The Numbers Say Fight Back and Do Not Worry

So through various posts there has been a smattering of information that honestly should be stitched together so it’s more easily found.

First up is this number which reiterates what many of us in the pro-rights community already knew.

Like Linoge I feel the sample size is a bit on the smaller side but there are a couple of reasons for that.  First he made sure to only include data points that are relevant and applicable.  Second though is better explained by this piece from Chicago Magazine.

This has to be weighed against perceptions of crime which, as Matt Yglesias has written, have in recent years become “unmoored from reality.” Crime has dropped; the perceived rate of crime has not. Is the same possible for rare cases of mass murder? Grant Duwe, research director for the Minnesota Department of corrections and author of (to my knowledge) the only longitudinal book-length study of mass murder in America, suggests it is: “the 1966 massacre committed by Charles Whitman in Austin, Texas marked the onset of a wave of mass public shootings that lasted until the end of the 20th century. Although it may seem that mass public shootings are still on the rise, the data show that 26 occurred between 2000 and 2009, a significant drop from the 43 cases in the 1990s.”

It causes an extra realization that validation needs to be performed on the actual numbers as appearances can be deceiving.  The media blasts about any and every incident because it does well for their ratings as well as a decrease in frequency makes them more news worthy.  (You watch the news not to know what is constant, but what has happened that is unexpected.)  Reporting on a decrease in the frequency doesn’t bring ratings or viewership.

Further someone has examined the odds of dying in a mass shooting.  Unsurprisingly they aren’t high.  Here are the conclusions but I suggest reading the whole thing, it’s definitely worth it.

We should always strive to continue to reduce all risks of death, especially the preventable risks of other humans, wherever possible. But the risks will always exist. If your chance of dying in a mass shooting is 0.000003% and your chance of dying in a car accident is 0.9%, with a whole lot of other risks in between, I think it’s reasonable to ask if there aren’t a lot of easier and more effective ways to try to use the government’s limited resources to save lives than trying even harder to prevent the next shooting tragedy than we already are.

The odds aren’t quite as low as say being struck by lightning within a year, except that his numbers are for lifetime odds.  In which case your lifetime odds of being struck by lightning is 1/10000 or 0.01%.

So why is it that mass shootings appear to be such a common occurrence?  The answer is simply visibility.  The media made terrorist attacks look unbelievably common despite the fact that again lightning is a bigger threat to your personal well being.  The media can scream so loud and for so long on the same topic that it often seems like the problem is worse than it actually is.

There are those of us who will take our time, do our research, and find the facts on a topic before moving forward.  Our opponents on the other hand want the media to scream and yell.  The more the media makes this look like a common occurrence, because it makes them look relevant.

The facts are in though.  Our opponents are irrelevant and those facts are becoming obvious to all the adults in the room.  The adults in the room are having a conversation and we all wish the children throwing the tantrum would shut up so the adults can continue speaking.  It’s not worth spending time worrying about a statistically unlikely event.

Is life, is not safe.  I know that, most everyone knows that.  Frankly I’d rather go out, live and enjoy my life without some nanny trying to control my every action.  Even if they do, I could still be struck by lightning, is congress going to ban lightning?

Be Prepared…

For what? Oh any old thing.

So far it’s not clear why the man police say is Joel Neveraz, a wedding guest, encouraged his pit bull to attack the bride and also attacked the woman himself.

I had a two fold protection for that at my wedding.  One, I was strapped.  Second I had a tiger pit at the reception.

Just because it is supposed to be a happy day, and it should be dream like, not everyone may be sympathetic to your view.  Carry your guns and be prepared, you never know when trouble will come to your door step.

How to know your opponents are in still in denial

Last Friday I saw this did nothing but laugh, I thought about writing something up but  doing other stuff won.

“Society has to take the glory out of guns,” the so-called “.44 Caliber Killer” told the New York Daily News in a jailhouse interview. “Young people have no business carrying a gun. I would love to speak bluntly to those gangbanging teens and wanna-bes and tell them prison is nothing like what you think. If you’re packing a gun, you’re making a big mistake, and you’ll regret it.”

Your position is in a seriously losing state if the biggest names you can get to support you are pathological serial killers.

Let’s start at the beginning of this.  Mr. Serial Killer here thinks that merely carrying a gun is a big mistake.  Tell me something, did you kill those people or did the gun magically make you do it?  Yeah, you and I both know the correct answer to that question because my gun, like so many other people’s hasn’t just magically hopped out of its holster and shot someone.

Moving forward, you state that using a firearm against someone else ruins both lives.  While for the most part this is technically true because there will be a legal investigation into any death, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 if I found myself in the company of you or some of your compatriots.  In the end I say that because if I ever have to deploy my firearm, ultimately I will not have killed my attacker, he will have killed himself, I just merely carried the bullet around for a while.  All he needed to do was walk on by and leave me be and no harm would have befallen either of us.

The real reason this man hates firearms is because the last thing he wants is for innocent victims to be able to fight back.  He wants the predator to have an assurance of overwhelming force.  The best way to get this to happen is to have the state force disarmament upon the innocent at a threat of force from the state.

This is all that our opponents can bring to the table.  Serial killers and criminal professional athletes pardon me if I’m not shivering in fear at the idea that people are going to be swayed by the words of a serial killer saying, “Leave your guns at home.”  Yeah, there’s a reason he wants you to do that, and most people with an IQ higher than a rock can figure that out.

Gun control is dying, even while in the wake of tragedy.  Overall I’m seeing more and more outbursts of Anger as this goes on.  I’m just waiting now to see a serious outburst of anger from our dear friend Ladd.  Some may never move on from the first stage, Ladd however I think will eventually become angry, he’s been pretty nasty before.

On Complacency

Ry bumped me this by email and it’s worth watching both video’s.  Warning people get shot and people die. (For those of you using RSS, the video isn’t embedding correctly, click here.)

Here’s a better view of the video with the section we really care about.  Watch carefully starting at 1:33.

You will see as the officer opens the door the assailant sticks his arm out and fires a gun at contact range.

Please note while often through the State Sponsored Criminal Count it seems like I’m callous and have no respect for the danger police officers are in that is anything but true.  I have plenty of respect and this video above shows exactly how dangerous it can be.  Why I do the count is for a different time because from what I could see in the video, this officer had done no wrong with regards to the rights of the people involved.

But what happened?  As Ry said “Getting behind the OODA loop,” which I can certainly see in this case.  What strikes me more though is a complacency that appears since already one individual is in cuffs and everything appears to be calm and routine.  The cops figure if there was going to be an issue it would have already happened.  Then without warning things turn south.  The calm and routine is usually where you end up in trouble because your brain expects a different outcome.

The officer that was shot at contact distance didn’t really even have a chance.  By the time he realized what was happening the hammer was starting to fall.  The other officer was obviously taken off guard as well.  The were taken so off guard he had problems integrating the new information into their OODA loop.  The officer is reacting as if they were in Condition White and have trouble, as Cooper said, transitioning the levels to “The Fight is On”.

Take away’s as a sheep dog.  Just because something seems kosher doesn’t actually mean all is well and safe.  Never leave condition yellow around anyone that might be dangerous.  In this case as an officer, I can understand being in Orange even especially during a traffic stop.  However that line to Red must be clearly defined and you must not false trip.

Further as a wolf in sheep’s clothing you can play this same trick on criminals attempting to use you as prey.  If you recognize a predator, and for some reason you passed the interview, you can make them think their crime will be routine when in the end it will be anything but.  It’s more likely to lock them up because they will not have planned for that eventuality, it normally goes south for them when they can easily make an exit.  You must be careful in that game because letting them close distance is usually a bad thing.

Anyone else pull any different lessons or observations out of those videos?

My heart goes out to that officers family because he didn’t deserve that, he was doing his job and from what I saw, he was doing it honestly and admirably which is worthy of praise. It pleases me to also be able to report the following:

Jerry Lard, who was a passenger in the back seat of the stopped car, was convicted last month of capital murder for killing Schmidt. He has been sentenced to death.

Disappointingly I’m sure it won’t happen for a very long time.

How Fear, Not Fact, Informs the Gun Rights Debate

Wonderful video from Reason TV the truth behind the gun rights debate.

I find this a great addition to go along with this video I’ve used numerous times previously:

Then again, most of these people who fall into the irrational panic state don’t seem to understand the benefit of discussion occurring while you’re calm and rational.  Their coping mechanism for tragedy is to “Do Something,” even if that something actually causes more people to die they feel better because the did something.

I did see a video this weekend and I think I’m going to have to get together with some friends and script out a response.

Surviving An Active Shooter – A commentary

So I saw this in passing last week but didn’t really have time to watch it or talk about it.  Alan posted it today and well it gave me the urge to comment.  So to start off with watch the video.

First off is with its emphasis on running and hiding the immediate thought was of Bert the Turtle and if you don’t know what I’m talking about.  Here is an educational video from on how to survive a nuclear attack, like the above, this one is made by your government.

At least with Bert it made a little bit of sense because you couldn’t do anything to change or alter the damage from a nuclear weapon.

Amazingly though this video does give some insight that we can all take home. The first notable item is that the attacker plainly and clearly ignored a gun free zone declaration on the door, this can be seen at 1:00. Attackers do this to know their victims cannot fight back.  Attacks frequently happen within gun-free zones, including the most recent one.  Secondly it guarantees the outcome discussed and noted at 4:20, specifically:

Improvise Weapons

It’s pretty hard to improvise a weapon equivalent to firearm, doubly so when you know the attacker has one.

Even the agency which put this video together admits what the pro-rights side of the argument has said from the beginning.  A criminal intent on doing harm will not be effected or restrained by law.  The intended victims of the attacker however will be left without the most effective means of self-defense.

Next up are the comments about first responders at 4:40.  Let this be a lesson to everyone because it is correct.  They are not there to evacuate you, they are not there to give you medical aid, they are there to stop the threat and secure the area so that medics and other emergency personal can do that.  Just because the Johnny Law has shown up doesn’t mean you are safe, that you are clear, or will receive immediate medical attention.  Let me translate this for people who still may not understand.

You are still on your own!

Emergency services will arrive on scene when they can, there is no guarantee for the response time for either medical personal or police to show up with their guns since this particular location wouldn’t let you have yours.

Hopefully the gun grabbers are crying in their beer because even the educational videos on surviving mass shootings emphasize the lack of rationality in their logic.  Can you say “Winning?”

*Overall I think the video was actually well done and decently educational.  I am not going to go running through an area looking for the shooter, but if I see him and have an opportunity I will fight, I will not run.  Running just serves to allow others to become victims or allow him a chance to shoot me in the back.

Someone once asked me a question…

They saw my XD on my hip and I actually had my mag carriers on and the asked me the following:

Why did you put on your gun to come to the movie theater?  Do you really think something is going to happen?

To which I replied,

I put on my gun because I got dressed and criminals don’t call ahead.

It ends up last night, or early this morning depending on your view, there was an incident in Colorado.

A gas mask-wearing gunman opened fire early Friday at a suburban Denver movie theater, leaving at least 12 people dead and dozens more injured, police said.

It took no time at all for the gun grabbers to start dancing in blood though.  My personal favorite was the woman on twitter who informed me since no one shot back, we obviously didn’t need to have the right to arms.  Let me start at the beginning, pardon while I synopsize I’ll get to why in a minute.  She posted a tweet yesterday stating how she had physically fought off a rapist and she didn’t need a gun to do so and was glad her attacker didn’t have one.  She then used that statement as a justification for a total ban on firearms. This is how I replied:
Here’s the rest of the conversation, remember from the bottom up, I know it’s annoying I can’t figure out a way to change it.
So after the tweets last night I thought the conversation was over.  Well it was until she had some new blood to go dance in as you can see by her comments this morning.

Notice how she called me the ass and implied I was making assumptions but provided absolutely no answers to the questions I asked.  Her solution when I presented arguments she couldn’t handle or respond to was to block me.  All I wanted was for her to justify her position with facts and logic.  Obviously the force is weak with this one.  Especially with this awesome tweet after she blocked me.
So even with my previous examples of people defending themselves and others, the fact that there wasn’t a CCW holder in the theater means that the right is pointless.  Tell me, why wasn’t there a cop in the theater?  It is not the job of the CCW permited populace to protect everyone else.  Our duty is to ourselves and our families.  If we end up protecting you in the process, that’s a bonus.  If we choose to intervene on your behalf, we could end up being hung out to dry by the legal system so why would we?

Most entertaining though is she says that we’re eating our words this morning.  Except we never claimed that guns were some sort of magic talisman, it’s just that it serves no purpose to disarm the law-abiding but to ensure their victimhood.  She cannot argue against this point and she knows it.  That’s why she hasn’t even attempted to answer any of my questions.

She may have blocked me, but she can’t exactly stop the signal.  Feel free to go tweet at her if you like.  (Do NOT harass her, just try and get her to justify her position.)

Back to the subject of the movie theater, unsurprisingly the media has already gone into PSH mode and have resorted to using the Journalist’s Guide to Firearms Identification.
So take this as yet another reminder.  Be careful out there and carry your damn gun, you probably wont know when the wolf comes knocking.
h/t Weer’d


A Guide to Exercising a Right…

Emily Miller gives us a nicely detailed guide on what it takes to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right in our nations capital.  Here’s a nice excerpt, I would highly suggest reading the whole thing.

I’ve been writing this guide bit by bit from the day in Oct. 2011 when I first went to the District’s firearm registration office and said, “I want a gun.” Back then, I expected it to take a few weeks and cost $60 to have a firearm at home. I was off by a few months and $375.  Also, I believed that documenting the process for the newspaper would mean a few stories about long lines and frustrating bureaucrats. I was far off the mark.

When I started, there were 17 steps to getting a legal gun in Washington. However, as my series exposed the particularly burdensome requirements to gun ownership, the city council moved to remove some of those barriers. Now  there are 12 steps that take much less time and the cost has decreased by $262.

Even with the improvements I still say its way too much.  Especially considering one should be allowed to vote without showing ID, but look at the barriers to gun ownership.

These barriers are numerous and the biggest is a financial hurdle that many may not be able to overcome.  Imagine adding a $125 transfer fee plus an extra $48 dollars in asking the police department for permission to own a firearm.

Not to mention the additional 10 day waiting period which does nothing but make sure that someone who may legally own a firearm isn’t able to purchase one when they really need it.

Name one single other right that has these types of bars against their exercise.  There is no waiting period on free speech.  If someone says something bad about you, you are not prohibited from writing about them for 10 days while your blog registration application comes through.  You are not required to pay a fee to the state for the permission to create a blog or computer, or network connection to run your blog.  You are allowed to write freely in defense of your character.

Contrast that to firearms where an abusive-ex can threaten you, and you are now stuck waiting for 10 days.  You have a pile of fees to pay both to a monopolistic FFL and the police department for the permission to have an effective tool of self-defense.  A right guaranteed by the US Constitution and stated as applying to the individual in the McDonald decision is subject to fees and limitations of its exercise.  The consequences in this latter case though can be lethal for the person whose rights are being violated.

Instead of allowing free exercise, they create a maze of bureaucracy to be followed, which does nothing but ease the government in their efforts to infringe a right while appearing to allow for free exercise.

If your laws need a guide in order explain to people how to exercise a right, there is something grossly wrong with the design of the system.  It is obviously designed and engineered with the intent of stopping people from exercising that right.  The politicians and people responsible should be run up on 18.242.

I applaud Emily Miller for her efforts in correcting this wrong.  While she has made considerable advancement as can be seen, there is still a long way to go.  I doubly appreciate that she created that wonderful guide to aid others through the bureaucratic nightmare that are D.C.’s gun laws.