Politics

facepalm

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

In remarks at the Denver Police Academy in Denver, Colo., [President Barack Obama] said that, after campaigning in rural Iowa, Michelle Obama told him, “You know, if I was living out on a farm in Iowa, I’d probably want a gun, too. When somebody just drives up into your driveway and you’re not home, you don’t know who these people are, you don’t know how long it’s going to take for the sheriffs to respond, I can see what you’d want some guns for protection.”

Source (h/t Unc)

I don’t get it.

Are the Obama’s being well… not racist but classist? stereotyping “Iowa Rednecks” or Iowa as a scary place to live? elitist attitude? or is this simple ignorance? Are they saying guns are fine in rural areas, but not in cities? for rednecks but not cityfolk? or… what?  I’m not sure what to make of the implications of their comments. But let’s just set that side and look at the plain words.

When someone drives up to your home…

You don’t know who these people are…

You don’t know how long it’s going to take for someone else to come and save you (because apparently your safety is someone else’s responsibility)…

well, in that case, they can see why people might want guns.

OK.

Well… all the people around you right now. Maybe not those immediately around you there at home or even the office (but perhaps even at the office, because I’m sure you don’t know everyone in your company or your building), but look at all those around you in the greater area. Heck, next time you go out to lunch or dinner, next time you’re out shopping, next time you’re at the gas station… do you know all those people? Do you know who they are?

Was there ever a time when some strange person drove into your driveway? Or came and knocked on your door?

Do you know how long it takes for your local law enforcement to arrive? You probably don’t. I’m not sure where this guy got his stats from, but you can see the average for these large cities runs about 10 minutes. That’s about par with my experience in Austin. Even if you don’t know the precise time, consider simple realities of time and space. There isn’t a cop standing right next to you right now, so that means if you want one, one has to travel to you. First, you have to have a way to communicate that you need one: so you or someone needs to dial 911, wait on hold, talk to an operator, explain what you need, they patch things through, depending how your 911 center is organized they might dispatch from there or the operator might have to relay your information to a dispatcher who then can send out the police… how many minutes did all this take before a cop was even starting to travel your way? Now they have to fight through traffic to get to you. Yeah sure they can turn on their lights, but I’m sure you’ve seen it — police car, fire truck, ambulance… lights and siren flashing, and it still takes them a while to get through an intersection because cars can’t or won’t get out of the way. All the while… the clock is ticking…. and your attacker continues their attack.

So… Mr. & Mrs. Obama….

What makes it about Iowa that can have guns (in your mind), but someone living in not-Iowa couldn’t? Don’t these things happen in The Big City too? Aren’t there strange people, willing to commit horrible acts, in cities too? Aren’t police in cities subject to the same rules of time and space and that it takes time to respond? I mean, not all of us are surrounded by Secret Service agents.

So please, explain to me the thinking behind your statement.

Maya Angelou appreciates her guns

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Maya Angelou appreciates owning (and using) her guns:

“I do like to have guns around,” she told Time’s Belinda Luscombe when asked if she shared her mother’s fondness for firearms. “I don’t like to carry them. But I like — if somebody is going to come into my house and I have not put out the welcome mat, I want to stop them.”

Apparently she’s used her guns too:

“Have you ever fired a weapon?” the interviewer asked.

“Of course!” Ms. Angelou affirmed. “I was in my house in North Carolina. It was fall. I heard someone walking on the leaves. And somebody actually turned the knob. So I said, “Stand four feet back because I’m going to shoot now!” Boom! Boom! The police came by and said, ‘Ms. Angelou, the shots came from inside the house.’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t know how that happened.’”

I’m not going to comment on Ms. Angelou’s tactics or legal proceedings, nor the misconceptions about home invasion realities vs. where crime (attacks) typically happen.

No… just let it sink in that Maya Angelou understands that guns have a place in the lives of private citizens. She understands that guns can be tools used for protection (she apparently inherited the love of guns from her mother, who the Time interviewer referred to as ‘her protector’). She obviously considers herself a good, law-abiding, upstanding citizen, and appreciates that she was able to have — and use — a gun for her personal protection.

I don’t know when her home-defense incident occurred, but relative to that date consider…

…it could have prevented I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings from ever existing.

…it could have prevented Ms. Angelou from speaking at President Clinton’s inauguration.

…it could have denied the world of a civil rights leader.

…she likely would not have received the Presidental Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama in 2011.

…and the world would have lost one of its great writers, speakers, and influencers.

If Maya Angelou understands this, why don’t you?

Acevedo supports CHL?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Texas CHL process is what responsible gun ownership is about. Proud of our process & the overall excellence of our CHL holders.

@ArtAcevedo

Really? Color me a little surprised.

Well, now Austin’s police chief is on record, and I do thank him for his words. But, it seems contrary to prior words.

He apparently doesn’t think college students are responsible enough.

“When you start talking about 21 year-olds and college students, responsibility is the last thing on their minds,” Acevedo said. “With a lot of pressure and high campus suicide rates, the last thing we want to include in that environment, like a bar, is guns.”

(full story)

So let me get this straight. A 21-year-old Texas resident gets a Texas CHL. To have that CHL apparently demonstrates the person is a responsible gun owner — a person of excellence, according to Chief Acevedo.

But if that 21-year-old is a college student, if they cross over into the magical fairyland bubble of the college campus… suddenly somehow responsibility degrades to becoming the last thing on their mind.

Apparently I’m failing to understand Mr. Acevedo’s logic.

 

on capacity

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

One thing I love about Tom Givens is his incredible depth of knowledge. His expertise in matters of personal safety and firearms is unparalleled. Because of this, he’s able to get you thinking about things in different ways.

For example, in the recent Instructor Certification course I took with him, Tom discussed “high-capacity” magazines in guns.

When people hear “high-capacity magazines” (or more commonly, “high-capacity assault clips” *sigh*), they think about how it gives you the ability to shoot more. According to Tom, that’s not what they are for. And when you think about it, that really isn’t what they provide. They don’t really enable you to “shoot more” because there are many other ways to accomplish “shoot more”.

But what capacity allows you to do that really nothing else allows?

To reload less.

Practical

Let’s look at the practical side of it. Credit to Tom Givens for presenting this logic.

A “split” is the time between shots. So if someone is shooting 0.20 second splits, that means there was 0.20 seconds of time between the end of the first shot and the beginning of the second. So you can think of it that if someone shoots 0.20 second splits, they are capable of firing 2 shots in 0.20 seconds, if you will.

I’m going to simplify the math here, because it makes discussion easier. But the point still gets across.

If someone then has 5 rounds, which is typical of many revolvers, that means the shooter could empty the revolver in 1 second.

That’s not very long, is it?

10 rounds? 2 seconds.

15 rounds? 3 seconds.

According to data from self-defense gunfights (private citizens, FBI, DEA), the typical gunfight lasts 3 seconds.

So let that sink in.

If the fight is only going to last 3 seconds, after 5 rounds you’re out of the fight — but the fight is still going on. Of course, that’s if your fight is a typical one; would really suck if your fight was atypical and went longer.

If you’ve now lost use of a very important tool, do you think you have gained advantage or lost advantage? What are you going to do to make up that advantage? because I’m sure you don’t want to lose the fight (and possibly your life).

Oh sure, you could reload, but even the fastest reload takes time. And it doesn’t matter the technique, be it a speed reload or drawing a backup, it still eats precious time.

So if you don’t have to reload? All the better. It can keep you in the fight longer, which hopefully will be long enough to end the fight and you to prevail.

Of course, this is then argument against those small guns, those low-capcacity guns. Yes, sometimes we have to carry them. But if you have a choice, take the Glock 17 over the Kahr PM9.

Political

I wish I didn’t have to write about the political nature of this, but some people only view “high-capacity assault clips” as a way to inflict more death and violence upon the innocent children of the world.

If that were the case, why would police want guns that can hold lots of ammo?

Why would police have moved away from 6-shot revolvers to 17-shot Glocks?

Why do you think police would want more ammo?

Of course, because they might be caught in a prolonged gun battle. But also because having to reload less allows them to end attacks quickly.

Why would this be any different for private citizens?

Or for gun-banning politicians and their well-armed bodyguards…..

Here’s the rub. If you look at most mass shooting incidents, they are not 3-second affairs. The killer has many guns, and a lot of time. They are slow, methodical, often speak to their victims before shooting them. They have all the time in the world to reek their mayhem and destruction upon the world. Lowering capacity will not stop or dissuade them in any regard.

So why do it?

We don’t consider it rational in any other arena to undergo activities that have no demonstrable ability to achieve desired goals, so why is it considered acceptable to implement ineffective solutions in this arena? And if you tell me “if it saves just one life, then it’s worth it”, I can present to you now 60 students of Tom Givens’ that had their lives saved because they had their gun. So there’s 60 lives, and so by your logic it’s 60-times worth it to have guns and concealed carry.

The only thing restricting capacity does is harm innocent law-abiding citizens. Are these the people you wish to abridge? Well, some might argue that yes, that’s precisely who “gun control advocates” want to injure.

But I say this… if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander — and all of society. So, police should also be subject to the same restrictions. Our military should be subject to the same restrictions. Your bodyguards should be subject to the same restrictions. If you are unwilling to enact the restrictions for them, why is that? And why should this class of citizens be more privileged? If we don’t like the 1% having all the privilege, why are you giving up the power to them?

Why is it OK for them to be protected, but it’s not OK for me and my children to be protected by the same measure and standard? Why are we considered less, and why are you advocating for us to be treated as lessers?

Please… someone that wishes to enact such restrictions. Please, answer my questions and convince me of your stance. Convince me what you say is right, just, true, and factually and rationally the right choice. Please show me the data and convince me that capacity restrictions will achieve your desired goals of “won’t someone think of the children”. Please. I seek truth and am willing to change my mind if the right and logical facts are presented to me — it’s how I became a gun-owner in the first place, because until about 5 years ago I wasn’t. But that’s why I changed my mind in the first place – because I finally stopped and listened to reason, facts, and logic — not emotion, not misconceptions and ignorance.

And when you’re done trying to convince me… please look my children in the eye and tell them the same.

Mayor Leffingwell – known by the company you keep?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

[Austin’s] Mayor Lee Leffingwell was one of the first in the state to join the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.

Full story.

They say you are known by the company you keep.

Members of MAIG have a pretty good track record of corruption, committing crimes, being indicted, being arrested.

Mayor Leffingwell, what’s a reasonable person to think about you?

 

Same end, different means

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

…we can do better than this. We can do better to make sure that fewer parents have to endure the pain of losing a child to an act of violence.

– President Barack Obama

full transcript

I agree.

I don’t agree with the reasoning that disarming the citizenry is the way to achieve said safety.

And yes folks, that’s ultimately what he (and his ilk) are after. They tried to slice off a huge chunk, but since that won’t succeed instead they will slowly chip away at the stone. If you start to let the chips fall, eventually there won’t be a rock left and you’ll wonder what happened.

We teach and strongly advocate for things like women’s self-defense clinics where we teach women to fight back against rapists. Rape is an atrocious act of violence. I don’t care who you are or what you think, but the Truth is the vast majority of women can be overpowered by any man — even a teenage male. Are you advocating for my daughter to be a victim? It was not her choice to be weaker, to be smaller, and thus potential prey. If she is at a disadvantage through no fault and choice of her own, what do you suggest she do to overcome potential disparity? What can you honestly suggest she do that could prevent a 250# 25-year old male from raping, beating, and leaving her for dead? Yell “NO!”, blow a whistle, and palm-strike him to the nose? or as some legislators recently suggested, she just pee/poop her pants or tell the attacker she has a disease? I tell you what… come try that on me and see how far you get (pure training environment, just to demonstrate the reality of how much that technique fails).

Like all tools, we use tools to overcome disparity. Most of us aren’t strong enough to pound a nail or turn a screw without a tool. And a gun? That’s something that enables the weak to overcome the disparity against a strong attack. Palm strike or pepper spray or taser? Think about how close you have to be to the attacker to make those things work — too close. A gun? it’s designed to overcome distance. It’s designed to overcome disparity.

I don’t want to lose my children to an act of violence. I don’t want you to lose your children to an act of violence. I used to believe that there was never a reason to hit, that violence was never the answer. I’m glad I overcame those notions, because I left my bubble and learned that yes sometimes there are reasons to hit, and yes sometimes violence is the (only) answer. The idealist in me wishes it wasn’t so, but the realist in me knows it to be true and has finally accepted it. I don’t know anyone that would sit idly by while their children were beaten, raped, kidnapped, etc.. What would they do? They would fight. They would be willing to sacrifice their own lives for the life of their child. If you’re going to fight, if you’re going to be fighting for the life of you and your child, don’t you want ever advantage possible that would enable you to prevail?

We all want the same thing, but we vastly disagree with the road to achieve it.

American Politics

/ hsoi

Of the American political system, I’ve often said that Republicans want to legislate morality, and use our money to do it; Democrats want to legislate compasion, and use our money to do it; Libertarians want to leave you alone, and you get to keep your money.

Jack Donovan took a different approach, pointing out their contradictions:

The two mainstream groups in American politics are made absurd by obvious internal contradictions.

The “Republicans” position themselves as advocates of small-town values, yet defend the big businesses most responsible for eroding the small business, family farm lifestyles that make those values possible.

How can you save small town values with big businesses?

The “Democrats” are called liberals, and position themselves as champions of personal freedom, yet offer absolutely no solutions that don’t somehow involve increased government regulation or oversight.

How can you increase personal freedom with big government?

Read the rest, it’s short.

Unintended Consequences

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Austin just put a plastic bag ban in place.

Seattle has a bag ban. Some laud the “positive environmental impact”. Others lament the high increase in shoplifting and the massive losses it’s causing.

I’ve spoken with numerous people in Austin, and many are going to stop shopping in Austin, instead shopping in surrounding communities. The City of Austin adds a 2% sales tax on top of the state’s sales tax. It might be interesting to see what sales tax revenue looks like in a few months.

Tourism revenue will be interesting to watch as well.

SXSW starts now, the first major event to happen post-ban. I’ll be curious what those visitors to the city think. Oh sure, they are likely a demographic that will applaud such a move… but then mutter or complain under their breath, lest they look “unhip” to everyone.

I understand the good intentions behind this latest brick in the road, but like most “bans”, they never really achieve the goals the originators expect but instead tend to have a lot of unintended and undesirable side-effects.

I think you have it backwards

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Tom Diaz at the Washington Post asks:

Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security, but the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives?

and then he spends 2 pages railing about the need for gun control to save the lives of “won’t-someone-think-of-the-children”.

I’ll agree with him on one thing:

Our perception of the relative dangers of terrorism and gun violence is distorted. We don’t know it, and our leaders don’t bother to tell us.

And he’s right. Our perception of the relative dangers is vastly distorted, because when you have non-stop media coverage about a single event, it impresses strongly on your mind. But when you step back and look at the numbers, you find there haven’t been all that many people killed in mass shootings. Statistically speaking, more children die from accidental drownings and car accidents — but there’s no media outrage, no 24/7 coverage, and so yes perception is distorted.

So Mr. Diaz, are you saying “the media” is ‘our leader’? Because the mass media isn’t bothering to tell us either. They are taking no responsibility for providing a clear, logical, rational, and sound picture. Do they have to be so responsible? No, but then if you want such a proper picture, turn off the TV (and perhaps write for another newspaper).

I really think you mean ‘our leaders’ are our politicians.

They are not “our leaders”. They are our servants, only they forget it, never learned it, or because people keep referring to them as “our leaders” instead of the proper label of “our servants” they keep believing they are in charge of us and are supposed to tell us what to do and we’re supposed to blindly follow them.

Are they supposed to present us with a clear and proper picture? I’d say they have a greater responsibility to do so, and it seems Mr. Diaz thinks so as well. But I am constantly amazed at people that shocked at the corruption of politicians, then turn to the same corrupt politicians expecting them to help and have their best interests at heart.

What bothers me more, however, is I think Mr. Diaz has it backwards.

He is right that there’s something wrong with allowing the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to degrade in the name of “security”. What bothers me most about his article is he is calling for the 2nd to be just as or more degraded. All in the name of “leveling the playing field” of “equality”.

You know how you can also achieve this same end?

By upgrading (or rather, restoring) the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

I too think it’s horrible that we’re destroying our Constitution in the name of (false) security. But instead of calling for further destruction, we should be working towards restoration… else we just continue down the path we’re already going down.