On the Recent Shootings... (Part Two)

[Part One here]

Continuing with my thoughts related (sometimes tangentially) to the recent shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

For this installment, I'm going to explore the importance of Free Speech, and how social media giants' de-listing, censoring, blacklisting, and banning of certain kinds of speech may contribute to politically-motivated attacks. Just like the last post, this NOT intended IN ANY WAY to excuse or diminish the heinousness of the attacks; rather, it's an attempt to explain how various environmental factors might lead an individual to believing his/her violent actions are justified.

After the shootings, President Trump gave a speech in which he said (among other things, not all of which I agree with*), "In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul."

He's on the right track here, but he's not taking it far enough. Hateful ideology must be condemned, but it also must be confronted and challenged. However, as we'll see, that doesn't always happen as it should.

A few years ago we covered how so-called "hate speech" is and must be protected under the First Amendment (link goes to the first of a four-part series — I encourage you to read all four, and not just because I wrote them). My beliefs on that have not changed: The best cure — possibly the only cure — for "hate speech" is not censorship; it's more speech.

In other words, the best and only way to end "hate speech", hateful ideology, and bigotry (including white supremacy), is to challenge them in the marketplace of ideas. Call it an "arena of discussion" if you like, in which conflicting viewpoints are tested on their respective merits, and the most reasoned, logical, and fact-based wins. This is how minds are opened and opinions get changed.

But...

What happens if the biggest, most commonly-used platforms for discussion censor and/or limit exposure of "offensive" ideas?

What happens if "violent rhetoric" is banned from the open marketplace of ideas — where it might be challenged and proven wrong — and instead is relegated to a corner of the Internet where someone finds like-minded individuals, similarly banned from the mainstream?

What happens if, instead of encountering level-headed people to refute the violent rhetoric and show the individual how his ideas are incorrect, he finds a niche discussion board filled with people who say, "You're right"...

... and then follow that up with, "You should do something about that."

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and every other major social media site have actively and documentedly been censoring certain kinds of political speech for years. They mostly target inflammatory individuals and groups on the conservative side, but anyone talking about politically-motivated violence (and who isn't Leftist or Islamic) is forced to remove their post. The problem is, that leaves questions unanswered, in a vacuum of information.

As we all know, nature abhors a vacuum. The human mind similarly abhors unanswered questions.

That vacuum will be filled, and the questions will be answered. Where it could have — and should have — been addressed in a public setting by level-headed people with facts, it will instead be fed in private by other hate-filled people with more violent rhetoric.

I don't intend this to be an accusation against social media conglomerates (okay, maybe I do, just a little), and I don't believe they are willfully complicit in the attacks. My intent is merely to point out how censorship — especially of controversial or "offensive" topics — tends to produce the exact opposite of what it tries to limit. Banning hateful speech from a platform is a "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) approach; it's fundamentally no different from posting a "Gun Free Zone" sign to prevent violence, and works about as effectively.

Just as banning guns removes the ability and opportunity for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and stop crime, banning "hate speech" removes the ability and opportunity for rational people to engage and defeat hateful ideology on its merits. Unless and until the ideology is defeated, it will fester and metastasize, and when paired with the inflammatory political rhetoric I wrote about last post, we will see more attacks like these.

This is why, on questions of "liberty vs. safety", I will always side with liberty. Freedom is not the problem — it's not guns, or social media, or even video games — and so limiting freedom cannot be a valid solution.

The real problem is hateful ideas and beliefs, and the solution is to counter them with truth.

More ideas and speech, not less. Debate and discussion, not censorship.

President Trump said that racism, bigotry, and white supremacy must be condemned. He's half right; it must be condemned, but it also must be challenged and defeated. And that can only happen when and where freedom of speech allows the discussion.

I welcome all readers to share your thoughts in the comments. I'd love to read what you all think.

And as always, stay safe.
------------
* - He also said, "Mental illness and hatred pulled the trigger, not the gun," which enraged anti-gun Leftists, but he has that exactly right, too. Where he is wrong is in calling for restrictions on video games — which are another form of free speech — and advocating "Universal Background Checks" for firearm purchases, which last I checked, both shooters passed.

"Baldr Odinson" Being Disingenuous Again

*tap tap* Is this thing still on? Yes? OK.

My apologies to our dear readers for the lack of content. Life tends to interfere with blogging, and when life speaks louder, you have to listen or get left behind.

My thoughts are not yet collected on the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Every time I turn on the news, it seems, the narrative has changed again, the "authorities" appear even more amateurish, and the "children" are even more exploited by the media.

It's painful to watch, really.

So instead, today we'll visit our old friend and resident Oregon anti-gunner, Jason Kilgore, a.k.a. "Baldr Odinson". He's had quite a lot to say about the Parkland shooting, little of it accurate or true (he IS an anti-gunner, after all). One recent post in particular, however, needs some fisking fact-checking, as he's (intentionally) omitting certain very-important truths.

Let's get started below the fold. As always, his words will be in block-quoted italics, and most of his links will be omitted.

On Wealth Redistribution

Because I hate wasting good material at an away game.

To expand on a comment left at this post at The Captain's Journal, to whit, that the reason for big push for wealth redistribution — that invariably guts the middle class — is to burn the generational bridge between the poor and the elite.

All wealth redistribution schemes benefit the elitists, either directly or indirectly. What they don't get from the middle class, they get from the poor when the poor spends what they get from the middle class.

Either way, the rich get richer, the middle class is made poor, the poor get poorer after enjoying a (very) brief windfall, and the path to real wealth is destroyed, effectively turning America into a caste society.

You've heard it said, "Never let anyone tell you nobody wants to take your guns." While true, that's not the whole story; they want your wealth and everything you've earned or made for yourself and your family, too. They want it all.

And as with anything they use the government to get, they'll send men with guns to demand and enforce it.

That is the reality behind wealth redistribution, and why it must be resisted at every step.

Stay safe.

On Refusing to Argue the Merits of Ideologies

Sebastian points to this post at Ace of Spades, about political (dis)honesty. It's worth a read in its entirety, but I want to zero in on a particular point:

[I]f your arguments in favor of amnesty are as potent as you think they are (and you must think they're potent, because, like Obama, you seem to think the only possible objection is racism and hatred), why not actually share them with the group?

You can't convince people of your position if you refuse to state what it is and the reasons for it. [emphasis in original]

[blink blink]

That's some pure, distilled truth right there, with far-reaching ramifications on any topic, be it immigration/amnesty, free speech, or gun rights. Someone who won't state their position, let alone argue it:

• Doesn't trust you enough to share where they really stand.
• Doesn't trust that you won't overreact and/or get violent if you happen to disagree.
• Doesn't believe you are worth discussing important issues with, as fellow adults.
• Doesn't feel they need to earn your support (but still feels entitled to it).
• At the end of the day, doesn't respect you at all.

Basically, it comes down to politicians telling their constituents, "I believe what I believe, for the reasons I believe it … which I'm choosing not to share right now … or ever. Because I say so*!"

Y'know, as if we're small children.

That's not how mature adults interact with each other. Suffice it to say, that's absolutely not how elected officials should be treating their voters.

Something to consider this election season. Vote accordingly.
------------
* - "… and if you don't agree, you must be a [insert personal insult, probably an '-ist' word]!"

Quote of the Day — Dom Raso (June 15, 2016)

In a new video on NRA News, in response to the shooting at the "Pulse" nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and the newly re-proposed* "gun control" laws:

Let's run through some of the latest attacks and see how banning so-called "assault weapons" would have turned out. California already bans "assault weapons". That didn't stop San Bernardino. No ban on ARs, or any guns, would have stopped the Boston Marathon bombing. ISIS's well-coordinated attack in France wasn't deterred by the country's strict "gun control" laws. Brussels' gun ban did nothing to stop terrorists from killing.

But every single one of those tragedies ended with police officers carrying AR-15s rushing to the scene as fast as possible.

Hillary's solution to stopping terror attacks is to ban the very gun that >stops terror attacks, and she calls that "common sense".**

I only have one nit-pick: The gun does not stop terror attacks, any more than it causes terror attacks. What stops terror attacks is prepared people — police or private citizens — showing up with the skills and/or tools required to make the bad guy(s) stop, using deadly force if necessary (which with terrorists, it often is).

Watch the whole thing:

[Hat tip: John Richardson.]
------------
* - Everything proposed is merely a reiteration of the same ages-old, tired themes. The proponents of "gun control" have no new ideas.
** - As this is a transcript, I'm taking some liberties with "scare quotes". However, the emphasis on certain words or phrases (shown in bold) is detectable in the original.

Quote of the Day — J. Kb (April 21, 2016)

Kicking the "I'm a gun owner but..." fallacy straight to the curb over at Gun Free Zone:

Let me make one thing clear. If you are anti gun, but you try to make yourself look like a moderate by talking about daddy’s trap gun or grandpa’s squirrel rifle and that you are not scared of guns because you shot a .22 at pop cans when you were a kid; that is the anti gun equivalent of saying you are not a racist because you have one black friend, and you’re not scared of black people because your black friend is a CPA from the suburbs. Guess what? You’re still anti gun… and a racist.

I can't rightly argue with that.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Fred Reed (March 17, 2016)

From his article, Betting on Gray Sludge: What Fun:

If white Southerners genitally mutilated their daughters, practiced honor killing, and didn’t allow their girls to go to school, the Islamophiles would erupt in fury. They overlook these practices in Moslems because they are using Moslems as a means of punishing people they loathe , such as white Southerners.

That's about the state of things currently. The Social Justice Warriors unite under a pretended "cause", but in truth just use the "cause" as an excuse to dispense hate (and sometimes violence) on their neighbors whom they despise for no articulable reason.

There's a lot of truth in the article. I encourage you to RTWT.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Garry Kasparov (March 1, 2016)

Garry Kasparov, 2007
(source: Wikipedia)

As seen on the chess giant's Book of Face:

I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd.

I have nothing to add to that.

Fortunately, Mr. Kasparov has more, writing a follow-up in The Daily Beast. Here's a (very) small taste:

A society that relies too heavily on redistributing wealth eventually runs out of wealth to redistribute. The historical record is clear. It’s capitalism that brought billions of people out of poverty in the 20th century. It’s socialism that enslaved them and impoverished them. […] Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect.

Stay safe.

[Hat tip: Legal Insurrection]

On "This Generation's 'Duck And Cover'" — A Fisking

Oregon's resident anti-gunner, Baldr Odinson (a.k.a. Jason Kilgore), put up a post recently (OK, a couple weeks back — I've been remiss in checking on him) about school lockdown drills, School Lockdown Drills Are This Generation's 'Duck And Cover'" (warning: clicking through will take you to an anti-gun blog; the safety of your intelligence and sanity cannot be guaranteed). Like so many things over there, it's just begging for a good fisking.

As usual for fisks, "Baldr"'s words will be indented and italicized, and my responses will appear in normal, standard formatting. To be clear, unless otherwise stated, by "you" I'm referring to Baldr. Click through for the takedown.

Yesterday my 10 year old daughter had another Lockdown Drill at her school.

"Another" lockdown drill? Oh, the horror! Do you keep track of these things, and are you concerned they're happening too frequently?

At least the weather was nice.

An email announcement went out to us parents from the Principal, a few days before. From the email:

During our drill on Friday, an intercom announcement will inform staff and students that the drill will begin. Staff will then be asked to secure their classrooms. Teachers will lock classroom doors, close the blinds, move students away from the windows, turn out the lights, and ask students to remain quiet. The drill will last about three minutes, at which point another announcement will be made that the drill is over.

And when the time came during class, the teacher locked the door and turned off the lights, and the kids had to huddle in the corner, absolutely quiet and still while they imagined an armed madman walking the halls of their school.

The e-mail sounds like a pretty standard lockdown drill, and it's nice they let the parents know ahead of time. Of course, that defeats the purpose of a "drill", which should be unannounced.

But was imagining an armed madman wandering the school a mandatory part of the drill, too, or were the kids allowed to daydream about Oreos and video games instead?

The teacher explained to them that, if the windows above them were shot out, it would be a harmless shower of safety glass cubes that could not cut them. Then, he practiced walking quickly and orderly out the back door of the classroom, across the school grounds, and to a staging area in the neighborhood across the street.

Have you ever seen safety glass shatter? It breaks up into small glass cubes with very sharp edges. It can and often does cut skin — not deep enough to be dangerous, but saying it cannot cut skin just invites the kids to play with it, which is a bad idea.

Did the teacher practice walking the kids out the back and across the grounds, or did he abandon his charges and go by himself?

The last time my daughter's school had a lockdown drill, she was in an after-school activity with a mixed-age class of kids, mostly younger than her. Many of them were confused and started to cry, traumatized by the image in their mind of an armed lunatic coming toward their room.

As one of the older kids in the room, did your daughter try to calm the younger kids, or did she join in and/or increase the general hysteria? How have you trained her to respond to these things?

And again, was that mental image a mandatory part of the drill? Who is writing the procedures, and who's verifying that each student is doing their part?

Or is this just Baldr projecting his own mental images onto the kids?

This is the new normal in America. It is practiced in my daughter's school at least as many times a year as fire drills, and more even than earthquake drills. My 11 year old son had a drill in his school the week before.

Given Oregon's position on the Pacific "Ring of Fire", you'd think earthquake drills would be pushed hardest. It sounds like your school district has its priorities reversed.

But if you don't practice any drills, the students won't know how to react in a bona fide emergency. That's what these "drills" are for, right?

But as traumatizing as this is, it is an increasingly-necessary precaution taken by schools.

Is it actually traumatizing the kids? Or are you traumatized by the thought of it, so you assume it's traumatizing the kids? (I'll touch on the necessity of drills in a sec.)

Since our federal politicians continue to do nothing at all to keep guns out of the hands of murderous madmen, schools are left to pick up the difference, preparing their staff and students to fight for their lives or hide in darkened corners, or to follow the NRA's suggestion, highly-opposed, to make an armed camp out of our children's learning environment (which hasn't turned out so well for some schools). [self-link omitted]

Wrong. Our federal politicians have refused to take actions that would discourage or disallow law-abiding people to exercise their rights, specifically because there is no causal link between those laws and keeping "murderous madmen" disarmed.

Schools are doing as their told by their school boards, who take their marching orders from state and federal Departments of Education. And really, it's a minor addition to include security lockdown drills with fire drills and earthquake drills and tsunami drills and tornado drills and hurricane drills and whatever other drills they might be doing based on local needs. It's all part of a comprehensive emergency plan, and another part of that plan is rehearsing each person's role. That's what the drills are for!

Or do you oppose having emergency plans, too?

Just this last week in the town of Springfield, Oregon, not far from where I live, Riverbend Elementary had to go into lockdown. Police had gotten a tip that a convicted felon, high on meth and suicidal, was armed with a gun and headed to his child's school. The school responded with the lockdown. Luckily, police intercepted the man. He was armed with three firearms in his car. [link in original]

That right there is a perfect example of a school responding appropriately to a potential safety threat. Good on them, and good on the police for finding and arresting him, and thank God nobody got hurt.

However, did anyone else notice how Baldr isn't even questioning how a suicidal, convicted felon was able to procure three firearms? Is that little detail not important? Or should they just disarm you and me?

Two days later, in Salem, Oregon, three schools went into lockdown for 45 minutes, including South Salem High, Howard Street Charter Middle School, and Bush Elementary schools, when there was a shooting in the streets nearby. One man was injured in the shooting. [link in original]

Another good example of schools responding appropriately. If there's a known, continuing safety threat in the surrounding neighborhood, it's reasonable to hold the students indoors until it's resolved.

No doubt, though, that the Bradys and Bloomberg's Demanding Moms will count this as a "school shooting".

A few days before that, two schools in Portland, Grant High School and nearby Beverly Cleary School, went on lockdown when two men were openly carrying semi-automatic assault rifles next to the schools. [link in original]

Open carry of any firearm (unless you've got the blessing of government) is illegal in Portland, so I'll request some additional context to this claim. I'll not get it from Baldr, but I have to ask.

Absent any other information, this is yet another reasonable response by the schools to a reported danger.

Sensing a pattern yet?

And, of course, we can't forget the Umpqua Community College shooting a couple weeks ago. [self-link omitted]

Of course not. Nobody wants for "forget" the UCC shooting, but some of us choose to learn from such tragedies rather than continue pursuing laws and policies that don't prevent them.

Remember the "Duck and Cover" movement of the 1950's and '60's? A whole generation of school children were asked to imagine a nuclear bomb hitting their little American towns and cities. They were told that, if there was a big flash or a little warning, they were to immediately take cover under their desks and wait for an all-clear signal. In their minds, they could imagine a nuclear bomb exploding and a massive fireball washing over their schools, burning them alive. Nowadays, it's not a specter of a giant bomb killing them, but a more personal, and realistic killer walking their halls. [link in original]

Not quite correct. The kids weren't asked to "imagine" a nuclear attack. They were asked to respond to the potential of a nuclear attack. They could imagine the bomb, or they could imagine Davy Crockett walking out of his Army camp to visit his family. (Seriously, why the continuous focus on what the children should be forced to imagine?)

Not that "duck and cover" would save any of them during an actual nuclear attack, but I'll use this as an opportunity to segue to another key topic: morale. "Ducking and covering" represents something to do. When you have something to do, you have something to focus on, and you have less worry and fear about what could happen. Focusing on action helps prevent the hysteria Baldr's daughter witnessed during her previous lockdown drills.

I don't expect Baldr to understand that part, but there it is.

It's happened 150 times since 2013! See an interactive map of them here. [link in original, but be forewarned; it goes to an Everytown site]

Oh, look! The infamous Everytown school shootings list! And in interactive map form! How helpful!

Except that it's crap. CNN found only 15 of the originally-reported 74 to be "school shootings" (that's about 20%, for the math-challenged), and Politifact rated Everytown's list "Mostly False". Mind you, neither of those outlets are particularly pro-gun by any measure. Those articles are from June 2014 (the 18th month since 2013 started), when the list was 74. Now, another 16 months later, and they've doubled the number. Looking at the rate of increase over the original, I have little faith — let alone evidence — that Baldr and/or Everytown are being any more honest in their numbers.

And school shootings are increasing.

Citation needed.

Oh, wait … no, it's not. And no, they're not.

The Trace did a study of lockdowns and found an astonishing 100 school lockdowns (not drills!) in just a two-week period. From the article:

[A]t least 100 lockdowns made the news during those two weeks. That’s an average of about 10 lockdowns due to a potential threat per school day. Of the 10 school days tracked, only one was incident-free."

And that's just the ones reported by media, that they could find with their searches. [link in original, but be forewarned; it goes to The Trace, Bloomberg's gun-control-advocacy-disguised-as-news site]

Note the implication in the context. We've moved from school shootings to reported school lockdowns, implying that the lockdowns were because of shootings or armed threats. Perusing the interactive map (Yay, another one!) at The Trace, many or most don't have anything to do with guns. A short list, going loosely West-to-East (copied directly; any grammatical or factual errors are in the original):

• Redmond, WA - 10/8/2015: Ridgeview High School went into lockdown after a student threatened another student over text.
• Forest Grove, OR - 10/2/2015: Forest Grove High School was placed on lockdown after students reported seeing another student with what they thought might be a gun. [emphasis added; No threat or weapon was found, and one student was charged with making a false report.]
• Coos Bay, OR - 10/2/2015: Schools in Coos County were locked down because of a non-specific threat. [No weapons mentioned, threat found to be unsubstantiated.]
• San Jose, CA - 10/7/2015: A suspect who escaped from a bail bondsman put a nearby middle school on lockdown. [Suspect was unarmed, and most of the students had already left for the day.]
• Los Olivos, CA - 10/8/2015: An apparent murder-suicide triggered a lockdown at three Los Olivos schools. [Apparent domestic dispute. A gun was used, but it all happened within the home.]
• Santa Fe Springs, CA - 10/5/2015: Three schools were placed on lockdown while officers searched for a man suspected of domestic violence. [No weapon mentioned, and he wasn't charged with any weapon-related crimes.]
• El Cajon, CA - 10/5/2015: An El Cajon elementary school went into lockdown after a woman crashed into a police car and claimed she had a gun. [emphasis added; This sounds like an attempt at "suicide-by-cop" that happened to occur near a school.]
• Newhall, CA - 10/1/2015: A Newhall elementary school went into lockdown as authorities investigated reports of a gun-toting teen. [No person with a gun found. The "dot" on the map has this one in Iowa for some reason. Layers and layers of editorial oversight.]
• Reno, NV - 10/2/2015: Two south Reno schools went under lockdown as police searched for a suspect in the area. [Car burglary suspect; no weapon mentioned.]
• Las Vegas, NV - 10/8/2015: A Las Vegas school went into lockdown while police searched for a suspect.
• Meridian, ID - 10/8/2015: A direct threat against Meridian High School led to a locked of all schools in Bosque County. [The type of threat was not disclosed.]
• Pocatello, ID - 10/7/2015: Pocatello Police Department and school district staff placed Highland High School under lockdown to address a potential threat. [Again, the type of threat was not disclosed.]
• Peoria, AZ - 10/8/2015: An elementary school went on lockdown as police pursued a burglary suspect. [No weapon mentioned.]
• El Paso, TX - 10/2/2015: Schools and offices in El Paso were locked down because of a suspected armed person. ["Suspected" armed person. Two people who initially claimed there was a "gunman" later told police they never saw a gun.]
• Stafford, TX - 10/2/2015: Stafford schools went into lockdown because of reports of a suspicious person. ["Suspicious person"; no weapon reported.]
• Denver, CO - 10/5/2015: The Denver Center for International Studies was placed on lockdown following a report of a student with a knife. [No gun, just a knife.]
• Pueblo, CO - 10/7/2015: A Pueblo County High School went into lockdown after a student was seen walking down the hallway Wednesday in a gas mask and a trench coat. [No weapons found.]
• LaMoure, ND - 10/6/2015: A school in LaMoure went into lockdown while police hunted a suspicious male. [No weapons reported; authorities said no imminent danger.]
• Detroit Lakes, MN - 10/1/2015: A bomb scare put Detroit Lakes schools into lockdown. ["Suspicious device" scare; no other weapons reported.]
• Minneapolis, MN - 10/7/2015: The Eden Prairie Police Department says a statement made by a student prompted a “soft lock down” of Central Middle School. [The AO of another famous anti-gun personality, "japete" (a.k.a. Joan Peterson). Statement found to be unsubstantiated, no credible threat, no criminal charges.]
• Oklahoma City, OK - 10/8/2015: Deer Creek schools went into lockdown while police searched for a burglary suspect. [No weapon reported.]
• Toshimingo, OK - 10/6/2015: The Tishomingo County School District issued a lockdown because of a non-specific threat. [Type of threat not disclosed; no weapons mentioned.]
• Liberty, MO - 10/7/2015: A lockdown of all Union County schools was issued after a general threat. [Non-specific threat. Report mentions in passing bomb threats issued against other districts.]

I could go on, but I'm getting sidetracked. Heck, when I was a kid, I remember all the schools at my end of town being locked down due to a reported tattooed, neo-Nazi rapist (no, I'm not kidding) at a different school two miles away (the report turned out to be unsubstantiated). But needless to say, that's how many non-school-shooting lockdowns we have on the list — in total, 22 out of approximately 35 (over 60%, for the math-challenged), and most of the rest involve armed suspects but still aren't "school shootings" by any measure — and we haven't even crossed the Mississippi River!

It would seem that conflating "lockdown" with "school shooting" might be just a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Moving on:

School systems are now making videos and programs to teach students and faculty how to respond in the event of an active shooter incident.

Good. Nothing wrong with an informative and educational video.

One video, from an Ohio school system, even suggests that the students attack the shooter if they come in the room. See it HERE. It teaches the ALICE program (which stands for "Alert-Lockdown-Inform-Counter-Evacuate"), which is being taught in a number of schools and colleges around the nation. The video, which is shown to students, shows a man with a handgun enter a classroom and the teen students attacking and swarming over the man, holding him down, all the while stating, "If it is necessary to counter the aggressor's attack, you may be able to distract and disrupt the aggressor's plan by putting him on the defensive and possibly even disarming him by swarming him into submission until police arrive." One student gets shot and goes down before the other students dogpile the shooter.

That's right, they are recommending that child students attack the shooter if cornered.

It's not enough now that school kids have to worry about grades, homework, tests, relationships, sports, and all the usual things that kids have to think about. Now we are asking them to think about cold-blooded killers stalking their halls, and potentially having to fight them to the death! [link and emphasis in original]

Again, nothing wrong with educating students on all their reasonable options in the face of an emergency. That "counter-attack" video was presented to high school students. Teenagers, some of whom will be legal adults, and plenty of whom will be athletes. To hear Baldr, you'd think they're advocating kindergartners swarm a violent, armed man, but personally I find no problem in offering the 300-pound defensive tackle a chance to … y'know … tackle someone, as a possible life-saving solution to a violent crime-in-progress.

And nobody is advocating they kill the attacker. Subduing him is good, too. Whatever it takes to stop the attack, and no more.

This has to end.

I agree; this fear-mongering article has gone on far too long.

Oh, you mean the drills, the lockdowns, and the culture of helpless fear you yourself contribute to have to end. Huh.

The answer isn't to arm every teacher, faculty, or even students, as the gun lobby has suggested, or to turn our schools into fortresses. The answer is to keep from arming the lunatics in the first place. And the only way to do that is to pass sensible gun laws, such as universal background checks (like the one enacted this year in Oregon)… [self-link omitted]

Are you referring to that universal background check law that went into effect BEFORE the Umpqua Community College shooting? Wasn't that law supposed to prevent events exactly like that from happening, by keeping guns out of the hands of people exactly like that scumbag?

Epic. Fail.

… better mental health reporting to the background check system…

Who gets to decide what's reportable, and on what basis or evidence? That's just ripe for abuse.

… child access prevention (CAP) laws to keep guns out of the hands of school kids… [self-link omitted; Baldr runs that site, too]

"CAP" laws are a euphemism for so-called "safe storage" laws, and the kind you're talking about — that mandate firearms be stored separate from ammunition, and either disassembled or trigger locked — were struck down in Heller v. D.C. in 2008.

… and a renewed ban on assault rifles and high-capacity ammo magazines.

Yes, because the last such ban did so much to reduce violent crime rates or school shootings, right?

Oh, wait. It didn't. Research For The Win!

Naysayers might point to this report (PDF warning) from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), but those authors clearly say the "assault weapon" ban had no clear effect on murder or violent crime ("assault weapons" being rarely used for crime to begin with), and could only suppose that a long-term ban on "large-capacity magazines" might have some effect, and supposed so with the understanding that the use of "large-capacity magazines" by criminals to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading is at best unknown.

So why are we pushing for a ban, again?

Perhaps, if we pass such laws, lockdown drills at our schools will become a nightmare of the past, like "Duck and Cover" became, and we will find a new trajectory for our schools and communities away from gun violence. [emphasis in original]

Or maybe, lockdowns will continue, because there are plenty of reasons to lock down a school other than "gun violence". Review my list above, pulled from Everytown's own map. Many of those security lockdowns — including my personal anecdote — had nothing at all to do with guns.

ADDENDUM (10/21/15): One pre-K school teacher from Washington state describes what it is like during a lockdown drill with her small students, trying to convey urgency without inciting fear or alarm, and the mental considerations that she has to endure as part of the process. From the article "Rehearsing for death: A pre-K teacher on the trouble with lockdown drills":

Instead of controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them, we are rounding up and silencing a generation of schoolchildren, and terrifying those who care for them. We are giving away precious time to teach and learn while we cower in fear.

[bold and badly-done link in original]

(BTW, Baldr: the author of that article in your addendum, Launa Hall, is from Arlington, VA, not Washington state. It says so right on top of the article. Schmuck.)

Done incorrectly, we could argue that lockdowns themselves "rehearse for death". Does anyone want to claim that Sandy Hook Elementary didn't try to lockdown as soon as shots were fired, but made the mistake of locking down with the killer inside?

With all due respect to that pre-K teacher, we're not talking about "controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them". We're talking about banning guns and making criminals out of those who would use them. That's the end game of "gun control".

Dear Ms. Hall: Maybe instead of "rounding up and silencing" your students, you could take an active role in protecting them. Maybe instead of "terrifying those who care for them", you could empower those who care for them to take decisive action (remember that morale thing?). Maybe instead of "giving away precious time to teach" by "cower[ing] in fear", you could be teaching them to remain calm and follow instructions in an emergency while projecting an image of a protector who keeps them safe.

Maybe, just maybe, you — as someone who calls herself a "teacher" — are approaching this the wrong way. Be a leader. Set an example. If you want them to grow to be strong, level-headed adults, you need to show them what a strong, level-headed adult looks like (hint: it's not always Batman or Superman, or even Officer Friendly). It starts with you. Be the person you want them to grow up to admire.

Dear Readers: As always, stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Tam (Oct. 12, 2015)

Commentary on a CNN article about air-dropping small arms and supplies to Syrian rebels:

I have to ask, wouldn't it be quicker to just hand the weapons to ISIS rather than to the people who will surrender them to ISIS at the first sign of danger?

Zing! The Mistress of Snark strikes again!

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Derek Hunter (Oct. 8, 2015)

From his Townhall.com piece, "Words Matter, Or At Least They Used To (And Need To Again)":

Word choice may not seem like much, but it matters. Subtle manipulation is still manipulation. […] Marriage used to have an unambiguous meaning, as did racist. Not anymore.

He makes a lot of sense, and based on this, henceforth I will not be using the word "shooter" to reference any scumbag seeking postmortem fame with the deaths of others. These individuals will instead be referred to properly as "killers", "murderers", or other appropriate terms, and the modifier "mass" will be added as circumstances warrant.

This being a gun blog, it's likely that most of our readers can rightfully be described as "shooters", and I do not desire to conflate our good readers with the murderous scum of the earth. Let the "Progressives" fall over themselves doing that; I'll have no part in it.

Stay safe.

Teaching Our Kids What Sticks Are For

Found this article at Patheos.com. It's been making the rounds, so I don't remember who to credit for the hat tip.

"Boys with sticks", by Simcha Fisher.

My favorite exerpt:

Boys who are never allowed to be wild are boys who never learn how to control that wildness. Boys who are not allowed to whack and be whacked with sticks never learn what fighting is like. What’s so bad about that? Well, they may end up hitting someone weak, with no idea how much it hurts to be hit. Or they may end up standing by while the strong go after the weak – and have no idea that it’s their job to put a stop to it.

Either way, the weak suffer. The whole world suffers.

Read the whole thing, right down to the (also quotable) last paragraph.

Stay safe.

Yee-ouch!

Some wickedly sharp wit from the Mistress of Snark herself, Tam:

I swear, some people wouldn't know Occam's razor if you slit their throat with it...

— Tamara K. (@TamSlick) June 20, 2015

That cuts deep!

(And yes, the puns are intentional.)

Stay safe.

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Conclusion & Afterthoughts

[NOTE: This concludes the series on hate and "hate speech". We might re-touch on it in the future; given how much hate is being spewed by race-mongers and talking heads, I'm sure there will be more to discuss, and probably sooner rather than later. As always, comments and tips are welcome.]

Wow. What a ride, huh?

Let's do a quick recap, and then sum up.

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 3

[NOTE: At this point in the series, I've said most of what I needed to say and what I felt needed to be said. I will likely wrap it up next week [UPDATE: Conclusion is up.]. Part 1 here, Part 2 here. This installment will focus on the "speech" aspect of "hate speech".]

Much ado has been made the past couple weeks, over whether "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment. This, to my mind, clouds the issue. It's not relevant to the discussion about the failed "jihadi" attack in Garland, Texas.

I will repeat that, because it bears repeating. A discussion on First Amendment protections — or the lack thereof — for "hate speech" is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the failed "jihadist" attack in Garland, Texas.

Offensive? Possibly, but still not a call to murder.
Translated: "100 lashes, if you're not dying of laughter!"
(source: Huffington Post)

It's irrelevant because a cartoon contest, even if it features satire, ridicule, or other material which sheds a less-than-favorable light on Islam and their "prophet" Mohammed, is still just a cartoon contest. It is not, and should never be taken as, a call to murder someone for holding a point of view opposite the subject of the satire or ridicule. Put simply, being the butt of someone's joke, while sometimes upsetting, doesn't ever rise to the level of an acceptable reason for killing him or her.

To be honest, it's hard to believe that simple truth can be called into question so easily. But it has, and now we have to deal with the fallout.

Click through to continue reading.

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 2

[NOTE: This is a continuation of the series of thoughts and reflections on hate and "hate speech". This part was loosely inspired by this article by David French at the National Review. Part 1 of my series can be found here.]

In the last installment, I talked about the failed jihadi attack on a free speech event in Garland, Texas, on May 4, and the American media's meltdown and cognitive dissonance in using their First Amendment free speech rights to attack event organizer Pamela Geller's First Amendment free speech, free association, and free assembly rights.

This time, I'm going to talk about hate itself. It won't be politically-correct, but as I put it last time, I think some things just need to be said.

So if you get nothing else out of this, take this one concept: Some things in this world are worthy of hate. Some things in this world deserve to be hated. Some things in this world are so vile, so evil, and so despicable, that hating them is not a bad thing; it's a virtue.

Like I said, it's not politically-correct, but it's true.

More below the break…

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 1

[NOTE: This began as a single post of tangentially-related thoughts on "hate speech" stemming from the incident in Garland, Texas, but grew and evolved until even the term "uber-post" couldn't quite describe it. I've decided to make it into a series of as-yet-unknown length. Bear with me a bit.]

So as everyone who doesn't live under a rock (and probably some who do) has heard, on Sunday, May 4, there was a kerfuffle in Garland, Texas, wherein a couple of self-styled Islamic jihadis from Arizona (of all places) attempted to arm themselves and storm a Free Speech event featuring a "Draw Mohammed" contest, in order to kill all the "offensive" cartoonists for the "crime" of daring to … well … draw Mohammed.

Charlie Foxtrot wrote on it here.

Thanks to the quick actions of a Garland PD officer already on-site, the idiot "jihadis" didn't even make it in the door before being put down by well-placed .45 ACP hollow points. They only managed to shoot an unarmed security officer. In the ankle. And he was released from the hospital the same night.

Pamela Geller (source: NBC News)

Cue the mainstream media, which not only tried its level best to remove the "Islamic jihadi" angle from the story, but then proceeded to attack event organizer Pamela Geller for daring to host such a "provocative"* and "offensive" event, and claimed that she brought the consequences on herself.

Yep. The media, which makes its living on the First Amendment and free speech, blamed the victim for her own attempted murder for — get this — exercising her First Amendment right to free speech and encouraging others to do the same. They're calling it "hate speech" and some (Chris Cuomo in particular) claim "hate speech" is not protected under the First Amendment. Unlike, you know, jihad and Sharia law.

The Irony Fairy was unavailable for comment.

That's the slightly-cynical re-hashing of the events. What follows below the break (because it's fairly lengthy to have it all on the front page) are some thoughts I've had on the topic since. Some of them are not politically-correct, but they need to be said anyway (and that's the beauty of the First Amendment, is it not?).

Rand Paul: The Conservative's Proper Response to "Gotcha" Questions

I'd make this a Quote of the Day, but it's so much bigger than a mere QOTD. (Via Ace of Spades, in turn via Legal Insurrection.)

So Rand Paul just announced his 2016 Presidential campaign, and at a press conference was asked about his views on abortion (and abortion exemptions) by NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser. Mr. Steinhauser pointed out that the Democratic National Convention (DNC) had picked up on some comments Rand had said on the topic and asked him to clarify.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
(source)

Rather than fall for the "gotcha" question, Rand caught it and threw it back harder:

Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask [DNC head] Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she's willing to protect life.

When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.

BOOM!

"Gotcha" questions are intentionally pointed, designed and intended to fracture and divide the voter base, thus weakening the support any candidate can claim.

Republican candidates have to start realizing that the media is biased against them, and act/answer accordingly. The media is full of Democrat shills: they will never ask tough questions of Democratic candidates.

Call them to the carpet on it.

It's not about the question or the answer: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's views on any restrictions on abortion are well-known (if you can call that 18-word deflection to a "yes/no" question an answer). It's about the press grilling conservative candidates with hard-ball question after hard-ball question (and taking everything out of context whenever it makes the conservative look worse), all the while asking easy questions and no tough follow-ups of Democrats. It's about media bias, and the best way to confront it is to expose it for what it is.

Ace's conclusion is God's Honest Truth:

This should be the standard answer to any media question about the fringier parts of the Republican coalition: I will answer your question the very moment you ask the Democrats about this analogous fringe demand of the Democrat Party.

Come back to me with an answer, and I'll answer your question.

Oh, and caveat: If you ask the Democrat the question in an obligatory manner, and don't bother to ask the obvious follow-up questions to get past the first answer (which is always a hot ball of stinky gas), then that's the exact sort of answer I'll give you, refusing to answer the follow-up questions you wish to ask me but not your Beloved Democrat Politician. [emphasis in original]

I'll even add my own caveat: If you ask a "yes/no" question and accept anything other than "yes" or "no" (as in DWS's response), expect the same from me. If you want a one-word answer to a "yes/no" question from me, press for nothing less from your Democrat buddies.

Now, I'm not sure yet who "my candidate" will be, so I can't tell yet if Rand Paul is "my guy", but this was an epic turn-around of a hostile question and he deserves no small credit for it.

And because this is a gun blog, we can draw a parallel to gun-related questions: anytime the press asks about firearms and gets an, "I support the Second Amendment, but…" response, follow it up with a hard question like, "Can you reconcile all the proposed infringements you describe as 'common-sense' with the clear language of the Second Amendment, which you said you support, and which says 'shall not be infringed'?" Or, "You say you support the Second Amendment. What current gun laws are, in your opinion, overly burdensome or unfair, and will you work to repeal them?" At the bottom line, these are "yes/no" questions; if you get any wishy-washy statements that don't include a clear "yes" or "no", they are liars and should be exposed as such.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — John Hawkins (March 31, 2015)

From a Townhall.com article, "If Liberals Are The Good Guys, Why Do They Lie So Much?":

If you’re a liar, maybe you’re actually not such a great person. If you feel like you need to lie in order to get people to adopt your ideas, maybe they’re not such great ideas. If you have to lie about your “evil” enemies to get people to dislike them, then maybe YOU’RE THE ONE WHO’S THE BAD GUY. [caps in original]

Or, as our friend Miguel is fond of saying, "If your cause is so righteous, why lie?"

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Beth Alcazar (March 10, 2015)

Today's Quote of the Day comes from Beth Alcazar's article at the USCCA entitled, "The Problem With Statistics":

According to them, and to these vast collections of statistics, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun accidents. To that I say, well, of course there is. Isn’t that kind of a pointless statement? For instance, wouldn’t it also be much more likely for someone to have a fireplace accident in the home if there is, indeed, a fireplace located somewhere inside?

[…]

The thing that a lot of people seem to overlook with these statistics is that guns don’t automatically equal violence. Period. To believe that extreme, you may also have to believe that alcohol automatically leads to alcoholism and that a sweet tooth automatically yields gluttony. Preposterous, right? There are just too many factors, circumstances, experiences, values, and decisions involved for it to be “that easy.”

As anyone who's studied statistics knows, correlation does not equal causation. Just because the numbers show that variable 'A' and variable 'B' seem to be related does not prove that 'A' causes 'B', or that 'B' causes 'A'.

Now, the argument over our rights should not depend on statistics. Rights are rights, regardless of how distasteful someone else might find them. I don't begrudge our opponents' right to own and use computers and the Internet, even though they use them to attack my rights; indeed, a computer and the Internet is precisely how I engage and resist!*

But because our opponents do invoke statistics, and because statistics is a language politicians and bureaucrats understand, we must be able to present the other side — the one our opponents would just as soon remain unstated. Or, as Professor Aaron Levenstein says (also quoted by Ms. Alcazar), "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." (There. You got a two-fer QOTD today. You're welcome!)

Forgive the innuendo, but we should be prepared to rip the coverings off and reveal the whole truth in all its beautiful glory!

Stay safe.

------
* - It's been said, most notably after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, that the only proper answer to calls for restricting free speech is more free speech. I'd argue this principle applies to other rights, as well.