I haven’t done a lot of planning for how I want to expand the blog in this next year. I have a few ideas and I want to grow the video side of the blog as well.
Some of you have probably noticed I have ads on the blog now. My goal is to subsidize the cost of the hosting and possibly buy me a lunch from time to time. I’m trying to make sure that they are where they will generate revenue but also stay out of the way. Up until last month the blog has been running at a loss for me since I ran it ad free. There is a nice part of being ad free, but at the same time it’s burning a hole in my pocket and I would rather buy toys and review them or have extra ammo to train with.
This next year I’ve got a pile of stuff on the plate, including a possible/probable trip to visit a friend. Neither the wife or I want to deal with the TSA and we need to chat with a travel agent about prices as well for what we’re thinking about doing.
So since it’s New Year’s eve, here’s Auld Lange in probably one of the best versions I’ve heard:
h/t To Caleb on that one. And you thought I was all rock and violin didn’t you?
Now why would I make a post out of this? Because last night on Facebook, god knows where at this point, someone left a comment along the following lines:
That was because it was an off duty officer! They’re tested so such a high standard that no mere citizen could qualify. That’s why this armed individual was able to stop this criminal!
For those who don’t feel like clicking the link, here’s the video shown in that post, which gives more details:
So lets bust this whole thing open shall we? First up we have statistics showing police vs. civilian response. 14.3 deaths during a police response to 2.3 deaths when armed civilians response. Admittedly a limited sample pool given you’re more likely to be struck by lightning. Moving forward though there’s the argument that an armed citizen will more likely hit bystanders than the police. Lets compare and contrast two videos shall we?
NYPD score, 1 bad guy, 9 innocent civilians. A block of “highly trained” individuals.
Old guy with a CCW score: 2 injured assailants, no civilian casualties.
Again, why do we want more than 10 rounds in a magazine? The idea of a one shot stop is a myth. The idea that police are some how superior is a myth. The idea that a gun free zone will some how make you safe is a myth. The idea that an armed citizen cannot take care of themselves is a myth, oneeasilydisproven I might add.
Why is it one side of this debate consistently argues myths instead of facts. The reason the national news doesn’t cover this is because it doesn’t fit their narrative of myths.
This one is in the count because of the ongoing history with the IMPD. As I have said previously, an incident of blatant corruption usually indicates a deeper issue within a department and it appears we have another data point.
For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people. To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped. History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers. Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him. He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench. That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.
[First it's worth reading the whole thing. My usual response currently about why do you "need" currently is, "It's a bill of rights not a bill of needs." Massad does a fantastic job of destroying their "need" argument. As Massad points out: If semiautomatic rifles and pistols with high-capacity magazines are so ineffective for defense, why do police carry them? If all they can do is aid in criminal activity, why are the police allowed access?
Our opponents will admit a gun in the right hands is a net positive. They will not argue to disarm representatives of the state. So how does taking a firearm from an innocent law-abiding citizen, the right hands, fix the negative of criminals gaining possession.
Ultimately gun control has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control. Crime has been decreasing even with an increase in firearms ownership in America. There is no causation despite what they claim. Never mind that the numbers say this is quite unlikely to occur. That isn't to say it isn't a tragedy, it's just not worth throwing freedom and liberty away for ineffective measures to try to stop a statistically unlikely event.
So in the end, why would anyone want to limit access to that effective equalizer? -B]
Those in power, the ones telling you that you are kinder and more gentle if your turn in your weapons, they are not going to take it. The President isn’t going to take it. He has armed security because he feels that his life is far more valuable than yours or mine. Of course, he should be protected by the the best of the best at tax payers expense. Again, in all fairness, if we are going to compare lives of worth, his does rank at the top. He is after all the leader of the Free World…well, semi-free world, well, America. We are free right?
[I am reminded of a lecture I listened to quite recently. One that I will more than most likely give next year.
The Level reminds us that we are descended from the same stock and partake of the same nature, yet no eminence of station should make us forget that we are brethren and that he who is places on the lowest spoke of fortune's wheel may be entitle to our regard; because the time will come, and the wisest knows not how soon, when all distinctions but that of goodness shall cease, and death, the grand leveler of Human greatness reduces us to the same state.
One cannot argue that their life is worthy of armed defense while arguing to disarm others of the tools to do so. In that hypocrisy one shows they do not actually view their fellow man as equals, but rather slaves. –B]