Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

Archimedes
[From some reason Kevin's project reminded me of this.--Joe]

In spite of a lifetime of indoctrination to the contrary at public schools, some students are figuring out that being in a "gun free zone" can put you at risk.  Here in Moscow, pro rights students at the University of Idaho are making themselves heard.  This comes shortly after our socialist mayor, Nancy Cheney, tried to ban guns in "public places" and was told by the state attorney general to back off.  "Preemption" laws state that a local government may not enact gun laws that are more strict than state law.  Yet hear we have a state-funded institution with a gun free zone policy.  Go figure.

Virginia Tech is also a “no firearms” campus, but that didn’t stop Seung-Hui Cho from killing 32 people there April 16. Baker [one of the student protestors] said he doesn’t believe being able to carry concealed weapons would have prevented the tragedy, but that it would have minimized the number of innocent people killed. He said Cho didn’t obey the “no firearms” signs, and that can happen anywhere when lawful citizens are denied their right to self-defense.

How do you spell, "Duh!"?

“We’re not saying we need a mass arming of students,” ... People are not going through these [permit approval] procedures so they can go out and commit robberies and rape.”

Does anyone else understand that a criminal isn't going to bother getting a carry permit?

Lt. Paul Kwiatkowski, campus division commander for the Moscow Police Department, said while concealed weapons are legal with a permit, the university’s code of conduct is very clear about carrying them on campus and that this policy, if changed, would complicate issues of violence.

Yeah, it would complicate things very much indeed - for the criminal.  Nothing will spoil your day of fun, murdering people, worse than having someone shoot back at you.

“If an individual is carrying a concealed weapon, you shouldn’t see it,” he said. “They like to flash their guns and show everyone they’re carrying a gun.”

Really?  Carry permit holders like to "flash" their guns and "show everyone"?  Got any proof of that, Lieutenant?  I know a bunch of permit holders, and I've never once seen it happen that way.  If I'm not mistaken, Lieutenant, "flashing" you gun around, can even get your permit revoked.  One thing left out of this article is the fact that Idaho requires three hours of training before a carry permit is issued.  My experience is that most people get a lot more training than that, all on their own.  Anyone who cares enough to have done even rudimentary study of this issue will already know that concealed carry permit holders are THE most law-abiding segment of society - more so than police.  Furthermore, (and are you listening, Nancy Cheney?) the rates of innocent bystander injuries, and of improper shootings, are far lower when a concealed permit holder is involved in a confrontation, compared to when a policeman is involved.  Look it up.

If concealed weapons were allowed, Kwiatkowski said, and a shooter came on campus, while concealed weapons carriers could fire back, when police arrived they wouldn’t know who the shooter was.

This is one point that has some shred of legitimacy.  However, we were trained in my "pre-permit" classes to be very aware of this potential problem.  If you're the citizen defender, and you're the one calling the cops, make sure they have your description and that of the perp.  When police arrive, put your gun down if possible, and identify yourself, etc..  Cops:  You people need to have thought of these things, and know what to do ahead of time to protect the innocent.  Our right to protect ourselves does not depend on what you consider to be convenient.  For that matter, should we automatically assume that anyone in a cop uniform is actually a cop?  Mr. murderer can get a cop outfit at the local rental store.  Now he's Deputy Freakin' Dog.  Unfortunately for all of us, criminals don't wear bright orange arm bands or some such, identifying themselves as criminals, either.

While looking for a reference link to my previous post I discovered this:

A famous negative reply to the issue was penned by Karl Marx, The Jewish Question, (Braunschweig, 1843). He asks the question "The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation." And answers: "The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism." Karl Marx responded to Bruno Bauer's two studies on the Jewish Question focusing on religious differences by seeing a corrupt capitalist nature to be essential to Judaism, and thus preventing its assimilation.

It's all the more interesting because Marx was Jewish by birth. So the father of communism, who was a Jew, claims a corrupt capitalist nature is essential to Judaism. It appears Marx wasn't a practicing Jew but I still find it ironic that he contributed scholarly works On The Jewish Question that contributed to the genocide. 

They haul out the tired mantra of "government intrusion on their rights."

But those are just code words for being selfish and lacking empathy.

Gun Guys
November 8, 2007
Another Child Shot Accidentally as the Gun Lobby Selfishly Refuses to Help Protect Our Kids
[I'll bet you didn't know the Bill of Rights was just code words for being selfish and lacking empathy. I didn't either. Maybe he thinks people with black skin should stay out of white restaurants, whites only swimming pools, and not use drinking fountains intended for whites. Does that mean black skinned people should understand that whites like the Gun Guys shouldn't be exposed to using the same eating utensils that have been in the mouths of blacks. And swimming in the same water? Isn't that real lack of empathy for whites? And I'm sure it was being selfish and a lack of empathy for the Aryans when the Allies went to war with Germany just because they were trying to implement a Final Solution for the Jewish Question in Europe.

It seems to me there are a large number of people that seem to believe, at some level, that Governments can't intrude on rights--that it's a logical impossibility. They seem to think that governments grant rights and hence if the law changes the right no longer exists. The truth of the matter is, of course, that rights exist irrespective of governments and governments can only infringe, guarantee, and/or protect rights. The Gun Guys mindset is but one example.--Joe]

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift
[Governments that forget their true relationship with it's citizens are on their way to enslaving their subjects.--Joe]

I'd like to believe it but I won't until the coffin has been nailed shut, it's been cremated, and the ashes dumped in a pig farm lagoon. Here is the story:

"In discussions I participated in with the Department of Homeland Security, they were asked point blank, 'What will happen to states that don't participate?'" said Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, who was on the call. "The response was, 'Nothing will happen. There will be no penalty. You can still get on a plane.'"

[...]

States began defying the feds, passing laws saying that they had no intention of complying with the REAL ID requirements. The federal government retorted that this was fine, but citizens from those states could not use drivers' licenses to enter federal buildings or board aircraft (which are screened by federal personnel).

In the face of this sort of opposition, DHS extended the deadline for compliance to 2009, and then again to 2013. Now, it could be extended again, and states could get even more time to issue cards for older drivers (apparently less of a security threat).

Whether the new rules are an expedient compromise or a total backpedalling from the goals of REAL ID depends on who you ask. The ACLU, for instance, holds strong views on the matter.

"DHS is essentially whittling Real ID down to nothing—all in the name of denying Real ID is a failure," said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani. "Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps."

Son-in-law Caleb and I went to an IPSC match on Sunday. It was his first. He came in 13^th out of 19 participants. This is very good for a first time IPSC shooter. I came in third. I had way too many misses to be very happy about my performance though.

I even won one of the stages but I suspect that was mostly because I successfully pulled off a creative way of shooting the stage rather than because my shooting was that much better than everyone else. I know at least one other person messed it up when he tried to do it the same way. I learned from his mistake and was successful.

Update: I'm adding pictures from the match and a little bit about the stage "Which Way".

Caleb and I both did really well on this stage. I won the stage and Caleb came in 4^th. Caleb actually shot it in less time that I did, 12.41 seconds versus 12.71. I had much better hits on it than he did which gave me the win. Master Class shooter Adam shot it in 10.77 seconds but with one miss and poor hits. It was a 15 round (minimum) stage so including the draw, moving into position and from shooting position to shooting position we still averaged more than one aimed shot per second.

Caleb contemplating how to shoot a stage.

Caleb shooting the stage "Which Way".

And no, Caleb wasn't standing on one foot to shoot, he was slowing down as he approached the barrels and shooting at the same time.

Master class shooter Adam shooting a worse score than beginner Caleb while K.W. RO's.

I visualize a "gunextremist" as someone who shows up to the range with a NAA mini in .22 Short and a Phelps revolver in .45-70.

TJH
In comments November 4, 2007, 9:32 PM.
[This is particularly amusing because it was in response to an anti-gun bigot whining about pro freedom people changing the meaning of words and phrases the anti-gun people were using. "Gun control" becomes a slur, etc.--Joe]

Utopia is not one of the available solutions to violence in our society. Only incremental improvements are attainable through repeal of victim disarmament laws and through implementation of effectual, affordable measures. Objective assessment of the risks and benefits of various proposals will assist development of rational and effectual public policy. Hysterical, ineffectual, unconstitutional, and merely symbolic measures only squander time, money, and energy that are better devoted to effectual solutions and realistic goals.

Edgar A. Suter MD
Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review
[Emphasis in the original. I have used this argument (utopia isn't an option) myself in a gun control debate against a communist. They didn't really seem to get it. They wanted to keep trying just as they want to keep trying new variations of Marxism; "All we need is to have the right people in government." I wish I had come back with, "Marxism and gun control was responsible for over 100 million dead last century. Do you want to donate your body to the next attempt at utopia?" --Joe]

These ads are unfair and deceptive because they suggest to the consumer that the purchase of a handgun is an effective means of providing for self- and family-protection without warning the consumer that the introduction of a handgun into the home actually places the home's occupants at an increased risk of death by gun.

Petition on Deceptive Gun Advertising
Filed with FTC by Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, American Association of Suicidology, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions
[[sarcasm] Therefore, one should conclude, people at police stations and gun ranges are at extreme risk of "death by gun". I wonder why the statistics don't show that? [/sarcasm] What the anti-gun people don't want to admit is that in the few "studies" that pretend to support their position correlation does not equal causation. And that most studies do not show the correlation they want to believe exists.--Joe]

Interesting how the other side sees things:

The parallels of how conservatives turned the word "liberal" into a slur, much like gun proponents have turned "gun control" into a detestable concept, is worth considering. Staying on message and repeating it broadly is essential. It's one of the key reasons why gun extremists have been successful in blocking policies to prevent gun violence in most of the country, despite overwhelming public support for "gun control".

There is true political power when a movement can take away your opponents language and turn it against them, denigrate their legitimacy and values, and most importantly question their entire identity. Sounds familiar?

Several gun violence prevention organizations struggle with what to call themselves, and where to align their politics and strategy. What words should we use to identify ourselves: "gun safety", "gun control", "cease-fire", "anti-violence"?

There is strong debate between advocates about whether "gun control" is a losing terminology because it is sounds so negative and turns latent supporters off. But here is the dirty little secret: guns do in fact need to be "controlled".

On "gun safety" the NRA is the undisputed champ with 50,000 certified instructors that teach about 750,000 gun owners per year. How many people do all the anti-gun groups combined teach "gun safety" to? Washington Ceasefire had a student intern type that was going to be doing something along those lines but I never heard from them again after they gave a presentation I went to in about '98 or '99. So my guess is the number hovers right near zero.

In Washington State we took the steam out of Washington Ceasefire public appearances by showing up with Ceasefear (thank you Ray Carter for coming up with that name) signs and shirts (I'm a Ceasefear instructor).

The violence statistics after guns have been heavily restricted or banned put a lie to their claiming to be against violence.

The author above admits "gun control" sounds negative and turns off latent supporters but yet acknowledges that gun control is what they really want. Sort of like "White Supremacist" sounds bad but that in fact is their true objective.

I've got a name for them--they should identify themselves as Bigots for Gun Control.

You can buy your tickets on-line and are $25 each. Support the Fifty Caliber Institute's battle against the forces of evil. Entries close December 20, 2007. Each ticket is used in both drawings (a single ticket could win both prizes):

With a policy that tightly controls guns or bans them altogether, colleges and schools can ensure that the only people carrying guns are their security guards and the police. This is the way it has likely always been, and schools are safer because of it. For maximum safety and security, this is the way it should always be.

Brady Campaign
No Gun Left Behind
May 2007
[Evidence of these policies at work around the world are here and here. Some of the better known:

• Edinboro
• Stockton
• Columbine
• Virgina Tech
• Appalachian School of Law
• Pearl Mississippi
• Jonesboro
• Springfield
• Lancaster County
• Ma'alot (Israel)
• Dawson College (Montreal)
• École Polytechnique (Montreal)
• Dunblane (Scotland)

Maybe they are using a different definition of the word "ensure" than the one I am familiar with. Otherwise what they say makes no sense to me. But more likely they have mental problems and are unable to answer Just One Question.--Joe]

Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

P.J. O'Rourke
[I was reminded of this after my officemate came back from a meeting over in building 33 last week. Hillary was in town trying to buy votes with promises of "rebuilding a strong and prosperous middle class" and gave her sales pitch to people Microsoft. I wasn't aware of the visit until after my officemate came back and gave me a report or I would have attended. If nothing else just to take some pictures.--Joe]