WoHoo! 10,000 Hits!

This morning at about 10:58 Mountain Standard Time (this is Arizona, after all) The Smallest Minority received it's 10,000th hit. Somebody from Virginia Tech's server.

I really have to post more, don't I?

Must Be Something in the Memphis Water

AlphaPatriot points to this story about the sixth home-defense shooting in five weeks in Memphis. Excerpt:

This is what happened about 2 a.m. Friday, according to a police report:

The robber took a screen off a back room window of the house, raised the window and crawled inside. He confronted the homeowner, Estella Schaefer, 65, and demanded money. He apparently was not armed.

It took Schaefer 15-20 minutes to look for money as he waited and she then gave him $200 in cash.

The robber told Schaefer, "'I know you've got more money than that. Someone told me,'" the police report says.

That's when Schaefer reached into her china cabinet and pulled a .32-caliber black revolver, shooting twice at the robber as he ran toward her to take the gun away from her.

He failed to get the gun, but Schaefer was cut on her left knuckle during the struggle. She declined medical assistance.

The robber ran out a side door and north on Meagher.

Police found a trail of blood going out of the house and for about half a block on a sidewalk on Meagher. They believe the robber was wounded.

Schaefer, who could not be reached by The Commercial Appeal for comment, told police that she didn't know if she hit the robber with either shot and had never seen him before.

Police described him as a black man in his mid- to late 20s, standing 5-foot-7 and weighing about 200 pounds.

Now, let's see what we have here:

A 65 year-old woman.

A 20-something 200 lb. male.

A loaded .32 caliber revolver "unsafely" stored in a china cabinet. (And, being a .32, it would most probably qualify as an evil, useless "Saturday Night Special" with no "sporting purpose.")

Per normal police recommendations, the woman tried to comply with her assailant's demands - after all, she gave him $200. It wasn't enough. THEN she resisted.

Results?

The woman was able to get to her weapon. ("Safe storage" would have made her gun unavailable to her.)

A minor injury on the part of the 65 year-old woman.

The gun wasn't taken from her by the younger, much larger male.

The younger, much larger male most probably has at least one and probably two .32 caliber holes in him.

The younger, much larger male left the premises.

But we're told that women using handguns for self defense is a myth. Yes, according to the Violence Policy Center "The false message...was clear: the greatest threat posed to a woman was an attack by a stranger and, the best form of protection a woman could rely upon was a handgun."

Now, just who is spreading a "false message?"

One other thing: Note in the VPC fear-mongering piece that they limit themselves to women killing their assailants. No mention is made of what actually defines a successful self-defense: Making your attacker STOP. Ms. Schaefer's assailant may not (probably will not) die as a result of his injuries. But he was stopped. But to those valiant defenders of life at the Violence Policy Center, that doesn't count.

And another: In D.C. what this woman did would be illegal. No handguns are allowed in D.C. In New York she'd have to have a pistol permit - that costs a ridiculous amount of time and money to get. (Read here for a typical example of the costs of getting a permit in NYC.) And she most probably wouldn't get a premises permit. Without that, she'd be in jail today.

For defending her life.

Quote of the WEEK!

If you read Bill Whittle, you MUST read the comments to his pieces. There are some truly EXCELLENT thinkers and writers out there.

This gem comes from "Rick":

The Republicans have problems too. The party platform is still very much a social conservative agenda. A substantial percentage of the party members are Republicans by default. For people like me, the Republicans represent an uneasy compromise. They are a lesser evil than the Democrats. It’s the choice between a wedgie and castration.

Ain't THAT the truth!

More On Orrin Hatch's Move to Allow Guns in D.C. Again

Publicola has an extensive post on this. Go read.

Lileks Nails It Again

In today's Bleat he comments on Blair's speech of yesterday. Perfectly:

Blair’s speeches sound like the work of a keen and fierce intellect that has come to a certain conclusion by logical deduction. His heart has been informed by his head. In the case of Bush I think it’s the other way around. I suppose that’s the difference between being the leader of a nation that was attacked, and the leader of a nation whose ally was assaulted. What I found most invigorating about the speech was the tenor - the tune, not the notes. It was a speech sung in the key of War, and reminded us that we are just midway through the end of the beginning. If that.

Blair is, at heart, a socialist; I’ve no time for half the stuff he wants and most of the stuff he’d agree to. But he’d get my vote. We can argue about the shape and direction of Western Civ after we’ve made sure that such a thing will endure. I haven’t heard every single speech Tony Blair has made since he popped on to the political scene; I don’t know if he argues for increased license fees for domestic gerbils with the same passion and force. But today he sounded like a man who knew things, who knows that the threat is still grave, and cannot understand why others seek transient political advantage in exploiting those sixteen words.

Go read the whole thing.

"Pay Up, Shut Up, Know Your Place, Go on the Dole."

Wince and Nod points to this Vin Suprynowicz piece about how government once again slams its foot down on people just trying to get ahead. Environmentalism, again.

I keep wondering when somebody is going to reach their breaking point and decide it's time to feed the hogs.

Religious Tolerance

Commonsense and Wonder posts this joke by Emo Phillips:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

If You're a Parent, You'll Want to Read This

Michele talks about being a parent and worrying about her kids having sex. Excellent post. I married into instant family, and my stepdaughter was 14 when I met my wife.

Stress?

Let me put it this way, when I told a coworker that I was getting married he asked me "How old is her daughter?"

"Fifteen," I said.

"Awww. Can I buy tickets?" he replied. His daughter had just turned 18.

[Tinfoil Hat Mode=ON]

Glenn Reynolds discusses this Washington Post article about Orrin Hatch's proposal to repeal the D.C. gun ban. Glenn terms this as evidence (as I noted below in "A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once") that we're in a "rollback phase" of gun control, and cites as evidence the Violence Policy Center's mouthpiece Matt Nosanchuk's rather tepid proclaimation that there is no evidence that greater access to guns reduces crime (while D.C.'s gun ban most emphatically suggests the reverse.)

But my question is: Why now?

There is currently a civil lawsuit pending in Federal Court challenging the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds - and it looks like a good one. Interestingly, the NRA seems to be attempting to throw a monkey-wrench into the suit in their (choose one:) A) fear of getting a bad decision, or B) fear of losing support income should the Second Amendment be legally defined as an individual right. The NRA is also suing, but using reasons other than the Second Amendment (as they are wont to do). Complete coverage of this is available over at AlphaPatriot's site.

So, is Orrin Hatch trying to repeal the ban to negate these two lawsuits? Is he doing it at the behest of the NRA? Why now?

[Tinfoil Hat Mode=OFF]

Update:

I'm not alone. Julian Sanchez of Reason Online thinks the timing stinks, too.

Ain't THAT the Truth.

Steve Breen, again.

Oh, But Wouldn't It Be Nice...

Artist is Steve Breen, San Diego Union-Tribune

Ayup.

Artist is Thomas Boldt, Calgary Sun, Alberta.

This One's Late, But Too Good Not to Put Up.

Artist is John Deering, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The Sound of Music It Ain't

Artist is Dennis Draughon, Scranton Times, OH.

Hey! I Resemble That Remark!

Artist is Mike Thompson, Detroit Free Press

And This Would Be Different...How?

Artist is Mike Ramirez, Los Angeles Times

I Have an Idea:

Clayton Cramer links to this Reuter's report:

Carrying the message of "Control population growth, pay attention to sexual health, prevent AIDS," a bright yellow condom covering the facade of a 20-story hotel in the southern Chinese city of Guilin marked United Nations World Population Day on Friday. The roundness of the three-star Fragrant River Hotel provided the perfect shape for erecting the giant condom, according to the hotel manager, who declined to give her name. "The initial plan was to cover the whole building, but because the wind was so strong they could only cover the front half," said the manager. The Guilin Latex Company has applied to the publishers of the Guinness Book of World Records to recognize their giant condom, which is nearly 330 feet around and 260 feet tall, said the Xinhua wire service. Local activists and international experts agree that more publicity and government leadership are needed to avert an AIDS catastrophe in China.

My idea? Let's call a joint session of Congress and then put a condom over the Capitol building. They are airtight, right?

In Their Eyes, I Don't Doubt It

Threat rating: Medium. Your total lack of decent
family values makes you dangerous, but we can
count on some right wing nutter blowing you up
if you become too high profile.


What threat to the Bush administration are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

(Bad spelling is Quizilla's, not mine.)

"The Myth of Man The Killer"

Armed and Dangerous has an outstanding essay up on the nature of man and the erroneous belief that man is a natural killer.

Some quotes:

The Rousseauian myth of technological Man as an ugly scab on the face of pristine Nature has become so pervasive in Western culture as to largely drive out the older opposing image of ``Nature, red in tooth and claw'' from the popular mind. Perhaps this was inevitable as humans achieved more and more control over their environment; protection from famine, plague, foul weather, predators, and other inconveniences of nature encouraged the fond delusion that only human nastiness makes the world a hard place.

--

Another, darker kind of romanticism is at work as well. To a person who feels fundamentally powerless, the belief that one is somehow intrinsically deadly can be a cherished illusion. Its marketers know full well that violence fantasy sells not to the accomplished, the wealthy and the wise, but rather to working stiffs trapped in dead-end jobs, to frustrated adolescents, to retirees — the marginalized, the lonely and the lost.

To these people, the killer-ape myth is consolation. If all else fails, it offers the dark promise of a final berserkergang, unleashing the mythic murderer inside to express all those aggravations in a gory and vengeful catharsis. But if seven out of ten humans can't pull the trigger on an enemy they have every reason to believe is trying to kill them, it seems unlikely that ninety-seven out of a hundred could make themselves murder.

--

The man who fears Hobbes's "warre", who sees every one of his neighbors as a potential murderer, will surrender nearly anything to be protected from them. He will call for a strong hand from above; he will become a willing instrument in the oppression of his fellows. He may even allow himself to be turned into a killer in fact. Society will be atomized into millions of fearful fragments, each reacting to the fear of fantasied individual violence by sponsoring the political conditions for real violence on a large scale.

That's enough - go read the whole thing. It is, I must say, a perfect companion peice to "A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once."

U.S. v Miller in Detail

Publicola links to this detailed explanation of the U.S. v Miller decision on the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) site. It's very, very good.