Politics

Carry a gun in National Parks? This is why.

/ hsoi

Authorities confirmed tonight it was a stranger who stabbed and sexually assaulted a woman in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park earlier today.

Full story. (h/t Unc)

There was much uproar a couple of years back when it became permissable to carry concealed weapons in national parks (so long as you still had credentials and obeyed the local laws).

Folks wondered why in the world would you need a gun in a national park?

Let’s ignore how much of our national parkland is used for the drug trade and wandering into a marijuana farmer’s camp is probably one of the most unexpected and undesirable things that you could do.

Let’s ignore the reality of wild animals and that your stumbling upon a baby bear will not elicit a warm hug from the momma bear.

And now, we have a stabbing and sexual-assault.

It wasn’t like the woman was in some remote area of the park either. She was on the Gatlinburg Trail, which is “frequently used by joggers, walkers, and bicyclists.”

“Things like this don’t happen everyday. It is definitely a rare incident,” Melissa Cobern with the Public Affairs Office of the National Park Service said.

That may be true. But just how much comfort should the victim take in being told “but it’s a rare event you were brutally stabbed and sexually assaulted”? Statistics are of little comfort when you’re the anomaly.

 

So much can be taken from this

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Napoleon Rutledge, a 67-year-old Chattanooga man and Vietnam vet, was the victim of an attempted robbery in a grocery store parking lot.

Rutledge refused to be a victim.

In fact, he was mad.

When the gunman held the gun up Rutledge said, “Why you wanna rob me? Why don’t you get a job? What I got, what I get, what I spend in this store, I earned it! I said if you gonna shoot me then shoot me. I got a wife and three kids that you’ll have to take care of.”

The gunman apparently got scared and took off, tho was apprehended along with two others.

Rutledge just doesn’t understand the mentality of people like Malone. “What is wrong with them? I got drafted to go to Vietnam, I didn’t have a choice. They got all the opportunities in the world now to make something of themselves but they don’t want it,” he said.

In hearing this story, I think about so many different things.

First, Rutledge is black, and his robber was black. So those of you wishing to inject race or racism as the root of all conflict are just out of luck here… sorry Jesse Jackson, sorry Al Sharpton, go pander somewhere else. Or better, how about you come and support Mr. Rutledge?

But it also demonstrates that race isn’t the issue. It’s an issue of people who work and earn their keep in this world, that are productive, and just don’t like people who come along and wish to take it from them… that expect a handout, or are unwilling to earn their keep, or are otherwise unproductive in society. And yes, the parallel between this robbery and the robbery going on by our government and so much “liberal compassion”, desire to “redistribute wealth”, and so on well… it’s about the same, both in behavior and in the anger it produces in the victim.

The there’s the coda to the article:

It should be noted this is not how the Chattanooga Police Department recommends you react in a similar situation, but in Napoleon’s case it seemed to work.

If you watch the video, it’s slightly different saying “it’s nice to see the good guy win for once”. Folks, if you want to keep seeing the good guy win, then the only way to do it is to stand up to the bad guy. Handling things the way the Police say will always let the bad guy win. No the good guys won’t always win, but if you always permit yourself to be the victim, you’ll never have a chance to be the victor.

 

Why we’re losing

/ hsoi / 10 Comments

I can go check out the economic experiments in Chile or Hong Kong or Puerto Rico, stick a piece of plastic in the wall, and cash will come out. I can give that same piece of plastic to a stranger who doesn’t even speak my language, and he’ll rent me a car for a week. When I get home, Visa or MasterCard will send me the accounting— correct to the penny. That’s capitalism! I just take it for granted.

Government, by contrast, can’t even count votes accurately. Yet whenever there are problems, people turn to government. Despite the central planners’ long record of failure, politicians promise that this time they will “fix” health care, education, the uncertainty of old age, etc., and people believe. Few of us like to think the government that sits atop us, taking credit for everything and taking our money under threat of imprisonment, could really be all that rotten. And look at all the good things around us! What, besides our unique government, could have brought us such plenty?

But it’s not from the $3.8 trillion a year in spending, the 80,000 new pages of regulations a year, or even from democracy that we get such wonderful options as flexible contact lenses, Google, cellphones, increasing life spans, and so much food that even poor people are fat. We get those things from free markets. Government gets credit for good things even when it does little to bring them about.

– John Stossel, “Why We’re Losing” in Reason magazine’s June 2012 issue.

How does the saying go?

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, and I’ll continue re-electing the jackass?

As I read Stossell’s article, I couldn’t help but wonder why people keep turning to government for solutions? It doesn’t matter if you’re Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, both of those groups do this very thing. They complain about how horrible government is when it comes to X, but then when they want Y they turn to government as if they think it will give it to them. Then Y gets all screwed up, and along comes time for Z and they keep going back for more.

I mean, most people seem to realize if a restaurant sucks and you get crappy service, you don’t go back. I don’t know people who would say “the food sucks, the wait staff was rude, the drinks way overpriced, but I’m making that my regular weekend hangout!”.  But that’s precisely what happens when people keep turning to government to solve their problems.

I just don’t understand that behavior.

But maybe it’s that “definition of insanity” thing… where you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?

On the flip side, we are surrounded by the successes of free market, of privatization, and yes I think Stossel’s above example of accounting is a perfect demonstration. Not to mention the computer or smartphone you’re reading this on. But I guess he’s right… we just take it for granted and so we don’t really realize what we’ve got.

And so… we’re losing.

Give Stossel’s article a read.

Objectivist-C

/ hsoi

Are you a Mac or iOS programmer? Do you write code in Objective-C?

Do you know who Ayn Rand is?

If you like both, there’s now the perfect programming language for you: Objectivist-C!

Objectivist-C was invented by Russian-American programmer Ope Rand. Based on the principle of rational self-interest, Objectivist-C was influenced by Aristotle’s laws of logic and Smalltalk. In an unorthodox move, Rand first wrote about the principles of Objectivist-C in bestselling novels, and only later set them down in non-fiction.

You can read all about it here. 🙂  (h/t Ed)

I think my favorite is:

In Objectivist-C, software engineers have eliminated the need for object-oriented principles like Dependency Inversion, Acyclic Dependencies, and Stable Dependencies. Instead, they strictly adhere to one simple principle: No Dependencies.

Heh. 🙂

They obviously missed the memo

/ hsoi

A student on the campus of Rice University was robbed a gunpoint.

I guess the robbers didn’t get the memo that schools and universities are gun free zones. Criminals don’t obey the law… imagine that!

Response to: The Perils of Open Carry

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

On her Facebook page, Kathy Jackson shared this link about “The Perils of Open Carry“.

Given my recent open carry oddness experience, a few things about the article struck me enough that I wished to comment.

Before I start out tho, I should say that I’m not really an open carry advocate. Do I find it odd that it’s illegal in Texas? Yes I do. Do I wish open carry was free and legal here in Texas? Yes I do. If I could legally open carry, would I? Probably not, but I appreciate having the freedom of choice because sometimes it may be the right choice.

1) Open carry will cause hassles with other people and eventually the police.

Yes I can see this being a reality today, but the more I’ve thought about it the more I’ve come to believe it’s something that has to be done to allow for change.

Let’s say the wording was changed to “Openly allowing black people to walk around will cause hassles with other people and eventually the police.”  Sure that was the case years ago, but today? It’s not perfect, but it’s better. Should we keep black people, or gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or women under wraps because it will cause hassles and eventually involve the police?

How about instead we let people freely live their lives, and work to spread education and knowledge?

2) Criminals are not deterred by openly carried guns

Yes they are. There’s the Waffle House case back in 2010. There’s also numerous stories in the Chris Bird book “The Concealed Handgun Manual”.

But I will grant, it does change the game for a criminal. The author presents a story that showcases that the crime in fact seemed to be motivated by open carry! He wanted to steal the open-carrier’s gun!  So it didn’t just not deter him, but it also was the prime motivation for the crime itself!

3) Getting your gun taken is a likely possibility!

It’s possible, but when we talk to private citizens about how retention holsters aren’t necessary, it’s backed by many years of looking for a case where this happens. We might see more now, and certainly we will change our stance if we see this is in fact an issue.

But that all said, the author is right. You don’t have magic abilities nor are you Billy Badass enough to keep all criminals from ever getting within 10 feet of you. Shit happens.

4) Most people who carry guns have crappy holsters and no weapon retention skills

This is the one that struck me most, given what I saw the other day. Two people with guns on their hips in crappy holsters. I have no idea if they have any retention skills, but the crappy holster alone was enough. And it may not be just the holster, but their whole equipment system, such as a really cheap belt.

I don’t totally agree with Mr. Ellifritz’s reasoning, but I’m not in total disagreement with him either. I know this can be a controversial and passionate subject for many, even within the “proud gun rights advocate” community. My personal preference is to minimize abridgement of good people, of maximizing freedom and choice. But always remember, just because it’s legal doesn’t always mean it’s the right nor best thing to do. Legality doesn’t equate to moral or right or just or good or sound. I would just prefer to have it as a legal option, because the more choices a good person can have, the more options responsible people can work with, the better decisions they can make.

Ain’t politics grand?

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

This was posted at the McMilian Group International Facebook page (h/t to Rog and Dock)

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.

I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.

Kelly D McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
www.mcmillanusa.com

As if you need another reason to leave Bank of America. Or for some, I’m sure it means a reason to bank with BoA… but hey, you enjoy your victim-rich zone.

But they won’t listen to him

/ hsoi

Kip Hawley, former head of the TSA, “has said that the country’s airport security system is a broken mess making travelling ‘an unending nightmare’ for passengers.”

How refreshing. From the full article:

Kip Hawley, who was head of the TSA from 2005-2009, has argued that the system would be more effective if it embraced more risk including allowing passengers to bring almost anything on board including knives, liquids and lighters.

Hawley criticises the current procedure for reducing airport security into an ‘Easter-egg hunt’ where TSA officers look out for low-risk prohibited items, such as lighters, rather than focusing on disrupting terror plots.

And that it has. Countless stories of people getting lighters confiscated but more “deadly” items getting right through. Where’s security in that? But some politician feels better about it.

If you read the full article at the WSJ, it goes even deeper, and with a reasonable conclusion:

To be effective, airport security needs to embrace flexibility and risk management—principles that it is difficult for both the bureaucracy and the public to accept. The public wants the airport experience to be predictable, hassle-free and airtight and for it to keep us 100% safe. But 100% safety is unattainable. Embracing a bit of risk could reduce the hassle of today’s airport experience while making us safer at the same time.

That’s right. 100% safety is unattainable. But if perhaps if they can focus on major risk instead of Easter Egg hunts, if the citizenry can accept that you can’t live life in a protective bubble and perhaps are willing to accept some self-responsiblity for one’s own safety… maybe we could make life a little less hellish again.

Been there, done that

/ hsoi

Sammy DeMarco, a student at Eastern Michigan University, writes about his change of heart:

Concealed weapons should be allowed on campus. There, I said it. After years of believing weapons should not be allowed on university property, I have flipped my position. I can no longer find a valid reason as to why law-abiding citizens who attend and work at Eastern Michigan University or any university campus should be left defenseless.

I know where Sammy is coming from. I too flipped my position some years ago. I gave up on my ignorance and my emotion, and looked at logic. I was convinced by logic because well… some things are just hard to defend, once you take your fingers out of your ears.

The EMU Public Safety folks are some of the most professional authorities I’ve encountered. I have no doubt they are highly capable of handling a situation similar to what happened last week at Oikos. But we cannot expect police to be on every corner, in every parking lot and every classroom every minute….

Many students live off campus, have night classes and walk home. We regularly receive emails and texts alerting us that yet another classmate was robbed or assaulted while walking home.

So, not only are citizens not allowed to defend themselves while on campus, they are left defenseless going to and coming from the university, too.

We don’t deny that police and other people whose job it is to “bring safety” can do their job, but the reality is they can’t always be around to do their job. Look around right now… is there a police officer within arms reach of you? And is that police officer always there? If the fact we have police is sufficient to stop people from being assaulted or mugged, then why do we have so many assaults and muggings? Obviously having a police force is not sufficient to get the job done.

Consider where people live vs. where they work or go to school. Maybe we can have useful tools at our disposal at some time, but then due to certain laws we cannot. Why should law-abiding citizens have to reduce their ability to stay safe? Isn’t the general argument towards increasing safety? So how is telling that 5′ 4″ 105# woman she cannot have a gun to fend off a rapist or crazed ex- going to make her any safer? Restraining orders are just pieces of paper and really don’t stop people hell-bent on doing evil. So why should she have to choose between her personal safety and getting an education?

I realize many people will say we need stricter gun laws, not less strict, to deter crime. That logic goes something like this: We need to restrict law abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons. This in turn will reduce the crime that criminals commit on those very law abiding folks.

So, out of all the laws criminals break, we think the one law they will obey is not carrying a concealed weapon? I’m having trouble reaching that conclusion.

That’s pretty much the case. In fact, many criminals are repeat offenders. They’re already felons, legally prohibited from having a gun. Yet they do. The law hasn’t stopped them, it won’t stop them (it sure didn’t stop them from committing their original crimes), so the only people abridged and hurt by the law are the law-abiding good people. Why are we doing that? What logic is there, other than perhaps someone having an agenda… or just being ignorant.

Sammy sums it up:

Self defense should go beyond law; it’s a right by nature. Denying someone a right to defend themselves against his or her would-be attackers is immoral. The reasons opponents give for supporting restrictions is not supported by data. The restrictions criminalize the good guys and empowers the bad ones. Police cannot be everywhere at once. Ultimately, there is only one person truly responsible for your safety: you.

That’s the thing. When you look at straight data, it’s there. Oh some will say it’s all statistics that the NRA provided to help further their “bloodbath agenda”. But that’s the funny thing… when folks like Howard Nemerov study data exclusively from anti-gun or neutral sources and the factual data and interpretation of it supports that gun control doesn’t work, how can you continue to argue against the facts? unless you just like to argue or are unwilling to accept the logic, reason, and hard fact.

It took me years to arrive here, but here I stand. It’s time we’re allowed to defend ourselves with more than a pen and a sharp tongue.

Sammy, it took me years to arrive here as well, but here I stand and stand with you. Don’t give up your pen and sharp tongue tho… keep spreading the word.