Politics

Are guns really the problem?

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Downtown New York City, right in front of the Empire State Building. Man brings the crazy and executes a former co-worker he had a major beef with. As the man runs off, a construction worker notifies a couple NYC Police Officers standing nearby and the officers pursue and eventually shoot the killer.

And 9 innocent people were injured in the shooting.

All by the NYPD.

It’s been interesting to watch this one unfold in the media. The initial accounts wanted to make this into yet another rampaging bloodbath, but that media ratings frenzy was brought to a halt once it became evident the innocents were injured by the NYPD.

Awkward moment for the media and those who wish to profit from ratings or agenda pushing. They aren’t ignoring the fact all 9 injured were injured by police bullets, but it’s being relegated to a footnote. Gotta make it fit the agenda and grab the headlines somehow.

I’m still waiting for Mayor Bloomberg to holler for more gun control. As if all the onerous anti-guns laws in NYC did any good in the first place, so I fail to see how making it more illegal will accomplish anything. Once again, it’s as if criminals and crazy people bent on destruction don’t follow laws… funny that. Of course, maybe the sort of gun control needed in this situation is to use two-hands when shooting.

It also demonstrates that just because your job requires you to carry a gun doesn’t mean you can shoot it well. Heck, here’s a study from 2008 on the NYPD’s training, including many problems with their training setup. An article discussing the RAND study, from 2009.

Granted, this is some arm-chair quarterbacking. It’s hard to be mindful of “the rules”, like being sure of your target and what’s behind it, when you’re in the middle of downtown Manhattan and people are around you in every direction. Really, is there any one direction that’s going to truly be safe, without something innocent downrange? One can argue the safest direction is into the bad guy and stopping him as quickly as possible, which is what the NYPD was ultimately working to do. Still, from the video surveillance footage, it does appear some better technique and training may be in order.

But how can NYPD cops get that? Where can they go train? And train in a realistic environment, not just on a static firing lane. Something involving shooting on the move, perhaps force-on-force training. Mayor Bloomberg, shouldn’t it be a priority to have a well-trained staff?

Inevitably, some are saying this is proof that even cops shouldn’t have guns. But that just shows further ignorance and lack of understanding about reality — the author’s assumptions and lack of understanding and awareness show through.

The sad part is, people are only looking at the guns.

Why?

Is the gun evil? If the gun is evil, then that means the NYPD is evil. But that’s not the case. The gun is merely a tool, and it’s the one that uses that tool that matters. One man used the tool in an evil way. Two men used the tool in a good way. In either case, it was the man and his actions that are ultimately being analyzed and judged.

And so, why are we not focusing on the man?

What has changed in our society that we feel “shooting everyone dead” is the way to solve our problems? Why are we not looking deeper at root causes that drive such behavior in the first place? Instead of focusing on symptoms, maybe if we focused that same energy into root causes, maybe we might actually be able to manage the problem better. Else we just keep taking cough medicine, but the flu wears on.

Um… they didn’t work, but I know something that does.

/ hsoi

A man goes to the Family Research Council’s offices in Washington DC and starts shooting.

DC Mayor Vincent Gray doesn’t get it.

…a Herndon man who purchased a firearm on Aug. 9 and brought it “into our city,” Mr. Gray said Thursday on NewsChannel 8.

“He would not have been able to do that in the District of Columbia,” Mr. Gray said,

Not have been able to do what in “your” city? Because it looks like he certainly did. Now I grant, after reading Emily Miller’s trials in obtaining a handgun in Washington DC it’s a tough thing to do, but not impossible. Regardless, this man didn’t seem to care about any laws.

We already have laws on the books that prohibit murder.

We already have laws on the books prohibiting assault.

We already have lots of laws in the books that make it difficult for people to obtain guns and other weapons. Heck, we have laws that can make it difficult to obtain just about anything and everything. I mean, drugs like meth, cocaine, heroin… they’re all banned, but that hasn’t seemed to stop much.

“We don’t need to make guns more available to people,” Mr. Gray said. “There are irresponsible people, there are people who have mental health problems, and the easier access they have to guns the more likely we are to predispose innocent victims, like yesterday, to the use of the guns.”

Actually we do need to make guns, training, and a better mindset available to more people. Why? Because the reason this particular situation didn’t get bad was because someone was willing to fight back. Granted, the extreme cases of someone really hell-bent on causing harm are going to do what they’re going to do. But the vast majority of criminals – petty or large-scale – only do what they do due to lack of opposition. Consider many that do the mass shooting spree stuff… once the cops show up, they commit suicide. They don’t want opposition, they want easy targets. Most criminals wanting to mug someone will hit up the person with their nose stuck in their iPhone as they walk down the street, not the guy with his head up walking like the baddest lion on the plains. Why do most burglaries happen on weekdays between 10AM and 3PM? Because most folks aren’t home thus the burglar won’t face opposition. Why does the rapist attack the woman walking alone a night and not the group of women walking around together? They just want a quick score, not a righteous fight. Consider where many crimes happen — in gun free zones, in places where it’s promoted to curl up and die. It’s rare to see crimes in MMA gyms, police stations, NRA conventions. Why might that be the case?

I don’t disagree with Mayor Gray, that irresponsible people, people with major problems, should be better managed and helped with their problems. But we must remember, someone bent on destruction will do whatever — law will not and do not stop them. I recently read a story where a mass killing occurred via arson, with the arsonist using 2 gallon milk jugs filled with gasoline, and matches. Are we going to ban the corner grocery store? Are we going to require background checks and waiting periods and monthly rationing to fill up our SUV’s? I mean, if grandma’s got a cold, we’ve got laws to make it difficult for her to get a decongestant. We can’t travel in this country any more without being considered a possible terrorist. Why are we looking at addressing symptoms instead of addressing root causes? I grant because it’s easier to make yourself feel like you’re doing something if you can pass a law and ban some talisman of evil… but it doesn’t solve the problem, and typically only makes matters worse.

Mayor Gray, you have lots of laws. Washington DC still makes it immensely difficult for law-abiding people to live their lives. Your laws didn’t stop this from happening. No, what stopped this was a person willing to fight back and stop the madness before it became a tragedy.

If you want to do something to help, Mr. Gray, why don’t you enable good people to fight?

Let’s be consistent

/ hsoi

From Unc I read how a man was fired from his job for “liking” a Facebook post.

Daniel Ray Carter Jr. logged on to Facebook and did what millions do each day: He “liked” a page by clicking the site’s thumbs up icon. The problem was that the page was for a candidate who was challenging his boss, the sheriff of Hampton, Va.

That simple mouse click, Carter says, caused the sheriff to fire him from his job as a deputy and put him at the center of an emerging First Amendment debate over the ubiquitous digital seal of approval: Is liking something on Facebook protected free speech?

I think most people would agree that yes it is free speech, it should be protected. You are expressing your opinion. To “click Like” is merely a shortcut/shorthand for saying “I like this” or “I agree with this” or some other statement of agreement and affirmation. It’s just a more efficient (lazy?) way to do it. Are we saying that if someone typed a comment under the posting “I like this” that that wouldn’t be protected? or if I wrote it on a piece of paper, or spoke it aloud in a public venue for others to hear? So why wouldn’t clicking “like” be offered the same protection under 1A?

But apparently not:

The interest was sparked by a lower court’s ruling that “liking” a page does not warrant protection because it does not involve “actual statements.” If the ruling is upheld, the ACLU and others worry, a host of Web-based, mouse-click actions, such as re-tweeting (hitting a button to post someone else’s tweet on your Twitter account), won’t be protected as free speech.

Methinks someone in the lower court doesn’t quite understand technology advancements.

“We think it’s important as new technologies emerge . . . that the First Amendment is interpreted to protect those new ways of communicating,” said Rebecca K. Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia. “Pressing a ‘like’ button is analogous to other forms of speech, such as putting a button on your shirt with a candidate’s name on it.”

So isn’t that interesting? Our Founding Fathers never could have imagined this thing called the Internet. They could never have imagined Facebook or Twitter or iPhone’s. They could never have imagined the act of pressing with your finger could act as a proxy for expressing your liking something. But just like they understood technology advancements like clay tablets, papyrus paper, quill pens, moveable type, printing presses, pony express, and so on… they probably understood that technology would continue to advance. I’m sure they wanted speech to be protected regardless of the technology used to convey it. Certainly that’s what it seems the WaPo, the ACLU, and others put forth. I know many people will be outraged if these advances in technology would not be upheld as protected under that 200-year old document written by men that (some day) had no clue.

So why isn’t this same standard held to the Second Amendment?

Quotes for today

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

From this article:

“I’m not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don’t see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot,” said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va.

I’ll respond with a quote from Mike Muir:

Just ’cause you don’t understand what’s going on don’t mean it don’t make no sense, and just ’cause you don’t like it don’t mean it ain’t no good.

Mr. Tyson continues:

“People say it’s their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon.”

People say it’s their right to free speech, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as the Internet.

Look! Data!

/ hsoi

I saw this graphic floating around the Int3rw3bs the past few days:

I didn’t have time to look further into it to know if there was anything actually sound behind that data or was just someone with access to Photoshop and an agenda.

Turns out someone actually did the math.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3.

That’s pretty telling on many levels. And you should go read the article backing up the statistic because it appears he did his best to take a proper sample. I admit I don’t have the time to replicate his study, so I’m just trusting the guy.

The big take-home is you cannot rely upon the police to protect you. All LEO’s I personally know do believe in “to protect and serve”, but none of them (or any of Austin PD or Travis Co. Sheriff or Texas State Troopers) are here right now to protect or serve me. I’ve seen APD response time at best to be about 5 minutes, and while that’s awesome response time, 5 minutes is a VERY long time when bad things are happening to you.

But who is here right now that can do something about it? You are.

Look at the recent story of Samuel Williams, the 71-year old man that drew his concealed handgun when two thugs came to rob an Internet cafe. Where were the police? Who was the first responder? Samuel Williams.

How about Kelvedon Hatch, the convenience store in Essex that foiled a robbery attempt of his store by throwing cases of beer at the robber? There were no police, and there was no successful robbery either.

This isn’t so much about guns as it is about accepting that putting the responsibility for  your own safety into someone else’s hands may be acceptable in some particular circumstances, but ultimately only you can and must be responsible for your safety. When people are willing to be thusly responsible, look at how much better things turn out? Sure, bad things start to happen, but they get cut off before they can become horrible events. When good people are legally crippled, when good people don’t do anything for themselves or their fellow man, look how bad things can become.

In the end, the tool may enable and enhance a person’s ability to perform work, but it’s still ultimately about the person. None of us want to see tragic events happen, but we must consider careful what roads will help us minimize the chances of these events happening, and when they do happen, minimizing the damage done. Knee-jerk reactions based upon fear and emotion are not sound ways to make policy. Look at facts, look at data. Truth always comes out, and we suffer less the sooner we accept it.

 

Yup… this proves it. Guns can only be used for evil purposes.

/ hsoi

Due to some recent events, and because it’s a big US Presidential election year, of course many folks are talking gun control and gun bans. Why? Because guns are evil, guns are bad, and if we just banned guns everything would become hunky-dory.

I just read this article, which proves that point:

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.

Some crazy guy walks into a store, buys a knife, then turns around and starts stabbing people. He seriously stabbed two people while screaming “YOU KILLED MY PEOPLE!”. That’s textbook crazy right there.

Then, before the suspect could find another victim – a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. “A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith’s grabbed him.”

So you see, proof right there that guns can only be used for evil purposes.

Oh wait.

That looks to me like a gun was used for a good purpose. It stopped a crazy person from going on a killing spree.

Actually check that. The gun didn’t do anything. You see, it’s an inanimate object. It can’t do anything. No, it’s all about the person using the gun.

Some private citizen, carrying their gun (concealed carry, it would seem), was able to draw their weapon, point it at this rampaging lunatic, and got them to stop their rampage before tons of ugly could happen. The gun didn’t do anything, but this person did a very good thing and happened to use a gun to do it. In fact, without the gun they wouldn’t have been able to do this good thing. Huh. Imagine that.

Where were the police? Because I’m told the police will protect me and are all the protection we need. I’m sure they would have shown up eventually, but how much death and destruction would have happened?

This also demonstrates that concealed carry is bad. Because private citizens don’t have the wherewithal. They’ll just be a liability. They’ll just be dangerous. Uh huh.

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, “This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time.”

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man.

And I bet if you were there in the thick of it, you too would be thankful for that man — and his gun.

It’s not the implement. It’s the man using the implement.

thinking

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

“The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.”

-A.A. Milne

Show Me The Data

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Facts. Funny thing they are.

Data is funny too, since it helps to reinforce Truth. Or at least, it should help to dispel falsehoods.

Those that don’t like guns like to tout that “more guns equals more deaths”.

I’ve yet to see their data that backs up this claim AND that stands up to scrutiny.

But then there’s Linoge, analyzing the data and the data shows that no, more guns does not equal more deaths.

So there you go… there’s the facts, there’s the data, there’s the hard evidence. I know the Truth may be hard to swallow, and I know this Truth may not help your agenda nor support your personal bias. But what are you interested in? Truth? or something less?

on testing and qualification

/ hsoi

ToddG reveals something that many wouldn’t like to know — the truth about police shooting qualification courses.

For the non-gun public, I think the thing they’ll probably be shocked to realize is how little many police forces actually shoot their guns, and how when standards are made “more realistic” lots of cops can’t pass the minimum requirements.

The anti-gun folk say things like only police should have guns… you know, people with training and skill. You would be shocked to see how many don’t have either. Just because your job requires you to have a gun doesn’t mean you can use it (effectively). Conversely, just because you’re a normal Joe Citizen doesn’t mean you don’t have nor can’t acquire good gun handling skills, and their skill level can surpass those who have “gun” in their job description.

This is not to say it’s this way across the board. Many police officers are good shots, and a lot of PD’s are realizing a need to up the ante — which is ultimately the crux of Todd’s article.

What’s sad is when people blame the test instead of looking at themselves. It’s like anything in life. If something fails or goes wrong, where does the blame first go? It ought to be on you, to examine yourself and see what you can do better.

But it’s like any sort of mandated government “test”, be it a police qual or be it standardized testing. There’s lots of politics, lots of wrangling, and lots of weight put onto the test — even if the test has nothing to do with anything in the real world. But because such weight is put onto the test, all “education” then becomes is prepping for the test. So we don’t prepare people for the real world, we just prepare them for a test that really doesn’t matter much in the world — but it matters to some pencil-pusher or politician somewhere.

Well, at least in this area of life it seems some are trying to get it and improve the way things are.