the issue. So, we're basically talking about possession of firearms by private citizens, okay?
What about if you have a group of private citizens who have proven .. by whatever means you choose to measure competence (training, whatever) that they are responsible and competent to own a gun.
Not only are they 'competent' and 'reliable', but they are 'experienced' (by another debatable measure.)
Would everyone agree that this group might conceivable be "allowed" to possess a firearm, under whatever restrictions we might agree on?
That's the REAL crux of the question.
Because, you know, we can't wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear .. however much you might wish so devotedly that it was possible.
Ain't gonna happen. We will never get rid of all the guns in the country.
And there will STILL be unstable people in possession of firearms.
So .. why don't we quit farting around with the petty crap, and start talking about what WE can do when unstable people start shooting people? Rely on the police, who aren't there? Or rely on the stable responsible that we've decided are "okay" to own a firearm" (Or haven't we agreed that there are some people, even if they are a minority, who can be trusted?)
The NRA has a very unpopular saying: "The Only Solution to a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun".
The Left has a real problem with that.
Does The Left have a better solution to offer? (And remember ... I am NOT going to give my guns to The State: Didn't work in Australia, didn't work in England, and didn't work in Canada!)
Anyone?
I'm running out of steam. Pushing a rock up hill here. Can I get a "Well ... maybe ..." from someone on the side that wasn't want ANYONE to have a gun?
Would YOUR doctor certify YOU as competent to Concealed Carry?
Many doctors concerned about physician involvement in concealed-weapon permit process | Science Codex:
As American attitudes are leaning more strongly toward insisting that people who are .. I hate to use the term, but ...ALLOWED to carry weapons, they increasingly rely on their trusted doctor to say: "Hey, Joe's a Good Man!"
Unfortunately, your doctor might be as reluctant to say you won't go kill anybody as you might be to say the same about your doctor.
Is your doctor professionally competent?
Are you mentally competent?
The answer is ... both of you are very much on the stick today, and the reason is that Americans are looking at Mental Competence as a measure of whether any single person should be 'granted' the right to carry a weapon.
Oh sure, the Second Amendment says it right there: "... Shall Not Be Infringed ..."!
But what does that mean?
Most of us know Crazy Willy; you know, the guy with the long hair and sloppy shoes with no socks, who wanders through the neighborhood all day muttering to himself as he watches his toes? (Okay, maybe you don't have a Crazy Willy in you life, but I do and -whew- he isn't me.)
Felons give up their Constitutional Right to carry a firearm. Okay, they've proven themselves congenitally disposed to misuse their rights.
Crazy Willy? He can count his toes and I don't care, but I also don't care to see him packing a .45. I do NOT trust Crazy Willy. And I'm pretty sure his Psychotherapist (who sees Crazy Willy 3 times a week) wouldn't want to 'certify' his patient, either.
But .. why not? What has he got to lose?
Besides his wife, his life, and his license to practice .. if he's wrong.
Okay, so sometimes it's a "No-Brainer"; some people obviously shouldn't be trusted with a firearm.
What if your state requires certification by a "Medical Practitioner" that YOU are competent to own (and perhaps carry) a firearm? Do you trust your doctor that far?
A new survey of North Carolina doctors finds that many are concerned about the increasing number of requests they are receiving to assess their patients' competency to carry concealed weapons. In particular, a majority of physicians who responded to the survey said they were worried about the potential ethical consequences in the doctor-patient relationship if they participated in the concealed-weapon permit process.This would be a FIRST EXPERIENCE for most of us.
As American attitudes are leaning more strongly toward insisting that people who are .. I hate to use the term, but ...ALLOWED to carry weapons, they increasingly rely on their trusted doctor to say: "Hey, Joe's a Good Man!"
Unfortunately, your doctor might be as reluctant to say you won't go kill anybody as you might be to say the same about your doctor.
Is your doctor professionally competent?
Are you mentally competent?
Who is on the stick here?
"This is not a small problem," said Dr. Adam Goldstein, corresponding author of the study and a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. "More than 20 percent of the physicians we surveyed have been asked to sign competency permits for concealed weapons, and a majority of them do not feel they can adequately assess the physical or mental competence of their patients to safely have a concealed weapons permit."
The answer is ... both of you are very much on the stick today, and the reason is that Americans are looking at Mental Competence as a measure of whether any single person should be 'granted' the right to carry a weapon.
Oh sure, the Second Amendment says it right there: "... Shall Not Be Infringed ..."!
But what does that mean?
Most of us know Crazy Willy; you know, the guy with the long hair and sloppy shoes with no socks, who wanders through the neighborhood all day muttering to himself as he watches his toes? (Okay, maybe you don't have a Crazy Willy in you life, but I do and -whew- he isn't me.)
Felons give up their Constitutional Right to carry a firearm. Okay, they've proven themselves congenitally disposed to misuse their rights.
Crazy Willy? He can count his toes and I don't care, but I also don't care to see him packing a .45. I do NOT trust Crazy Willy. And I'm pretty sure his Psychotherapist (who sees Crazy Willy 3 times a week) wouldn't want to 'certify' his patient, either.
But .. why not? What has he got to lose?
Besides his wife, his life, and his license to practice .. if he's wrong.
Okay, so sometimes it's a "No-Brainer"; some people obviously shouldn't be trusted with a firearm.
What if your state requires certification by a "Medical Practitioner" that YOU are competent to own (and perhaps carry) a firearm? Do you trust your doctor that far?
The study, published as a research letter in the June 29, 2014 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, is believed to be the first that examines physicians' attitudes, beliefs and behaviors regarding their emerging role in the assessment of physical and mental competency and the licensing of concealed weapons.More important; does HE trust YOU that far?
Colorado Governer Explains .. sort-of ... we think. Maybe. Or maybe not.
Hickenlooper supported gun magazine limit because of staffer promise - The Denver Post:
(June 19, 2014)
So he feltobliged compelled to support that single committed staff member ... who was not in his office?
What the heck? He has a 'staff' member who is not 'in (his) office'?
Well, hell, no WONDER he's "Conflicted"! He doesn't even know whether his committed staff member is a member of his staff.
He can't tell the truth from a lie without a teleprompter.
(June 19, 2014)
Gov. John Hickenlooper told county sheriffs at a recent gathering he felt conflicted about supporting a bill that limited ammunition magazines, but because one of his "staff made a commitment," he felt compelled to sign it into law... Hickenlooper didn't believe in the bill, no one in (his) office thought it would "get through the legislature", but still one of his "staff made a commitment" ?
"To be honest, no one in our office thought it would get through the legislature," Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said in an unedited video recorded by the conservative group Revealing Politics. "There were several Democrats who said without question they weren't going to vote for it."
So he felt
What the heck? He has a 'staff' member who is not 'in (his) office'?
Well, hell, no WONDER he's "Conflicted"! He doesn't even know whether his committed staff member is a member of his staff.
He can't tell the truth from a lie without a teleprompter.
(Sound familiar?)
(Video available here, but the background hum is so annoying on this 11 minute video that I couldn't stand more than a few seconds of viewing.)Gabby Y MArk on Facebook. YAYYYY!
What an absolute thrill today for our... - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:
(June 18, 2014)
What we can do to ProtectAllWomen ...
who are totally vulnerable to physical assault by Violent Mean Men ...
Oh, DO go read the comments!
(Is a Nobel Peace Prize in store for Gabby and Mark? They are SOOooooo likeable! I wish I could get shot in the head so people would like me, too!)
[GUSH]
(June 18, 2014)
What an absolute thrill today for our staff to see Gabby Giffords and Captain Mark Kelly at a wonderful Center for American Progress event titled "Protecting Women from Gun Violence." Senator Amy Klobuchar, South Carolina police chief Saundra Rhodes, Rob Valente of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and domestic violence survivor Sarah Engle of Wisconsin made up a fabulous panel that talked about what we can do to #ProtectAllWomen.Wonderful! Fabulous!
What we can do to ProtectAllWomen ...
who are totally vulnerable to physical assault by Violent Mean Men ...
Oh, DO go read the comments!
(Is a Nobel Peace Prize in store for Gabby and Mark? They are SOOooooo likeable! I wish I could get shot in the head so people would like me, too!)
[GUSH]
(Does that include the 50,000 men who died in Vietnam (some of whom were my friends), and the thousands who died in the middle East? And the First Responders who died on 9/11? And the policemen who take a bullet so you don't have to?)
Mississippi has 2nd highest rate of gun deaths
Mississippi has 2nd highest rate of gun deaths:
Do these studies include suicides?
I ask because I have driven through Mississippi .. this is the only state where I saw a man plowing a field behind a mule. If that was my only choice, I would be sorely tempted to suicide.
It isn't the laws, it's the society.
Personal to Josh Sugarman:
When you insist that more laws are needed, you're not paying attention to reality. The laws only work for the people who are inclined to obey the laws. When the people ignore the laws .. the law-abiding have no 'fall-back' options. And it is this option which you are attempting to remove.
I would call you a stupid f**king Son-of-a-Bitch, but I'm pretty sure you know exactly what you are doing. You don't care about the people; you only care about the laws. Well, that and promoting a sinecure by which you can profit from the misery of millions. It's not being Socially Responsible, but (given certain mendacious criteria) one cannot call it "Stupid".
I take back the "stupid" part.
The "F**king Son-of-a-Bitch" part, however, seems entirely appropriate.
Where are the statistics? I don't trust the VPC (agenda-driven at best) and any time they make a bold statement such as this .. without showing supportive sources AND without referencing death rates by cause by state ... it sounds just like a LIE to me.
There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. In your case, you don't even bother with Statistics.
That shows how believable you are, doesn't it?
Yes gun violence IS preventable; but states can NOT legislate "...the rate of gun deaths and injury". That's just so much hogwash; you and VPC know it. There was never a law which would not be broken; and every time a death results from a broken law, VPC and their (your) agenda-driven cronies are first to announce that: "We Need tougher Laws!"
As if firearms are not the most highly regulated retail product in the world. Pthaaaa!
[end personal]
VPC is a hope-and-dream organization, hiding their propaganda behind un-cited statistics in pursuit of their hidden agenda; to totally eliminate firearms from the American culture.
And if their dream is realized, then this country is reduced to Rule By Brute Force.
Anyone who is bigger and stronger, and able to intimidate the weak, can dominate the American public.
At least, those who cannot afford to hire armed body-guards is subject to Rule by Brute Force.
VPC, the Brady Bunch ... they seem comfortable with taking away YOUR means of self-defense. When they go out in public, they and their lackeys are invariably accompanied by armed guards.
(See, for example, here, and here.) (But also see here.)
That is just how comfortable they are, in their elitist/well-funded status.
A pox on both your houses!
In addition to hospitality and humidity, Mississippi also is among the leaders in the nation for gun deaths, according to a report issued by a crime prevention advocacy group.
In fact, the Magnolia State has the second highest rate of gun deaths – at nearly 18 deaths per 100,000 residents – in the country, following neighbor Louisiana perched at the top of the list compiled by the Violence Policy Center.
Do these studies include suicides?
I ask because I have driven through Mississippi .. this is the only state where I saw a man plowing a field behind a mule. If that was my only choice, I would be sorely tempted to suicide.
The study found that states with weak gun violence prevention law and higher rates of gun ownership tend to have more gun deaths, while states with stricter laws and lower ownership, such as Rhode Island, have much lower rates of gun-related deaths.Do these studies include Chicago and Washington, D.C.? I thought not. These are among the municipalities with the highest murder rates in the nation .. and with the most strict gun-control laws.
It isn't the laws, it's the society.
Personal to Josh Sugarman:
When you insist that more laws are needed, you're not paying attention to reality. The laws only work for the people who are inclined to obey the laws. When the people ignore the laws .. the law-abiding have no 'fall-back' options. And it is this option which you are attempting to remove.
I would call you a stupid f**king Son-of-a-Bitch, but I'm pretty sure you know exactly what you are doing. You don't care about the people; you only care about the laws. Well, that and promoting a sinecure by which you can profit from the misery of millions. It's not being Socially Responsible, but (given certain mendacious criteria) one cannot call it "Stupid".
I take back the "stupid" part.
The "F**king Son-of-a-Bitch" part, however, seems entirely appropriate.
In Mississippi, more than half of its residents own guns.
Where are the statistics? I don't trust the VPC (agenda-driven at best) and any time they make a bold statement such as this .. without showing supportive sources AND without referencing death rates by cause by state ... it sounds just like a LIE to me.
There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. In your case, you don't even bother with Statistics.
That shows how believable you are, doesn't it?
"Gun violence is preventable, and states can pass effective laws that will dramatically reduce gun death and injury," states VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann. "Our analysis also shows that states with weak gun violence prevention laws and easy access to guns pay a severe price with gun death rates far above the national average."
Yes gun violence IS preventable; but states can NOT legislate "...the rate of gun deaths and injury". That's just so much hogwash; you and VPC know it. There was never a law which would not be broken; and every time a death results from a broken law, VPC and their (your) agenda-driven cronies are first to announce that: "We Need tougher Laws!"
As if firearms are not the most highly regulated retail product in the world. Pthaaaa!
[end personal]
VPC is a hope-and-dream organization, hiding their propaganda behind un-cited statistics in pursuit of their hidden agenda; to totally eliminate firearms from the American culture.
And if their dream is realized, then this country is reduced to Rule By Brute Force.
Anyone who is bigger and stronger, and able to intimidate the weak, can dominate the American public.
At least, those who cannot afford to hire armed body-guards is subject to Rule by Brute Force.
VPC, the Brady Bunch ... they seem comfortable with taking away YOUR means of self-defense. When they go out in public, they and their lackeys are invariably accompanied by armed guards.
(See, for example, here, and here.) (But also see here.)
That is just how comfortable they are, in their elitist/well-funded status.
A pox on both your houses!
Lock Up Your Gun!
McManus to Gun Owners: Lock Up Your Gun Every Time You Get Home!:
Any 'children' who break into my LOCKED house (I live alone) and find my guns, and shoot themselves? Or their play friends?
Darwin Moment.
Most of my guns reside in the gun safe; those that do not, are stashed where they are 'difficult to access' unless you already know where they are .. and sometimes even then, if you're a child.
Children are not welcome in my home, for that reason. Any parent who allows his child to roam free, to the extend of breaking through locked doors and ransacking my house?
You're the criminal. You are responsible.
Parents: teach your children about guns, even if you hate guns and wouldn't have one in your home .... teach your children. Listen to Eddie Eagle, if it helps.
STOP! DON\'T TOUCH! WALK AWAY! TELL AN ADULT! etc.
If you don't teach your children about guns, they'll find out themselves. The hard way.
They're not MY children; I can live with that.
Can you?
NOTE: This is not intended to suggest that I am indifferent to mishaps which may endanger the health or life of a child; the intent is to impress upon parents that THEY are singularly responsible for teaching their offspring the knowledge, wisdom and forbearance which will enable their brats to grow up to be Progressive Parents who believe that a child's search for knowledge and experience should not be hindered by parental admonitions.
Following the deaths of two children in San Antonio after they got their hands on guns that had been left lying around the house, Police Chief William McManus is issuing a heartfelt appeal to holders of Concealed Handgun Licenses---lock up your guns!Um ... no, I don't think so.
Any 'children' who break into my LOCKED house (I live alone) and find my guns, and shoot themselves? Or their play friends?
Darwin Moment.
Most of my guns reside in the gun safe; those that do not, are stashed where they are 'difficult to access' unless you already know where they are .. and sometimes even then, if you're a child.
Children are not welcome in my home, for that reason. Any parent who allows his child to roam free, to the extend of breaking through locked doors and ransacking my house?
You're the criminal. You are responsible.
Parents: teach your children about guns, even if you hate guns and wouldn't have one in your home .... teach your children. Listen to Eddie Eagle, if it helps.
STOP! DON\'T TOUCH! WALK AWAY! TELL AN ADULT! etc.
If you don't teach your children about guns, they'll find out themselves. The hard way.
They're not MY children; I can live with that.
Can you?
NOTE: This is not intended to suggest that I am indifferent to mishaps which may endanger the health or life of a child; the intent is to impress upon parents that THEY are singularly responsible for teaching their offspring the knowledge, wisdom and forbearance which will enable their brats to grow up to be Progressive Parents who believe that a child's search for knowledge and experience should not be hindered by parental admonitions.
The 3.5 Rules of Gun Safety:
Deputies: Man shoots stranger in leg while trying to sell gun | HeraldTribune.com:
Masotti took the gun out of a lock-box and “racked the slide,” which involves manually moving the gun's slide so a gun can load the first round of ammunition from a magazine into its chamber. As he tried to adjust the gun, it fired a round into the stranger's right thigh. Masotti tried to give the handgun to a friend, who arrived just after the shooting, to hide, but Masotti's friend refused to hide the gun and instead stayed in the parking lot with the victim.Things to remember:
- ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction;
- ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot;
- ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to shoot.
- The Florida Rule: "Hey, Y'all! Watch THIS!"
Showing The Results Of Gun Control
Chicago Homicide Rate 1960-2012; Showing The Results Of Gun Control | Extrano's Alley, a gun blog:
Everybody else? Knock yourself out, go buy whatever makes you feel comfortable.
What? They could do worse?
The effects of the State of Illinois FOID law, the Gun Control Act of 1968; Fred Roti’s gun ban bill Mayor Jane Byrne signed into law, and other hindrances to private gun ownership have all done their part to drive Chicago’s violent crime and murder rates sky high.Here's a novel suggestion: Chicago should make it illegal for cops to carry guns.
Everybody else? Knock yourself out, go buy whatever makes you feel comfortable.
What? They could do worse?
OOPS! My Bad ....
Investigation Underway After Officer Fired Gun In Courthouse CBS Miami:
"I'm the ONLY ONE here who is qualified to carry this gun".
Yeah, well ....
"I'm the ONLY ONE here who is qualified to carry this gun".
Yeah, well ....
Court interpreter Peter Fleitas says he worries every day about the weapons in the family law courthouse. “These accidents happen. They should not allow anyone in the building with a gun. That’s definite. They should have other means to restrain people,” said Fleitas.What he said.
Tips On Staying Alive When the Bullets Start to Fly
Tips On Staying Alive When the Bullets Start to Fly:
Geek Advice:
Or for any other reason, except perhaps to rob a liquor store.
For the past couple months, shootings seem to be all I see on the news. Violence is running rampant, and though the people doing the shootings seem to definitely have mental illnesses or grudges, you can’t help but wonder if this is the new status quo for our country. With all the attention and media hype given to the subject, (I’d go so far as to bet that if the media stopped reporting and sensationalizing this violence, the number of shootings would drop – but what do I know?) as well as the always present debates of gun control and help for the mentally ill, it seems to me that these acts of violence are becoming more and more prevalent in society today as a way to “show the world” what your problems are, what your beliefs are, and how far you’ll go to show what a martyr you’ll be for your own cause. It’s appalling and frightening – and a reason to be prepared.
Geek Advice:
RUN!
Run away as fast as you can, and find something solid to hide behind!If you do anything else, you will either get shot, or find yourself searching for an affordable lawyer because ... let's face it ... your friendly neighborhood GOVERNMENT has no interest in protecting someone who carries a gun for 'self-defense'.
Or for any other reason, except perhaps to rob a liquor store.
Drone Alert!
Oregon Company To Create Drone-Detecting Devices | The Daily Caller:
* That's just SILLY!
Your Government's drones can spy on you from much higher altitudes!
An Oregon company is developing drone-detecting devices because of peoples’ concerns about privacy and drone use. Domestic Drone Countermeasure has started a Kickstarter campaign to develop these sensors. And according to The Verge, DDC has been working on this technology for over a year. Their desktop sensor system will be able to identify when a drone is within 50 feet*. “There are legitimate uses for domestic drones, but there are still concerns about privacy and surveillance by various entities,” said Amy Ciesielka, founder of DDC.
* That's just SILLY!
Your Government's drones can spy on you from much higher altitudes!
5 Dead, 19 Wounded in Weekend Chicago Violence | NBC Chicago
5 Dead, 19 Wounded in Weekend Chicago Violence | NBC Chicago: Latest homicide took place around 7:30 p.m. near 55th Street and Lake Shore Drive
So, it was a relatively quiet weekend in Chicago?
Mayor Rahm: Has it occurred to you that "Hope and Change" isn't working for you? Maybe you should .. I don't know .. actually DO something more than merely HOPING that things will CHANGE! Has that proved to be an inadequate method of leadership?
Just believing really HARD in Fairies isn't going to keep Tinker Bell alive.
Just thought I would mention that; feel free to ignore my hopeful wishes. You've ignored your constituents, so this shouldn't prove very difficult for you.
After all, you're only responsible for the welfare the entire city of Chicago. You managed to ignore the welfare of a Nation for years. This should be a slam-DUNK for you!
So, it was a relatively quiet weekend in Chicago?
Mayor Rahm: Has it occurred to you that "Hope and Change" isn't working for you? Maybe you should .. I don't know .. actually DO something more than merely HOPING that things will CHANGE! Has that proved to be an inadequate method of leadership?
Just believing really HARD in Fairies isn't going to keep Tinker Bell alive.
Just thought I would mention that; feel free to ignore my hopeful wishes. You've ignored your constituents, so this shouldn't prove very difficult for you.
After all, you're only responsible for the welfare the entire city of Chicago. You managed to ignore the welfare of a Nation for years. This should be a slam-DUNK for you!
Dear Carlolyn B. Maloney ....
You're an idiot ... you know that, don't you?
Oh, you're a politician, and so I repeat myself.
Sorry.
(PS: So are your friends, the editors of the New York Times who give you free column inches to say absolutely nothing ... illiterately ... operating within a Hidden Agenda? Has it occurred to you that they are giving you space to make a fool of yourself in public because they are laughing at you behind your back? No, I suppose not.)
Congress and Guns - NYTimes.com:
Oh, you're a politician, and so I repeat myself.
Sorry.
(PS: So are your friends, the editors of the New York Times who give you free column inches to say absolutely nothing ... illiterately ... operating within a Hidden Agenda? Has it occurred to you that they are giving you space to make a fool of yourself in public because they are laughing at you behind your back? No, I suppose not.)
Congress and Guns - NYTimes.com:
“Legislating Ignorance About Guns” (editorial, June 17) rightly points out the shocking lack of research into the causes of gun violence and what might be done to lessen the toll. That is why I have introduced legislation in the House (H.R. 4707) to fund critical gun violence research.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
"I'll be blamed for this!"
[Video] WHY I CARRY: Suspect Brutally Beats Pregnant Clerk During Robbery:
(June 21, 2014)
THIS is how "Non-Firearms" violence looks. It isn't pretty.
Note to Robber: We're better off without you.
(H/T: "Guns Save Lives")
Note the detachment of the assailant/robber. He just wants the money; he doesn't care about anyone or anything else.
Where are you "more safe" than clerking in a Cell Phone Store?
This happened in Florida, but it could happen any where.
The sheer brutality ... I've watched people die, I've done worse.
But not worse than this.
I don't think that the outcome would have changed if this woman was carrying a firearm; she was completely brutalized by a single punch.
I disagree; being armed would not have changed a single moment. If I was the victim, and I were armed, I would probably acted in exactly the same way .. including her dismay at discovering that the cash drawer had been emptied; her first thought was probably:
"I'll be blamed for this!"
This is probably close to what a "Home Invasion" looks like, if anyone videotaped one. Complete and immediate domination by the invader(s) and the "resident" completely unprepared for "The Worse Thing That Can Happen".
Except nobody got killed. That's A Good Thing ... and isn't that a Sad Thing to say?
(June 21, 2014)
The video shows the suspect enter the store, mill around for a few moments and then brutally punch the pregnant clerk in the face before taking money out of the register. Now, a gun would obviously not have helped the woman as she was sucker punched, but she certainly could have drawn it before the suspect got around the counter and been ready.
THIS is how "Non-Firearms" violence looks. It isn't pretty.
Note to Robber: We're better off without you.
(H/T: "Guns Save Lives")
Note the detachment of the assailant/robber. He just wants the money; he doesn't care about anyone or anything else.
Where are you "more safe" than clerking in a Cell Phone Store?
This happened in Florida, but it could happen any where.
The sheer brutality ... I've watched people die, I've done worse.
But not worse than this.
I don't think that the outcome would have changed if this woman was carrying a firearm; she was completely brutalized by a single punch.
I disagree; being armed would not have changed a single moment. If I was the victim, and I were armed, I would probably acted in exactly the same way .. including her dismay at discovering that the cash drawer had been emptied; her first thought was probably:
"I'll be blamed for this!"
This is probably close to what a "Home Invasion" looks like, if anyone videotaped one. Complete and immediate domination by the invader(s) and the "resident" completely unprepared for "The Worse Thing That Can Happen".
Except nobody got killed. That's A Good Thing ... and isn't that a Sad Thing to say?
Could be worse: they could have stayed in Minnesota
Somali-Americans leave homes, friends in Minnesota to fight alongside ISIS jihadis | Fox News:
(June 22, 2014)
Possibly.
(June 22, 2014)
As many as 15 Somali-American men have left their homes in Minnesota in recent months to travel to the Middle East and join up with ISIS, the jihadist army at war with Syria and Iraq, according to Minnesota Public Radio.It's just a short step from leaving America for the sake of committing Jihad in the Middle East, to deciding to stay in Minnesota for the same purpose:
The fighters appear to have made the decision to go fight with Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Levant while the terror group was fighting to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, but some may now be in Iraq, where the marauding group is seeking to topple Baghdad.
"A Muslim has to stand up for [what's] right," Abdirahmaan Muhumed told MPR News through a series of Facebook messages dating back to the beginning of the year. "I give up this worldly life for Allah."
Overthrowing a political entity which holds goals and values with which the "Jihadists" do not agree.Well. Americans did the same thing in the 18th Century, and for much the same reason. Is that the same thing?
Possibly.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Bookworm’s 5-Point Gun Manifesto; or why I believe in gun rights
Bookworm’s 5-Point Gun Manifesto; or why I believe in gun rights:
(June 15, 2014)
Pour a cup of your favorite beverage, keep the pot warm, and settle back to an hour of nodding in agreement. Expect to hear yourself murmer "yeah, what she said" from time to time.
A Magnificent Manifesto, an excellent exposition, and the ONE place to go when you feel the need to defend your constitutional rights but just don't quite know how to SAY it!
Five Thumbs Up!
Hat Tips:
Gunbloggers.com
The Smallest Minority
(June 15, 2014)
God forgive me, but I used to be so anti-gun that I donated to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. I know. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.This is how "BookWorn" starts her Manifesto ... and it is perhaps probably the best single exposition I have ever read which thoroughly describes the process of rejecting the philosophy of "Gun Grabbers" in favor of embracing the values of the Second Amendment.
Pour a cup of your favorite beverage, keep the pot warm, and settle back to an hour of nodding in agreement. Expect to hear yourself murmer "yeah, what she said" from time to time.
A Magnificent Manifesto, an excellent exposition, and the ONE place to go when you feel the need to defend your constitutional rights but just don't quite know how to SAY it!
Five Thumbs Up!
Hat Tips:
Gunbloggers.com
The Smallest Minority
Statement from USPSA President
(Email from USPSA President -- June 21, 2014 @ 10:55 PDT)
USPSA will make an official announcement when our investigation is finished and we reach a decision. To do so before that would be pre-mature.
The Area 1 Director and myself have responded to concerned Facebook users to let them know we are looking into it on the same channels that the original comments were made.
With that said, we hope to have our investigation concluded and decisions made by this week.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Say it ain't so! (USPSA Range Officer Collusion?)
Range Officer Cheating Scandal in United States Practical Shooting Association | Gun Nuts Media:(June 18, 2014)
Why cheat at USPSA?I've just read the article (via Gunwire ... probably rotated out by the time you read this) and you can click the link at the top of the page to read it for yourself.
I will not name names ... which are clearly shown in the referenced link ... because so far there are only accusations and I haven't found anything on the USPSA website (even as a "News Flash") which suggests that the accusations have been officially confirmed by the Regional Autority. And by now *(1730 on Friday) the office is closed, so I can't even call to ask for a statement.
The entire weekend remains for rumor and inuendo to proliferate. I won't be a party to assuming guilt without hearing from 'the other side'; I encourage you to wait, also, before you assume anything about the reports.
Essentially, a trained and experienced CRO (Chief Range Officer) has been accused of reporting stage times at Level II or Level III USPSA matches to influence the outcome of the match. For one competitor, the stage-time reported by the RO to the person writing the figures on the score-sheet were faster than the actual time taken; for (some) other competitors, the times were slower.
Thus, the RO is accused of both means of cheating:
- biasing reported stage time in favor of one competitor
- biasing reported stage time to the detriment of other competitors
Not Smarter than the Average Bear
Colorado governor tries to apologize for gun control measures, blames staff, then curses | Fox News: WASHINGTON –
(June 19, 2014)
So assume you're the governor of a State in the most prestigious nation in the world, and you want to push Gun Control upon an unwilling populace ....
... would YOU be smokin' and jokin' with the sheriffs who are (reluctantly) charged with enforcing anti-constitutional laws on your constituents?
Of course not! These guys carry guns and aren't afraid to use them.
But this clue-challenged hodad is dancing as fast as he can:
politician man would be backpedaling like a bear on a tricycle.
But then, the bear probably wouldn't be a Liberal Democrat.
Bears are too smart for that.
*(Assume the usual rant)*
PS: Any executive who blames his staff (extra-credit test: Who Hired Them?) for discontinuities in policy has already served notice that he is not only incompetent, but a raving lunitic who MUST be driven out of office "Most Rikki-Tikki!"
I know you're tired of firing Politicians, Colorado, but it's time to serve the coup d'gras on this imbicile.
(June 19, 2014)
So assume you're the governor of a State in the most prestigious nation in the world, and you want to push Gun Control upon an unwilling populace ....
... would YOU be smokin' and jokin' with the sheriffs who are (reluctantly) charged with enforcing anti-constitutional laws on your constituents?
Of course not! These guys carry guns and aren't afraid to use them.
But this clue-challenged hodad is dancing as fast as he can:
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s awkward attempt to patch things up with his state’s sheriffs over his support of controversial gun control legislation isn’t going as planned. The governor, a Democrat, offered a series of unusual explanations during a meeting he held last Friday with a group of Colorado sheriffs for why he signed legislation that restricts the sale of ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds. First, Hickenlooper blamed his staff for not anticipating the opposition on gun control. He then apologized for his staff’s inability to effectively communicate and promised to do better in the future. When Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith pressed the issue, Hickenlooper snapped back, “What the f---? I apologized!” He apparently was kidding around, as the sheriffs could be heard laughing. But on his Facebook page, Smith said he was surprised by the governor’s choice of words ...Considering that a couple of his most ardent supporters have been canned by these same constituents for SUPPORTING this bill, a reasonable
But then, the bear probably wouldn't be a Liberal Democrat.
Bears are too smart for that.
*(Assume the usual rant)*
PS: Any executive who blames his staff (extra-credit test: Who Hired Them?) for discontinuities in policy has already served notice that he is not only incompetent, but a raving lunitic who MUST be driven out of office "Most Rikki-Tikki!"
I know you're tired of firing Politicians, Colorado, but it's time to serve the coup d'gras on this imbicile.
You say "Potato" and I say "Patawtoe" ....
David Codrea of WAR ON GUNS (and the editor for the "GUNS" department on The Examiner).. famous for the phrase "We're the only ones ...") and Larry Correia (of the "Monster Hunter Nation" series of books).
Am I the only one who gets them confused?
Or am I just the only one who knows about and reads them both?
Am I the only one who gets them confused?
Or am I just the only one who knows about and reads them both?
Thursday, June 19, 2014
What he said!
Texas Sponsors of OC Bill Say Flat Out: Rifle OC Ain’t Helping | Shall Not Be Questioned:
Many of us who read this sort of blogarticle understand what you are trying to do (introduce fellow Texans to the concept that just because somebody walks into a restaurant with a rifle slung over his shoulder doesn't mean that they're all going to die!)
But ....
... take a chill pill, okay? You may teach your dog not to puddle on the carpet by rubbing his nose it it, but people are a bit more complicated.
People THINK.
You should, too.
As I mentioned in an post yesterday, if you give skittish lawmakers more excuses to drag their feet, it won’t help anything. This article outlines the trouble that’s being created in Texas for the open carry bill from the sponsors themselves ....Open Carry Texas demonstrators ... you look like a bunch of buffoons.
Many of us who read this sort of blogarticle understand what you are trying to do (introduce fellow Texans to the concept that just because somebody walks into a restaurant with a rifle slung over his shoulder doesn't mean that they're all going to die!)
But ....
... take a chill pill, okay? You may teach your dog not to puddle on the carpet by rubbing his nose it it, but people are a bit more complicated.
People THINK.
You should, too.
Home Invasions: "THE FEAR IS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE THREAT"
Two Home Invaders Shoot Mother and Son, Dad Grabs His Gun and Shoots Them Both:
(June 18, 2014: Guns Save Lives)
Of course, this is impossible. We know it never happened because the Gun Control Advocates tell us that the whole concept of "Good Guy With Gun Stops Bad Guy With Gun" never happens.
Also, Gun Control Advocates reassure us that "Home Invasions" are so rare as to be statistically meaningless:
(The Atlantic, December 23, 2012: by Ta-Nehisi Coates)
We are all grateful for their reassurance that, if we just give up our fears and give up our guns, or at least stop TRYING to stop random shootings or protect ourselves, our family and our home with guns, all would be peaceful and beautiful here in Never-Never-Land.
After all .... "the conclusions are pretty obvious"!
(Unless, perhaps, you are one of the unfortunate victims of "... about 100 burglary-homicides...).
(June 18, 2014: Guns Save Lives)
It must have been a terrifying scene in the Valdosta, GA home. A 56 year old mother and her 15 year old son were home for the night when two men kicked in their front door.
One of the men was wielding a rifle, the other carrying a handgun. They opened fire on the pair, striking the son in the leg and the mother in the arm as she tried to run towards the back of the house.
Hearing the commotion, the father, who was in the back of the house, armed himself and went to investigate. When he got to the front of the house, he opened fire on the home invaders, striking them both and sending them fleeing
Of course, this is impossible. We know it never happened because the Gun Control Advocates tell us that the whole concept of "Good Guy With Gun Stops Bad Guy With Gun" never happens.
While the NRA claims that a more armed population can prevent these types of mass killings, we know this is not true... (NY DAILY NEWS, June 15, 2014)
Also, Gun Control Advocates reassure us that "Home Invasions" are so rare as to be statistically meaningless:
Professor Harold Pollack, who (among other things) co-directs the University of Chicago's Crime Lab was kind of enough to send along the following note:"Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion":
I enjoyed your conversation on Up with Chris Hayes. You mentioned the risk of home invasion, and the realistic fear that the cops just wouldn't get there in time. That's obviously a primeval motive to have a gun by the bedside or whatever. [My note: "primeval"? As in "outdated" or "Neanderthal"?] But the fear is also easily out of proportion to the threat. I had the Chicago police run the number on homicides. In 2011, precisely one homicide listed "burglary" as the motive ... [My note; perhaps true in Chicago, where they shoot each other on the street and on their porch] ... Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious.
(The Atlantic, December 23, 2012: by Ta-Nehisi Coates)
We are all grateful for their reassurance that, if we just give up our fears and give up our guns, or at least stop TRYING to stop random shootings or protect ourselves, our family and our home with guns, all would be peaceful and beautiful here in Never-Never-Land.
After all .... "the conclusions are pretty obvious"!
(Unless, perhaps, you are one of the unfortunate victims of "... about 100 burglary-homicides...).
Anthrax exposure at CDC
CDC lab workers might have been exposed to anthrax | www.palmbeachpost.com:
(June 19, 2014)
They're jumping the shark, but who knows how dangerous the situation might really be, or whether or how far the infection might spread:
NIMBY!
(June 19, 2014)
Some workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may have been accidentally exposed to dangerous anthrax bacteria earlier this month because of a safety problem at some of its labs in Atlanta, the federal agency said Thursday.While trying to find ways to detect the deadly disease, the research people at Atlanta did a bit "oopsie!" today.
They're jumping the shark, but who knows how dangerous the situation might really be, or whether or how far the infection might spread:
CDC officials say the risk of infection seems very low, but that about 75 staff members were being monitored or given antibiotics as a precaution.Yeah, right.
"Based on the investigation to date, CDC believes that other CDC staff, family members, and the general public are not at risk of exposure and do not need to take any protective action," a statement from the agency says.
NIMBY!
The Armed Citizen Blog - American Rifleman
My father ("Pop"), was a Life Member in the NRA. He was such a "gun nut" that he purchased those goofy-looking binders where you could store a year's issues of the NRA magazine "The American Rifleman" (which was the only publication they had, and came automatically with your membership).
I remember as a teenager going into the "den" at home and taking an annual volume of American Rifleman down for 'casual reading'.
Actually, it wasn't all that casual. I was fascinated by the articles, the stories ... and the columns.
My favorite column was "The Armed Citizen". Looking back, it seems like "Surfing The Net" for interesting news stories relating to --- well, an appreciation for stories which told how common, ordinary people were able to protect themselves, their families and their homes.
The stories were presented in a consistent format ... pithy, terse, they were like the first paragraph of a well-written newspaper article. The only downside was that there was no means to get (as Paul Harvey use to say) "The Rest Of The Story".
I've only just now discovered that same format and collection of stories (including 'archived' stories) is available online, with three stories published daily.
So I've been looking through the stories, and my appreciation for the rawest national inforation on what is, essentially 'raw data' hasn't changed.
Thanks, NRA, for continuing with your traditional format and for making it available online.
PS: My father had about 50 years of magazines when he died. I inherited them, but one day I had to move and rather than haul a trailer load of binders, I sold them to a book store for a buck a year ... and while the time I was glad to have the cash, I've always regretted my short-sighteness.
I remember as a teenager going into the "den" at home and taking an annual volume of American Rifleman down for 'casual reading'.
Actually, it wasn't all that casual. I was fascinated by the articles, the stories ... and the columns.
My favorite column was "The Armed Citizen". Looking back, it seems like "Surfing The Net" for interesting news stories relating to --- well, an appreciation for stories which told how common, ordinary people were able to protect themselves, their families and their homes.
The stories were presented in a consistent format ... pithy, terse, they were like the first paragraph of a well-written newspaper article. The only downside was that there was no means to get (as Paul Harvey use to say) "The Rest Of The Story".
I've only just now discovered that same format and collection of stories (including 'archived' stories) is available online, with three stories published daily.
The Armed Citizen Blog - American Rifleman: Read three more amazing stories of self-defense in the latest online edition of The Armed Citizen.The format remains the same. The good news, there are now links to the publication; bad news, there are no links to the actuall story. boo hoo.
So I've been looking through the stories, and my appreciation for the rawest national inforation on what is, essentially 'raw data' hasn't changed.
Thanks, NRA, for continuing with your traditional format and for making it available online.
PS: My father had about 50 years of magazines when he died. I inherited them, but one day I had to move and rather than haul a trailer load of binders, I sold them to a book store for a buck a year ... and while the time I was glad to have the cash, I've always regretted my short-sighteness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)