On Mass Shootings...

In every instance, we failed the victims long before the madman touched a firearm. One cannot rationally argue that these people descended into madness in a vacuum. Someone, somewhere knew something. And did nothing. The "this is not my problem" attitude condemned the victims to their fate.

In short, we are ALL to blame. People here don't ask anyone else if they're okay (incidentally, a study of suicides makes reference to how many suicide notes stated that had just someone even pretended to care, the person would not have killed themselves). People here don't say something when they see something, especially in northern VA - see a toddler making a beeline for the sliding door to run onto a busy street? Not my problem. Someone's car broken down? Honk and swear - make sure to not offer any help. Guy shot and bleeding out next to your gas pump? Step on over, pay no mind.

At the same time the left has closed mental health institutions in the name of humanity, and the right cut access to mental healthcare because they see it as welfare. This abandons the caretakers as well as the mentally ill.

The social contract broke down into utter selfishness. That's what's killing people.

Of course, it's much easier to make the assault weapons ban and magazine size restrictions in effect in CT at the time of the last shooting national. American Exceptionalism: repeating the same thing the states tried on a national level and expecting different results.

Yikes - more rumblings from the (gun) control crowd

From her AP soapbox, Deborah Hastings once again makes her point for gun control, stating that since the murderers responsible for the latest shootings had permits (to possess, not carry), we're all guilty by association.

She knows so little about the reality of firearms legislation that she confuses the license to possess (required in New York state, for instance) and a license to carry (called a CHP or CCW license). That right there says this is not her brain talking.

She acknowledges the other side of the argument with one sentence and one fragment:

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts. Whether they have a gun permit or not. (sic)

That's right. That is the main argument here. People are still getting shot in Britain, SE DC, Canada, Mexico, New York City, and Detroit, and in far greater numbers than anywhere you accuse of weak gun laws. Whether proof of "need" is necessary, as in Canada, or an outright ban like DC, Mexico and Britain, it does not work. Kids are still getting shot, and violent crime decreased at lower rates after the law changes than it did in the USA during the same period, in terms of number per 100,000 of population.

And don't give me that "90% of guns are traced to the USA from Mexico" line.

Since you don't want to read Fox news, I'll quote them too:

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

Do the math.

So what's the solution? Banning guns did not work. More guns do invite more accidents, just like more cars do. Maybe licensing people to exercise their first amendment would be a start.

Man with Gun spotted on Google Street View

Awesome. Gun, yep. Liquor, yep.

It's nice to live somewhere where you can do that, and not cause a panic in the sheeple.

Officer shot during no-knock warrant; no drugs seized

In from the Gestapo tactics department:

On January 18th, 2008, Officer Jarrod Shivers of the Chesapeake Police Department was shot during entry while serving a "no-knock" warrant for marijuana in the middle of the night. As a result, the lone occupant, Ryan David Frederick, was charged with 1st degree murder after the original group of police called in SWAT for assistance. (Virginia Pilot)

First off, my condolences to the friends and family of the slain officer. It is a tragedy.

However, it is reported that after a second article appeared in the Virginia-Pilot that omitted any drugs from the seized items list taken from the house, one has to wonder if they had the right man or house. The subsequent complete radio silence by the department makes this look like a cover up of the worst degree. So my condolences to the man and his family, who in the absence of explanations by officials, seems like another victim of government overreaching.

In the defense of the police:

• An informant told them that the suspect was growing quantities of marijuana in his garage, had a scale, and packaging equipment.
• A warrant was issued, and the officers served it at the time of their choosing.

In defense of the suspect:

• The Chesapeake PD spokesperson implied that the officers serving the warrant were in plain clothes. Now, if you had someone in plain clothes kick in your door in the dark, would you not legitimately assume this was a home invasion in progress and act to protect yourself? Home invaders are smart enough to pretend to be cops these days, too, so unless the uniform were absolutely clear, I'd argue that in the heat of the moment it would be impossible to make an informed decision, and I'd rather err on the side of my personal safety.
  
• On the seized items list are "three shells, and a Bersa 'Firestorm' .380 hand gun". So am I to believe that an officer serving a no-knock warrant was not wearing a vest? A .380ACP round has less impact energy at the muzzle than a 9mm Parabellum/Luger round does at 25m. All modern, even concealable vests are rated to stop the latter.

Evidence the police used was an informant's statement. That's fine. However, isn't it reasonable to expect that they investigate some more before kicking in doors? Anyone can tell a cop that I am growing pot in a garage, and my door gets kicked in in the middle of the night?

If you were an officer serving a warrant of this sort, in the middle of the night, wouldn't you wear a uniform, or make it absolutely clear that you were police? Yelling "Police!" while kicking in the door isn't enough - home invaders (the criminal sort) do that too.

I think it's sad that this cost an officer's life, and ruined another. Is the fight against a small time pot grower really worth this cost? Remember, pot-heads don't beat their wives. Alcoholics do.

Of course, the online police board have an entirely different view on the matter.

Say it's not so, Britain! CCTV is not a deterrent?

The Telegraph has an article where police admit openly that drunks are not deterred from attacking each other, or the occasional passersby, by the proliferation of CCTV cameras. This was admitted in front of the House of Lords, no less.

Just imagine - the drunken rabble does not care that it's being recorded while stomping the head of a hapless victim against a curb. And they'll get away with it - another study showed that 80% of images captured were of such poor quality that they neither helped get a conviction after the fact or even identify one of the perpetrators.

Great. At least the family gets to see their loved one's last moments alive, or more commonly, being able-bodied on grainy CCTV recordings.

Maybe it would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. Wait! They were on CCTV too!

More on Possible Outcomes on the Second Amendment

Well, there could be another outcome of the US Supreme Court Case. It's highly unlikely, but considering that the purpose of the second amendment is:

1. Protect the People from the Government
2. Protect the United States from foreign subjugation

One could reasonably expect that the founding fathers deemed that the arms to be kept by the people, by their nature, need to be of military relevance to be useful in a militia. This is also what I typically say to those that the second amendment counts only for arms of the time - i.e. Muskets. Anyone who has studied history would know that anyone shot with a black powder firearm is in a world of hurt too, and the wounds they leave significantly less humane than a modern firearm.

If this is the outcome, we could see the legal definition of "machine guns" and "assault weapons" being made completely legal, and the remainder of the firearms be deemed "not militarily relevant" and thus subject to regulation. The USA would turn to Switzerland...

"Sorry son, you can't buy that little pistol. But we have this M249 machine gun on special..."

Supreme Court to hear on 2nd Amendment

Well, this ought to be interesting. We have DC on one side, saying the right to have a firearm is not being infringed if it's denied outright, and a security guard denied a permit to have a firearm in the district on the other side, all of this backed by the Cato institute.

The NRA-ILA was against this, since, well, their reason for existing was being threatened.

So what happens if firearms ownership is ruled a collective right?

Good question. At worst, the new democratic president would order all firearms in private hands taken away, and the USA would be just like the UK, with its skyrocketing violent crime rates. Sure, fewer people die there, but a lot more get curbstomped by drunk thugs.

What happens if this becomes a clear individual right?

Well, if the National Firearms Act gets thrown out entirely, then even convicted felons could legally purchase any firearm available, although many states have clear rules that prevent that, and those laws would not be invalidated.

Most likely there would be a backlash with the new presidency, and likely new, more restrictive laws would be enacted. Like California, where you pretty much have to be shot before you can shoot in self defense (without being charged with a felony), this would likely be the national case. The revenge of the liberals would be upon us, and self defense be made illegal.

I stuck my neck out and posted the following on the Washington Post article and editorial discussing this:

To the "government will help us" people: Specifically in the District, the right to police protection is a COLLECTIVE RIGHT. This means, according to case law, that you have to recourse if the cops don't show up when a robber wants your wallet, which you gave him, and now wants your daughter. Remember Warren vs. District of Columbia (1981).

"Children Die" because of guns. They sure do, but this is lack of parental guidance, and as much the fault of the parents. Teaching your children to not touch, and get an adult is simple, yet most people abrogate their responsibility to their children to the state.

"The streets will run with blood":
Well, Virginia's crime rate has dropped, as have those states with "shall issue" concealed carry laws. These laws state that you need not have a "valid reason" (like being a friend of the sherrif, as is the case in LA county, California) to apply for a permit. The only exception is Philadelphia, but this is clearly a case of illegal guns, and not legally purchased ones. VA Tech rampager Cho purchased his pistols legally because laws were not being followed. Note also, that you're statistically less likely to be shot by someone with a concealed pistol/weapon permit than you are by a cop - CHP holders have had more stringent background investigations done than most police, all the way to the FBI level. They are the least likely to commit a felony, ever, even lower than police.

"You're more likely to be shot with a gun in your home. This study proves it." You're right, but if you look into the statistics, they include guns brought into the home by the assailants, and also count criminal on criminal activity, like dope houses getting shot up. Statistics are meaningless unless one looks at the real numbers in question.

Now, I am all for gun control, but control the illegal stuff first before controlling what I have. I have not broken any laws, and restricting me as if I would, could, or will break the law breaks my ... what is it, 4th amendment right to due process?

State of the 5th Amendment

Scary stuff happening to the Rule of Law around here:

First point is a Presidential Order issued on July 17, 2007, that effectively suspends/repeals the 5th Amendment ("nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;") for any person who "poses a significant risk of" undermining the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. Also see story on Slashdot, and an article minimizing the language on the Guardian UK's web site.

Wait, so Democrats can have their property be frozen (i.e. seized)? Can my property be seized, for posting this article? Check that wording, and get back to me. It sounds very ripe for abuse.

While we're on the subject of due process, bill HR 2640, just passed back to the House from the Senate is also an assault on this. The bill was introduced in response to the VA Tech shootings, and seeks to "strengthen the NICS system." The NICS (National Instant (Background) Check System) is the database state police departments use when processing a firearms purchase, and contains records of all convictions, pending charges, and other court judgments against a person.

In this case it deals with firearms, so many readers won't care. Some pro-gun organizations have stated that the language therein is subject to mis-interpretation, allowing an attorney general to effectively prohibit an individual from possessing or acquiring a firearm without due process. The NRA's lobbying group at this time states that this is not the case, but that the bill will likely have some other controls attached to it by the time it passes the second reading in the house. Apparently the NRA is backing some clarifying language, of course opposed by gun-control groups.

A possible amendment could be that seeking counseling or psychiatric treatment could allow you to be placed on the "blocked list". Most mental health professionals are pretty opposed to firearms ownership, so probably mentioning the word gun would cause this. Treatment for PTSD would be a prime example, which would be ironic: you serve your country in a war abroad, see things nobody should have to see, come back, and you're no longer allowed to have firearms. See a blog entry on the Washington Post, the Huffington Post.

Scary stuff.

Selective Truth in the Press

As the pundits continue their shrill noises about the VA Tech Massacre, other people are also starting to dig through some archive material. Checking up on this I found some interesting tidbits about how the nature of self defense is approached by some press outlets.

Case in point: The Appalachian Law School Shooting in 2002.

Failing law student Peter Odighizuwa shot the dean of the school and two others on January 17, 2002.

Depending on the coverage, some news outlets chose to either state that two students who owned firearms retrieved them, confronted the shooter, the shooter dropped the weapon, and was then tackled by a third student. Other outlets leave this out entirely.

The Washington Post article leaves this out.

The article at law.com states that there is some confusion as to whether the armed students actually did confront the shooter.

The Roanoke Times, normally a stalwart anti-firearms news organization (recall, they had published the list of everyone who had a concealed carry permit in Virginia online, comparing the public's right to know about permit holders to the right to know about sex offenders), mentions during the reporting on the April 16, 2005 incident where a VT student with a concealed carry permit was disciplined for carrying a firearm. The date is sadly ironic.

The tip-off for this article is this blog post.

In other news, it turns out the shooter was remanded to custody (Roanoke Times, Washington Post) for a mental health evaluation in 2005. This should have shown up on the background check when the firearm was purchased.

VA Tech and Racism

Wow, after watching Geraldo on the O'Reilly Factor was sobering. Something "beware of Asian immigrants with guns." They were looking at this NoVa kid's blog. Sickening. There is a link to Geraldo linking to the blogger that linked to the blog (you got that right, they linked to the Gateway Pundit's blog, not the original).

20 minutes later (9:31PM), I just got off the phone with a friend in hysterics. She's Korean-American, got spat on this afternoon in Crystal City VA, and just found out her parents on the west coast had their house defaced and possibly destroyed. WTF is wrong with people?

She went to ROTC, she's born here, and someone I'd trust my back to. Link to her blog.

Bottom line:

• Sick person
• Possibly sick parents, perhaps meaning well
• Person was identified by the system

My mother called this place the "Excited States" - how true those words ring now, as this nation descends into hysterics.

It is saddening how folks fail to understand that their superior standing in the world's economic order rests on the back of the diversity of it's people. The USA, Canada, Australia all derive their status from their immigrants and the diversity they bring. An attack on this diversity is an attack on the nation.

Addendum: A link to the shooter's plays.

VA Tech Shooting - let the politicking begin

First off, my condolences to the victims' families. Words cannot express the sense of loss they will continue to feel for the rest of their lives. May those injured recover speedily.


Once the dust settles, and the police complete their investigations, there will undoubtedly be the chorus from the Brady Campaign and others to restrict firearms ownership. Simply put, my response is that first off, someone needs to be over 18 to legally purchase a pistol or "assault firearm" in the state of Virginia (see Brady Campaign Link for VA). VA Tech's spokesman Larry Hincker was quoted on January 31, 2006 in the Roanoke Times commenting on the bill to allow firearms on VA Tech's campus being defeated, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (link) I wonder what his comment is now.

Sadly, the possession ban goes both ways here. Had there been a student or security guard, who, either as duty or private citizen with a CCW permit (carry concealed weapons) were armed, this person could have been in a position in intervene. Similarly, the shooter could have felt emboldened by a weapons ban in the area he was committing the massacre.

The rules did not protect the people. They made them helpless to respond instead.

Also, stricter gun controls have had a poor record of stopping massacres of this nature. One can recall the Dawson College shooting in Montreal, Canada, where a lone gunman armed with a pistol and a carbine killed one woman and injured 19 others. Canada has very strict gun control laws, specifically with regards to semi-automatic weapons and pistols. This did not stop the perpetrator in that case - he complied with all laws in question.

Same happened in 2002 in Erfurt, Germany. Again, strict gun laws in effect, and the shooter nonetheless managed to legally acquire the firearms used. Germany has since raised the minimum age for firearms, with questionable effect. Smaller scale incidents continue to happen in Germany with starting regularity - a simple Google search for the German word used to describe this sort of action ("Amoklauf", i.e. running amok) shows this.

Gun Control and Thoughtcrime

Well, Orwell's back in Canada. After the horrific shooting in Montreal on September 13, 2006, the gun control BS meter has hit another all-time high. (link)

Here are the facts as admitted in the press:

• The murderer, Kimveer Gill, had his PAL (firearms license).
• The weapons used were all registered.

All this implies that he passed all the background checks and other stuff needed to buy the weapons.

To be clear, my heart really goes out to the families and the victims. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and being killed by a person who has become insane is a terrible thing to happen. But whether this is by firearm, bow and arrow, bomb, or butter knife, there will always be someone crazy enough to do this stuff. I understand how tempting it is to argue that "had guns been banned, this would not have happened" but the addition to that I would make is "this way." The insane man would have found another way, perhaps by looking up how to make explosives, or by getting a sword and getting up close and personal. The casualties would have been similarly horrific. If that were to happen, there would be no outcry to ban chemistry books or things with sharp edges, would there?

Now there is chatter from both sides. The pro-firearm lobby states, correctly, that none of the laws passed since the Lepine Massacre in 1991, also in Montreal, helped protect the victims. In fact, firearms related murders spiked in 2005 (link to Statistics Canada), and that trend is set to continue. What changed? Firearms registration became mandatory. Hmmm.

With the easy access to firearms afforded by proximity to the United States, any criminal wishing to get a firearm has little trouble getting one. The due diligence exercised by the US states themselves is pretty good (having gone through this myself a few times), but is about as water tight as legal firearms ownership is in Canada.

Yes, losing someone to firearms is bad. So is losing a friend to a drunk driver. But there, you blame the driver. Why is peoples' logic so flawed when it comes to firearms?