Quote of the day—charles hugh smith

Central bankers present themselves as Masters of the Universe. They are, but only in their own little Theater of the Absurd. In the real world, they are as clueless as any other mortals about the unintended consequences of their actions and the speed with which the corrupted, unsustainable financial Status Quo will decay and die.

The only attribute they possess in abundance is hubris. Their claims to godhood are comical when viewed in their little Theater of the Absurd, but they become tragic when the consequences of their actions play out in the real world.

Their job, such as it is, is to deflate a tottering system based on phantom assets slowly enough that it doesn’t implode. Stripped of mumbo-jumbo, their strategy to accomplish this is to inflate other phantom assets to replace the phantom assets that are falling to zero.

All their promises, preening and posturing boil down to patting their breast pocket and speaking vaguely about a “secret plan” to end the crisis without bringing down the system that spawned the crisis as a consequence of its very nature.

There is no secret plan, of course, and no secret financial weapons; all they really have is artifice and the hubris to present artifice as reality.

charles hugh smith
July 31, 2012
The Central Banking Theater of the Absurd
Emphasis in the original.
[In the history books and in stories from my parents I heard of bankers and brokers in 1929 jumping out the windows of tall buildings and utilizing “Smith & Wesson” retirement plans. I don’t hear of that sort of thing these days even though by many measures the financial situation is just as bad or worse as in The Great Depression.

I keep wondering if the reason for the difference is that we have different types of people in the banks and positions of power this time around. The sociopaths don’t care and the Marxists intend for our system to fail.

What I don’t think they understand is that when people get hungry enough they will figure out the reason for the failure of the system, have nothing to lose by going after those responsible, there will be no place to hide, and retirement, in whatever form, will be forced upon those who destroyed the greatest economic and political system the world has ever known.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Liana Brooks

If you think you need a gun at the place you are planning to eat, you either need v!agra for your obvious issues, or a new place to eat.

Basically, what I’m saying is I assume anyone running around with a gun in this day and age is compensating for a tiny dick.

I understand some men worry about this, but I think they should consult a doctor, not run around with a penis extender.

Dragging a gun to a play date, mall, or restaurant makes you instantly suspect. … Maybe we should bring a ruler and demand an inspection?

Liana Brooks
July 19, 2012
On Twitter here, here, here, and here.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to Linoge.—Joe]

Magazine limits are security theater

I hadn’t thought of it this way before (even though he used my video to demonstrate his point) but he’s correct.

Why Magazine Limits Don’t Improve Security:

This video demonstrates what a practiced shooter can do with lower capacity magazines in short order. It should be quite clear that a high magazine capacity ban will do nothing to prevent a shooter of this skill level from wreaking significant havoc. Therefore, a high capacity magazine ban is nothing short of false sense of security– security theater.

Ban gummy bears!

Via email from antitango:

At Boomershoot we use Potassium Chlorate by the 200 pound drum. You can get it from the heads of matches or make it with bleach and electricity.

As you can tell from the video in larger quantities gummy bears could be dangerous. They could be used for everything from smoke bombs to incendiary devices.

Where is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gummy Bear Violence? They should be calling for the banning of gummy bears.

New shooter report

Today I took son James and daughter-in-law Kelsey shooting. This was the first time for Kelsey. James and I had told her it was an option for her if she was ever interested. But I never pushed her on it. To the best of my knowledge James has not either. A few weeks ago they informed me that Kelsey had decided she would like to learn to shoot because it would help her feel safer when James wasn’t home.

This was a really big deal for Kelsey. Her family is somewhat anti-gun. When she told them she was going to learn to shoot a gun they “sort of freaked out”.

This morning I went over to do the “classroom” portion of the lesson. I had done a tiny bit previously in the weeks previously when I would go over for dinner on Monday nights. I wanted to refresh those lessons and get her ready for actually pulling the trigger on a live round.

I reviewed the sight picture with her and immediately noticed that she was cross-eye dominate. She is right handed but her left eye is dominate. We reviewed her options and she tried various things with my plastic gun. She decided she probably would be shooting left handed.

I asked her if she remembered the three safety rules (I teach the NRA rules, not the Jeff Cooper’s). She hesitated just a bit but told me:

  1. Never point the the gun in an unsafe direction.
  2. Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
  3. Never load the gun until you are ready to use it.

Wow! That was interesting! She got the essence of the rules correct but she turned them all into negatives. The NRA rules are positive statements of what you should do. I explained that it was, to exaggerate the point some, like telling someone not to think of pink elephants. The actual NRA three gun safety rules are:

  1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
  2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
  3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

I showed her the proper grip and stance then went over the mantra “trigger prep, sight alignment, squeeze, follow through”. I had her use one of my plastic guns to practice going from a high ready position to a fire position simultaneous with using the mantra.

I told her that eventually she would be able to look at something close her eyes then point the gun at what she had just seen without needing the sights. Just like pointing at something with her finger.

It was at this point that she said, “I’m not sure I ever want to be able to do that.”


She explained that when she held a gun in her hand she was very aware that she was holding “Life in her hands.” Interesting choice of words I thought but didn’t tell her that. Most people, in particular anti-gun people, would say, “Death in their hands.” She did not want to be so comfortable with a gun that she took it causally. She even expressed concern that she might become a sociopath. I tried to explain that wasn’t something that was going to happen at her age but she interrupted and said that she had been concerned that she might give birth to a sociopath since the age of 13 and no one had been able to dissuade of that in the intervening years and I wasn’t going to be able to talk her out of that concern in the next few minutes. I let that drop but asked, “What about using a gun to stop an attack against you?” She wasn’t sure, “It depends on what their situation was. What if they were just at a really bad point in their life?” “What about defending the life of your child?”, I asked and got a similar answer. The same for someone stomping on her puppy or cat.


I went on to the next lesson and showed her how to determine if a gun was unloaded–verify the source of ammunition has been removed and the chamber is empty.

I had her dry fire my STI. I repeatedly manually racked the slide and she “got” the reason for leaning into the shot and having the elbows slightly bent to absorb the recoil.

We went to the range and the public bay was crowed. Very crowded. The members bay was less crowded but we had to go through the public bay to get to the member’s bay. A shot went off as we entered the public bay and even with my best electronic muffs on Kelsey jumped and cowered. James and I hurried her into the members bay. But even there the shots from next door caused her to jump and nearly curl into a fetal position while still standing.

“It’s so loud!”, she said. After a brief consultation, James asked if I had any foam plugs she could use. I didn’t but the gun store was open and we left to get them.

She put them in and we returned. I can’t say that I could see it improved her demeanor any. And each shot made it worse. She was curled up, shaking, sweating, and crying. I told James that we should take her home. If she still wanted to learn we could go again sometime out in the woods with Ry and his suppressed .22. James started talking to Kelsey and I packing up our stuff. I shouldered my backpack and was ready to walk out but James said she still wanted to try it. I asked why. Kelsey said because she had said she would do it. “That doesn’t matter,” I told her. If you really want to do this we can do this another time when and where it’s much quieter. She insisted and I relented.

I had her dry fire the Ruger Mark II. She still jumped every time another gun went off some place. But the crying and shaking had stopped.

I put a single round in a magazine, racked the slide, and let her pick up the gun to shoot at the target about eight feet away. She brought the gun up and pointed it at the target. She hesitated and then quickly put the gun down. “I can’t do it!”, she said. “Okay, you don’t have to,” I told her. “You don’t have to do this. I don’t think you are ready and I think we should go home so we can talk about this.”

I started to pack up again. But she said, “How about I just hold the gun and you pull the trigger?” “I’m fine with that”, I said.

She picked up the gun and pointed it at the target. I repeated the mantra as I put my finger over hers in the trigger guard. I just barely touched her finger and was starting to say “squeeze” when the gun went off.

She put the gun down and started jumping up and down. “I did it!” she exclaimed. The guns booming on either side no longer mattered. From then on she didn’t stop smiling until we left the range except to pout when she had emptied a magazine. I started taking pictures and then a video:

I showed her where first shot ever hit. It was about 5:30, just inside the black.

She asked to do it again. I started to put in a half-full magazine. “Not that many. Just one. Maybe two,” she said.

I loaded the gun with two rounds.

Those went quickly and she asked for three rounds.

Then a full magazine.

And then another, and another, and another.

James shot for a while then Kelsey returned to the bench. I had her hold my partial brick of .22 ammo. She didn’t understand the joke but held it for me anyway:

I merely said the boxes had gotten a little bit wet, then dried, and were sticking together. I’ll have to explain it to her tomorrow when we go sailing.

She burned through magazine after magazine with fire blazing from the barrel. She emptied the magazines faster than I could reload.

She moved the target out to nearly 30 feet and could still keep them in the black at will. It was only when she pushed the speed that the rounds strayed a bit. But only one was outside the rings and all were on the paper:

When we brought the last target in she pointed to the big hole in the paper and with almost a growl said, “I killed it!”

Anti-gun for 25+ years then turned into a budding sociopath in just over an hour. Sarah Brady’s worst nightmare just came true. Damn! I’m good.

Whistling past the graveyard

I find what the anti-gun people and their media supporters doing very interesting. I’ve never seen this before.

The Brady Campaign is changing course and saying they are getting out of politics. They have created a new website, are downplaying their name and demanding “A NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON HOW WE CAN PREVENT GUN DEATHS AND INJURIES”.

The media is saying things like:

Some hint that the NRA and gun freedom advocates have muzzled them and that gun owners and the NRA need to be silenced so that “sane people” can have a discussion. It’s as if the “room goes quiet” and most realize infringing upon the 1st Amendment is where even they draw the line.

What I think they are beginning to understand is that we are well beyond critical mass and they can no longer silence the message. There are millions and millions of us with guns, cameras, and computers and we know how to use them. There only a few thousand of them and they can’t take someone to an “anti-gun” range. We can. New shooters get first hand exposure to the facts and they don’t look back. I take new shooter after new shooter to the range and they all have smiles on their face (wait until you see the report from today! And I got a call this afternoon about another new shooter expressing interest).

My friends and I can make a video mocking the antics of the antigun people, post it on YouTube and it gets far, far more views than the videos of the professional anti-gun people.

Our message is out there. The main stream media is picking up on it:

The anti-gun people claim the facts support their side but if you read the comments, something not possible with the main stream media of 15 years ago when gun control was at it’s peak, the anti-gun position is ripped to shreds. People are realizing they have been lied to for years and they don’t like it.

Those who claim “gun control isn’t a lost cause” are just whistling past the grave yard.

Quote of the day—rbstern

People who raise the “civilian gunowners vs. U.S. military” forget that nearly everyone in the U.S. military has a hometown with family and friends. And many members of the military believe what they said when they took the oath: They are, first and foremost, bound to uphold the Constitution. Ask them to start dropping bombs in Salt Lake City or Paducah, and they’ll be seriously evaluating who is giving such an order and why it is being given. Except in the most egregious circumstances, many will either refuse, go AWOL, or worse for the government, actually point their weapons toward the political leadership giving the orders.

That would not be some unique history lesson. The dimensions of civil wars are rarely clear and unambiguous. That guy with a S&W .38 leading a popular revolt might actually have air support.

July 27, 2012
Post to The “I need a personal arsenal to protect myself from the State” Argument
[A very good point backed up by many conversations I have had with active and veteran U.S. military personal.—Joe]

A 1st Amendment defense of gun rights

I recently had an art major friend of mine claim that a defendable definition of art was “anything not required for immediate survival”. This means that everything from the image of your stubble covered face in the mirror as you got up in the morning to the dirty socks you threw in the hamper that night and nearly everything you saw, did, smelled, touched, or heard in between qualifies as art.

I don’t have to squint very hard to see that definition being valid.

Our society currently has a very broad definition of 1st Amendment protection of art. This has extended to government grants for such controversial works of art as Piss Christ.

So why can’t a claim be made for First Amendment protection for 100 round drum magazines as works of art? It certain meets my primary definition of art which is, “Something aesthetically pleasing but without significant functionality.”

I wonder who

Adam Winkler whines:

Without impassioned grassroots financing, the nation’s gun control organizations are struggling to stay afloat. Just a few months ago, the founder of one gun control advocacy group told me she’d run out of money and was expecting to shutter soon.

I wonder who that is. That would be a demise worth celebrating.

The thing is that organizations typically get quieter and quieter and just slowly fade away and no one really notices when they turn off the lights for the last time and disconnect the last telephone.

More ammunition production numbers

Via Say Uncle I found this:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that 10-12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced domestically each year, while billions more are imported.

Previously I had been inferring the total sales were in the 10-12 billion range.

Regardless, if, as many anti-gun people claim, guns are only good for killing there sure are a lot of defective guns and/or ammunition out there.

Common ground

Via Kevin.

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

“Large capacity feeding devices” are in “common use” and as such are specifically protected by the Heller decision. The “common ground” we have is that you are willing to use force to infringe upon this guaranteed right and if necessary I’m willing to use force to defend it.

Molon Labe.

Random thought of the day

In response to Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic On Terrorism and Gun Violence, a 1,000-to-1 Spending Gap.

Terrorism isn’t a specific enumerated right to be protected. Gun ownership is. How much money is spent by the “Bureau of Religion and Speech” to license and regulate the practice of religion and book printing and distribution?

Those that want to “prevent gun violence” by restricting firearms shouldn’t have any problem with preventing violence done by religious extremist by restricting religious materials and activities.

Nor should they have a problem with preventing racial or gay bashing crimes by restricting the free association of people of different races and sexual orientation.

The infringement of everyone’s specific enumerated rights because some people abuse those rights is repugnant and cannot be tolerated. The abuser should be punished and those that exercise their rights responsibly must continue to be free to do so.

Quote of the day—Ross Douthat

Even most pro-gun control liberals don’t think of guns and gun ownership the way the abolitionists persuaded Americans to think of slavery — as an intrinsic evil that has no justification whatsoever. They just think that the benefits, comforts, and pleasures that law-abiding, safety-conscious gun owners derive from their Second Amendment freedoms are outweighed by the dangers posed by allowing the reckless and the careless to own and carry weapons. This is not a crazy view by any means. But liberals should recognize the limits of their logic the next time they pour themselves a drink.

Ross Douthat
July 26, 2012
On Gun Control and Prohibition
[The “pour themselves a drink” comment refers to the damage done by drunk drivers, alcoholism, spousal abuse, broken families, etc. and the lost cause of prohibition.

This is from the opinion page of the New York Times!

I don’t know about “most” but certainly a lot of anti-gun people do think of guns as intrinsically evil.

He also cites the long discredited study that guns are 43 times more likely… but for the NYT this was an awesome editorial.—Joe]

Micheal Savage Doubles Down

He’s so proud of his Brady Campaign talking points, he sent them out in a mass e-mail today;

‘You don’t need body armor to hunt deer’

Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things “Savage.”

In this issue: Michael Savage is in distinguished company. Last week, he was virtually alone in placing partial blame for the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre on Hollywood.

Now esteemed director Peter Bogdanovich has joined the chorus. With that, Savage renews his call for a moratorium on violent movies, as well as a ban on body armor and certain kinds of ammunition.
“After the slaughter in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, I immediately blamed the actors, the directors and the violence in the movies,” Savage reminded listeners, adding:
Nobody paid attention to it, because I’m only Michael Savage.

I’m not a legendary movie director, like Peter Bogdanovich, who I see from this morning’s Drudge Report more or less agrees with me.

Charles Hurt of the Washington Times also mentioned the connection between movie violence and the real thing, so I put a link up to his article on my website.

His article is called “An Open Letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers.”

Maybe you already read it. Maybe you want to move on. But I don’t want to move on.

I’m going to say this again: Last Friday I said they should ban body armor for civilians, and they should ban drum magazines of ammunition.

Yet my point was missed by almost everybody in the media

I’m a gun owner. I was on the rifle team in high school.

I absolutely would defend the Second Amendment. But let me tell you something: There’s a huge difference between the right to bear arms and the right to carry around a weapon that could shoot a hundred bullets at police.

You don’t need body armor or drum magazines to hunt deer.

We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.

That’s because unless our side controls what gets banned, we’re liable to see things happen that we don’t want to happen, because we have a communist in the White House who’s capable of doing anything.

(Emphasis mine) This man clearly has what I’ve come to call the “Beltway Disease” or the “Republican Disease”.  “We’ve lost and we’re going to lose more, so lets lose more in a way that’s a little bit more palatible by losing in a way of our choice.  It would be wise, my friend.”  Typical Republican– pretend to be on the side of liberty so you can woo us into submission.  Michael; go bang your head against a wall.  That, I would pay to see.

Oh, and; you do realize that city, county and state LEs are civillians, don’t you?  Just checking, Michael, being as you tell us on a regular basis that you are ever so highly educated.  Never mind that the CO shooter wasn’t wearing body armor, and that you’re asking us to be unprotected while the criminals could always get their armor, and their drum magazines, illegally under any “ban”.

Quote of the day—Bill Buckler

In their Ten Thousand Commandments 2012 report which was released in June, the CEI estimates the cost of US government regulation at $US 1.75 TRILLION. That is just under half (48 percent) of the budget of the federal government. It is almost ten times the total of all corporate taxes collected and almost double the total collected from individual income taxes. It is also one-third higher than the total of all pre-tax corporate profits. It is the hidden cost of doing business in an interventionist economy. The fact that the cost of complying with these regulations is substantially higher than the total of corporate profits is a stark illustration of the end result of economic intervention. That end result is capital consumption.

In the US, the federal government lists its regulations in what is called the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules of the economic “game” cover 169,000 pages and more than ten new ones are added every day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. In 2011, the US Congress passed a total of 81 new “laws” while government agencies issued 3,807 new regulations. As the CEI points out, if there ever was an example of government without the consent of ANYONE – this is it.

Bill Buckler
July 22, 2012
The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion
[Emphasis in the original.

And please don’t ever forget there are those who believe they were “born to regulate”, “And it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it.”

I need a new frontier.—Joe]

Let’s Roll, pt 2: Redcoats, Risk, and Active Shooters


How and why: implement a classroom “CHARGE!” plan for active


Every year,
some students in K-12 schools are crippled or die playing football and other
sports. If you asked the players to quit because it was safer, they’d laugh at
you. We accept those risks as part of the cost of participating in life,
because the benefits for those not
seriously injured or killed are numerous and significant – physical fitness,
sportsmanship, how to work as a team, self discipline, etc. It is an acknowledgment that with life comes risk, and benefits
are not without costs
. To attempt to eliminate ALL risk is to utterly
stifle life, and merely… exist. That is NOT what America is
about. That is not what being human


When an irate parent shows up at school, yelling that their kid should
not have failed a test, or whatever, it is usually not a mass shooting threat,
even though schools have been locked down for such events as a precaution
against a possible escalation. The same has happened for a gunman or a robbery near the school, and many other
possible-but-unlikely threats. So, in those such cases where there is a
perceived threat, the risk-averse school “locks down:” all the teachers close
their doors, turns off the light, pull the shades, and tell the kids to hide,
trying to make themselves low visibility targets, much like a rabbit in an open
field that freezes in place hoping the fox, whose vision keys very well on motion, won’t see them. In most cases, the
lockdown procedure is reasonable, and it works fine, because the threat is not an actively shooting psychopath bent on a
. BUT, once the shooting starts, the picture changes radically,
and continuing to hide motionless in the dark hoping he picks another room to
shoot up, or hoping to talk the gunman into stopping, is just as stupid as the
rabbit continuing to stay motionless while the fox is running and looking
straight at it, jaws agape, with hunger in its eyes. Reasoning with a
psychopath is a non-sequitur. Once the threat is demonstrated, and the shooter
is active and closing fast, the risk-assessment of freeze-vs-action changes;
the time for hiding is over, and action
is the best path for survival. Pretending to be a motionless rabbit after being
seen is to be raptus regaliter.


The British
Redcoats wore red, of all the possible colors, to march in formation toward a
mass of people firing at them. Why?
It would seem like they would make good targets, what with a bright white X
across their scarlet chests. It served a couple of purposes, aside from saving
money by using cheap red dye. It identified friend from foe – an important
thing in a fight, especially in a mad melee surrounded by thick smoke and
confusion. It made the soldiers look sharp, professional, which both intimidated
the enemy AND made the Brits act more
like professionals, because self-image is vital to esprit de corps (especially
when the odds look bad on the surface). School sports teams want nice uniforms
for the exact same reason. But, most
importantly, a bright uniform makes it hard to be a coward, run away, and
escape the deadly insanity of the battle field; by keeping the unit cohesive in
the face of danger, it raised the odds of victory, decreasing the overall
casualty rate, and thus, counter-intuitively, it made staying in formation and
fighting less risky than running away
. By running away, an individual
raised their personal odds of
surviving that particular battle considerably,
but it is at the cost of an increased
risk of loss by the side he deserted. In the big picture, it might mean he
survived the battle only to lose the war and die, just a little bit later, as a


In a fight, as
in a union, collective, unified action, even if imperfectly coordinated, is a
powerful thing. Numbers count. Speed counts. Determination counts. Conceding a
fight invites a follow-on attack. The Japanese were stopped at the Battle of Midway
even though the first half dozen valiantly lead but almost entirely ineffective air attacks were poorly
coordinated, used mainly obsolete aircraft, and were too few planes in number
at any one time to do much more than provide target practice for the skilled
Japanese fighter pilots and gunners. BUT… they tied things up and confused the
Japanese navy just enough so that a
small squadron of dive bombers came upon them unprepared; that final wave of
planes were able to drop out of the sky and sink the centerpieces of the attacking
Japanese fleet, the carriers. The scores of airmen dying in the first,
ineffective, attacks were NOT in vain, because they paved the way to success.
The Japanese ships and weapons were first rate, their planning was meticulous
and sweeping (but flawed); the US attack disorganized, but determined. The US pilots
took risks and won the battle decisively, and changed the course of the war


So, what can teachers and students do differently, so that things don’t
go badly for the “false positive” scares, but gives them a fighting chance when
things take a dramatic turn for the worse, and the shooter is at the door? What
can be done that doesn’t require massive bureaucratic intervention and
interference? The police come to stop the violence by displaying a willingness and ability to use
– why can we, the average person, not do the same?


Use history and human nature as guides. Most mass shootings (just
talking about in the developed world, and not government-sponsored or drug-war
stuff) have been lone gunmen, so you likely only need to stop one and you are
done – that’s the history. Secondly, it is human nature to duck and dodge
things flying into your face or at your body, and it is very hard to focus on
something precision (like aiming and shooting) when you are in pain and blind.
So, when a lockdown occurs, rather than immediately cowering in fear hoping to
be shot last, everybody grab something they can throw, or hit with, to use as a
weapon, or get out a BRIGHT flashlight (or even a cell phone camera flash;
temporary blinding and disorientation is a MAJOR help in a fight). When hiding,
arrange yourselves around the door or other most likely entry point, with the
biggest and strongest nearest the door, but at least a few paces back. Those
nearest the door should be holding stuff that makes a good club (be creative –
like the heavy iron 3-hole punch, a meter stick, using a marker or Sharpie like
a kubotan, or a shovel from the wetlands ecology project last month you just
“happen” to still have), or a couple of them might use a desk they can push or
hold up in front of themselves. If an active shooter comes in the door,
everyone shine lights in his eyes, throw stuff at him, scream a battle cry, and
CHARGE! The folks in the first rank charge in, planning on knocking the weapon
up, jamming the action, hitting or blinding or disabling the shooter in any way
possible. Bury him in weight of numbers, use knees, biting, clubbing, anything
that causes pain, distraction, immobility, damage, or blindness. The second
rank should be ready to dive in to help, pull back the injured to clear the way
for more counter-attackers, or whatever. The physically weakest should shine
flashlights into the attacker’s eyes to blind him, watch for other shooters, or
prepare to lend a hand in any way possible (such as keeping a power-cord or
other tie-‘em-up handy to give to the primary counter-attackers once the
shooter is subdued).  If the event
happens in a cafeteria or gym, throw your lunch, a can of soda, hot soup or
coffee, a ball, or anything else handy, and charge in for the take-down.


This sort of plan does not interfere with the normal lock-down
procedures of “lock-lights-hide”, can be implemented independently by
individual teachers, and can be modified and adapted to specific classroom
layouts and student age and abilities. 
It empowers kids, and trains them that the proper reaction to senseless
violence is not cowering in fear or meek compliance but to do what the police do and use determined and
purposeful counter-violence, to raise the
price of being anti-social
. It creates an anti-victim mindset.  It lays
the groundwork for a stronger appreciation of what it is to be an American, and
a free human.  It also inculcates a recognition that action is what stops psychopaths.


Now, to be sure, many police departments are likely to oppose this idea
– it’s their job we are talking about taking from them. If after an attempted school
shooting, two rookies, a sergeant, and a coroner with a spatula can clean up
and document the mess, then there are a whole lot of neat toys the local PD
can’t justify buying, and a lot of security programs that won’t get funded, a
lot of grief councilors won’t be hired. It is in their best interests for you to be dependent on them; it is not in your best interests, however. Some teachers will be opposed to it
too, on the grounds that it flies in the face of their ideology of “violence
never solved anything,” which is laughably, provably, wrong, as well as being
quite at odds with American history.


If people are trained to do this in schools, then mass-shootings
elsewhere in public become less likely, too, because a “counter-attack”
mentality means they are more likely to be dragged down promptly, ending the
spree. It will teach teamwork and coordination, self-defense, and an active
rather than passive mentality.  It will
also help in building self-confidence, by creating an independent outlook on
life. Research shows that people who are targeted in a violent
confrontation  have much less PTSD and
other psychiatric recovery issues if they fought back and won, even if
injured,  than if they were a passive
receiver of violence. When the would-be victims fight back, it allows for
heroes worthy of emulation on the good guys side, and destroys the image the
sociopath has of themselves.


Is this a perfect solution to the problem of mass shooting and
murderous psychopaths? Will it guarantee no casualties? Will it always work
perfectly? Well, no, of course not. All
choices and actions are an exercise in trade-offs. But it is virtually free to
implement, may be laid out in a very short time to a class if an emergency
arises elsewhere in the building that you fear might head your way, has many
potential positive side-effects, and few downsides. It’s a start toward
creating a mindset in the nation of refusing to be a victim.



Know any teachers? Mail a link to this page on to them for thinking
about. This essay is a more school-specific follow-on to my original, more
general, “Let’s
” article, which lays out the case why fighting back is the best way to
both stop and prevent mass shootings.

Michael Savage Rages Against Drum Magazines

Talk show host Michael Savage went on a tirade today, using many of the left’s anti-gun talking points while calling for a ban on drum magazines.  To paraphrase; “Do you need something like that to hunt rabbits?  Enough is enough!”  He used multiple hunting references, and said multiple times that he is a gun owner and a 2A “supporter” (more of the antis’ talking points).  I didn’t hear any of the callers’ responses (because I work for a living and can’t be glued to a radio) but here is my own.

First, Michael, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  This “need” test of yours is so obviously foolish that I won’t glorify it with a response other than to say; anything you have that you don’t absolutely “need”– turn it all in, sucker, or quit using a stupid argument like the “need test”.

Why would I want a 75 or 100 round magazine?  Deterrence, for one thing.  Mob control for another.  Are you familiar with the concept of suppressive fire?  The assault rifle (full automatic) isn’t typically used in battle for mowing down hoards of enemy, charging up a hill at you.  More often than not it is used for “suppressive fire”– pinning down opponents while you or your partners maneuver against them, or while others escape.  A semi-auto (especially one with a large magazine) can be used effectively for suppressive fire.  Remember the LA riots?  Suppressive fire is a legitimate tactic even against a lone attacker.

Overall deterrence is an important factor in an armed society.  That Switzerland hasn’t been attacked in over 500 years is some testament to that.  The American founders spoke of the deterrent effect when they started that an armed population would hold any government in awe.  “You’re never going to fight the government, and if you did, you’d lose” says Savage.  Not the point, says I.  Sure, you may lose, but when it is widely known that millions of Americans have the ability and the equipment to make any armed conflict a very costly one for the government, you have effective deterrence.  That is an extremely important point.

And Michael, seriously, I know you are aware of the fact that prohibitions make things worse.  When alcohol is prohibited, only outlaws will have alcohol, and things go all to hell– gangs get rich and powerful, corruption is rampant, and a general disrespect for the law is fostered.  When drum magazines are outlawed, only outlaws will have drum magazines.  That’s what you want?  Really?  I think you’ve been in San Fransicko for too long.

I don’t suppose you heard that the CO movie theater killer’s drum magazine jammed.  Be sure to get a good one.  The all-steel European 75 round AKM/RPK magazines with the ratcheting loading lever are very good.  I think I’ll get another one, in your honor, Michael.  We also use them in our high round count “torture testing” of our gun accessories, but as I indicated, I don’t need any reason to own them other than the fact that I damned well feel like it, Skippy.

Lastly; I’ve wondered for years whether the things you say on your show are from the heart, or if a lot of it just a shtick– playacting to what you think of as a dumb audience, for ratings.  I still wonder.

Nothing says ‘please don’t rape me’ like hollow-points

An Idaho women used  gun to prevented her own rape twice in the span of a few days:

Twin Falls police were called to the woman’s house shortly after midnight Thursday and again Saturday afternoon to reports that two different men had broken into the home.

The woman told police a man rang the doorbell early Friday, asked her name and then said: “I’m here for you,” before forcing his way into the house.

The woman said the man chased her through the house. She went into the bedroom to grab a 9 mm gun, but the man grabbed the weapon. The gun went off during the struggle. No one was injured, but she said the man fled.

The woman also fired a shot Saturday and held the uninjured man at gunpoint until police arrived, court records said.

According to one report:

The woman called police several times as her house was broken into.

The police can’t always protect you even if you do get a call through to them as you are being attacked.

Another report says the gun she used with the first guy was taken by the intruder:

Police say a shot was fired during the struggle, but it didn’t hit her or the intruder. The wife says the man then took the gun from her and fled the home.

It is good thing that she had a second gun and/or there wasn’t a waiting period to purchase a replacement.

Had she known the whole story a week earlier she might have prevented the attacks with a divorce lawyer:

An Idaho man is charged with soliciting men to rape his wife through a posting in the “casual encounters” section of Craigslist.

Prosecutors say that without his wife’s knowledge or consent, the man posted a classified ad posing as a woman who fantasized about being raped, and then exchanged emails with the men who responded to arrange the assaults.

But 20/20 foresight isn’t an option. Multiple jacketed hollow-points are.