Archive for April 2007

Militia Raid

Can anyone explain how you jive this:

“We classify these groups as violent and anti-government,” said Jim Cavanaugh, who supervises the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operations in portions of the South. “They stockpile things and live off a fear, a paranoia they’re going to need weapons and explosives because some event is going to happen when they will need them.”

With this?

ARTICLE II: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Bueller?  Bueller?

Cartoonish Ideas

Cynthia Tucker tries to convince me that she isn’t an idiot. Guess how that turned out?

But it’s more than a little disconcerting to hear that so many adults also believe in superheroes. They must. Why else would they insist that the best way to prevent carnage of the sort that occurred last week at Virginia Tech is to put guns into every available hand? They’re indulging their childhood fantasies, remembering the movies in which the Caped Crusader or John Wayne instantly dispatched the bad guy.

Yeah, because we are all so familiar with how Superman runs into a phone booth, grabs a Glock, and goes and busts a cap in Lex Luthor’s ass. Has she actually ever read a comic book? Can anyone that reads this name a superhero besides The Punisher who even uses guns (setting aside that Francis isn’t even a superhero)?

In real life, police officers —- trained to fire in the heat of battle —- hit their intended targets only about 40 percent of the time, according to University of South Carolina criminologist Geoffrey Alpert, an expert in police shootings.

So… everyone needs at least three bullets?

“You can train all day in simulated situations … and you think you can hit a target. But it comes right down to it and someone is pointing a gun at you, and it just doesn’t happen,” he said.

Funny, Cho didn’t seem to have that problem. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that he actually could hit people with the firearms that he had.

And we all know about war-time “friendly fire” tragedies, when well-trained soldiers accidentally kill their own. The death of former professional football player Pat Tillman, killed in Afghanistan by members of his own unit, highlighted the unfortunate reality of chaos in battle.

What is the scene that she imagines? “My god, our son was killed by another student who was trying to shoot the psychopath who was roaming the halls murdering people! If only the murdering psychopath had shot him, this wouldn’t be a tragedy. Friendly fire is wrong!

Yet, ultraconservative commentators have been in high dudgeon for days, suggesting that students with guns could have guaranteed a Hollywood ending in which an unflappable sharp-shooter would have felled Cho Seung-Hui with a quick head shot. Michelle Malkin was among those who denounced a Virginia law that excludes college campuses from areas where concealed weapons are permitted.

I’m pretty sure that if a bunch of really bad shots had needed to hit him fifty, maybe a hundred or a couple of hundred times in the gut and the arms and legs before they stopped him… most of the “ultraconservative commenters” would have been hunkey-dorey with that.

“What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon? … It darned well isn’t too early for me to raise questions about how the unrepentant anti-gun lobbying of college officials may have put students at risk.”

That utterly irrational argument comes straight from the National Rifle Association, which long ago abandoned any pretense of representing the reasonable aims of hunters and sports shooters. The gun lobby now peddles an insane policy of making firearms as ubiquitous as cellphones.

It might help if you mention exactly what is irrational about it, rather than just spouting off some sort of lame ass declaration that it just is. And no one is going to try to lock you into a two-year committment to a firearm.

The NRA has supported measures that would prevent employers from banning firearms in vehicles in workplace parking lots. Despite police opposition, it has pushed policies that would allow motorists to tuck firearms under the seat of the car. It has lobbied against closing the gun show loophole, which allows private gun sales without a background check. No responsible gun owner should accept the NRA’s preposterous positions.

The police oppose giving police officers tickets for getting caught by red light cameras in Dallas, too. Does that make them right? And you act like these are bad things. What is wrong with tucking a firearm under the seat of a car? What it is going to do, jump out and shout THAT BE FIVE-FIFTY-NINE?!?

My father certainly would not have. An avid hunter and veteran of combat in Korea, my father owned shotguns, rifles and a handgun. (He hid the handgun from his four children so well we never came across it, though we enjoyed poking around where we didn’t belong.) Yet, he was fanatical about gun safety.

Obviously, your father was a psychotic rampage waiting to happen, and men with machine guns and ski masks should have broken your door down at 3am so that they could confiscate these weapons.

When I moved to Atlanta just out of college, I told him I was going to buy a handgun. He strongly disapproved, believing I’d be more likely to get injured with my own gun than fend off an attacker with it. “You don’t need a gun,” he said. “You need to stay out of dangerous places.” I took his advice.

OK, I take that back. Your father was brilliant.

His concerns are borne out by the FBI’s statistics about gun crimes. In 2005, 8,890 people were murdered with firearms. Guns were also used in 142,471 cases of robbery and 151,118 cases of aggravated assault. By contrast, there were only 143 cases of justifiable homicide by civilians using a firearm.

Either that, or he was concerned that you are an idiot who couldn’t be trusted with a firearm. I know idiots that can’t be trusted with firearms. I tell them the same thing.

If dozens of Virginia Tech students had been armed, “Lord knows what a disaster we would have had,” Alpert said. “I think it’s inappropriate to have firearms in a classroom …

“There’s been a shooting at Virginia Tech! Dozens of people have been killed!”

“Oh no… do they let students who have passed an extensive federal background check, taken a comprehensive class on the legalities of deadly force and alternative dispute resolution and qualified as proficient with a handgun roam the campus armed?”


GREAT! Another disaster averted!”

“If they had had a Jack Bauer, maybe so. But the world isn’t composed of Jack Bauers,” he noted.

So all those armchair heroes —- all those firearm fanatics who claim everything would be different if they’d been in one of those classrooms with a gun —- should don their red capes and take a leap.

They don’t need to be superheros. Regular, garden variety heros will do just fine, thank you.

(Via Q&O, who handle their own righteous fisking quite well)

Crow calls for limit on loo paper

Could you find a worse thing to say?

You managed to tell people

  • that poop comes out of your b-hole, reminding them that it is not just for decoration
  • You are either so skilled at manipulating your chocolate factory that you can handle your paperwork with no more than three sheets, or that you are so nasty that you don’t care if the job is done after three sheets
  • You apparently think people who have a messy movement should walk around filthy or be sent to jail.
  • You like to wipe your face and nose on your sleeve, just like my retarded cousin. Except you want to tear yours off and have a new one put on each time.

I think that we can now safely say that Cheryl Crow is the etiquette equal of my retarded cousin.


A lot of people died at Virginia Tech because One person had the will to act on his whims.

A lot of people died at Virginia Tech who might not have if they had the will to act against him.

I’ve seen people asking the same question that was asked at Columbine, the question that is asked at every one of these mass shootings: Where were the police? Why didn’t they save them? If you are going to remember one thing, remember that the police will not save you. That is not the business that the police are in.

The police don’t stop crimes. They attempt to capture the criminal after the crime is committed. The police don’t rush to a convenience store while it is being robbed to stop the crime. They rush there because it gives them the best chance of capturing the criminal. Firefighters take more risks than the police. They are in the business of saving people. The police are not.

There is a common theme in modern police training: “Everyone goes home.” What that really means is “Every one of us goes home.” Every one of them, not you. You can die in a psychotic massacre, but he is going home. You either have to be able to fend for yourself or be a victim.

There is a curious thing about human nature. Few things are accomplished because a lot of people decide to do something. Almost everything that happens starts out with one person taking initiative, and hordes following them. There were acts of heroism on the part of the victims in this crime. Professor Librescu took initiative. When he did, the students took action and fled out the windows. Lives were saved.

Derek O’Dell took initiative. When he went to go barricade the door, other students jumped in and helped him. If Derek had not started the action, no one would have moved. Someone has to make the first move. The shooter was in control at that point. Derek took control from him. Someone has to be the One.

A lot of people want to make this about guns. Gun control idiots want to make the illegal pistols that the shooter had even more illegal, because they think murderers are more scared of gun laws than murder laws. Gun rights activists want to blame the school for not letting CHL holders carry on campus. The reality is that we don’t know. Do I think it would be a good thing to let CHL holders carry on campus in the future? Absolutely. Am I willing to say that it would have made a difference here? No.

I have a story that I tell people. I was called for jury duty once. Before the attorneys began asking questions in voir dire, the judge asked some questions on his own. He started out with a tirade against the FIJA and the concept of jury nullification. He bellowed, “if there is anyone who thinks that they can ignore my instructions and rule some other way, stand up right now!” Well, I do think that. If he gave me an instruction that I knew was absolutely wrong, like that truth was not a defense to libel, I would ignore that wrong instruction. If he gave me an instruction that was immoral, like that I had to say that someone was guilty of theft if he forgot to return a pen he borrowed, I would ignore that immoral instruction.

I could see other guys looking around. There was a lot of indecision. I stood up. As soon as I did, three more guys stood up. When it was all over, one of them came over to me. He was a long haired hippie type, and he sounded just like Willie Nelson. He shook my hand and said, “thank you man. That judge, what he was saying, man, I knew he was wrong, but I couldn’t be the first one to stand up. I’m glad you did that.”

And that is human nature. We don’t want to be the One to make a decision. It is easier to let someone else do it. This is something that you need to think about as a person and decide where you stand. Will you be the One? When there is something going on that you know is wrong, will you stand up? When there is death and mayhem around you, will you be the one that snaps out of the shock and acts? In a situation like Virginia Tech, you are dead either way. Will you save others at that price?

You need to decide today. If you wait until it happens, the decision will take too long. You have to adopt this state of mind and carry it with you all the time. You are the One. When things go wrong, you will be the One to start the ball rolling. Have faith in your fellow man. He will follow you if you are right and are willing to lead him. You will be the One to make the decisions in your life. When someone attempts to make your decisions for you, whether he is a homicidal maniac or a lowly beaurecrat, you will be the One to oppose him and take that decision back.

It isn’t hard to do. It is just hard to decide to do. It is scary. You are taking risks. But they are risks that someone has to take.

Down the Memory Hole

My comments to this article:

The Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994 and allowed to sunset in 2004. I am unclear on how an event in 1999 lead to a law that was passed in 1994.

AK-47s and Uzis cannot be bought “over the counter.” Machine guns are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and effectively banned nationwide.

Federal regulations require a background check through NICS, a national database maintained by the FBI, for every firearms purchase through a dealer. In addition, federal law makes it a crime to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person or accept one if you are prohibited. In fact, it is illegal to even attempt to acquire one if you are prohibited, which is quite a bit more than “nothing”. It is illegal to sell a firearm to a minor, gunshow or not.

There is no law requiring one to lock up guns in Illinois. This is a proposed law, not an enacted law.

If you are going to opine on US law, please research it first and avoid irresponsible errors.

The Daily Mail has elected not to approve this comment at this time.

The Problem

So this guy has his solution. You know, this puts me in a moral dilemma. Right now, it is theoretical, because he doesn’t have the ability to implement his solution (and probably doesn’t have the spine either.) But if he did, do I have a duty to eliminate him first? This guy is the walking, talking, “if you could have killed Hitler in 1932, should you?” question.

And I’m officially done with the “black people can’t be racist” argument.

Red Lights

As SayUncle says, just like you and me, only better.