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.

Blackwater and the Reality of War

As I am sure everyone has heard by now, Blackwater is in the midst of a scandal because of the shooting of "unarmed civilians" in Nisoor Square. Pundits fell all over themselves to leap to conclusions, and as is normally the case, the first casualty is the truth, and the second is critical thinking.

I am sorry that people died. I am sorry for them and their families. But I won't let emotions cloud my judgment.

It's funny how quickly simple-stupid police work that even the press can do gets forgotten in the name of a political agenda.

So, let's review the facts, based on pictures in the news and what the reports have in common:

• People died from bullet wounds at Nisoor Square
• Blackwater vehicles have bullet holes in them

Now, the Iraqis state that all killed were civilians, and perhaps a cop or two. What is the problem with this?

• An insurgent becomes a civilian when his AK is taken away
• Nobody has pictures of where the bodies fell - are there shell casings there? What caliber were they?
• What caliber bullets killed the civilians?
  
• Were any of the bodies tested for powder residue?

I doubt points two and three, above. Once again, the press should be ashamed of themselves.

To make this clear: Insurgents tend to use AK rifles, using either 7.62x39mm or 5.45x39mm ammunition. Incidentally the majority of this stuff is in a steel laquered case of a greenish color.

Blackwater is one of the few PMCs in Iraq that equips their people with AR or M-16 type rifles. These fire 5.56x45mm cartridges, almost all of which leave brass casings. Shiny, easy to tell.

The wound ballistics between the three calibers are well documented, and could certainly be determined by a skilled coroner, with the rudimentary investigation being quite cheap.

To back Blackwater's statement that IED was involved, there are some questions that bear asking as well:

• Why shoot when there is an explosion? It goes boom. If you're still there, drive away, or wait for the army or your response team to secure the scene. Your choice.
• There has been, to date, no clear sequence of events. Now, this may be the fault of the press, but I'll call all of it conjecture until the BBC, Fox, and CNN agree.

Nobody is asking the obvious questions here, and this is sad indeed.

Should wrong have been done, then fine, charge the people involved. Immunity by administrator's order is a bit much, I agree.

EDIT: I read today's story on the Washington Post, about the victims that to them, clearly were innocent. Yes, it's very sad and heart-wrenching. What about the others?

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.