April 02, 2009

KA-BOOM: "Ninety-Percent" Lie Goes Up in Smoke

I've said before that the anti-gun forces in this country must lie about the horrors of firearms, because reality won't to stoke a level of fear that would convince the American people to give up their Constitutional rights.

An anti-gun lie being pushed hard recently is that 90 % of the guns used to commit violent crime in Mexico come from the United States. Democrats favoring more gun control have been hammering that claim repeatedly, claiming the violence in Mexico justifies further restrictions here in the United States.

That lie, favored by our media, our Attorney General, and our President, is now circling the drain.

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. By all accounts, it's probably around 17 percent.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

So where are the 83-percent of guns coming from, if they aren't coming from the United States?

Shockingly, cartels that exist to smuggle large quantities of illegal drugs internationally also have the ability to smuggle large quantities of illegal weapons internationally as well. Who knew?

Well, anyone with the slightest bit of integrity.

The super-majority of firearms that have turned up in the hands of Mexican cartels came from black market sources, Central and South American revolutions, are smuggled in from Asia, or come from deserters of the Mexican military.

We should hope that President Obama's administration, members of Congress, and media outlets that reported the 90-percent lie will be as honest as Fox News was, and put this myth to rest.

I have hope, but not expectations.

Update: An interesting take on Mexico's gun laws and gun culture from the inside.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 01, 2009

Simple Logic in a Time of Madness

Republicans have now offered an alternative budget that is based upon a very simple truth that seems to elude both the President and Congress, that a nation cannot spend its way out of debt.

It proposes stopping all non-stimulative "stimulus" spending, freezing most discretionary spending for five years, and implementing a simple, common-sense tax structure so simple that even an Obama Administration appointee can figure it out.

Will Congress or the President embrace the entirely rational approach of lessening the growth of government spending in troubled times?

Of course not.

It took years of dedicated, concentrated self-deception for Democrats to finally reach the point where they could create a "reality-based community" so logically damaged that they could reassure each other that government-by-Ponzi-scheme was a viable economic model.

They will not let such a grand self-deception go down without a fight, and you can bet your last Yuan that the more brutal reality intrudes, the worse the cognitive dissonance of their fellow travelers will get.

Democrats will continue to spend money we don't have at an ever increasing pace until they are either thrown out of office or the country itself is bankrupted.

The President and his Congress are crashing.

It may be too late the stop the car, but if we can act quickly enough, strongly enough, we might be able to lessen the inevitable impact.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:47 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NFA 1934 Overturned; Machine Guns Legal Again With Fewer Restrictions

Via The Gun Source:

That NFA laws have been repealed through a long standing court battle in the 7th US Circuit Court. The president of TGSCOM had sued the federal government on the grounds that the NFA law violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. After heated and lengthy oral arguments, TGSCOM is now able to sell fully automatic weapons to the general public without tax stamps and the additional background check. The one stipulation to the agreement is that fully automatic rifles will be treated like handguns in that they will require a purchaser of 21 and older, the firearm must be transferred in the state of their residence (same as handguns) and that the buyer must submit to all regulations in the state of their residence.

I'd been watching this in the court system and had hoped for this outcome, but frankly was surprised TGSCOM prevailed in such a manner, and with so little fanfare. Since I'm a registered gun writer because of my work for Pajamas Media I was able to order a Glock 18 machine pistol during a writer's only sale last night. With spare 33 round magazines, it will probably become my new concealed carry pistol.

Once I saw up the money from the Obama stimulus, I'll also be picking up the 100-round G36K for "squirrel and rabbit hunting" and the FN M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) I've always wanted.

Frankly, I don't think I'd use it for hunting, but it might make parts of Durham accessible again.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:12 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 30, 2009

Cowardice As A Crutch

John Wood survived the Virginia Tech Massacre, but his girlfriend and 31 other Virginia Tech students did not survive the bloody rampage of Seung-Hui Cho.

Now a graduate student at the University of Texas, Woods seeks to make sure students in other universities remain unarmed targets, like his dead girlfriend:

There were times when Woods thought that maybe he should get a gun.

"Then I learned pretty fast that wouldn't solve anything," said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT. "The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It's reactive, not preventative."

Today, Woods is among the leaders in a fight against bills in the Texas Legislature that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to take their weapons to school.

Impossible?

Woods is both a coward and a liar.

On October 1, 1997, Luke Woodham slit his mother's throat with a knife, and then took a lever-action .30/30 rifle to school. He killed two students and wounded seven others at Pearl River High School in Pearl River, Mississippi.

Woodham then attempted to leave the high school's campus to resume his attack at a middle school nearby, when PRHS Assistant Principal Joel Myrick stopped Woodham with a pistol he retrieved from his truck.

Woodham had sufficient ammunition to continue his rampage against unarmed school children and their teachers at the next school he had targeted.

He was armed with a rifle of sufficient range and power that he would have had a distinct advantage over responding law enforcement officers armed with shorter-ranged pistols and shotguns.

Woodham could have killed or wounded police officers in addition to the child victims he intended at the second school, but he never got the chance, because Joel Myrick, a responsible adult with a gun on Pearl River High School's campus, stopped Woodham, thus saving countless lives.

Less than year later, Kip Kinkel murdered his parents after being suspended from school for being in possession of a loaded pistol.

The next day, on May 20, 1998, Kinkel walked back into Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon armed with a .22 caliber rifle, a .22-caliber pistol, a Glock 19 pistol, and 1,127 rounds of ammunition. It was an arsenal more potentially deadly that that of Seung-Hui Cho's at Virginia Tech, which consisted of a Glock 19, a .22-caliber pistol, and a little less than 400 rounds.

Why do few remember the Thurston high shooting, while Virginia Tech's massacre is deeply imprinted on the nation's consciousness?

After firing 51 shots which killed two Thurston students and wounded 22 others, school shooter Kinkel was tackled by Jacob Ryker, a student shot by Kinkel seconds before.

Ryker recognized from his own experience with firearms that Kinkel was out of ammunition and was attempting to reload. Realizing that attacking the gunman was their best chance for survival, six other students joined the scramble, during which Kinkel was able to draw and fire his Glock 9mm into Ryker, striking him a second time and another student before finally being disarmed.

Five of those seven students that brought Kinkel's rampage to an end were Boy Scouts. Character, it seems, matters in the most trying instances.

There is no guarantee that allowing licensed college students the same right to carry on campus that they have off campus will stop shootings on school grounds.

There are many possible scenarios in which having legally armed students, faculty, or staff on campus will not necessarily prevent or even minimize casualties when a gunman goes on the rampage. And there are several scenarios that can be gamed out in which having armed citizens on campus could potentially result in a concealed carry permit holder shooting someone other than the school shooter.

That said, it can be said with a strong degree of certainty that if another scenario like Virginia Tech did occur, students barricaded inside a classroom with a concealed carry permit holder among them would stand a better chance against a murderous assassin than they would having nothing with which to defend themselves. Likewise, it can be said with statistical certainty that other students on campus caught in such a horrific scenario face less of a chance of being erroneously shot by a concealed carry permit holder than they would a responding police officer.

Permit holding students in a classroom being attacked have no doubt who the assailant is. Responding police, amped up on adrenaline and unsure who the bad guy is when the respond to a call, can and do shoot misidentified innocent civilians in cities across America with disturbing frequency.

John Woods, like many other school shooting victims through the years, lacked the courage of Jacob Ryker to attack the man who would be his executioner. He instead played dead while his friends were being gunned down around him.

In his shame, Woods would like to pretend that there was nothing he could have done to prevent the death of his girlfriend or the other students and faculty members who died at Virginia Tech. He froze and failed to act, and so—projecting so clearly that any armchair psychologist must make the obvious diagnosis—he now finds it convenient to declare any other outcome "impossible" because that denial helps him to cope with his inaction.

Guns, and the knowledge of guns combined with bravery, has saved lives during campus shootings. The students and teachers that Joel Myrick saved by ending Luke Woodham's rampage would agree, as would the police officers Woodham would have targeted when they arrived.

When Jacob Ryker and six other students attacked Kip Kinkel while he tried to reload it was indeed "reactive," and their reaction kept Kinkel from firing any more of the more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition that he had in his possession.

Prevention, as Woods should be painfully aware, is never foolproof, and people in a free society must have the option be armed, both mentally and preferably physically, to defend their lives.

John Woods failed at the worse possible moment. A broken and bitter man, he would see others fail as he did.

He was neither mentally nor physically prepared to deal with the possibility of violence, an eventuality that concealed carry permit holders, including the faculty, staff, and students of elementary schools through colleges around the country are at least minimally prepared for by their training.

Concealed carry is not the best answer to an outbreak of school violence. The best option is to prevent an attack from ever happening at all. But that is a given, and unless we wall our campuses like prisons and meticulously search every person entering them every day, the possibility of an armed gunman attempting mass murder will exist. It will happen again and it ignore that reality, to act as if prevention is the only option available to slow or stop an attack, is madness.

Since it will happen again as a near certainty, the next best option is to allow trained faculty, staff and students that have concealed carry permits to carry their firearms off campus bring them on campus to class with them as well.

Just because some lack the courage to defend their own lives shouldn't mean that other should have to die as a result of it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:36 PM | Comments (73) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 "Guns, and the knowledge of guns combined with bravery, has saved lives during campus shootings."

It is important to recognize that many of those former military folks that are or will be making use of the GI bill in the next few years have already been in a gunfight or dozen. We think they are just the thing to carry arms overseas and execute national policy, but they are treated as untrustworthy and incompetent once they get back home?

Posted by: mostlygenius at March 30, 2009 09:53 PM (74o0Z)

2 MG- depends on which we.

Most of the folks I know who are anti-gun don't think that highly of the military unless said military is acting like civilians.

Posted by: Foxfier at March 30, 2009 10:34 PM (Y1xbZ)

3 "The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It's reactive, not preventative."

Pitiful wretch.

Once the shooting starts the best way to stop it is with another gun - otherwise why bother calling the cops.

Want preventive? - try a significant percentage of the population carrying as well - significant enough that the first one to draw would be in the sights of two or three others who are packing to see if he even attempts to draw a bead. (analogy is a hunting party with a rank amateur who does not have muzzle discipline - where the heck are you pointing that and why???)

Posted by: Druid at March 30, 2009 10:34 PM (nFeDb)

4 Wow. Great post. It was a pleasure to read.

Liberals have some very weird ideas about firearms. A couple months ago one of my coworkers saw a pic of me in Iraq kneeling by some kids that we saw almost every day. She could have said a thousand things, like "They're cute", or "That doesn't look like pure desert like I imagined."

But she said "You have a gun?! Weren't you worried that you'd shoot those kids?"

Yeah. Armed on a foot patrol in Iraq? How ridiculous. Everyone knows that it's impossible to stop someone from shooting you by shooting them first. It's impossible I say!

Posted by: brando at March 30, 2009 11:22 PM (j/VXB)

5 Unfortunately, and I speak as a high school teacher, teachers commonly receive no training whatsoever in dealing with violence of any kind. Some schools have procedures for violent incidents that usually include locking classroom doors, or even overturning and hiding behind student desktops. None of these and similar measures will do more than momentarily slow any determined armed attacker.

As a military veteran and ex-cop, I find myself horrified at the very real potential of one day finding a school shooter in my school, because unlike sensitive and highly evolved souls like Mr. Wood, I have no doubt that I would not play dead or hide. Because I am responsible for my students, I will counterattack any school shooter. I will try to do it as quickly and effectively as possible, but any deadly force encounter is governed by timing and distance. Unless I can close to hand to hand range, for my school forces me to choose between the ability to protect lives and the ability to feed my family (like virtually all American schools), I am likely to die in the attempt to save lives, leaving a subhuman killer to continue killing. If I was armed, the moment a shooter was in my sights, they would start absorbing carefully placed bullets.

Gun free schools zones signs merely suggest the possibility--not the certainty--of arrest and punishment after a crime has been committed. One of the great ironies of our age is that it is the honest citizen who accidently brings a firearm into such zones who is most likely to be punished, and punished for causing no damage whatever. School shooters almost always kill themselves after murdering many innocents.

Mr. Wood brings to mind the Virginia Tech official who, not long before the shooting, bragged about his role in defeating a bill that would have allowed concealed carry on campus. He crowed that everyone could therefore “feel safe.” There is, for those with sufficient intellect to make such conclusions, an enormous chasm between feeling safe and being safe. One wonders how that official feels now. Mr. Wood has made his feelings, and his fecklessness as a human being and a man, quite clear. A shame that a great many more children and teachers will have to die before Americans will come to understand that it is always better to have the means to make survival possible rather than hopeless at hand.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2009 12:06 AM (WZZfS)

6 The tragedy in the United States is that individuals are no longer routinely trained to arms. Many people fear the unknown, and as a result unfamiliarity with firearms breeds contempt and revulsion.

I was trained to shoot by my father at age eight, after a year of hunting seasons carrying an unloaded rifle. My most memorable lesson was sending a round into a can of tomato soup and carefully inspecting the resulting damage. After that experience, I knew firearms were not a plaything.

The ignorance of the news media is on full display when the subject is firearms. If any reporter ever spent an afternoon on the range and received proper instruction, much of the misinformation, confusion, and--yes, outright lies--about firearms would disappear.

Do any of these people ever wonder why so-called "insane" shooters never attack a police station? Storm NRA headquarters? Assault the local FBI office? Could it be they're not so "insane" after all?

Those who choose to rely on the police for protection have chosen to be victims. A firearm is an object, like an automobile, that can be used for good or for ill. Firearms are evil when used by a perpetrator to commit a crime; good when used by police to end the perpetrator's rampage. It is only common sense to recognize that a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen can end that rampage in seconds, where the police can require an eternity of minutes to respond.

I pity Mr. Wood, but do not condemn him. He has chosen his victim status. Should he ever experience another such crisis, he can cower and "play dead", hoping to be spared. And perhaps pray that someone--anyone--who has elected to attempt the "impossible" and carry a firearm will act to save him.

Posted by: Just Askin' at March 31, 2009 12:52 AM (o2bVb)

7 No arguments from me on this issue. I agree with you 100%

Dude

Posted by: Dude at March 31, 2009 08:28 AM (byA+E)

8 I'm puzzled.

John Woods said "The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible."

Does he mean that he wants the cops who respond to be unarmed?

If not, his train of thought has lost both its locomotive and caboose.

Posted by: Strobe at March 31, 2009 09:35 AM (2iQl8)

9 I hate these cowardly PsOS. They need to just barely survive one of these things they're talking about, and be just conscious enough to watch as an armed citizen fixes the problem.

Posted by: cmblake6 at March 31, 2009 09:36 AM (mSaOp)

10 I found him on Facebook and fired a message at him. I'm a college student, and I live in Richmond, VA. I remember the VT shooting.

Below is my message to Mr. Woods.

_____

"Then I learned pretty fast that wouldn't solve anything," said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT. "The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It's reactive, not preventative."

What kind of crap is that? It's not impossible at all. In fact people defend themselves with a firearm about a million times a year, according to the Brady Campaign, and over two million times a year according to the NRA.

Fine, you hide under the desk, I'll return fire. You can thank me later. I can stomach a coward, but you're worse then a coward. No, you want everyone else helpless. It's not enough that you be able to wring your hands and say "it happened so fast, there was nothing I can do". No, you need to be able to make sure that no one else is capable of resistance. Because if you wet yourself and curl up in a ball, and someone else kills the psycho then you look bad. Much better for you to mourn the dead then do something that could prevent their deaths. Much better to hold a candle and cry then do something constructive, something that actually works.

No one is forcing you to carry a weapon. Your fragile feelings won't even be hurt, because it's concealed carry. You won't ever know which people are armed and ready to respond. All that the people want is for their constitutional rights to be respected, especially on campuses paid for by their tax dollars. You, well...you'd lick the boot stomping on your face. Which is fine. It's your face. But you don't have the right to tell me what I do, you don't have the right to tell me to disarm myself.

Some reading for you

http://gunowners.org/wv45.htm

Posted by: Britt at March 31, 2009 01:14 PM (9yC4C)

11 There's also the 2007 shooting in Colorado Springs. (Wikipedia article here - yes, I know, but in this case the Wikipedia article is actually pretty decent). It was a church, not a school, but that's still an environment where the shooter would have expected a bunch of unarmed targets to kill. Given the fact that the shooter, Matthew Murray, was carrying two handguns, a rifle, and 1,000 rounds of ammo, he was clearly planning to kill a lot of people. But he'd only killed two people and wounded three before Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at New Life Church, shot him and stopped the attack.

Furthermore, the reason Assam and others at New Life were armed is because they had heard about the shooting twelve hours earlier at the Youth With a Mission Center in Colorado Springs. The same shooter, Matthew Murray, had attacked the YWAM center, killed two people and wounded two others, then left the area on foot. Police had been searching for him, but hadn't found him yet when he attacked New Life Church. It's quite possible that he might have repeated the same pattern, leaving New Life and heading elsewhere to kill again, had Assam not taken him down.

So that's yet another case -- quite a recent one -- that you can add to your list. More evidence that guns in the hands of the law-abiding can and do stop gun violence.

(P.S. You're got a spam comment by "crysun" at 02:34 AM that made it past your spam filters, FYI).

Posted by: Robin Munn at March 31, 2009 02:53 PM (k4E9M)

12 I agree with all of you. We need the ability to protect ourselves as we really do not have an effective police force. They are demons on giving tickets for anything, but ask one for help in a violent situation and they hussle to the nearest dounut shop. I have had personel experience in this and can tell you they only pick up the pieces after a crime.

You can look at the situation in Australia to see what a gunless world would be like. Home invasion, sky rocketing crime, etc.

Posted by: david at March 31, 2009 04:57 PM (ZgM5r)

13 Just a bit of information that most folks don't know: Not only are the police unable to protect individual citizens, they have no legal obligation to do so. Most people would be amazed to learn how few officers are on duty, patrolling their town or city, at any hour of the day or night. Of course, rural residents, served by sheriff's departments understand this, but most Americans assume that if a real emergency ever occurred, the police would be minutes away. Maybe, maybe not.

Police agencies are chronically understaffed, and so they assign most officers when they're most needed on Friday and Saturday nights. The fewest officers commonly work when school is in session. It's not that the police don't absolutely love to catch bad guys in the act and wouldn't salivate at the thought of stopping a school shooter--they do and they would. It's just that, for the most part, they can't. There just aren't enough of them and never will be.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the police owe no duty of protection to individual citizens. This is the law of the land. It might seem outrageous, but it's completely rational. After all, if any citizen could sue the police for failure to protect them from harm, what city could possibly afford a police force? The only legally mandated function of police forces is to deter crime through their patrol presence and to investigate crime after it occurs. Unfortunately, this does not stop school shooters.

The reality of life always has been and always will be that we are individually responsible for our safety, and for that of our families. Anyone who relies on the police for such protection is abandoning themselves and their families to the mercy of those who have no mercy.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2009 09:16 PM (WZZfS)

14 Britt, good letter. You are exactly correct. The sheep are shamed by their inability to protect themselves, so they do not want to be outdone by a sheepdog.

I am interested to read any response he writes. But I am not holding my breath.

Posted by: Matt at April 01, 2009 12:53 PM (rHW2R)

15 Let's say you're an armed student walking down the hallway to class in your gray hoodie, you hear shots coming from a nearby classroom, and like a very brave and good citizen you enter the room to see some guy in a gray hoodie shooting another armed guy in a gray hoodie. Who do you shoot, and who should the next guy coming into the room seeing the now three armed guys in gray hoodies shoot?

I appreciate the need for an active and courageous fantasy life, but give it a rest already guys, a few thousand armed teenagers and 20 somethings aren't going to make colleges safer any more than they made Tomestone AZ safer in the 1880s than it is today.

Posted by: Jim at April 01, 2009 02:39 PM (3GzXA)

16 It's not only the fact that other armed persons with gun skills may very likely subdue the lunatic shooting, but the calculus of the homicidal criminal with the gun may change if he thinks that there are others at the location with concealed weapons who might kill him before he can kill. Right now the universities are sitting ducks to killers because the killers know they have unilaterally disarmed the populace like sheep waiting to be slaughtered. But change the calculus and no longer will the wolf be sure that he has free access to slaughter, but may become the one with the toe tag.

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at April 01, 2009 03:42 PM (RdRrk)

17 Jim: What if there were no hypothetical situations?

The situation you present has never happened and will never happen. If by some miracle it ever does, bully for you: you can tell me to shove it up my magazine. Until such time, address reality and real history, and nothing else. The Attack of the Grey Hoodie Zombies exists not in shooter sprees of reality, but in gang wars and active, if un-courageous, fantasy lives.

Posted by: Peregrine John at April 01, 2009 05:08 PM (IAfY/)

18 Jim is something of an idiot creating a fantasy so implausible as to be the stuff of a child's outlandish excuse of what could have been the reason mommy's lamp broke.

And while we're on the subject of Jim's stupidity, are there just tons of states issuing CCH permits to teenagers?

Every state I'm familiar with requires someone to be a minimum of 21 to have a CCH, and the median age of the classes I've attended is far closer to 40 or 50 than 18 or 20. Those individuals that take personal security seriously enough to spend hundreds or thousands of their hard-earned dollars on firearms, holsters, ammunition, training, and certification tend to be among society's most conscientious citizens.

Jim can't see that, or rather, he won't. Challenging his ill-informed emotive biases with facts is uncomfortable for Jim, and so he'd rather retreat into self-edifying fantasies. It's not intellectually honest, but then, Jim's not a very honest person.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 01, 2009 07:00 PM (Fe6uK)

19 I'm surprised you did not mention the Appalachian School of Law shooting, which was at a university only a short distance away from VT, occured 5 years earlier, and in which not one, but two students used personal firearms to subdue the shooter, and prevent the death toll (3 killed, 3 injured) from climbing higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Posted by: CB at April 01, 2009 07:13 PM (ZE0WS)

20 Zombie Fantasy? Maybe I made the mistake of saying the guys were wearing gray hoodies, but have you been to a campus lately?

Forget who's wearing what, a guy blazes away in a classroom, one of the students in the class is armed, he shoots back, you - also armed - enter the room to save the day - who do you shoot at? Who does the next the guy who enters the room shoot at? When the good guys prevail, and walk into the hallway, what happens when the last good guy on the scene sees an armed man at the scene?

There is nothing hypothetical at all about the results of our own Wild West past, how peaceful where those towns? Not very. Lot's of armed young men walking around, working, drinking, screwing around, stressed out from all of the above, you know, kinda like college.

Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2009 12:17 AM (GStBc)

21 Confederate Yankee, you're the one who said students in the classroom with CCH permits would be safer than they would without them. It's your hypothetical that placed armed students in class (and hence the surrounding hallways and classrooms), not mine.

As for the personal attack about my honesty, emotional bias. etc... I have no idea what specifically set you off. I've posted here what, 5 or 6 times, I think I've been pretty darn civil and willing to talk. You, not so much. In short you don't know me, don't pretend you do.

Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2009 12:30 AM (GStBc)

22 I've heard this canard a lot from the anti crowd.

Let's take VT as a direct example, modifying what actually happened to what could have happened had the VT campus been like other places in Virginia.

The shooter went through several buildings, opening classroom doors, entering them, and firing at the people inside.

Let's say I'm in my class, and I hear shots and screams down the hall. My immediate reaction will be to draw. So I'm inside the class, gun out. Everyone in that class knows I'm a good guy, because I'll tell them so. Now, I can move out to engage the shooter, or I can flip over a desk and crouch behind it. If I move out, I am risking a friendly fire incident with like minded people. However, if I chose to take a defensive position, then I have good cover, a place to rest my shooting arm, and I know that the target will come through the doorway. When he opens the door, confident that he's facing yet another unarmed class, I take a moment to ensure that he is in fact armed and firing at innocents, then I shoot him. After he goes down I listen for more shots. Hearing none, I safe my weapon and go to provide first aid to the wounded.

Jim we're not saying that armed students would carry no risk whatsoever. That should go without saying, but the Left doesn't believe in things like risk, trade offs, or intrinsic constraints on reality any more. No one is arguing that there are no risks to allowing campus carry. We are simply arguing (with a massive amount of evidence, I might add) that people being able to defend themselves is, all things considered, the best possible policy.

If you honestly believe that someone who's goal it is to kill dozens of strangers cares about gun free zones then you've got bigger problems then people being snippy with you on a website.

Posted by: Britt at April 02, 2009 02:58 AM (9yC4C)

23 CY, nice place you have here. Can I reply to Jim?

Jim, let me pick apart your scenarios with hard, rational, TRAINED thoughts. And NO, I do NOT know you, so I just think a little education is in order here. In a very civil manner.

In your first scene, entering and seeing some guy shoot or shooting at another armed guy?

Well, first off, I would not ENTER the room, but I would open the door and take cover behind that nice metal doorjamb, staying outside. I would yell, "POLICE! FREEZE! DROP THE WEAPONS! NOW!"
(No, I'm not a cop, but THAT would get one of 2 reactions from the unknown variables with firepower. More on that later.)

Second, I would notice the positions of the shooters. The odds are that the goblin is the one nearest the door. The defender would most likely be the guy deep in the room in a cover position.

Third, I would look at the faces of the rest of the people, as to who they are FEARING.

I would cover both of them but give my primary attention to the one everyone is freaking out on.
All of this would take place almost instantly.

As to the reaction to my command, I would believe that the "good guy" would surely drop his weapon.
Maybe both of them. Then we sort it out. Of course (MY fantasy), the "bad guy" tries to take a shot at ME, and I waste him! The "good guy" is NOT going to shoot at someone he believes to be a cop.

As far as multiple armed persons in the room when I open the door? Well, rinse and repeat.

As to anyone coming behind me? I will be barking orders from my cover position like a Marine DI while sending people for help, letting them know to inform everyone that *I* AM the "good guy", maybe even posting the teacher outside in the hall to relay that info.

Jim, now that I've thought this through into a
clear plan, I actually have to thank you. You may have done an unintended service to some future
people in such a situation.

BTW Jim, "The Wild West" was predominantly a FICTION of dime novels of the era and Hollyweird. THAT is a FACT, man. Go research the reality...

Hey, CY, did I tell you this is a nice site you have here?

Posted by: Tom Wolff at April 02, 2009 03:12 AM (5G/Mb)

24 Britt,
I was busy typing and thinking while you posted that, but if I was INSIDE the room at the time, that is precisely what I would do. Right on...

Posted by: Tom Wolff at April 02, 2009 03:17 AM (5G/Mb)

25 "There is nothing hypothetical at all about the results of our own Wild West past, how peaceful where those towns? Not very."

Jim, your perceptions have far more to do with Hollywood movies and pulp novels than with reality. In point of fact the "Wild West" was fairly peaceful. Sure, drunken rowdies existed but they knew better than to bother good citizens. Life is far more violent today.

Posted by: pst314 at April 02, 2009 09:24 AM (OA547)

26 Jim,

I apologize for my rudeness, but I though you were someone I knew IRL whom I have very little patience for. I'll try to answer your question with a bit more restraint.

I happen to live in Raleigh, NC, the fastest growing metro area in the United States. There are roughly 833,000 people here in Wake County, and just 8,301 of us have CCH permits as of 12/2008, the last date for which they have updated statistics.

There are seven institutions of higher learning here (Meredith College, North Carolina State University, Peace College, Saint Augustine's College, Shaw University, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Wake Technical Community College) with multiple campuses and/or satellite locations for several of them.

According to Wikipedia, we also have 20 high schools, 30 middle schools, 93 elementary schools and 8 specialized schools. In addition, there are nine charter schools and 31 private schools.

That's 98 centers of learning (not including day cares) of all types in the county.

All 8,301 of us with carry permits are a minimum of 21 years old, and we're a very law-abiding bunch; since we've had the option of legal concealed carry for 14 years, just 36 people have had their permits revoked. To the best of my knowledge, none of those was revoked for violence with a weapon. You can't come close to that level of safety and nonviolence in the general "unarmed" population you immerse yourself in every day.

Because the remaining armed student in your scenario must be a minimum of 21-years old to legally have a permit here, he's probably either a non-traditional student--for example, a former soldier going to school on the GI Bill--or an upperclassman or graduate student, or faculty or staff member with a CCH permit. Or he's a felon. Period.

The other armed student is either incapacitated, or dead. He's a non-issue by the time you even recognize and process that a shooting is in progress.

Now, I can't tell you what this hypothetical student would do in your scenario, but I can tell you what I'd try to do if I was the responding "gray hoodie boy" out in the hallway or in another classroom.

If I heard shots being fired in a university building (or any building, for that matter), my immediate reaction is to duck. Stray bullets kill.

If this is my normal classroom building, I would have already noted what the buildings interior walls are made of, and would have decent idea if they would stop or slow bullets. This is the kind of observation and situational awareness you pick up if you carry a weapon for any length of time.

I'm going to put my hand on my weapon as people in the hallway flee, but my response from there depends on the number of shots fired, and whether that fire continues for more than a short, staccato flurry.

If the shots quickly occur and then tail off with no other immediate reaction, acoustics in the hallway may keep me from being able to pin down which room the shots came from. In this scenario, I'm probably down on one knee in a doorway with a doorframe hopefully providing some cover as I try to assess the situation. I may or may not draw my firearm from my strongside IWB holster depending on how threatened I feel at that moment, but if I do have it drawn, my finger is alongside the frame (not in the trigger guard) and pointing at the ground in a low ready position.

In your scenario, what goes on inside the shooter's classroom next is going to dictate my next response as adrenaline forces me to fall back on my trained responses to the threat.

If the shooting incident is aburpt, lasting no more than a span of several seconds as 99% of shooting incidents do, I will not come into play at all. If the student still standing is a good guy, he could go through a whole range of emotions and reactions, but most would probably hinge around him making sure that bad guy is no longer a threat and remaining on the scene to await the inevitable police response. He'll probably either re-holster his weapon or unload it so that the police converging on the scene don't see him with a weapon out and start shooting. He may even have his driver's license and CCH permit in his hands, but you simply don't know how he will respond.

If the surviving shooter flees after the shooting, and that is the point at which I would feel most threatened in this hypothetical scenario.

If the shooter exits with his weapon in-hand and goes the opposite way but doesn't threaten anyone with it, he walks.

I can't and won't fire, because he's not an immediate threat at that moment, even if he was just seconds ago when he shot that other student for whatever unknown reason. I have no right to try to detain him or fire upon him if he is not an immediate lethal threat.

If the shooter exits weapon in hand and comes toward me, I'll instinctively present my weapon as I've been trained and challenge him to drop the weapon, keeping as much of my body as possible behind cover. He'll probably comply if I get the drop on him and have a better position (which is way I've taken a position where most of my body is behind cover).

If he raises the weapon, or attempts to engage me in any other way, I'll focus on putting the front sight of my pistol on the center of mass, and I'll press the trigger.

I'll continue to fire as long as he is still a threat and no longer than that. This could be a single shot or all 13 shots, or he's a better shot and I've suddenly got other things on my mind, like how to deal with new orifices and the collapse of my motor skills.

If I'm fortunate enough to survive the incident physically unscathed I'll try to secure his weapon (something I wouldn't do in a less congested environment) and my own, and try to assess the scene so I can give accurate information to the dispatcher as I call 9/11 on my cell.

If we have the nightmare scenario of a Virginia Tech with a shooter executing students one after another in a near continuous roll of fire, I'm not exactly sure how I'd respond.

If I don't think that I can help the people in the classroom (thinking them already dead, perhaps) I'd try to find a doorway from which I could cover the classroom door and keep him from exiting to continue his assault. If there is still sounds of life and he's continuing to fire, I think you have to go in and try to get a shot.

If psychologists are correct and the shooter has extreme tunnel vision as a result of the stressors on his system, I may even be lucky enough that he never notices me, and I may be able to take him down from just inches or feet away with a single shot.

If he notices my entrance and wheels around blazing away, I have no choice but to attempt to end the threat, even if innocents are behind him.

Why?

I may very well hit people behind him, but if he's already on a rampage and executing students right and left anyway, there is very little to be lost in attempting to take out the shooter. Sally Coed might die from my bullets, but she's almost certainly dead if I don't fire.

The simple fact of the matter is that sometimes life doesn't give you good options. Sometimes it's between bad and worse.

People who take the time and effort to go through the training to get a CCH prepare for the worst, and hope for the best, and would not go around blazing away in some sort of imaginary wild west like the fearful and uninformed suspect in their ignorance.

FWIW, it is a statistical fact that you are far more likely to be shot by a responding police officer in said scenario than a CCH holder.

Jim, are you more afraid of the responding police officers than a possible CCH permit holder who has his gun that day?

If you aren't, that should be a strong clue that you are reacting emotionally in your fear of CCH holders, not logically to the greater threat of responding police.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 02, 2009 09:46 AM (gAi9Z)

27 I've linked back to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2009/04/re-cowardice-as-crutch.html

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at April 02, 2009 12:21 PM (B+qrE)

28 Jim. As CY said, most if not all of the CCW holders would be non traditional students. I would be included in that number.

Now I can not speak for all of the CCW holders in the US. But me personally. I recently got out of the Corps after better than ten years, and in my two weeks off from the oil field every month I go to school. I have literally had thousands of hours of trigger time, both in training, and places like Iraq, Afghan, Kosovo, Haiti, the Horn, and several others. I have also spent thousands of dollars on additional training. Sent thousands of rounds down range in personal practice. Ive been through just about every school for small arms that the Corps has to offer. I am the type of guy that would likely be there confronting the insane while you cower under your desk.

I am sorry for being hostile, but you need a reality check, you need to wake up.

To steal a bit of work from Colonel Grossman.

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."


If you want to be one of these sheep that is fine, but do not try to turn me into one too. I am a sheepdog, I was born one, and I choose to continue to be one.

Posted by: Matt at April 02, 2009 01:43 PM (rHW2R)

29 Be careful of what you wish for, I asked for some dialogue and got four great responses, obviously I'm going to inadvertently ignore some of what's been said or I'll be typing all day!

I understand, and perhaps even accept the idea that respondents to a shooting would behave rationally enough to either wait inside a classroom for someone to enter - and start shooting - or use various other means to try and determine who is who before taking aim. Having said that, adrenaline is going to kick in big time, and if we're talking about the typical Econ 101 type lecture hall there could be extended chaos no matter how careful folks try to be.


As far as the number and age of students who would get a CCH, I appreciate the numbers you give CY, but, I'm sure the demand would go way up once kids knew they could make use of them when they live and 'work'. There isn't much point in having CCH now if you're a full time student living on campus.

One question I have for you CY is about the 21 or older factor. Obviously the 21 number is arbitrary, I would think there would be an easy Constitutional argument made by kids 17, 18, 19, that they have just as much of a right to CCH as anyone - and I'd normally think you would be on there side on this issue. If the Founders militias were every man over 16 or 17 it's hard to argue any intent to limit access for 18-20 year olds if you're giving it to the 21+.

Again, I could easily see this resulting in lot's of guns in dorms, and no matter how careful the owners mean to be, that environment is not exactly gun safe. I honestly believe you'd end up with more accidental and crime of passion type deaths from having a bunch of guns around 18-22 year old (drunk) guys, than you'd ever save from the once in a generation or hopefully more shooting at a given school.

Oh yeah, one last one b/c it's on my screen:


"FWIW, it is a statistical fact that you are far more likely to be shot by a responding police officer in said scenario than a CCH holder.

Jim, are you more afraid of the responding police officers than a possible CCH permit holder who has his gun that day?"



You're more likely NOW to be shot by a responding officer because so few people have CCH. My fear isn't of officers, it's of adding to the number of people like officers who would be armed. The police are obviously trained in such matters and they still shoot the wrong people. Add to the number of responders, kids, teachers, and the police, and the accidents will inevitably mount.

Again, thanks for all your responses. I know what I think about the subject, it's great to hear from people who hold other views.

Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2009 02:00 PM (3GzXA)

30 "You're more likely NOW to be shot by a responding officer because so few people have CCH."

I am sorry Jim. Perhaps you did not understand what he was saying, or maybe he was not clear enough.

He was speaking to a percentage not total numbers.

Right now and since about 1994, 2% of shootings involving a private citizen defending their lives hurt or kill an innocent person not involved in the attack. 11% of police shootings kill or wound a person not involved in the attack.

"Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws." Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper."

Please educate yourself a bit more in the topic at hand. It would make things easier for you.

Posted by: Matt at April 02, 2009 06:38 PM (2pU+Y)

31 If I'm not mistaken Matt just called me ignorant, but in a really nice way.


Can you point me to their study (Cramer and Kopel? I can find that quote all over the place, but I couldn't find the study to see how they define things or where they got their numbers. I'm not saying it's BS but either this is a case of definitions or sample size distorting things or it's saying the Police are reckless idiots. I'm leaning towards the former. I can see where someone with CCH in their own home is going to be very much unlikely to hit anyone innocent, but we're not talking about people in their homes here, we're talking about people on campuses surrounded by other students either in classrooms or dorms.

It's more than a little bit apples and oranges to compare the behavior of a 50 something on a farm in Idaho defending his property with a 18-22 year old in a dorm at a huge state school.

Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2009 10:05 PM (GStBc)

32 "If I'm not mistaken Matt just called me ignorant, but in a really nice way. "

Pretty much. Kind of the same way I am ignorant in regards to Quantitative physics.

"but I couldn't find the study to see how they define things or where they got their numbers."

You must not have looked very hard. There was a paper on it in the first link on my Google search.

Sorry that I do not post it here. It isnt getting through CY's spam filter. Just run a google search on

Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws.

It should be the first link on google.

Don't worry, they did reference their materials.

"It's more than a little bit apples and oranges to compare the behavior of a 50 something on a farm in Idaho defending his property with a 18-22 year old in a dorm at a huge state school."

But we are not only talking about people in their homes, or some redneck protecting his chickens. We are talking about Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Mechanics, etc ad nauseum.

Funny how the argument you used is the same one the anti crowd uses every time a new state enacts a CCW law. Yet each time, and each year more and more honest citizens are legally carrying and there has been no such scenario.

CY, this spam filter is about frigging annoying.

Posted by: Matt at April 02, 2009 10:34 PM (2pU+Y)

33 Quantum i can do, google apparently not. In my defense I was searching for the 11% quote, not the authors and name of the paper, my bad.

But, that paper doesn't have the details, they cite another study, Silver and Kates who apparently got those numbers from newspaper accounts of incidents in MO. Without knowing what they count as a civilian encounter the numbers don't mean much. Plus I really have a hard time believing Police hit a civilian 1 out of every 10 times they fire their weapons.

As far as the Dr, Lawyers etc go, we may or may not be talking about them in terms of the Silver and Kates study - they don't say - but what we're talking about here is kids in classrooms. A very different data set than any previous study because students haven't had CCH in classrooms. Apples and oranges again.

For what it's worth I have no problem with guns, I love target shooting, and ownership is a hard and fast constitutional right. I just have a hard time seeing more people carrying more guns as the solution to the problem of gun violence. Especially when we're talking about kids at college.

Posted by: Jim at April 03, 2009 12:58 AM (GStBc)

34 Jim, you say that gun ownership is a hard and fast constitutional right, yet you have no problem imposing an entirely arbitrary limit on said right. Please explain how that's logical.

I understand, to a point, your concern regarding young adults living at college and allowing the presence of firearms. However, the fact remains that in this country, we assume someone is a capable adult until they prove otherwise. Are you similarly worried about drivers running you down in the parking lot of Wal Mart? What about the local field hockey team snapping and beating you to death with those odd little sticks? Do you watch the waitress like a hawk to make sure she doesn't suddenly stab you? How about the barista at Starbucks, he's got large amounts of boiling liquid. Better watch out.

Do you never attend college sporting events? The argument you are making is that college students are more dangerous then average. So, logically, you go out of your way to avoid them, right? You move to a new neighborhood when they move in next door, you take up two seats on the bus to make sure they don't sit next to you, you cross the streets to avoid them, right?

Of course not Jim, no one does those things. Which means it's not students you're afraid of, it's guns. Your unstated assumption is that guns cause otherwise stable people to become violent. Since you believe that, you actually do have a problem with guns, the "I love target shooting" line notwithstanding.

Posted by: Britt at April 03, 2009 01:30 AM (9yC4C)

35 I'm not imposing any limits on gun ownership, it was CY who seemed to be suggesting permits would only be given to people over 21, not me.

My opinion is that students bringing guns onto campuses would in the end cause as many or more gun deaths as they would save during the extremely rare VT gunman incidents. Just my opinion, nothing more.

Posted by: Jim at April 03, 2009 01:39 AM (GStBc)

36 "A very different data set than any previous study because students haven't had CCH in classrooms. Apples and oranges again."

Not so much. And IIRC, I really do not feel like digging through all the data before I have had my two pots of coffee, but most of the data coming to those percentages comes from Local and Federal law enforcement agencies.

Now for a exercise in logic for you. Pretend that you are a criminal that has his wits about you (as many of these school shooters did because they were able to plan out their attacks), are you going to hit a campus where you know there is a likelihood of you running into a legally armed student, or are you going to pick one where it is not likely?

Now, while it is our right to keep and bear arms, it is a right with responsibility.

"Good old Jefferson said no freeman shall be debarred the right to bear arms"

Now to me that is not describing slaves. Think of it like this.

A child is not a free person because they are under their parent's control. A person who is mentally insane is not a free person because they can not control themselves, and a criminal, or excon is not a free man. Smell what I am stepping in?

But nothing here says that it is right or ok to restrict a legal adult from exercising their 2A rights.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Posted by: Matt at April 03, 2009 06:38 AM (2pU+Y)

37
I'm not imposing any limits on gun ownership, it was CY who seemed to be suggesting permits would only be given to people over 21, not me.


I wasn't "suggesting" anything. That is the law on the books in North Carolina where I live, and in every state I'm aware of that issues a carry permit.

As for your disbelief over why police shoot so many more innocent bystanders than armed civilians (not just CCH permit holders) do, perhaps a bit of perspective is in order.

The stereotypical shootings you see on the nightly news are the most common, and typically involve either attempted robberies or similar property crimes where deadly force is employed, or attempted violence crimes, such as assault, rape, or murder. A quick look at the basic type explains why police have more problems separating the felon(s) from the victim(s).

Let's look at a hypothetical based upon all too common real-life events.

The Home Invasion

John Q is awoken from his sleep in the middle of the night to the sound of breaking glass. He reaches for his handgun in the nightstand, and quietly opens the bedroom door, trying to hear what is going on.

When he opens the door, he notes that his daughter's bedroom door is ajar. Thinking his daughter might have dropped a glass while trying to get something to drink, and not wanting her to cut herself trying to pick it up, he walks down the hall, gun in hand, finger off the trigger, muzzle pointed at the floor to tell her to wait and he'll help her clean it up.

As he enters the kitchen he is startled to find a man man standing there just inside the door holding a knife.

John Q quickly raises his gun and yells for the man to drop the knife. At the sound of yelling, John's wife calls 911.

As his wife is on the phone with the dispatcher, they hear shots fired and the nearest officer takes the call of a home invasion with shots fired.

The officer exits his car and runs towards the house, notes the front door is locked, and runs around the back to find a bleeding man holding a gun towering over a man lying prostrate on the kitchen floor.

The man holding the gun has it pointed at the man on the ground. The officer tells the man holding the gun to drop it but he's non-responsive (side note: it is common for people in such situations to develop tunnel vision and even go temporarily deaf from both stress and the concussive blast of a gun going off).

There is a pretty strong chance that in scenario above that the next action taken by the man holding the gun could lead to the officer firing on him. But is the man holding the gun the suspected invader, or the homeowner?

The cop simply doesn't know.

Luckily, police training and tactics have come a long way over the years, and in most instances this situation will end without the officer firing his weapon. But there is still a very significant chance that someone may be shot, and the police officer will not know who he is shooting at until after the incident is over.

Police officers shoot more "good guys" than armed civilians do because police officers roll up on the scene after the crime has been committed in the vast majority of cases, though on rare instances, they might interrupt a serious crime in progress. The almost never witness a crime from beginning to end, and they have to rely on (good but imperfect) training and instincts to separate the good guys from the bad guys. There are times that they see something they deem suspicious, misinterpret actions, and gun down someone that has done nothing wrong at all and wasn't a criminal at all (like the NYPD seems to do every couple of years).

By the nature of their work, police interject themselves into uncertain, potentially violent situations. This isnt' a criticism, just a fact.

Gun owners in general don't interject themselves into situations, and react only to immediate threats, thus they tend to shoot fewer people, and have a generally good idea of who they are shooting at.

CCH holders, a more highly-trained class of gun owners, are required in most states to take hours of mandated legal training explaining a very clear and specific range of restrictions and responsibilities on the escalation of deadly force. They are trained in scenarios the show when the use of lethal force is justified, how situations can de-escalate from justifiable lethal force, and the responsibilities they incur when they present their weapon. As a class of people acutely aware of the legal ramifications of firing a bullet (each one has an attached legal cost of $100,000, or so we are told), and without having a department or other government entity to pay for civil damages, we tend to be more careful.

Because we are non-uniformed, and mandated by law to react to deadly force only (you can slap your wife, and I can't pull a gun on it for you unless you're beating her to the point her life is threatened), CCH holders have a distinct advantage over the police when it comes to knowing who the bad guys are.

We are a participant in the action, and we will know with far greater certainty who to good and bad guys are, as opposed to the police who arrive after the fact.

Cops shoot more people than civilians (and especially CCH permit holders) because the police typically lack the context of the situation they are entering.

It isn't their fault they cant' be there to prevent crimes or be everywhere to keep situations from escalating in the first place, but it should be obvious now that police shoot more good guys than CCH permit holders do for the simple reason that they arrive at the scene not knowing who the good and bad guys are.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 03, 2009 08:39 AM (Fe6uK)

38 CY, that is one scenario that does happen, but more often than not it is a scenario like you will read below.

Years ago when I was teaching BUST I would begin my class teaching about functional accuracy. As an attention gainer I used a video from I believe the LAPD. There was a gangbanger hold up on the front step of a home, he clearly had a pistol in his hands, and the cops were trying to talk him down, he had not yet pointed it at anyone, so they only had weapons drawn and trained in on him. After a good bit of time the K9 officer on scene decided to send in his dog. He notified the dozen or so officers that he was sending the dog in, and when he did the bad guy went to throw his firearm away.

Now watching the video you could clearly see that he was attempting to discard the weapon, but things change when you are the guy with boots on deck and adrenalin is pumping. So I can not say what I would have thought the BG was doing if I were actually there.

One officer thought he was about to fire, so the officer opens up on the guy. One shot rings out, followed by many dozen more.

The bad guy is hit five or six times, and a dozen or so more impact the dog, the house, the bush next to him, and some just fly totally wild.

In this case they were lucky that there was a house in the background, and it seemed to be of sturdy construction. So using the JHPs that they were, there were no other injuries. But had that been in the open, bad things could have happened.

Professionals too are subject to tunnel vision.

Now, I love and respect our good boys and girls in blue. But from my experiences with many that I have trained with, and learned from tell me that not all LEOs are professionals, and many will only fire their weapon during their required annual or biannual qualification. Many do not see their firearms as anything more than a heavy hunk of steel and composite that they are required to carry.

While most of the CCW holders that I know spend as much time as they can on the range training.

I am not saying that all CCW holders do so. But from my experience I can say that the majority do.

Posted by: Matt at April 03, 2009 09:02 AM (2pU+Y)

39 Matt, I second that many officers do not spend as much time shooting their duty sidearms as CCW holders do, at least as far as uniformed officers go. The uniforms have a LOT of training and retraining to do, in many areas. Civilians often focus on the fact that "they carry a gun."

For everyone: Well, yes, they carry a gun, but they also need to know many aspects of ever-changing laws, how to handle many emergencies, how to perform basic first aid at the scene of an accident, how to drive at above-normal speeds, control traffic, how to handle court appearances, etc. (Full disclosure: I've known a LOT of cops -- I used to teach their instructors, I have some cops in my family, and have a deep respect for the profession and a fondness for some of its practitioners).

Anyway, "the gun" that some seem to faint over is just one aspect of the job for many police officers, and often not even considered the most important one -- most officers will never fire a shot in anger, more will be involved in a traffic accident.

Additionally, how many of you folks want to do the same thing AWAY from work that you do on the job ? So, with the exception of some high-risk specialists in law enforcement (USSS and DEA come to mind), is it any wonder that most officers qualify with their sidearms but don't go much further ?

Contrast that with a civilian CCW holder. Many of us were hobby shooters long before, so we ENJOY shooting. Additionally, most had reason to jump thru all the hoops (and there are MANY) to get that CCW. Often, they have some concern for their own safety for some reason, hence they bought a gun (most carry arms are quite expensive), took the mandated training, applied for the CCW, jumped the hoops, paid the gelt, and got set up. As with PAYING for a gym membership (instead of just having a Bowflex in the basement), they want to "get their money's worth" or to feel safer. So they generally practice MORE than most of the uniformed police officers I knew. Again, this is not the rank and file firearms owners -- this is specifically the CCW holders.

So the idea that many CCW holders may practice more than many uniformed police officers is not hard to understand.

And Jim -- What we are addressing here is NOT forcing or even encouraging college students to get guns. But rather trying to undo the foolishness that says I, former instructor who still holds a CCW and can carry almost everywhere else, must leave my carry arm behind when I go on campus. Repeat for everyone on campus, and you have a "happy hunting ground" for the whackos since even I can't shoot back. You create an environment guaranteed to be full of prey, and no protection in sight.

Will repealing the ban on CCWs on campus change anything ? Heckfino. Just cause a law is stupid and pointless doesn't mean its repeal automatically raises the IQ. But it's sure a stupid law. And besides, as the anti's say, "If if saves JUST ONE LIFE isn't it worth it ?"

Posted by: 1charlie2 at April 03, 2009 02:16 PM (RpT9e)

40 Confederate Yankee,

The scenario where you describe the problems a cop arriving on the scene of a home invasion that could easily lead him to shoot the homeowner is exactly what I'm talking about when CCH holders find themselves running to shots fired situations in public. Like at a University. Well meaning, well trained people in chaotic public situations where they are unlikely to know who did what are going to lead to accidental shootings.


Matt,

The 2% for CCH and 11% for police officers was taken from accounts from Missouri newspapers, not from state or federal law enforcement agencies. I can't find the original Silver & Kates study online (yet) but they are using a ton of home invasion style accounts, which skew the numbers wildly from what would happen in a public setting.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2009 02:13 AM (GStBc)

41 "The 2% for CCH and 11% for police officers was taken from accounts from Missouri newspapers"

And guess where those newspapers got their numbers?

Posted by: Matt at April 05, 2009 11:58 AM (2pU+Y)

42 From reporters talking to homeowners about incidents at their homes. "I heard a noise, came downstairs with my gun, and the guy must have run off", and then that counts as a 100% win in an 'armed confrontation'. Here's some discussion:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5381859

If you have access to national data, and the criteria they use to come up with the 2% and 11% numbers please share them. Otherwise you're taking a number you've seen quoted in Cramer C and Kopel that comes from some kind of research by Sliver and Kates using MO newpaper stories involving homeowners and pretending those numbers would apply to civilians in public encounters. Apples and oranges.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2009 02:36 PM (GStBc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 29, 2009

N.C. Democratic Senator: Obama's Budget "Completely Unsustainable and Unacceptable."

North Carolina 's junior senator Kay Hagan defeated incumbent Elizabeth Dole in November, riding a Democratic wave that saw Barack Obama win in a normally "red" state.

That hasn't kept Hagan, who now holds Jesse Helms' old seat, from lashing out at the big government bloat of one of the most incompetent Administrations in American history.*

From WRAL:

"e;I agree with a number of ideas in President Obama's budget, but I was particularly concerned about the deficit spending in his proposal," Hagan said in a speech at the North Carolina Associated Press Broadcast annual meeting at Elon University. "It's completely unsustainable and unacceptable."

Her decision to renounce some of the popular president's ideas comes as a striking contrast to her campaign last year, when she cozied to his mantra of change as North Carolina voters swept both into office. It underscores her eagerness to depart from the big-government plans of her party even as she tries to influence legislation as a backbencher in Washington's upper chamber.

The Democratic lawmaker who took office on Capitol Hill just three months ago said she has been working with colleagues to cut the growth in non-defense spending from 12 percent in Obama's budget to 6 percent. The former state Senate budget writer said politicians right now need to discourage spending that does not create jobs or improve the economy.

Remember, folks—this is from a Democrat who used Obama's surging popularity to get into office; she's now distancing herself from him as much as she can within the party, and just after a little more than two months into Obama's Presidency.

* William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia on his 32nd day in office. That's worse, I guess, though it might be interesting to see what Harrison accomplished in 32 days versus Obama.

Harrison was replaced by John Tyler, the Joe Biden of his generation, who is generally referred to one of the worst Presidents in American history and was deemed "His Accidency" by his many critics.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:52 AM | Comments (42) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 25, 2009

Complicity in Idiocy

Fox News posted the following highly-misleading graphic on the front page of foxnews.com tonight, as the click-through image for a story entitled Clinton: U.S. Shares Blame in Mexico Drug Wars.

The obvious implication of the image, echoing recent rhetoric by the Obama Administration and the Mexican government that the firearms industry in the United States is responsible for supplying drug cartels with massive amounts of firepower, including military weapons.

But what does the picture actually show?

A close look at the picture shows at the top a short-barreled AR-15 carbine where the flash hider begins immediately in front of the front sight.

Such weapons are highly-regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and buyers must have approval from the ATF and pay a $200 transfer tax. Such weapons are most commonly seen in use by law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border in urban tactical dynamic entry or SWAT teams. It is possible, and perhaps probable, that this firearm was acquired by cartels from Mexican law enforcement, and not from civilian firearms dealers.

The next firearm down, a civilian-legal AR-15 carbine, has a noticeably longer 16-inch legal minimum barrel, as does the Mini-14 carbine. The AR-15-style rifle below that has a 20-inch barrel.

Dominating the photo, however, is a collection of military weaponry that is simply unavailable for purchase by American civilians at any price. There are either rockets or mortar shells (probably the former, but I'm not sure) and a M-72 LAW, a disposable anti-tank rocket.

Our President and Attorney General and have been more than willing to mislead the American people by including military weaponry in displays of arms confiscated from cartels, in hopes of pushing for what the President likes to call "common sense" gun control measures, as if anti-tank rockets, hand grenades, IEDs and police and military-issued machine guns can be had under existing gun laws.

We except such deception from Barack Obama, a man who was once part of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation and who was part of an attempt to con the Supreme Court. We also expect the media to be largely ignorant and heavily biased in stories involving firearms.

We should, however, expect at least the most basic level of intellectual curiosity from our media, such as wondering why government officials are implying military anti-tank weaponry is available for purchase by civilians in U.S. gun shops.

Journalists are abdicating their responsibility to ask these questions.

This failure to follow the basic tenets of journalism is a large part of why the public holds the media in such low regard, and why their news organizations continue to collapse around them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 24, 2009

Obama's Press Conference in a Nutshell

Capitalism is a systemic virus that we cannot hope to kill, and as distasteful as that thought is to my Administration, it is something that we can hope to control if you give us unprecedented power.

We need to institute cap-and-trade so that we move from real, but pollution-causing energy sources to environmentally-friendly solutions that presently, err, do not exist.

And sure, my budget will most likely bankrupt the United States if we're off even a little bit, but if we don't spend hundreds of billions to institute a bunch of vague, wide-ranging, and ideologically-driven policy prescriptions, then we might end up broke anyway because of impossible—hey look, a bunny!

We've going to cut the deficit in half, which is why our national debt will being to skyrocket. It's simple economics. For growth we need sustainable um, other examples of domestic products... dropping discretionary defense spending to lowest levels since the 60s. Hey, do my critics offer a better idea? Let's talk about Mexico!

We're going to look at the border with literally hundreds of more people, and we're trying to find a way to use this as an excuse to push for gun and ammunition control. We'll do everything we can... except build an actual physical border.

The VA is underfunded and we hope to make cost saving in the procurement system to make up for the money we need for veterans care. We'll scrap expensive new weapons that underperform, to keep providing our troops with existing weapons systems that are overused and obsolete to the point that they also underperform.

Invest, invest, invest.

And by that, I mean let's spend your money.

I'm going to give a long and rambling misdirection instead of answering your question about AIG, though I will admit I didn't voice my opinion because I didn't know what was going on.

The Chinese idea of doing away with the dollar is admittedly a different plan, but hey, wouldn't a "yen menu" at McDonald's be cool? Not that a new global currency is needed. Yet.

We're not going to renew the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. We're going to introduce the Obama tax cuts. See how much more I care about you than anyone since Reagan? Any by "Reagan," I mean shut up, capitalist, or you might just find a busload of sedated ACORN drones outside your house in the morning.

Please don't look at how I'm in favor of penalizing charities. And lets go to the decaffinated hack from Ebony who uses a discredited report on homeless children to make a point, showing why Kevin Chappell has no more business being a reporter than Dave Chappell. Oh, and did I mention we'll start programs to help them with housing? Now hand over your wallets.

Race does not enter into the equation in my Administration, except for the searing legacy of racial discrimination I like to use when it's convenient. American's instead have looked at me based upon my incompetence, not my appearance.

Cloning, stem cells, abortion... come on. It's just meat, like that $100/lb Wagyu steak I'm going to have when I'm done with you, reporter-man.

As for the Jews and Palestinians, we need a two-state solution. I have no idea how to really do anything to help the genocidal terrorists more than giving them more credibility than cash, like the $900 million of your tax dollars I just gave them. Luckily, I didn't say that out loud. Maybe we should send them a video instead. Youtube, not DVD. What was the question?

Back to the economy.

Uh, Good night.

Update: Kaus explodes on Chappell's idiocy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:57 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 22, 2009

Bestest President Evah

I refuse to believe this is possible.

There is simply no way that Barack Obama, President of the United States, did not know Nicolas Sarkozny has been the President of France for the past two years.

No world leader could be that daft, his administration so glaringly incompetent, as to send a letter pledging co-operation with a man no longer in office.

Then again, it might explain Obama's shabby treatment of Gordon Brown.

He may have been expecting Margaret Thatcher.

Update: Thank God. Obama was replying to a letter from Chirac and not blindly sending out a dim-witted letter to an actual head of state that could easily be mocked.

You know. Like he did with the Russians.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:05 PM | Comments (62) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 This man is simply unbelievable.

http://sarah-palin-2012.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-brand-of-political-correctness.html

But he will get a "by".

He has nevah been held accountable in his life apparently.

Posted by: History Chaser at March 22, 2009 10:38 PM (78kA0)

2 He may have been expecting Margaret Thatcher With fear and trepidation.

Posted by: kahr40 at March 22, 2009 10:41 PM (ccO6A)

3 I refuse to believe that Sarkozy was upset. I am sure that by now, everyone in the world realizes that Barry is a drooling imbecile with an IQ not to exceed 60.

Posted by: Two Dogs at March 22, 2009 11:58 PM (dwQ3J)

4 Two Dogs, I wish that were true, but just look at some of the liberals' web sites and you'll see it isn't so.

Posted by: lnthomp at March 23, 2009 12:34 AM (iy3d6)

5 I love this comment "The use of the word 'peace' was taken to be an indirect reference to Chirac's stance against the US intervention in Iraq, which Obama had also opposed as senator."

He became a senator in 2005. The invasion was in March 2003. Do Liberals think he has a time machine or something?

I've heard or read that claim dozens of times, and each time I hear it I mock the speaker.

And each time, the speaker confirms that he/she does indeed believe it.

Posted by: brando at March 23, 2009 01:34 AM (j/VXB)

6 Mr. Obama MET with Sarkozy in France during the World Tour last summer, when he did Iraq the German concert and then France, to buck up his sorely lacking foreign policy creds. Sarkozy even gave some glowing words for Obama. However as the election got closer, Sarkozy seemed more positive to McCain though keeping mostly out of the election contest, non interference etc. So maybe this was some sort of slight? Or maybe it just betrays wishful thinking by Obama's people, they'd rather deal with socialists whether in or out of power than centrists actually running the government.

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at March 23, 2009 05:51 AM (Sw2y0)

7 Is the pressure of having finally attained his desired position and having to deal with the actual day-to-day grind and be held accountable getting to him? I know he's not stupid...but, I am starting to think he's becoming unstable...

Posted by: Minorcan Maven at March 23, 2009 05:51 AM (RG/ul)

8 not than anyone cares. not that i'm alone, but after voting for Obama in the primaries I went neutral on him the more I saw. I didn't have enough faith in him to vote for him - much less someone - in the election. Now today, I'm not too far removed from a state of bitterly pessimistic, ultra gloomy, fearful resignation in regards to what's to come out of the current administration. What a bummer that America's savior looks to be a phony zero with a big, naive mouth writing checks that Jesus Christ couldn't cash if he had an umpteen trillion dollar, omnipotent bankroll. Grow up, Obama. The people who elected you -that you are sworn to serve- are losing their livelihoods. A generation of young adults (18-29) are coming up in a time when the only guarantee of a decent paying job is signing up to get maimed or worse in southwest asia. These kids have no reason to trust your leadership (or any of the BUMS in WASHINGTON DC), nor do their parents who may be losing their jobs or life savings (possibly both assuming they still have either), and meanwhile everyone else in the world is telling all of them that America is garbage, that Americans are garbage, and that we represent everything that is wrong with the world today. bummer man.
So, Chief, what will you do next? You already let Putin know that you're his bitch (for lack a better word). Iran (who we just fought in Iraq for give or take four years whether or not your willing to admit it) thinks your a complete sucker, France is now miffed again, and (as if all that wasn't enough for 2 gxdd@mn months) you still made time to sign away an uncountable sum of garbage, Keynesian, monopoly "money" to the most conspicuous, self gratifying, and remorseless CRIMINALS in America since whoever those guys were who killed all the Indians.
I apologize to anyone who may have actually read this rant. I meant to be a little better with the brevity. But I risked my life for this country more times than I'd care to remember on account of the last administration's crimes against logic/humanity, and I thought it couldn't ever get worse. Now I'm starting to wonder if I thought to soon because all this stuff coming out of the district gets more ridiculous every day. I hope not, but Gxd help me! Wait ... maybe ... Is this really happening? Could it be, now, that I actually MISS the good ol' days when a daringly simple, Yale educated man child from Texas ran things?
Am I right to have no faith whatsoever in our political process, in the leaders we elected, in the type of person that gets nominated in the first place? Have you ever really felt good about voting for any of these people? Can you, right now, be irrefutably certain that you've ever once seen anything in them that resembles an actual person?

Posted by: i know calico's spelled with one L at March 23, 2009 06:36 AM (S5GpL)

9 Sarkozy seemed more positive to McCain though keeping mostly out of the election contest, non interference etc. So maybe this was some sort of slight? Or maybe it just betrays wishful thinking by Obama's people, they'd rather deal with socialists whether in or out of power than centrists actually running the government.


And yet he sends a big, wet kiss to Iran that blew up in his face. I'm going with Owens', they think Chirac is still president because no other administration would be so stupid and behave so reckless and dangerously.

Posted by: Peach at March 23, 2009 06:51 AM (i0vQX)

10 Sarkozy seemed more positive to McCain though keeping mostly out of the election contest, non interference etc. So maybe this was some sort of slight? Or maybe it just betrays wishful thinking by Obama's people, they'd rather deal with socialists whether in or out of power than centrists actually running the government.


And yet he sends a big, wet kiss to Iran that blew up in his face. I'm going with Owens', they think Chirac is still president because no other administration would be so stupid and behave so reckless and dangerously.

Posted by: peach at March 23, 2009 06:52 AM (i0vQX)

11 The "popculture" President should have remembered Sarkozy's wife-after all she is hot and fits the new template of the fourth estate.Also.does Mrs.Pantsuit have meetings with the President to go over who are heads of states?I also miss our 43 President,as the 44 President each day takes our Nation deeper into hell.

Posted by: mike191 at March 23, 2009 06:58 AM (a1OMX)

12 I really hope this is a hoax. Either on Le Figaro, or by Le Figaro. Otherwise, we're in much more trouble that we thought.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at March 23, 2009 11:51 AM (kKccv)

13 I really hope this is a hoax. Either on Le Figaro, or by Le Figaro. Otherwise, we're in much more trouble that we thought. How could he forget that the met Sarkozy last summer? Or intentionally insult him like that? Jeez.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at March 23, 2009 11:54 AM (kKccv)

14 Oops. I must have hit post before I was finshed typing. Sorry. Won't happen again.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at March 23, 2009 11:55 AM (kKccv)

15 Me thinks that the letter to Chirac probably wasn't a faux pas. Obama knows very well who the president of France is.

As for the wet kiss that he blew to Iran, now THAT was a smart move. He baited the Iranian regime and they took it hook, line and sinker. Now, anyone who was in doubt about the mindset of the Iranian leaders....never mind, those people don't count anyway. The thing is, Obama tricked them into showing their hand to the world. Brilliant move.

While I don't agree with everything that he has done and will do, I surely am thankful that Obama is our president, as are a significant majority of Americans.

He's the right man in the right time to help lead our nation towards a more socialized form of democracy........not to be confused with the true definition of pure socialism, Unfortunately, many conservatives don't understand the difference. Fortunately, more will understand in the coming years as we work our way out of the quagmire left to us by under regulated capitalism.

Don't worry, capitalism and free markets aren't dead nor are they going to be. Obama is doing everything that he can possibly do to save capitalism from itself. Lord knows, it has about destroyed itself! We'll soon be seeing some common sense regulations reinstated that breathe new life into capitalism and usher in much needed social reforms for all Americans.

Viva la France et viva Aux Etats Unis!!

Have a nice day everyone..........

Dude

Posted by: Dude at March 23, 2009 04:02 PM (byA+E)

16 But as a conciliatory gift Obama sent Sarkozy a basket of Class American Wines. Including Ripple (Pagan Pink), Boone's Farm, Gallo Chianti and Mad Dog 2020.

Posted by: zhombre at March 23, 2009 04:03 PM (4VfWK)

17 Lets see. He has only been a community organizer before becoming president and has never been in charge of a company or business.

He went to Harvard, an institution that believes in quotas and passing along minorities without the same standard that is used for the majority of the students.

In the short time in office, he has proven to be totally incompetent.

If we make it through the next 4 years, it will be a miracle.

Posted by: David at March 23, 2009 05:26 PM (QrDu9)

18 Did anyone bother to read the retraction made by the author of the original link?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-upsets-sarkozy-with-letter-to.html

Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2009 05:33 PM (3GzXA)

19 Jim,

If they do read it, it won't make any difference.

Dude

Posted by: Dude at March 23, 2009 07:12 PM (byA+E)

20 He baited the Iranian regime and they took it hook, line and sinker. Now, anyone who was in doubt about the mindset of the Iranian leaders....never mind, those people don't count anyway. The thing is, Obama tricked them into showing their hand to the world.

What mindset is that? And who was in doubt about it?

Posted by: Pablo at March 24, 2009 11:02 AM (yTndK)

21 it doesn't matter that it was a response rather than an original message Obama sent out. the head of a government has no business treating with a private citizen of another country which is exactly what chirac is. the appropriate reply would have been "thank you for your concern, best wishes". there have been so many diplomatic screw ups you have to wonder if someone in state or the protocol office is sabotaging the big o or did he pull a travelgate and oust all the career civil servants that keep the gears greased.

Posted by: RC at March 24, 2009 12:02 PM (SVw77)

22 I'll send you the DVDs

Posted by: Neo at March 24, 2009 01:15 PM (Yozw9)

23 Dude said "quagmire left to us by under regulated capitalism"

Dude, you do know the prime mover of this credit crises was a government sponsored entity called Fannie Mae, don't you?

Posted by: Rick at March 24, 2009 01:47 PM (FWmwx)

24 eyufwkjf madthumbs ebony fowflwflnw literotica website

Posted by: adkerson at March 24, 2009 04:10 PM (+5V42)

25 Pablo, you'd be surprised to learn how many people throughout the world are ignorant about the Iranian government. When Obama made a gesture to open dialogue with them, he scored a coup.

Rick, yes, I'm well aware of Fannie's role in our current mess. It's a shame that they and all of the other financial institutions that got us in this mess weren't more regulated. You'll see some changes now in regards to regulations, as it should be!

Posted by: Dude at March 24, 2009 05:35 PM (byA+E)

26 "the head of a government has no business treating with a private citizen of another country which is exactly what chirac is."



Never heard that one before. It seems especially appropriate for contact when the private citizen has a global non-profit foundation that helps get poor folks in Africa medicine and clean water.
I'm sure George Bush treated with any number of foreign private citizens who were fighting the AIDs crisis, and I have no doubt at all he did the right thing in making those contacts.

Should world leaders have shunned Mother Teresa? All private citizens. I think you're really reaching here.

Posted by: Jim at March 24, 2009 05:51 PM (3GzXA)

27 Dude, my point is you should not lay this credit crises at the feet of capitalism, because if it was not for the government sponsored entity Fanny Mae we would not be in this mess.

Posted by: Rick at March 25, 2009 07:24 AM (FWmwx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 20, 2009

Raleigh, NC Tax Day Tea Party

I guess late is better than never, so here's notice that there will be a tea party protest at the State Capitol in Raleigh, NC on Saturday, March 21.

Raleigh will also be one of the sites for a nationwide tea party on April 15.

You can find out more about both events at RaleighTeaParty.com

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:40 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Cradle and All

If you thought that American media outlets are little more than extensions of JounoList and the White House Press Office... well, you might be on to something.

Unlike the eight years that ended January 20th, the sharpest critiques of our failing and flailing government are now coming from those outside of America, as foreign newspapers do the job Americans won't do:

Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.

As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U.S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?

Probably not, if only because there are good reasons for optimism. The U.S. economy has pulled out of self-destructive political spirals in the past, spurred on by its business class and corporate leaders, the profit-making and market-creating people who rose above the political turmoil to once again lift the world out of financial crisis. It’s happened many times before, except for once, when it took 20 years to rise out of the Great Depression.

Past success, however, is no guarantee of future recovery, especially now when there are daily disasters and new indicators of political breakdown. All developments are not disasters in themselves. The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues , but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U.S. law on display for what they are: ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.

One test of whether we are witnessing the end of America is how many more times Americans put up with congressional show trials of individual business people and their employees, slandering and vilifying them for their actions and motives. And for how long will they tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance? If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism.

Our incompetent Congress and President are so lacking in situational awareness that they can't see that nearly every move they've made has compounded the problems facing our country. Every massive spending bill passed, every angry attempt at placing the blame on others, every pathetic foreign policy rookie mistake and unforced diplomatic error, every abortive attempt to impose massive new government controls over American life, is pushing us closer towards a point where we have no confidence in our nation's supposed "leadership." Closer to a failed state than we could ever imagine.

A member of our Senate last week had the audacity to proclaim that businessmen should resign or commit suicide for accepting money they were owed under contract.

Perhaps some people should eat a bullet, or swallow a handful of pills with a bourbon chaser, or at least resign as a result of the horrific decisions they've made that have threatened and wrecked not just individual lives, but entire economies.

But there is no honor among thieves, and the thieves in our Congress and White House lack the integrity to do the honorable thing. They won't admit their incompetence and resign. They sure as Hell won't voluntarily die to assuage some foreign (to them) sense of honor.

I still hold out hope that we'll find a way to pull out of our current economic collapse, but the more Congress grandstands in order to ignore real problems, and the more our President bogs himself down in constant gaffes, petty dalliances, and dreams of social engineering the America of his dreams, the less likely it seems that will happen.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:00 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 19, 2009

What Might Have Bean

"Administration Presses Students into Farm Labor" --New York Times

"President's Sweatshop Agriculture" -- Mother Jones

"Executive Branch Breaches International Child Labor Laws" --Amnesty International

"First Lady Plans Subsistence Farming on White House Grounds To Survive Crashing Economy" Newsweek

"COUP IMMINENT: Concentration Camps Under Construction" --Raw Story

"President Avoids Getting His Hands Dirty" -- Think Progress

At least, that is how this story would have been told if Bush was still in office.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:48 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Old School

Politician buys unremarkable stock.

Unremarkable stock skyrockets in price months later.

Politician unloads his stock the very next day, walks away with a handsome profit.

I'm soure there was nothing untoward going on, at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 "I'm sore there was nothing untoward going on, at all."

Well, I'm sore because I suspect there was!

Posted by: Clint at March 19, 2009 01:37 PM (2Ag2A)

2 Some guys are just lucky. No need to be a spoil sport over it. He got a big fat cash advance on a children's book too shortly before becoming POTUS. You read too much into the sequence of events. It's all quite random, you know. Pure coincidence.

Posted by: zhombre at March 19, 2009 04:40 PM (RcCV/)

3 I assume this will be one of those things that not only will the media ignore (duh), but the attention deficit right-o-sphere as well.

Posted by: ECM at March 19, 2009 04:40 PM (q3V+C)

4 Some folks are lucky, Other folks are smart. The rest are crooks.
IMO this poseur fits the last example.

Posted by: 1sttofight at March 19, 2009 07:33 PM (lI+bJ)

5 Obama actually made money on the stock market at some point in his life? Good grief, why are we letting this dunce run the country?! Let's bring that other guy back, he couldn't profit on an investment if his life depended on it.

Posted by: trizzlor at March 19, 2009 07:50 PM (kY2+0)

6 Wow, a 2 year old New York Times story about 4 year old investments, with a bottom line $13k loss by Obama btw, becomes news for the "everything Barry does is an outrage" crowd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?pagewanted=print


Next thing you know someone will be upset that AIG used stimulus money to pay off their creditors. Oh wait...

Keep 'em coming, this is more fun than the Daily Show.

Posted by: Jim at March 19, 2009 08:42 PM (GStBc)

7 HD Video Converter currently is the best easy to use and minimum quality loss converter in converting high definition video files.

Posted by: HD Video Converter at July 13, 2009 03:22 AM (e9Km5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 17, 2009

The Best President Money Can Buy

My latest at Pajamas Media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:09 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hey Grassley: You First

Fox News reports the following idiotic outburst by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested on Monday that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves.

The Republican lawmaker's harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide.

"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.

"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

I've got an idea for you, Chuck.

As you took $26,250 from AIG in 2007-2008 alone, why don't you lead by example?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:40 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 16, 2009

DoD to Scrap Valuable Once-Fired Brass at an 80% Loss During Recession So Obama Can Screw Gun Owners; Jobs Are Lost As A Direct Result

One of the most expensive components of a modern rifle or pistol cartridge is the brass casing. It is also the part of the cartridge that is the most "green," in that brass cases can be reused multiple times.

The Obama Administration, however, so despises gun owners that it has forced the Department of Defense to start chopping into scrap once-fired rifle brass that it formerly sold in bulk to to ammunition reloading companies at a premium.

Read all the details at The Shootist, which has far more.

In enacting this directive, the Obama Administration:

• wastes a tremendous amount of government money; once-fired brass can be sold for 80-percent more than bulk brass scrap
• directly caused the firing of workers at ammunition factories who cannot get the brass cases they relied upon as a key material
• by purposefully undermined the reloaded ammunition market, forces federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to buy top-of-the-line ammunition for training qualification, meaning either departments will have to get by with less training for their officers, or citizens will have to pay even more in taxes

This attempt to undermine the ammunition market is hardly surprising considering the prohibitionist mindset of a man so dishonest he was part of the Joyce Foundation attempt to pervert legal scholarship in order to undermine the Constitution.

His Arrogance probably thinks that putting more Americans out of work is worthwhile if he can get what he wants, and considering his across-the-board walk-backs on combatting terrorism, it isn't all that surprising that he's willing to put already tight law enforcement training budgets in peril as well.

Barack Obama's economic incompetence is wrecking the economy, and his rabidly anti-gun ideology is threatening our security.

Why am I not surprised.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:32 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us

Jane Hamsher & Friends suddenly discovered that blindly electing a bunch of corrupt big government tax-and-spend liberals who owe their allegiances to their biggest donors is a bad thing.

Who knew?

Reading the comment thread there, it doesn't seem any of those engaging in the wailing and gnashing of teeth has the self-awareness to recognize that:

• this outcome was entirely predictable result of willingly turning a blind-eye to the fact that Democratic Party owes more to corporate donors than the Republicans, and have for quite some time


• the liberal practice of trying to spend wads of other people's money doesn't just reach into the pockets of the opposition


• when you elect a President based on rhetoric instead of competence, you get predictably dismal results


• it's better not to yell "who stole our country?" when you're still wearing your mask and waving your cap gun

Hamsher now wants a Congressional inquisition to skewer several Obama administration officials (starting with Geithner and Summers), to see if they are "too closely aligned " with Wall Street.

She's too ideologically blind, of course, to see that it was the very Congress and President she championed that are at the root of the problem.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:47 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 14, 2009

W W C N D?

My latest is up at Pajamas Media.

(link fixed)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:33 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 13, 2009

The Circus Continues

The headline at the Washington Post says it all:

Fourth Nominee Withdraws From Treasury's Roster.

Bush was the fighter pilot, but Obama needs only one more to become an "ace."

H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of the New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, has withdrawn his name from consideration for deputy Treasury secretary, becoming the fourth pick for a prominent Treasury Department post to pull out in recent weeks.

A prominent attorney who has advised many of the top Wall Street firms, Cohen dropped out after the White House found an issue during his vetting process, two sources familiar with the matter said. The sources declined to identify the reason. Cohen did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Though the Treasury is filling its lower-level positions, the thin ranks on the senior levels are taking a toll on the department's ability to deal with a financial crisis that continues to deepen in scope and complexity, government and industry officials say.

At this point, I think our young President's vetting team should resign and consider a career in porn.

After all, they've already seen more messy withdrawals than Jenna Jameson.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:00 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 12, 2009

The Serial Liars of the Brady Campaign

I saw via Reason that the ever opportunistic Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence jumped at the chance to once again use a tragedy for political gain. The Brady Campaign, for those of you unfamiliar with it, is the Westboro Baptist Church of the gun confiscation movement.

Never missing a chance to fabricate, obfuscate, or twist the truth, they begin with a whopper in their opening paragraph (my bold below):

Alabama killer Michael McLendon fired more than 200 rounds from his military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. He lived in a state that has pathetically weak guns laws: In the Brady Campaign’s recent state scorecards, Alabama earned a score of 15 out of 100. Assault weapons were banned under federal law until four years ago.

This statement is a monsterous lie.

The 1994 Assault Weapon ban that our über-intelligent Vice President liked to take the credit for authoring banned by name less than two dozen firearms, and attempted to ban others by making rifles or pistols with detachable magazines and two or more cosmetic features—pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs and other features that had no effect on accuracy or rate fire—illegal.

What effect did this law have on the legal sale or possession of these "evil" weapons the Brady Campaign and so many gullible Congressmen and Senators rushed into law?

It increased the popularity of these firearms. Yes, you read that correctly.

Legal sales of these kinds of firearms grew during the so-called ban. Manufacturers of some rifles, for example, removed flash hiders and bayonet lugs, and put these same firearms into the hands of eager customers the very day the "ban" took effect, and every day of the ten years afterward until it expired. Manufacturers of banned pistols made similar modifications, and had similar results. It might also be noted that an entire new class of concealable handguns was the direct but hilariously unintended consequence of this law, but that is a tale for another time.

There firearms were constantly and quite legally available during the time this impotent law was in effect. Manufacturers specializing in these kinds of firearms actually expanded during this time period, and competitions dedicating to shooting them greatly increased. Brady's claim that assault weapons were banned until the law expired four years ago is patently absurd.

McLendon shot complete strangers, women, children, dogs and his own mother before taking his own life. He had an SKS assault rifle, a Bushmaster assault rifle and a 38 caliber handgun.

Neither an SKS nor a Bushmaster is an assault rifle, but that has never kept Westboro Gun Banners Brady from making the claim over and over again. An assault weapon, by proper military definition, must be selective-fire, fitted with a selector that enables the shooter to fire either single shots or a burst for each trigger pull. None of the guns in the assault weapons ban was actually an assault weapon, which I guess is appropriate, as they weren't actually banned, either.

Because of thoroughly dishonest groups like Brady and unethical men like Helmke, the term "assault weapon" has evolved into a political term that can be applied to almost any semi-automatic firearm, even though using it thus is factually incorrect.

Alabama has the fifth-highest gun death rate in America, including the third-highest rate of gun homicide.

"This man needed the firepower of assault weapons to execute his plan of mass carnage. Alabama, and our nation, must take action to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign.

The "firepower" of these weapons— or rather, the lack of it—may be directly responsible for the fact that two or more law enforcement officers who confront the gunman are alive today.

The Bushmaster rifle the murderer carried fires an intermediate caliber .223 Remington cartridge with a lightweight, high-velocity bullet generally considered to small and weak to use on deer-sized targets, and is instead typically used on much smaller game. The officers that he shot were protected in large part because the lightweight bullets fired were easily slowed, stopped, or deflected by their police cars, resulting in officers that were mildly wounded instead of being more seriously wounded or killed. If the shooter had used any one of many popular big game hunting cartridges...

The simple fact of the matter is that this deranged and vengeful man could have carried out his murderous assault with the shotgun he also had in his vehicle (the one that Brady curiously forgot to mention) and could have caused as much damage and loss of life as he did, or worse.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:32 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 10, 2009

Freeman Goes Down

At this pace, Obama's going to be reduced to filling Administration jobs in front of Home Depot.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:37 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.2817 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2589 seconds, 242 records returned.
Page size 237 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.