Why I Love America: Putting the "Wretched" into "Wretched Excess!"

I got back from a business meeting in Las Vegas last night. The meeting ended at 4:00PM, but our flight out wasn't until 8:00, so we had a bit of time to kill. Having nothing better to do (and I don't gamble) my associate and I decided to wander the strip, checking out the architecture of the different casinos, and, of course, the architecture of some of the pedestrian traffic as well. (Rrrrowwr!)

One of the casinos we visited was the Bellagio. Lots of interesting stuff to see, intricate detail work, marble mosaics, ceiling freizes, etc., but the thing that stopped me in my tracks was the Bellagio's Chocolate Fountain. Here's just a (metaphorical) taste:

Designed by award-winning Executive Pastry Chef Jean-Philippe Maury and Norwood and Antonia Oliver Design Associates, Inc., the fountain took a year and a half in planning and design. The result is a genius work of kinetic sculpture and a daring feat of engineering. Standing 27-feet tall, the masterpiece circulates more than 2,100 pounds of melted dark, milk and white chocolate at a rate of 120 quarts per minute.

I'm an industrial engineering type. I had to think about what my response would be if someone came to me and said "I need a system that will circulate three different types of heated liquid chocolate, with a net weight of 2,100 lbs, over a total vertical head of 27 feet at a rate of 120 quarts per minute, and it has to run 24/7/365."

Here's a picture of the fountain, at least the top 14 feet the visitors get to see:

Only in America!

Jane, You Ignorant Socialist Fuck!.

Sorry if the post title offends, (and apologies to the original SNL writers) but I like a righteous rant as much as the next guy, and Bruce at mASS BACKWARDS has as righteous a rant as I've read lately. In his Compare and Contrast, Int'l Edition, he details the difference between people who, as he so eloquently and accurately puts it, are prepared with "the means, the ability, and the will to defend" against attack, and those who are not, and who are therefore at the mercy of the merciless.

Bruce's "ignorant socialist fuck" comment is directed at a representative of Amnesty International.

He shoots, he scores!

Like a Bad Penny, Prof. Saul Cornell Just Keeps Turning Up

This time on the Volokh Conspiracy and David Hardy's new blog Of Arms and the Law. A while back, I did a fisking of a Cornell op-ed, then the good professor responded to that fisking, and I replied. Shortly thereafter, a student at Ohio State sent me a link to a piece he'd written on the Professor for the OSU Sentinel and the Professor's position at the John Glenn Second Amendment Research Center. Then the Geek with a .45 followed up with a little in-depth research into the deep pockets and long tentacles of the Joyce Foundation and their funding for that center, and for other gun control groups.

David Hardy, an Arizona lawyer and supporter of the right to arms, noted on April 3 that Fordham University's Law Review was going to publish

...a symposium issue on the Second Amendment -- strangely, without a single recognizable pro-individual rights author (and almost without recognizable authors at all).
Aha, thought I -- is the Joyce Foundation at it again? Sure enough, a Google quickly turned this up: "The papers and commentaries presented at the conference will be published in the Fordham Law Review in Fall 2004. The conference was funded by a generous grant from The Joyce Foundation."

Prof. Cornell's name came up again in that post in connection to the Joyce Foundation, with reference back to that OSU Sentinel piece I linked to back on the first of March.

The Volokh Conspiracy picked up on David Hardy's piece, and that got the attention of Il Professore who responded there. Money quote:

The Fordham conference was much more inclusive that the law review issue organized by Glenn Reynolds that gave rise to the silly notion of a standard model. The goal of this conference was to present new research, not recycle the same old arguments.

Right. That would be ideas like "the Standard Model" is "revisionist" and "goes well beyond the idea of interpreting the Constitution as a living document that must respond to changing times"?? Now who's being silly?

This kind of exchange is awkward, with someone posting on one blog, but the respondent replying on another. Perhaps, however, Prof. Cornell didn't like my reply to his response here, and has decided to do it the difficult way with intent.

David Hardy's latest piece on the Joyce Foundation funding is up here. Pretty damning, in my opinion.

"Oh what a tangled web they weave..."

But man they've got some deep pockets. And a LOT of bad pennies.

Josh Sugarmann: One of the Few Semi-Honest Gun-Grabbers Out There

Googling around for the last piece, I found an op-ed written by Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, and outspoken gun ban proponent. Josh pulls no punches. He wants all handguns banned - as in, "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn 'em all in" banned. And he's in favor of any means necessary to reach that end, too, as I've noted before in the VPC's (in)famous "anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun" willingness to mislead the public. He wants "assault weapons" banned, too, but even Josh admits that the threat represented by "scary looking guns" is overblown. But, hey! If it helps in the eventual confiscation of handguns, Josh is all for it.

Anyway, let's fisk Josh's latest "frighten the peons" piece from the Charlotte Observer, April 2. (Registration required, use Bugmenot.com)

`The price of freedom': More bodies

The harsh reality is that too many Americans love their guns more than they love their children

JOSH SUGARMANN
Knight Ridder/Tribune

Now, I'm not sure if Josh or if the Charlotte Observer put in the subtitle (I suspect Josh) but isn't that just a wee bit inflammatory? "Americans love their guns more than they love their children"? How about "Americans cherish their freedom, and want to pass it on to their children," Josh? Hmm?

In just 10 days last month, two mass murder-suicides -- one ending in a Minnesota high school, the other taking place during a religious service in a Wisconsin hotel -- left a combined toll of 18 dead and more than 10 injured.

As Americans go through the familiar ritual of asking how this could happen, the National Rifle Association has a stark answer articulated by former head Harlon Carter more than 20 years ago. America's gun death toll, he explained, was simply "the price of freedom."

To Carter, no matter what atrocities stem from America's unfettered gun culture, they were a small price to pay for the unparalleled "freedom" of Americans to own virtually any gun of their own choosing: from pocket-size derringers to military-bred 50-caliber sniper rifles that can destroy aircraft and penetrate a half inch of armor plating from a mile away.

Did Harlon Carter actually say that? I Googled a bit, but didn't find such an attribution. I did find a couple of quotes. Harlon is attributed with this:

Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?

I found that on several different pages. Now, Joseph Sobran said something about the "price of freedom:"

The prospect of a government that treats all its citizens as criminal suspects is more terrifying than any terrorist. And even more frightening is a citizenry that can accept the surrender of its freedoms as the price of "freedom".

As did Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I suppose Josh Sugarmann's position on whether owning handguns is "an essential liberty" is not in doubt.

I did, however, find a Dave Kopel piece on National Review Online from August of 2000 that addressed the Harlon Carter question. Here's the pertinent excerpt:

A much more serious error, however, is the description of the late Harlon Carter, the leading architect of the NRA's transformation from a sportsman's club into the most powerful civil liberties organization in the history of the world. According to the (Washington) Post, "Asked in 1975 if he would rather let convicted violent felons and the mentally deranged buy guns than endorse a screening process for gun sales, Carter did not hesitate to say yes. That's the 'price we pay for freedom.'"

Not really. At the 1975 congressional hearing, a congressman asked the question described by the Post, but when Carter began to answer, the congressman cut him off, saying he wanted a different witness to answer. In the official transcript, Carter's answer is "The price we pay for freedom — ".

The Post's inadvertent distortion of Carter's meaning was doubtless the product of an interview with someone from a Washington anti-gun lobby, where the politics of personal destruction have been the norm for decades.

Misrepresenting Carter's statement was pretty mild compared to other attacks that Handgun Control, Inc., launched on Carter. One fundraising letter from HCI featured a picture of Harlon Carter on the envelope. The letter screamed that Carter "has seen to it that thousands of life-loving people like you and me DIE every year — shot with a handgun."

I'm not so sure that Carter was all that misquoted. Smeared, yes. Misquoted, no. Nevertheless, I will be the first to admit that IF there were no guns, we'd have no gun crime. However, I've a firm grasp on reality, and I know that there's no way to get rid of all the guns, so the point is moot. But let's continue:

Carter's words have shaped the world view of today's NRA. They also lead to a more important question. At what point will Americans agree that the price exacted by guns -- the gun lobby's "price of freedom" -- is simply too high?

Well, Josh, I'd say that after 9/11 it will be a point - if ever - far in the future. And you know why? Sept. 11, 2001 was a wake-up call for a lot of Americans, who suddenly looked around them and saw reality, and realized that all the fuzzy-bunny wishful-thinking I'm-OK-you're-OK philosophies offered by the people who wanted to disarm America for its own good was just that - wishful thinking. They started thinking about the real price of freedom.

An all-too-familiar pattern has already emerged after the Red Lake High School shooting in Minnesota -- the worst school shooting in the United States since Columbine. Attention has focused on virtually everything except the actual tools -- reportedly two handguns and a shotgun -- that made the massacre possible.

Yes, weapons belonging to a police officer. Weapons issued by his police department.

And your point is...?

Did the school have metal detectors?

Yes.

Was the security guard armed?

No.

Did the unique struggles faced by the residents of Indian reservations play a role?

Apparently not.

What about the shooter's postings on a white supremacist Web site, and did other students help plan the attack? What have we learned since Columbine?

That we have some seriously messed up kids, and that drugging them might be a contributing factor in school shootings?

Each of these questions is legitimate. Yet while other Western, industrialized nations face their own civic, social and economic problems, they understand the direct link between gun availability and gun violence and severely restrict access to specific classes of firearms. The result is that other countries simply don't experience mass shootings as commonly seen in the United States. The United States is unique in the ease with which it allows its citizens to act on their rage through the barrel of a gun.

Very true. Yet other countries have had school shootings and other forms of lethal attack. Dunblane, Scotland, March 1996. Sanaa, Yemen, March 1997. Friesing Germany, Feb. 19, 2002. Erfurt Germany, April 26, 2002. Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina, April 29, 2002. Carmen de Patagones, Argentina, Sept. 28, 2004. All shootings. Osaka, Japan, June 8, 2001 (knife, 8 dead, 21 wounded.) According to the Time Magazine's Asia edition from Nov. 2004:

Last week, the city's place in (China's) consciousness acquired a stain that may take years to fade. At midnight, a 21-year-old named Yan Yanming reportedly entered the dormitory of Ruzhou's No. 2 High School and slipped into the rooms where male students slept. Yan slashed some students' throats, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. Others he stabbed in the heart. Eight died without rising. Four survived—hours later, witnesses saw the smears where their blood flowed down the school's front steps. Police caught Yan the next day after he overdosed on drugs at his parents' home. The attack left the city in shock. "People couldn't believe that their school could be so unsafe," says Cheng Honggen, a local Xinhua reporter.

The Ruzhou killings are part of a chilling rite of passage endured by modern societies all over the world. Ruzhou was the sixth in a string of deadly attacks on Chinese schoolchildren that began in August, when a schizophrenic janitor at a Beijing kindergarten stabbed 14 children, killing one, according to police. A bus driver in Shandong province was executed earlier this month for slashing 24 kids in September; last month, a teacher in Hunan province was arrested for killing four students and wounding 12; two weeks later a man in Beijing was arrested for killing a six-year-old and stuffing him into the school's washing machine. The violence stalking the land of one-child families is not confined to the lower grades. In April, a college student named Ma Jiajue hacked four classmates to death after an all-night poker game. Ma said he was "too poor to afford shoes" and killed from jealousy.

The number of murders, rapes and batteries committed by juveniles in China is growing faster than 10% a year, says criminologist Pi Yijun of the China Politics and Law University. Stunned parents and authorities are searching for reasons for the surge. Some blame greater individual freedom and the decline of authoritarian control. Others explain it as the result of epochal social change and the loss of moral ballast once supplied by communist ideology.

One thing they're not blaming it on is "knife availability."

Sorry, Josh, but "gun availability" isn't the reason we're having mass shootings. We've always had guns.

Even when Americans' attention is focused on gun policy, a timid mindset takes hold. Advocates and policy-makers look for minor, "common sense" policy proposals into which they can shoehorn the discrete circumstances of a particular attack.

To avoid ugly realities like "cops have guns, and they aren't going to give them up." Which might be a message you ought to take from the Red Lake massacre. You'll notice they ignore your major "ban-and-confiscate" legislation because by common sense they know better than to try.

They are unwilling to acknowledge the basic fact that America's gun violence problem is a direct result of the ease with which Americans can obtain virtually any gun of their choice for almost any intent. Why talk about banning handguns when you can focus on trigger locks?

Well, Josh, I reject your premise right there. America's "gun violence problem" has been declining for over a decade - while our stock of guns has been increasing by at least three million new guns per year. That's over 30 million new guns, and declining gun violence. More guns do not equal "more gun violence."

No matter how many times you keep repeating the lie.

Mass shootings today are treated almost like tornadoes or earthquakes -- unstoppable forces of nature that we must endure. The harsh reality is that too many Americans love their guns more than they love their children. Each new shooting -- regardless of the number of people killed or the formerly "safe" environment violated by the sound of gunfire -- seems less to shock us than to inure us to the next horrible incident.

Perhaps because we are not willing to be treated as criminals for crimes we have not committed? Perhaps because we resent being told things like "Americans love their guns more than they love their children" by preening self-righteous moralists like you? America listened to the Prohibitionists tell us that outlawing alcohol would solve all kinds of problems. It didn't. It created all kinds of new ones. England's subjects listened when their gun prohibitionists told them that banning semi-auto weapons would solve problems. It didn't. They listened again after Dunblane, and banned all handguns - and that hasn't helped either, has it? Why would we want to follow that disproven path?

In April, when parents across America think twice about sending their children to school on April 20, the sixth anniversary of the Columbine massacre, remember Harlon Carter's words: We are just paying "the price of freedom."

Perhaps they should think about something else: Their children are going to "gun free zones" where there isn't anyone to protect them against anyone with harmful intent, regardless of the weapon used. No administrator, no teacher, no groundskeeper, in most cases no security guard, will be able to stop a determined attacker.

They'll have to wait until the cops show up. With their guns.

The world has changed, Josh, but it's not the guns that are the problem, and it never has been.

Even China is figuring that out.

This, of Course, is the Fault of the 80+ Million Gun Owners Who Didn't Shoot Anyone Yesterday

Hoo, boy. The Washington Post reports on the courtroom antics of the whacked-out goblin that went on a shooting spree yesterday:

Bail Denied for Shooting Spree Suspect
Accused Gunman Appeared Agitated in Court

By Daniel de Vise and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers

SALISBURY, Md.--A man accused of killing two people and wounding four others in a shooting rampage in Delaware and eastern Maryland was ordered held without bond Friday after a profanity-laced court appearance in which he threatened the judge, prosecutor, sheriff's deputies and his own public defender.

Allison Lamont Norman, 22, handcuffed and wearing a black and white striped prison jumpsuit, babbled and muttered for the duration of his 20-minute arraignment Friday morning in Wicomico County District Court before Judge R. Scott Davis, who threatened to muzzle him.

In addition to threatening the judge and virtually everyone with whom he could make eye contact, Norman repeatedly tried to lurch out of his seat, only to be pushed back down by burly deputies.

No 5'-0" grandmothers in this courtroom. Those boys learn quick!

He angrily refused the services of public defender David Weck, lunging at the attorney at one point and being physically restrained by officers.

Lunged at the attorney, eh? Trying for a reduced sentence? That only works if there's a jury present! (And only if you connect.)

During the brief but tumultuous hearing, the judge read to Norman charges of first-degree murder and the use of a handgun in the commission of a violent crime -- offenses that could give Norman the death penalty if he is convicted.

Norman is accused of fatally shooting 24-year-old Jamell Weston in the face with a 9mm Glock handgun and wounding Weston's cousin, Marcus Cannon, in an apparently random act of violence at an apartment complex in Laurel, Del., Thursday morning. Charging documents say Norman, previously listed as a resident of Seaford, Del., lived at the Carvel Gardens Apartments in Laurel where the first shootings took place.

This reminds me of one of the long list of "things you must believe if you support gun control": You must believe that if people have guns, they'll go on shooting rampages, but having a concealed-carry permit just in case of a random "spree shooter" is just being paranoid.

Delaware is a "may issue" state. Maryland is too.

Norman then went on a 45-minute shooting spree while driving a stolen car south on U.S. Highway 13 to Maryland, police said. They said he wounded a man in a shopping center in Laurel, fired on a sanitation worker in Delmar on the Delaware-Maryland border, shot at cars in Salisbury and commandeered an SUV, killing the driver. Also shot were two women driving vehicles in Salisbury, one of whom was hospitalized in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the chest. Norman was captured after breaking into a townhouse and attempting to flee on foot, police said.

But Norman could be expected to follow gun control laws, because, well, they're laws, right?

The charges read in court Friday dealt with the killing of the SUV driver in Maryland, Davondale M. Peters, 28. Charges related to the shootings in Delaware are expected to be announced later Friday, and additional charges in Maryland are pending.

As he sat muttering to himself or speaking out loud in obscenity-laced tirades, Norman at one point seemed to describe what had happened Thursday.

"Pop, pop, pop, pop -- that's how I popped them, just like that," he said. At another point, however, he said, "I don't hurt no [expletive] unless they hurt me first."

A formal plea is expected to be entered at a subsequent court hearing.

"Sometimes I sit and look at life from a different angle," Norman said in one of his few profanity-free utterances.

But he kept the "sanity-free" theme.

When Davis was late for the 10 a.m. hearing, Norman said, "Where the [expletive] judge at?" After Davis arrived, the defendant repeatedly cursed him, spewing expressions of defiance and contempt.

Asked by the judge if he wanted to be represented by a public defender, Norman said, "Man, I don't want nothin' from that [expletive]."

When Davis said later that the defendant "clearly seems not to be interested in the services of the public defender," Norman said, "Hey, I'm not interested in [expletive] except going home. Yo, you'd better let me [expletive] go."

On a slab with a toe tag? Fine by me.

Norman then told the judge, "If you don't let me go to my family, I'm going to murder every [expletive] thing you touch."

He really knows how to charm, doesn't he?

After the prosecutor, Wicomico County state's attorney Davis Ruart, said Norman is a "flight risk" and should be denied bond, the judge said the defendant had not exactly made a case for his release.

Flight risk? One flew over the cuckoo's nest. He's a nutter, but I hope they don't find him "not guilty by reason of insanity." He apparently knows quite well what he did, that it was wrong, and why. You can be nuts and still be guilty.

"While we've been here, quite candidly, he has done everything he possibly can to threaten everybody in this room," Davis said. "I have quite candidly put up with more abusive language from him than I have put up with from anybody in the 16 years I've been on this bench."

Davis added that in the future, "I fully intend to muzzle him unless he decides to conduct himself in a civil fashion."

How candid. But won't that affect how the jury sees him? I'm sure the ACLU will be in contact shortly.

After the hearing, Nicole Tull, a Salisbury resident and cousin of Weston, the man murdered in Delaware, said of Norman, "He's crazy, I guess. I just feel sorry for him, I guess."

I feel sorry for rabid animals, too. It's not their fault they're rabid. Wouldn't stop me from putting them down, though. And I'm not guessing.

Tull dismissed Norman's threatening courtroom behavior and expressed relief that he is being held without bail in the Wicomico County Jail.

"I'm not worried about it," Tull said. "He's in there now. He's not going to bother me."

Tull said that at one point in his appearance, Norman "looked right at me and said, 'Right, cuz?' " She added, "I'm not his cousin."

Ruart, the prosecutor, declined to comment on Norman's mental state.

"Clearly, the defendant through his attorney can request a competency hearing," he said.

Right. That'd be the attorney he rejected?

As he was led out of the courtroom, Norman briefly struggled with guards and exited muttering and swearing.

Asked after the hearing to comment on possible consequences for Norman's courtroom threats, Ruart said, "He's got a lot more serious things to worry about."

Each and every threat, in case you didn't know, is - under U.S. law - "assault." But since he's facing the death penalty, Mr. Prosecutor seems to have a handle on things.

Now, I haven't seen any dancing-in-the-blood-of-the-slain press releases from the Brady bunch or the VPC on this case, but the Brady bunch did issue a release today pleading with Congress to not pass The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because the legislation

...would slam courthouse doors across the nation to the victims and survivors of gun crimes.

Well, isn't it obvious here that Allison Lamont Norman isn't the guilty party here? No! It's Glock, Glock's distributor, and the retailer who originally sold the gun! (Why it isn't the BATFE's fault for licensing the distributor and the retailer I'm a little fuzzy on, but logic has so little to do with these things....)

Dept. of Our Collapsing Schools, "Professional" Educators Division

Looks like the light-bantamweight division, actually. Reader Stephen Rider emailed me the link to this one, via Acidman's little girl, Savannah Sam. When was the last time you heard about a teacher assaulting another teacher? Much less, in front of her class? It's a short story, but a classic one:

Teacher Vs. Teacher In Alleged Classroom Brawl
Police Say Mom Angry After Teacher Reprimanded Daughter

POSTED: 5:20 pm CDT April 4, 2005
UPDATED: 5:21 pm CDT April 4, 2005

DALLAS -- A Dallas high school teacher is facing an assault charge after she allegedly attacked another teacher in front of a classroom of students.

Police said Paulette Baines assaulted her daughter's teacher inside a middle school classroom.

Baines allegedly grabbed the woman's hair, yanked her out of a chair and dragged her across the room while punching and kicking her.

That teacher suffered a concussion, two broken ribs and several bruises on her face.

Investigators said Baines was angry at the teacher because the woman allegedly reprimanded her daughter -- asking the girl and several other students to stop loitering at their lockers.

Baines was released from jail Saturday after posting a $2,500 bond.

She is now on paid administrative leave.

Hmm...

A concussion, two broken ribs, and numerous contusions. I'd say that was assault, and battery. Apparently a room full of students is insufficient witness for the NBC affiliate to dispense with the "alleged" language.

But I just love the "paid administrative leave" part. If I opened a can of whoopass on one of my coworkers, my ass would be out on the street - with no pay - after I floated bail. But not if you're an employee of the public sector, oh no! Tax money isn't like real money, and you get hot and cold running lawyers on tap for free! No doubt she'll get sentenced to "counseling" and be right back in the classroom fv*king up little middle-school minds.

Meanwhile the other teacher will sue not her attacker, but the people with deep pockets - the taxpayers - and will undoubtedly win a nice juicy settlement. And the litigation nation will continue its swirling path around the commode bowl a bit longer, a bit faster, and a bit lower.

And my grandkids are five and six. One goes into kindergarten next year, and the other into 1^st grade. God help them.

(Yes, I'm an agnostic. It's just an expression.)

OK, I'm Back.

Ego sufficiently stroked (thanks, y'all!), I'll get back to posting again. I'm on vacation today and all next week, so we'll see how much analysis I'll actually do. I have to get my taxes done tomorrow, so don't expect too much out of me, and if the wind dies down I'm going to the range and burn some the ammo I've been loading the last couple of weeks, and the factory-new stuff I bought (Federal hardball .45 and .38 Nyclads.) If I get a decent return, I may actually get to participate in BAG day. Perhaps a nice used S&W model 60 for my wife.

But for the next hour or three, I'm going to be perusing the web and perhaps doing a little posting, so stand by!

The Last Full Measure of Devotion.

Sgt. 1^st Class Paul Smith was awarded, posthumously, the Medal of Honor yesterday. It was the first such given since Sgt. 1^st Class Randall Shugart and Master Sgt. Gary Gordon were given the award for their actions in Somalia in 1993. The award was announced on Feb. 2, but not actually bestowed upon him until yesterday. Via Jackalope Pursuivant, I found a very detailed series of pieces from the St. Petersburg Times about Sgt. Smith and his actions leading to this award. Sgt. Smith was from the Tampa Bay area. If you'd like to spend some time reading about the life and death of this man, let me suggest the following link:

The Last Full Measure of Devotion

Take your time. It's worth it to read the whole thing.

I'll be back on Friday.

A Year Later, and Nothing Much has Changed.

Last March and April I had a sort of negative epiphany. I wrote the three peices of The Courts Will Not Save Us trilogy (see left side column for the links). In the middle of that, I also wrote Hoist the Black Flag!, which I had cause to re-read just a couple of days ago. It pretty much presages the conclusion of The Courts Will Not Save Us, but reading it again, I find no cause to change. I'm still willing to try to teach the horse to sing, and I still appear to have a stay of execution, so I think I'll be doing this a while longer yet.

I've found over the last year that I'm often repeating myself, but I tell myself that I'm doing it for a larger, newer audience. Someone advised me once that, when lecturing (and really, that's the best description for this blog that I can come up with) the best tactic to get your message through is:

Tell them what it is you're going to tell them

Tell them what you told them you'd tell them

Tell them again what you just told them

Repetition seems necessary.

I'd like to reach a broader (read: fence-sitting) audience, but I'll settle for what I've got for now. I'm pleased when, from time to time, I see that someone has spent an hour perusing the "Best Posts" or the archives, but I find it a little disappointing that my (on average) 600 visitors a day leave (on average) three or four comments, tops. And it's generally the usual suspects - there are six or eight of you who consistently comment (and I'm not complaining about that!) I don't get too many questions, and almost no outraged protest (Michael Klein being the one major anomaly to date.)

(Poor, poor pitiful me.)

Ah, well. I do this because I enjoy it, as much as posts like the one below piss me off. Perhaps it's just catharsis, but I think I'll keep on doing it. Hopefully it'll keep on drawing an audience.

How the Gun Control Groups Intentionally Mislead Women.

Head's Bunker has a pretty good and heavily crosslinked post up entitled Women, how does it feel being assumed an idiot? It begins:

Anti-gun people think you are stupid, so they target you...
Yes targets. Women are targets of a very successful campaign to lead you down a path to a world view that sounds great on the surface, but terminates in a very dreary dead end. There is a very powerful element in the U.S. that wants you to believe that firearms are bad, and that there is an epidemic of death by guns, especially among children. You may say "of course! everybody knows that!", but is it really so? This same element of society wants to use fear to frighten people into believing that children are at a high risk due to "assault weapons" and machine guns. This element wants you to know that drug dealers and gang members buy 'evil looking guns' because of gun show loopholes and that there are extra-deadly bullets called "cop killers" that are a menace to society. They do all this by playing on your natural emotions and fears, and they are very successful.

But consider if you discovered that you had been lied to. Not a little white lie or a fib here and there, but wholesale, pre-planned deception.

Really good work. But he missed my favorite example of gun-control advocates lying to women, Jean Hanff Korelitz's March 2000 Salon column, What a Few Good Women Can Do. Here's the comment I left over at the Bunker:

"And what about the more than 4,000 children who die in gun-related accidents each year? That's 11 kids a day. And we're not talking about crimes, or intentional shootings. We're talking -- or not talking enough -- about accidents."

Four thousand children who die in gun accidents EACH YEAR!

Note, there's never been a retraction to this that I'm aware of.

Yet the CDC reports that for 1999 there were exactly 158 accidental deaths by firearm for "children" through the age of 17. Ms. Korelitz's "4,000 children a year" was off by a factor of 25.

In 2000 the number fell to 150 (a 5% improvement!) In 2001, 125. In 2002, (last data available) 115. That's a 27% drop over four years. With no new gun laws, and over three million new firearms in private hands added each and every year.

Don't tell me the Left doesn't lie to frighten women. I know better.

That's just the most blatant example I've seen. Go read the whole thing, and the links. Then peruse the comments section where an anonymous (naturally) poster wants argue for gun control.

They're so cute!

Well, at Least She Wasn't Driven to Suicide.

Reader Chris Allen emailed me from Australia last week with a link to another sad damned story out of England. This was covered by some others, such as Lurch over at the English blog Gun Culture. Here's the story, or at least the TimesOnline version of it:

Jailed: teacher who snapped
By Russell Jenkins

Special-needs tutor fired air pistol near 'yobs' whom she believed were terrorising her family

A MIDDLE-AGED teacher is starting a six-month jail sentence today because she decided to fight back against “yobs” with a pellet gun.

Linda Walker, 47, who teaches at a special school for children with behavioural problems, has been heralded as an example to other less energetic and caring teachers.

Her life and career now lie in ruins after a moment of self-confessed madness when she pursued a group of teenagers she blamed for a campaign of vandalism directed at her home and family.

During the midnight confrontation near her suburban home in Urmston, Greater Manchester, she fired up to six rounds from the gas-powered air pistol into the ground close to the feet of her antagonist. She later confessed to police officers that she had acted “like a madwoman possessed” but complained that the activities of the youths had left her at breaking point.

Mrs Walker looked apprehensive in the dock at Minshull Street Crown Court, in Manchester, as the judge told her yesterday that she would serve at least three months before being considered for release.

Her partner, John Cavanagh, 56, a lecturer at Salford College, watched from the public gallery as Mrs Walker, who has complained that the law always appears to be on the side of the “yobbos”, was led to the cells to begin her sentence.

Mrs Walker shares her home in Urmston with Mr Cavanagh and her two 17-year-old sons.

She has taught children with special needs for 25 years, rising to head of Food Technology and head of Year 11 at New Park High School, Salford, where her work has been praised by Ofsted inspectors.

Her work has also won the admiration of colleagues. Nigel Haslam, a former head teacher, said: “She was very professional and thorough. She did a tremendous amount for young people. She worked all the hours that came and provided the students with many opportunities to succeed.”

Beyond the school gates, Mrs Walker was being driven towards breaking point by groups of youths “terrorising” her neighbourhood. She logged a catalogue of complaints with officers, from abusive phone calls to thefts and vandalism.

Anonymous callers would abuse her son as a “poof”. A wing mirror of her other son’s car was broken off, the garden shed was broken into, ornaments thrown over the wall and fish stolen from her pond.

The final straw came when she noticed that a five-litre plastic container of washing up liquid was moved from the back garden and emptied over her son’s car in the driveway.

She was “fuming mad” when she rushed out of her house at night to confront a knot of teenagers 250 yards away. After an exchange of abuse she returned home to arm herself with a Walther CP88 gas-powered air pistol, which she had kept in her underwear drawer for four months since she had been burgled, and an air rifle.

She phoned the police to tell them that she was going to “shoot the f****** vandals. I’ve got an air rifle and a pistol and I’m going to shoot them.”

Mrs Walker squared up to one 18-year-old, firing off several rounds from the pistol into nearby ground. The youth, Robert McKiernan, now 19, who has a number of convictions including burglary, told her that she was a “psycho”.

She later expressed surprise when an armed response unit arrested her and not the youths. Afterwards she complained to officers: “Police are very sympathetic but the law is on the side of these criminals and yobbos and not the victims. They have all the rights.”

In evidence Mrs Walker said: “I cannot say I am sorry I challenged him (the teenager). I think I needed to do it to get rid of my anger. I know I shouldn’t have done it. I know I was loopy.”

Farrhat Arshad, for the defence, suggested that Mrs Walker had given “her lot to society”. Ms Arshad said: “The court is familiar with the acts of petty vandalism and theft that were caused to her property. Although they may appear as petty, the effects on Mrs Walker were great. She thought her family, which was supposed to be safe, was being attacked.”

Mrs Walker was found guilty of affray and possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence after a week-long trial in February.

FAMILY'S DIARY OF DESPAIR

Linda Walker says that her home was targeted by vandals in the months before the shooting. There were thefts and vandalism which, the family believe, amounted to persecution:

She told police officers that she had intercepted several malicious phone calls. In one, the caller talked about one of her sons being a “poof” and threatened her. Mrs Walker believes that the youths that gather at night on the neighbourhood streets were driven by jealousy of her two sons. She said that her sons had saved up their money since they were small and were now able to afford a car and a mountain bike

During the summer holiday, while the family were staying in their caravan, the garden shed was broken into and the family’s bicycles were stolen. Bottles of alcohol were also taken and garden ornaments were thrown over the wall

Fish from the pond disappeared in a separate incident and the front door was kicked in, splitting the PVC coating

Cars parked in the driveway were damaged. Wing mirrors were smashed and a brick was thrown through a window. Mrs Walker told police: “Kids keep coming down the road to vandalise my sons’ cars because they do not have cars and are jealous. When your kids work hard for things and they get damaged you get protective.

I have had harassment and mischievous phone calls. I got a phone call calling my son a poof and asking, ‘Does he want a good bumming?’ I asked who it was and why they were doing this and he said I would get bummed as well."

The final straw came on August 14 last year when she noticed that a five-litre plastic container had been moved from the back step and placed on the roof of her son’s car in the driveway.

She said: “They did not know whether it was brake fluid or anti-freeze and they poured it all over his car”. John Cavanagh, Mrs Walker’s partner, said: “Things have been pretty terrible at home with the vandalism going on. It has caused one or two stressful moments.”

"One or two stressful moments." Ah, the fabled British gift for understatement.

The Times allowed its readers to comment on the case. Here's a few choice samples:

My son was recently attacked by local yobs in a drive-by style shooting involving an air weapon. The offenders were caught and admitted the crime along with other offences. The response of Devon and Cornwall police was to confiscate the weapon and caution two of the offenders. As for the minor damage to my son's car, to get any form of compensation would involve a private prosecution against the youths. It would seem that justice depends on where you live and not on what crime you have committed. Christopher Sweetman, Great Torrington

I was appalled by this sentence. This is the first offence committed by an otherwise valuable and upstanding member of the community who has been pushed beyond her limits. She, alongside countless others up and down the country, have to put up with years of abuse in their own home and nothing is done. Police response times to these crimes are too slow to gain evidence and so the yobs carry on without any real prospect of prosecution. I am taking my legal finals next month and I'm wondering what the point of my qualifaction will be if this is how the legal system responds to people such as Linda Walker. How can we reconcile the use of ASBOs for yobs (which still do not deprive them of their freedom) with prison for a person such as Linda Walker? Alexa Noble, Poole

Remarkably good question. Here's one from someone upon whom his chains rest comfortably:

Walker deserves the sentence she received. She approached a group of youths who she had no evidence against, carrying firearms and discharged them. Even if she had seen these youths committing an offence at her home, her vigilante action was completely inappropriate. It is easy to have two sepearte points of view in matters like these, one point of view if you are not directly affected and one if you are, by this I mean if all the bleeding hearts who think that the sentence is unjust had been affected, e.g. it was your son or daughter she approached in a raged state you would think differently. As far as I am aware, the police investigated all the matters she had reported previously and infact arrested offenders, none of these offenders identified were the people she approached that night. Well done the police and well done the judicial system. The maximum sentence for an offence of this kind is 10 years, I think the judge on the day displayed great restraint with regard to her sentence. James Smith, Manchester

Thankfully, Mr. Smith was the only respondent who was quite this vehement about Ms. Walker's sentence.

Wanker.

But at least Ms. Walker wasn't driven to the point of despair that 64 year-old Martin James was. Or 77 year-old Bill Clifford. The "yobs" drove Linda Walker past the point they drove Maureen Jennings, but not that far. As Lurch put it, "Yet another good person hung out to dry by the very legal system which failed them in the first place."

Like it failed Amelia Whale.

A Quick Post, Now that Blogger Seems to be Cooperating.

I'm going to be out of town tomorrow and Thursday, but I'll be taking some vacation starting Friday, so maybe I'll get a bit more posting done. (And yardwork. I hate yardwork.) Dr. Cline informs me that he'll be responding to the last post in our exchange on rights, so expect that maybe next week. (He's busy looking for a job at the moment.) Leftwing moonbat Michael Klein has decided to retire from the field for the moment. I honestly don't expect to hear from him again.

In the mean time, I received notification today from Spirit of America has started a Lebanon blog to support Lebanon in its struggle for independence from Syria (and everybody else.) Michael Totten is there now. Here's the email:

Los Angeles, CA – Monday, April 04, 2005– Spirit of America blogger Michael Totten is on the ground on Martyrs’ Square in Beirut, Lebanon. The blog will share the local perspective and help launch Spirit of America’s project fund committed to assisting the people of Lebanon win independence.

The URL for the Spirit Of America Lebanon blog is www.spiritofamerica.net/lebanonblog and the URL for the Spirit Of America Lebanon project is www.spiritofamerica.net/projects/96.

Financial support will be provided to the tent city demonstrators on Martyrs’ Square in Beirut through local protest organizers so that demonstrators can keep pressure on the foreign occupiers and world attention on the struggle for Lebanese independence. The fund will support the tent city demonstrators by supplying food, water, shelter and other basic necessities.

“The American people and all those who support freedom and democracy can join Spirit of America to help the people of Lebanon win their independence,” said Jim Hake, founder and CEO of Spirit of America. “The blog will provide ground level insight into Lebanon’s peaceful revolution to be free.”

Lebanon is at an historic crossroads. It has been under foreign occupation for more than a generation. As the result of pro-democracy demonstrations in Beirut, free elections and independence are within reach.

The Spirit of America mission is to extend the goodwill of the American people to assist those advancing freedom, democracy and peace abroad. Our objectives are to increase the reach, scale and impact of the informal humanitarian activities that take place on the front lines in troubled regions; contribute goods and assistance that can have a positive, practical and timely impact in the local communities where American personnel are involved; establish connections and strengthen bonds between the American people and those in countries struggling for freedom and democracy.

Spirit of America is a 501c3, non-profit supported through private sector contributions and in-kind support. 100% of all designated donations are used for project specific purposes. For more information and to support Spirit of America and this and other projects, visit the web site at www.spiritofamerica.net.

At their request, I'm adding a Spirit of America "Help Lebanon" link on the left column that goes to their "Projects96" website. Help spread freedom. Give 'em a hand if you can.

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing."

Last Thursday I posted on the murders of Julie and Aeneas Hernlen, and about the fact that their 5 year-old daughter called 911 to report the crime. I've since done some searching, and found another case that is equally, if not more tragic. Back in June of last year The Nashville Files reported a 911 transcript that ought to leave you chilled. Freda Elliot hid in a closet and dialed 911 when her ex-husband stormed into her house. The transcript is the sound of her pleading for the police to come and save them before Parker Elliot killed them all.

911 Office, Tammy.

Tammy, my ex-husband's here with a gun. He's in here. He's got a gun.

He's going to kill them, hurry.

He's got my kids, quick.

What's his name?

Parker Elliott.

(Quick, shallow breathing)

2005 Forrest Ridge Trail, Culleoka. We've got a male subject in the house with a weapon.

He just told my kids he's going to kill them if I'm on the phone. He's going to kill me.

I don't need you to hang up. Has he been drinking?

He's going to kill me. They're in the hallway with him, and I'm hiding in the closet.

(First shot is heard)

I'm hiding in the closet. I'm coming out 'cause he'd not going to hurt my kids. The kids are with him.

Can they get out?

I want to make sure he doesn't shoot my kids. The kids are with him.

They're deterring him. Please, please, he's going to kill them.

Has he been drinking?

He's got to be.

How long has he been out of the residence?

(Labored, quick breathing)

The kids are telling him I'm not here. He said if I'm here, he'll kill them.

He just shot the gun.

He hasn't seen you yet?

He's coming. He just shot the gun again. Please! Please!

What kind of a gun is it?

A handgun. He's going to the front door.

(Dispatcher to other emergency personnel) He's inside the house, shooting. He had two children and an ex-wife.

Oh, he hit one of them!

Stay in the closet. He doesn't know you're in the closet?

He can see the phone cord coming in. Oh! He hit one of them.

(Gunshots. Sound of girl screaming in the background)

They've got the gun. I think my kids have got my gun. I can't believe I forgot to get it.

I think one of my children has the weapon. He's shot five times. I'm hiding in the closet, and my kids are out there with him.

How old are the kids?

15 and 18.

(Gunshots and screaming)

He shot five more. Is that all of them?

Ma'am, I don't know what kind of gun he has.

He hasn't shot them yet. My kids are still OK.

(Labored breathing)

(Kids screaming)

He's going to kill me.

(Screaming)

He's coming to the closet! He's coming to the closet! He's coming to the closet!

(Kids screaming, shrieking)

He's at the closet. He's going to shoot me. Help me! He's here. He's gonna hit me with the gun.

(Children screaming in the background)

Calm down.

He's still shooting at the kids! Help me!

(Whimpering)

Be calm! They're getting there. They're coming.

He's beating on the doors.

(Loud banging)

He's still shooting.

Parker, don't!

Parker, no! Please, no!

He's going to beat a hole in the door.

Ma'am, calm down. What's your name?

Please! Freda! Freda!

(Yell heard from man in background)

Please, don't hurt my kids! Don't hurt my babies! Parker, no!

Where are they?

I don't know.

(Screaming)

Parker, please! Don't!

(Screams, screams, screams)

(Gunshots)

Don't hurt my babies!!

(Shrieks)

(Screams)

Freda, what's going on? Freda?

(Gunshots, gunshots)

Hello?

This is E-Com 720. We just heard two gunshots inside the residence. We heard a woman screaming. Now we've got dead silence.

10-4.

Parker Elliot escaped the scene of the crime after killing his daughter, wounding his son in the neck, and shooting his ex-wife in the head. She later died. Elliot was later apprehended without firing a shot. The truly sad part about this? Freda Elliot had a gun. Both teenagers were old enough to know how to use it, but apparently did not. Remember Freda's comment:

They've got the gun. I think my kids have got my gun. I can't believe I forgot to get it.

Now Freda Elliot got a restraining order against Parker Elliot, but as Volusia County (FL) sheriff Ben Johnson noted in the case of the Hernlens, "An injunction is fine for someone who is willing to accept the rules. This individual here was set on taking action." During the petition for the restraining order, Freda Elliot told the court: "Parker has a gun permit and always carries a gun. I also have a gun permit." I'm not a real fan of the law that disarms anyone under a restraining order, but if you're going to pass such a law, doesn't it seem like a good idea to try to enforce it? Especially when allegations like "In 1994 he put a .44 to my head and was going to kill me because someone told him I was a good woman and if he didn't want me, he would take me (it should have been a compliment)" are part of the deposition?

Freda Elliot, her 15 year-old son Seth and her 18 year-old daughter Rachel knew that Parker Elliot was violent and abusive and armed. They had their own firearm for self-protection. But when the time came they apparently were unable to use it to stop him. Instead, Freda hid in a closet and depended on 911 to save her. One of the kids might have retrieved the gun and tried to use it, but I've found no evidence of that other than Freda's desperate phone call.

Zendo Deb of TFS Magnum linked to the earlier piece. A commenter left this, there:

Ya HAVE to have a gun and know how to use it. That's all there is to it. That piece of paper can't protect you and the cops probably can't protect you either. Not if some maniac is in your house trying to kill you in the middle of the night.

But it requires more than just having the gun and knowing how to use it. It requires being willing.

OK, Who Are You, and What Did You Do with the Real New York Times?

I think they're trying to lure us into dropping our guard. Check out this piece from today's NYT:

Shootings Fuel a Drive to Ease Gun Laws

By KATE ZERNIKE

Paul Bucher, the district attorney for the Wisconsin county where a man opened fire in a church service last month, killing seven people and himself, has one answer to the deadly mass shootings around the country in recent weeks: more guns.

"The problems aren't the guns, it's the guns in the wrong hands," said Mr. Bucher, a Republican who recently announced his candidacy for Wisconsin attorney general. "We need to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Whether having that would have changed what happened is all speculation, but it would level the playing field. If the person you're fighting has a gun and all you have is your fists, you lose."

You've got to admit, this is a sea-change for public officials to advocate arming the citizenry. Normally they try to avoid the topic completely if they aren't rabid "ban-em all" anti-gunners.

Across the country, efforts to expand or establish laws allowing concealed handguns have been fueled by the horrifying shootings in the last month - of the family of a federal judge in Chicago, at the church service in Wisconsin, at courthouses in Atlanta and Tyler, Tex., and the nation's second-deadliest school shooting, on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota.

In Texas and Illinois, the shootings prompted new legislation to allow judges and prosecutors to be armed. Legislators in Nebraska and Wisconsin, which were already considering allowing concealed weapons, say they think the shootings will help their cause.

Is it just common sense finally being beaten into the public psyche? I'd like to think so.

Even supporters of gun control acknowledge that the atmosphere is sharply different than it was in 1999 when the nation's deadliest school shooting took place at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colo. Those shootings inspired gun-control proposals in Congress and in state legislatures, and forced gun advocates to retreat from legislation they hoped to pass, including a Colorado bill to allow concealed handguns.

Then, the National Rifle Association scaled back its national meeting, held in Denver soon after the Columbine shootings, to one day from three, and with 7,000 protesters shouting outside, used the occasion to declare its support for trigger locks and "absolutely gun-free" schools. By contrast, after the recent shootings in Red Lake, N.R.A. officials proposed arming teachers.

To the outrage of a few. But only a few. Maybe they are starting to grasp how asinine the concept of "gun-free schools," or for that matter "gun-free" anywhere is.

Supporters of gun control express hope for some of their legislation, particularly in Illinois, where Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, both Democrats, are pushing for background checks on all weapons sales at gun shows and a ban on assault weapons.

But they say their best chance now is to try to hold the line against more laws allowing concealed handguns. "We were very much more on the offensive after Columbine," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "It's just the way politics have worked. I hate to be in this position, but we are."

My suggestion? Get used to it.

Instead of calling for new restrictions on guns after the Minnesota shootings, the coalition, which includes 45 groups, simply asked for "a dialogue on the role of firearms in America."

We've "dialogued" ourselves out. You have your side, we have ours, and there is no middle ground. "Compromise" used to mean "giving up only half of what YOU demanded." No more.

Opponents of gun control have had victories in Congress, which let the ban on assault weapons expire last fall, and in states, where the push to allow concealed handguns has been gathering momentum for two years. Since 2003, five states, most recently Ohio, have approved laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons.

Thirty-five states now require the authorities to issue permits for concealed handguns to most applicants as long as they do not have criminal records, and two, Alaska and Vermont, allow concealed weapons without a permit. Eleven others allow the local authorities discretion in issuing so-called concealed carry permits. Most states include some restrictions on where guns can be carried.

In Illinois, the bill allowing judges to be armed was filed after Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow's mother and husband were killed. In Texas, a bill proposed after the shooting outside the Tyler courthouse in late February would allow district attorneys to carry weapons in court.

Yes, we know how rabid and unpredictable district attorneys are. There'll be blood in the courts! Oh, wait, there's already been "blood in the courts."

Never mind.

"The advocacy groups want to take guns away from everyone, and in a perfect world, I'd agree with that," said State Senator Larry Bomke of Illinois, a Republican who is sponsoring the bill there. "Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. The gangbangers and the criminal element are still going to get guns."

Now, do you think you could explain that to the government of England?

Legislation in other states that already permit concealed guns would loosen restrictions on where guns can be carried. Bills in Arizona and Tennessee would allow guns in bars; one in Georgia would allow them in restaurants, after people complained it was dangerous to leave guns in their cars while they dined. Proposals in Texas and New Mexico would lower the age requirement for carrying concealed handguns.

The proposals tend to be initiated by Republicans, but not always; in Illinois, a bill allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons was sponsored by Democrats, and many Democrats joined the majority last month when the Tennessee Senate approved the bill on guns in bars, 29 to 3.

I'd like to believe that this is because these Democrats really understand the topic, but I think it's more likely that they understand that gun control is a third-rail issue for them, and if they want to get re-elected (the first rule for any politician) they'd better be seen as "pro-choice" when it comes to the right to arms.

The police and prosecutors have tended to oppose allowing concealed handguns.

Not exactly true. The rank and file tend to support it. The elected and appointed (read: "politically connected") police chiefs and upper administration tend to oppose it.

But Mr. Bucher, the district attorney in Wisconsin, said that was starting to change. As recently as two years ago, he was speaking out against the concealed-handguns law in Wisconsin; in 2000, he testified against it, arguing that the risks to the police during traffic stops would outweigh any potential benefits.

Now, he said, he believes that the legislation can address his concerns, and that the potential benefits are real.

Gun advocates see affirmation in some of the recent cases, in particular, the shooting in Tyler.

On Feb. 24, a man entering the courthouse to dispute a custody decision opened fire with an AK-47, killing his wife and wounding his son. A bystander carrying a concealed weapon began to shoot at him. The bystander was killed, but gun advocates say he distracted the killer and prevented more deaths.

This is the one paragraph in the piece that simply stuns me. This is in the NYT? Amazing.

State Senator Kevin Eltife of Tyler said he received a phone call from a prosecutor that night, asking him to propose the legislation allowing district attorneys to carry weapons in court. "With the things that have gone on lately, it doesn't make sense that he can carry a weapon in his car but he can't carry it in his place of work," Mr. Eltife said.

Welcome to the world of the average prole, Mr. Eltife.

Prosecutors and judges in particular say they can end up as the targets of enormous venom - by criminals or those on the losing end of wrenching civil matters like child custody.

"The state doesn't have money to provide security," said Judge Daniel L. Schmidt of the Illinois Appellate Court in the Third District. "Do I want to carry it every day? Probably not. But it would be nice to know I could carry one if something came up."

And the state isn't responsible for your protection, anyway, even if you're a judge or a prosecutor. You're just far more likely to get it than John and Jane Public. Or Julie and Aeneas Hernlen.

Gun-control advocates take their own lessons from the recent shootings, noting that in Atlanta and Red Lake, the killers seized weapons from law enforcement officers.

Not that they would suggest disarming law enforcement officials, but advocates say the incidents show what can go wrong when more guns are added to the mix.

Though they conveniently ignore the fact that about three million new firearms are "added to the mix" each and every year, and more and more states have passed "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws, yet our violent crime rates have been falling since 1990.

Nope. Don't confuse 'em with the facts. They know what they know: More guns = more death.

Except when it doesn't.

"Police officers have the best training; people who get concealed-carry permits don't have that training," said Brian Malte, outreach director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who was the Colorado field director for the campaign when the Columbine shootings happened. "The worst thing that can happen in a church or school is where untrained people can shoot at each other."

No, the "worst thing that can happen in a church or school" is what has been happening: an armed assailant attacks DEFENSELESS PEOPLE.

You idiot.

Mr. Malte said that once people realize what ratification of concealed weapons laws could mean, they would be less supportive of them. "It's not only public spaces, it's crowded sports stadiums, and day care centers and supermarkets."

Except we have 37 states with CCW and not one dire prediction of the Brady Campaign has proven true. Insanity has been defined as "repeating the same action while expecting a different result." I think that describes the opponents of concealed-carry quite well. We keep repeating passage of CCW, and they keep expecting CCW permit holders to run amok.

Gun-control groups may well gain victories. In Arizona, generally considered a pro-gun state, chances are good for a bill requiring background checks on all weapons sales at gun shows. And Mr. Malte said the Brady campaign hoped to pass the ban on assault weapons in Illinois and make that the start of a slow trend back toward gun control.

In Arizona, I don't think so. In the People's Republic of Illinois, I don't know.

After all, he said, it took five years to pass California's strict laws against assault weapons, and in favor of safety locks. That bill was signed three months after Columbine.

And it's been so effective, hasn't it?

So, a quick review: Gun control laws prove, at best, to be useless. However, laws passed that allow people to carry to defend themselves prove, at worst, to be benign.

And it appears that politicians and the majority of the public are finally starting to grasp this.

And so (maybe) is the New York Times.

Isn't this one of the signs of the Apocalypse?

OK, Garry Trudeau isn't a Complete Ass.

I mentioned the Fisher House Program in the last post. The "About Us" page explains:

The Fisher House™ program is a unique private-public partnership that supports America's military in their time of need. The program recognizes the special sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and the hardships of military service by meeting a humanitarian need beyond that normally provided by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

Because members of the military and their families are stationed worldwide and must often travel great distances for specialized medical care, Fisher House™ Foundation donates "comfort homes," built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers. These homes enable family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times - during the hospitalization for an unexpected illnes, disease, or injury.

This is a charity I can get behind.

I also noted a link under their "In the News" header to a story entitled "John McCain Writes Intro to 'Doonesbury' Book." Being neither a McCain nor a Trudeau fan, I still clicked on the link to find this:

Most Republicans aren't fans of "Doonesbury," but that didn't stop Sen. John McCain from agreeing to write the foreword for Garry Trudeau's upcoming book.

"The Long Road Home: One Step at a Time," scheduled for May release, focuses on B.D. and his struggle to recover after losing a leg in Iraq.

McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, wrote (in part): "In this book, Garry Trudeau tells the story of B.D. -- and of Fisher House -- and he does it very, very well. Biting but never cynical, and often wickedly funny, these comic strips will make you laugh, reflect, and -- in the end -- understand. Like B.D., the thousands of soldiers who have left their health or their limbs on the battlefield have done so in the service of all of us. These brave men and women astonish us all with their spirit. In sacrificing themselves, they sacrifice for us."

The advance and all royalties from Trudeau's book will go to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides "comfort homes" on the grounds of major military and veterans' medical centers so that relatives can be close to injured soldiers.

Good on ya, mate. Good on ya.

Got Broadband? You Need to Watch This.

I just spent the last two hours watching C-Span. The show was interviews with amputee soldiers currently undergoing rehabilitation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Damn, but we have some fine people in our military.

C-Span has two clips from that show available. They are Real Media files, so you'll need the latest version of RealPlayer. The links are Conversations with individual wounded soldiers - Part I and Conversations with individual wounded soldiers - Part II. Each piece runs a bit over 30 minutes.

Part I is an interview with Army Cpl. Michael Oreskovic, 23, who was with the first Stryker Brigade assigned to Iraq. He lost his left arm above the elbow to a car bomb on his last mission before he was scheduled to rotate home. It was the second time he was wounded in theater. He wants to go back to active duty. Cpl. Oreskovic is a soldier. He studies military history because it makes him a better soldier.

Part II is an interview with Maj. Tammy Duckworth, 36, of the Illinois National Guard, and her husband Capt. Brian Bowlsbey. Maj. Duckworth is a Blackhawk driver, her husband is active duty Army. Maj. Duckworth lost both legs, one below the knee and one very high on the thigh, and suffered severe wounds to her right arm when her Blackhawk came under intense ground fire. An RPG round penetrated the chin bubble and detonated essentially between her knees. She plans on returning to flight status. I think she'll do it, too. Listen to her description of what happened when her aircraft was hit. In fact, while you're listening to the interview, bear this in mind: Maj. Duckworth attended the funeral for her father at Arlington National Cemetery the day before this interview took place. She and her father are almost certainly a rarety - a father-daughter pair who share purple heart awards.

These people make me feel both proud, and unworthy.

In both pieces the soldiers spoke about the Fisher House charity that provides housing to military families who are undergoing outpatient rehabilitation. I think I'll be making a donation to this organization. You might look into it, too.

UPDATE: The entire three-hour program is available here.

I Answer Five Questions.

I don't know who started this, but I found that Mike from Feces Flinging Monkey had taken up the gauntlet from Xlrq at Damnum Absque Injuria, and had posted an open invitation at his site to quiz someone else. Being bored, I said I'd take him up on it. Here we go:

1) You're serving on a jury. The defendant is a young man, a gang member, who is being charged with the murder of a rival gang member. The defendant admits to shooting the victim dead, but claims it was self defense. The only witness is a friend of the defendant, who backs up his story. There is no additional evidence to sway your opinion either way. Would you vote guilty, or not guilty?

It's up to the prosecutor to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a murder took place. Failing that, I have to find for the defendant.

2) Do you generally consider women who are skilled with firearms to be more attractive than those who are not? If so, can you describe why? (If not, can you explain what the hell is the matter with you, anyway)?

This goes back to an OLD post, when Courtney was still blogging. The answer: Hell yes. As I said then, I think it's the self-confidence I find attractive.

3) All things being equal, if you could not live in the United States, where would you go? (Assume that job opportunities, willingness of your new country to accept you, language barriers, etc. were not an issue).

Yeesh. All other things really cannot be equal. America isn't perfect, but it is still, in my opinion, the best, most free nation on earth. If Australia or New Zealand would give up their pursuit of socialist statism, they could be very nice places for an expatriate American. Rob Smith, Acidman of Gut Rumbles, advertises for Costa Rica, but I don't speak Spanish, despite several years of studying it in college (don't use it, you lose it.) Given no other choice, I think I'd have to go with Middle-Earth, and move to New Zealand.

4) Cats or dogs? .45 or 9mm? .308 or .223? Plastic or steel?

No fair. That's four questions in one.

Cats and dogs. They aren't the same, cannot be compared, and I like both. But BIG dogs (35-100 lbs or so). Toy breed dogs have none of the charm of cats, and none of the charm of big dogs, either. They're just rats with attitude.

.45. Hands down. But .45 ACP or .45 LC. I'm not too hip on the .45GAP for reasons best elucidated below. I'm also not a fan of the .45 überblasters like the .454 Casull et al. But more power (pun intended) to those who like them.

.223 for plinking & paper-punchin, .308 for serious work.

Steel. I just don't care for the esthetics of tactical tupperware. Aluminum alloy if you're really insistent on weight savings. Titanium and Scandium are, in my opinion, just a marketing ploy.

5) I promised one hardball question... Justice Holmes once wrote that human rights were nothing more than what "a given crowd ... will fight for". Holmes also agreed that his worldview came "devilish near to believing that might makes right." How does your view of rights differ from a simple "might-makes-right" position?

Because I believe in the rights of the individual, who has the hardest time defending his rights from the tyranny of the majority. A belief in the rights of the individual means often having to make decisions that tell the majority, in the words of Justice Scalia, "to take a walk." Quoting (again) from Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment,

(W)hat it means to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so. If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants, or any other part of the Bill of Rights were always (or even most of the time) clearly costless to the society as a whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often significant costs--criminals going free, oppressed groups having to hear viciously racist speech and so on--helps to account for the observed fact that those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments. Most often, one finds them embracing versions of textual, historical, or doctrinal argument that dismiss as almost crass and vulgar any insistence that times might have changed and made too "expensive" the continued adherence to a given view. "Cost-benefit" analysis, rightly or wrongly, has come to be viewed as a "conservative" weapon to attack liberal rights. Yet one finds that the tables are strikingly turned when the Second Amendment comes into play. Here it is "conservatives" who argue in effect that social costs are irrelevant and "liberals" who argue for a notion of the "living Constitution" and "changed circumstances" that would have the practical consequence of removing any real bite from the Second Amendment.

As Fred Donaldson of Austin, Texas wrote, commenting on those who defended the Supreme Court's decision upholding flag-burning as compelled by a proper (and decidedly non-prudential) understanding of the First Amendment, "[I]t seems inconsistent for [defenders of the decision] to scream so loudly" at the prospect of limiting the protection given expression "while you smile complacently at the Second torn and bleeding. If the Second Amendment is not worth the paper it is written on, what price the First?" The fact that Mr. Donaldson is an ordinary citizen rather than an eminent law professor does not make his question any less pointed or its answer less difficult.

In Justice Holmes's world, what the majority wants, the majority gets. In mine, the majority ought to understand what the tyranny of the majority leads to, and short of that, ought to be told from time to time to "take a walk." I've stated that a right is what a majority of a population believes it is, also quoting Scalia when he said:

To some degree, a constitutional guarantee is like a commercial loan, you can only get it if, at the time, you don't really need it. The most important, enduring, and stable portions of the Constitution represent such a deep social consensus that one suspects if they were entirely eliminated, very little would change. And the converse is also true. A guarantee may appear in the words of the Constitution, but when the society ceases to possess an abiding belief in it, it has no living effect. Consider the fate of the principle expressed in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government is a government of limited powers. I do not suggest that constitutionalization has no effect in helping the society to preserve allegiance to its fundamental principles. That is the whole purpose of a constitution. But the allegiance comes first and the preservation afterwards.

This is because, from a pragmatic point of view, Justics Holmes's and Justice Scalia's positions reflect reality. But I advocate educating the majority so that they understand why an individual-rights outlook is empirically better for everyone in the long run, and why they ought to fight for that even though it doesn't give optimum solutions to every day-to-day incident.

While it is true that what a given crowd will fight for is what that given crowd gets, we're far better off if the crowd is educated rather than ignorant, and a pack rather than a herd.

Gunshow After-Action Report.

Now I remember why I don't go to gun shows. As a commenter on the previous piece noted, the Pima County Fairgrounds doesn't charge for parking, so it was only $8 to get in. While I was there I perused the entire thing - twice. Only two jerky booths (that's gotta be a record.) And I hereby proclaim the beanie-baby fad OVER! Not one to be seen anywhere.

No Kimber t-shirts either. If you wanted a t-shirt with a dog on it, they had every AKC-recognized breed going, but no Kimbers. Also no HK, no SIG, and no Colt.

Bummer.

I could have picked up an 8# jug of BL(C)-2 for $112 (plus tax) which is a pretty good price, but after reading the piece that inspired this post, I'm more than a little reluctant to buy powder at a gunshow.

I did a little people-watching while I was there. The most obvious thing I noticed is that gunshow crowds are primarily middle-aged white men. Fat middle aged white men. There were some yoots (and more than one brought his rather fine significant other). There were some others who carried the aura of gang-banger, and who showed significant interest in the (shall we say) tactical weaponry. But overall, the gunshow demographic shares a lot with the Buick-buying crowd.

Except they're cheaper. I could not help but overhear a lot of the haggling going on. Understandable, as most everything I saw looked significantly overpriced to me, except for the really cheap (and cheaply made) knives on a lot of the tables, but there was a lot of "that's about as low as I can go" and "is that the out-the-door price?" going on.

Oh well, at least this time I was only out eight bucks.

Gunshow Today.

I've decided to go to the Crossroads of the West™ gunshow at the Pima County Fairgrounds today. (My Kimber T-shirt is completely worn out and in need of replacement.) I will probably pay $5 for parking and $7.50 for admission so that I can spend another $20 on the shirt, braving myriad beef-jerky stands and beanie-baby display tables and having to dodge the Nazi memorabilia guy in order to find the booth where all they sell is gun-related T-shirts and cheap nylon holsters.

I might actually look at some guns while I'm there.

Be prepared for an after-action report.

A New 2^nd Amendment Blog.

Arizona attorney David Hardy and long-time gun-rights advocate and attorney Dave Kopel have started a new blog, Of Arms and the Law. I can see I'll be spending considerable time there.