Thompson about to jump in?

I see Fred Thompson is about to jump into the Presidential primary race. Fred's been "testing the waters" for quite sometime now. I just hope the water hasn't evaporated before he dives in.
GBW

Empowering women through self defense classes

Several Google Alerts hit my mailbox every day, and one of the things I've noticed are the high numbers of "Self Defense" classes mentioned. I didn't pay much attention to them at first, but there were so many it got me thinking, so I've been checking them out. And what have I seen?

First, the classes are almost all targeted at women. That's not a bad thing. Women should be able to protect themselves to the best of their ability.

Second, the classes are often described as "empowering" women so they don't have to be passive victims. (That's not a bad thing, either. However, empowering doesn't mean they walk with impunity down a dark alley in the wrong part of town at 3 a.m., but that they are more alert and aware of their environment and the predators around them. (No, I'm not talking about feral dogs or grizzly bears, Sparky.)

Third, I have yet to see a curricula that included the most effective method of self defense and force equalization any woman might use, firearms and their proper use as a tool for self defense.

Fourth, many of the classes are offered by organizations that would often agree with the statement, no one needs a firearm for protection because that's why we have police. Of course, that begs the question of the necessity of a self defense course, doesn't it? If the police are suppose to take care of us, why would you need to teach women to be aware of their surroundings and how to fight like wildcats to disable a male attacker? And why leave out the most effective way to enable a 110 lb. woman to protect herself from a predator weighing 225 lbs who is carrying a weapon?

See a great example of why all women should at least consider a concealed carry firearm over on The LawDog Files where you'll find an after-action report of young lady who didn't do to badly at all.
GBW

Someone tell Congress, quickly!!

"To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character. "

Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 34, 4 January 1788)

Bush following in the great tradition of LBJ

Let's see, I know it's in here, maybe one of the later amendments. It must be. The federal government would never do anything so blatantly bread and circuses unless there was an amendment somewhere, hmmmmm...
Can't seem to find it. I guess I need to get a newer copy of the Constitution. Mine's obviously out of date. Perhaps if I write the White House, they'll send me a copy of the one the President is using.

You know, I think everyone of these stupid people who a) couldn't afford a house but b) found someone stupid enough to loan them 120% of the said house's value should be helped. Someone needs to tell them how stupid they were and advise them not to do it again after they declare bankruptcy.

One might think the fallout from the Great Society would have taught the harm of throwing money at people without requiring accountability. If the Feds wanted to do something useful, oh well, never mind. It's too early in the morning for pure fantasy.
GBW

Life, liberty and property...

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” —Frederic Bastiat

"Responsible Gun Owners Do Exist"

Article from The Bulletin, Philadelphia's Family Newspaper.

Well, that's good to know. Not a bad article overall, I can almost here the surprise in the reporter's words.

Fifty Years of Math, 1957 - 2007

(junk mail from my sister)

Fifty Years of Math, 1957 - 2007

Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and Fmath since the 1950s.

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100 His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living?

Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)

6. Teaching Math In 2007

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

So being illegal isn't.....illegal?

In today's Digest from The Patriot, Vol. 7 No. 34, we have the latest bit of judicial nonsense.

A Kansas court of appeals ruled this week that there is a distinction between entering the country illegally and presence in the country; the latter is not a crime. The ruling was on the appeal of Nicholas Martinez, an illegal alien busted for possession of cocaine and endangering a child. Martinez’s plea bargain would have resulted in probation, but the original judge ruled probation wasn’t possible as his immigration status meant he was already in violation of the law. The judge ruled that Martinez should spend a year in jail, but a three-judge appeals panel threw out the sentence because, while it may be illegal to enter the country, it is not necessarily illegal to be in the country. As Rush Limbaugh asked, “So, what, if I go rob a bank and I get away with it and they don’t find out about it for a week, does it mean I get to keep the money?” Prosecutors have 30 days to appeal.

So now it's necessary to pass a bill that makes being here illegal, too?

Sigh...
GBW

Executions save lives...

From the National Center for Policy Analysis web site:

Every execution of a convicted murderer results in about 18 fewer murders. Increased arrests and convictions also reduce the number of murders. On the average:

• A one percent increase in arrests of murderers results in about 250 fewer murders.
• A one percent increase in convictions of murderers results in about 105 fewer murders.

Capital punishment reduces the number of murders because it discourages potential murderers from committing the crime. When criminals believe that arrest, conviction and execution are more likely, they commit fewer homicides.

• Of the approximately 20,000 murders committed each year in the United States, only 38 percent result in a conviction.
• Only one-tenth of one percent result in execution.

The first scholarly study of the effects of capital punishment on the murder rate was done in 1975. The study was introduced in argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Gregg v. Georgia, which upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment.

The latest study shows that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is more than twice as strong as the 1975 study found. --DRH

Source: Southern Economic Journal, July 1985, 300 Hanes Hall 019-A. Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514. (919) 966-5261.

Hmmm. Criminal control reduces murders. What an original concept.

GBW

"Manners are the grease that lubricates society"

Over at What would John Wayne do?, Ahab laments the lack of manners we too often see around us today.

Somewhere in the ancient past, there is a high school yearbook with a full page picture of the GreatBlueWhale with the caption "Most Courteous" This was an award voted by the teachers and staff back in the dark ages when manners meant something. I took a lot of ribbing from my friends about it, buy I was quite proud of what I considered a very real honor.

You see, I figured out very early on good manners made my life a lot easier. When you're polite and considerate of others, more of the same comes back at you than not.

One of Heinlein's said it best; "Manners are the grease that lubricates society," and "An armed society is a polite society." Both great advice.
GBW

Churchill saw it coming...

Sir Winston Churchill;
(The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

GBW

66% want more enforcement of existing gun laws

A recent Zogby/Associated Television News poll found 66% of American voters agree with the statement, "There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control."

While that is not bad news, I'd have preferred to see a question more along the lines of, "There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding criminals who use guns for crime."

This is the telling quote from this press release.

"A majority of voter who support enforcement of gun laws already on the books exists virtually across all demographic groups and in all regions of the country with the only exception being Asian and liberal voters." (emphasis mine)

Now, I know there are some liberals out there who have the same opinion of the 2nd Amendment as I, but they are few and far between. Only 31% of respondents think new and/or tougher gun control laws are necessary to disarm the public. Three out of 10 Americans don't trust their fellow citizens. That's sad.

My life, rated...

I've seen this on a number of blogs, and thought I'd give it a whirl. I'd like to say I was surprised, but I'm a pretty happy guy and I know it. I have a great God, a wonderful wife who loves me, a job that I enjoy, many good friends and a huge loving family, both mine and my wife's. Could life be better? Sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy, be thankful for, and appreciate what we have. Of course it's taken me the better part of my 51 years to come to those conclusions, but as in most things, better late than never.

This Is My Life, Rated
Life:	9.3
Mind:	9
Body:	5.7
Spirit:	10
Friends/Family:	7.2
Love:	9.1
Finance:	8.2
Take the Rate My Life Quiz

GBW

Ignorance + Fear = Bigotry

I have spent quite a bit of time the last month reading many random anti-gun and gun control blogs and editorials. The most interesting facet of the entire experience has been their appalling lack of knowledge about firearms in general, firearms acquisition, concealed carry, current laws and regulations, current research, in fact, just about anything to do with or about guns.

HOPLOPHOBIA: an irrational and morbid fear of guns...
If we fear what we don't know and our fearful reaction to the unknown is intolerance and persecution, the classic description of bigotry, tell me how the typical gun-control advocate is different from any other bigot. (bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.) They usually don't know much about gun owners and don't care to learn (as they'll tell you while looking down their noses), preferring stereotypes. They usually don't know much about guns and don't care to learn (as they'll tell you while withdrawing with a shudder), preferring stereotypes. Opposition is meaningless because the opposition is, well, unenlightened. There is almost always a snide, condescending, superior attitude whenever they lower themselves to "inform" us what we should be thinking.

Don't confuse me with the facts!...
I think most would agree that at least a basic, accurate knowledge about what you oppose would be a prerequisite for debate, but that doesn't stop these guys. Of course, most of them aren't interested in a substantive debate. When you're motivated by fear and loathing, all that matters is getting your message out. Some of the sites I visited had comments turned off. Some of the sites I visited moderate comments, and often don't allow opposite viewpoints. And in those that do? Civility? You've got to be kidding. Accuracy? Well, they quote a lot of statistics, some factual, some not, some germane, some not. What is readily evident is that they care. I'm not sure what they care about most of the time, but I am sure it is not me and mine.

Two eggs, over easy...
I've also seen the phrase "reasonable restrictions" and "reasonable regulations" bandied about quite a bit. Reasonable to whom? And we're right back to the same condescending, superior attitude that knows "what's best" for us if we'd only let them be our Mommy for life. Puhlease! It might be reasonable for me to want ham for breakfast, but do you think the pig sees it that way?

Fletcher, Beshear respond to AP question on guns

from Kentucky.com...

By The Associated Press

QUESTION:

AP: What is your stand on gun ownership? Would you oppose/support initiatives to limit gun ownership?

ANSWERS:

Gov. Ernie Fletcher:

I support the protection of the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens. I have a strong history in Congress supporting the Second Amendment and have worked as governor to maintain these rights for Kentuckians. Unlike my opponent, I do not believe that cities have the right to infringe on this essential element of the US Constitution, and I believe the Kentucky Constitution means what it says, that the "right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State" is an "inherent and inalienable right."

Steve Beshear:

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

QUESTION:

AP: Do you and/or your running mate own guns? What kind?

ANSWERS:

Gov. Ernie Fletcher:

Robbie (Rudolph) and both I own hunting rifles and shotguns.

Steve Beshear:

I own a 12-gauge shotgun and my running mate, Daniel Mongiardo, owns several weapons, including rifles, pistols, and 12-gauge shot guns.

I appreciate Governor Fletcher taking the time to give a complete answer to the first question. Is it telling that Steve Beshear doesn't answer the question at all? I don't know any more about Mr. Beshear's position than before. Even the Brady Bunch believe in their version of the Second Amendment. And we often see that when a politician owns firearms, it doesn't necessarily mean they think you and I should own firearms.

40 Reasons for Gun Control

This is an older post from Geoff Metcalf that just came to my attention. A few on the list may be a bit dated, but it's the thought that counts. Here is the list in its entirety.

40 Reasons for Gun Control

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Help yourself by helping Oleg Volk...

I can't say it any better than Tam, over on the Porch, so here she is:

Frequent readers probably know Oleg Volk, Minister of Propaganda for the 2nd Amendment, and those who don't would probably recognize his work. Oleg's photos and posters have been used in pro-RKBA literature and gun rights rallies worldwide and have been translated into several foreign languages.

At the moment he's trying to raise funds to help defray the expense of a new lens for his camera. If you can help, I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

If you aren't familiar with Oleg's work, you're in for a treat. Follow the links above and enjoy.

I've done my little bit to help out, won't you?
GBW

Carrying concealed in Kansas...

"In the Line of Fire" is an article by Chad Lawhorn, reporter at The Lawrence Journal-World in Lawrence, Kansas. It is part of what they call an " ...occasional series about reporter Chad Lawhorn’s experiences as he acquires a gun and applies for a permit for concealed carry in Kansas." Here, he attends an concealed carry class and goes to the range.

Chad's first article, ""Buying into the gun culture" was published July 1st, and chronicles his adventures when he goes to purchase a gun.

These articles are interesting, and I am looking forward to more as Chad continues his quest for a carry permit in Kansas.

The comments about the articles are worth a look, too.
GBW

The Demographics of the American Newspapers

The Demographics of the American Newspapers

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country, but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country if they could find the time and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.

10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if someone is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped, minority, feminist, atheists who also provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

11. The Memphis Commercial Appeal is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something in which to wrap it.

An habitual hatred...

"The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

George Washington (letter to Alexander Hamilton, 8 May 1796)

Sub party for nation and who do you get?
GBW

Poll to Take the Pulse of America About Gun Control

Poll to Take the Pulse of America About Gun Control

by Bill Koehler

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

Answer yes or no to all questions:

Question 1) I would rather see my mother raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 2) I would rather see my daughter raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 3) I would rather see my sister raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 4) I would rather see my grandmother raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 5) I would rather see my aunt raped and murdered than permit her to defend herself with a gun.

Question 6) I would rather be sodomized and murdered than to defend myself with a gun.
Any further questions?

It makes perfect sense...

In New Jersey, an illegal alien (who has a long history of vile illegal acts) takes an illegal gun and kills three law-abiding citizens who are gathered lawfully in a public place.

So what does Gov. Corzine want to do? Why, pass more gun control laws for criminals to ignore while they prey on disarmed citizens.

It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
GBW

If you think "gun control" is a good idea...

If you think "gun control" is a good idea, you shouldn't have any problem with the following. And none of that nasty Constitution stuff gets in the way of it, because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege extended to citizens by the state, not an enumerated right.

There have been approximately 1,000,000 deaths by motor vehicle in the United Stated in the last 25 years. An inordinate number of these deaths are children and young adults. Current levels of regulation are insufficient to mitigate this horror. Motor vehicles are dangerous and unsafe. Ownership and operation of motor vehicles must be more restrictive and heavily regulated for public safety. Additional benefits include increased use of public transportation, less motor vehicle polution, decreased need for hydrocarbon fuels, less traffic delays, you get the idea. So, here we go...

Since motor vehicles have often been used in crimes, no one who has ever been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or felony, shall be allowed own a motor vehicle, or to have an operator license for motor vehicles.

No person shall own a motor vehicle without a motor vehicle ownership permit (MVOP) for each vehicle. All MVOP applications must be submitted in person. All persons who apply for an MVOP shall 1) submit to a criminal background check, 2) submit a letter of recommendation from the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which they abide, 3)submit to a blood test, and 4) show good cause for owning a motor vehicle.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle without an operator's license. All persons who apply for an operator's 1) submit to a criminal background check, 2) submit a letter of recommendation from the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which they abide, 3)submit to a blood test, 4) show good cause for owning a motor vehicle, and 4) shall complete an 80 hour driving safety course.

Since a majority of motor vehicle wrecks, fatal or otherwise, involve alcohol, every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device to test the driver’s blood alcohol level. Said device can only be operated from the driver’s seat, and will prevent the starting of the motor vehicle when alcohol is detected in the driver’s blood. When the driver’s blood alcohol level range is 0.05% to 0.10%, the device will lock all doors of the motor vehicle and notify police that an attempted aggravated assault is in progress. When the driver’s blood alcohol level range is 0.10% or above, the device will lock all doors of the motor vehicle and notify police that an attempted murder is in progress. Any DUI convictions prior to the implementation of these regulations would render the person ineligible for motor vehicle ownership or operation.

Since a large number of motor vehicle wrecks, fatal or otherwise, involve impairment caused by drugs, legal and illegal, no one who is convicted of operating a motor vehicle while using over-the-counter, prescription or illegal drugs shall be allowed to own a motor vehicle or to have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since many motor vehicle wrecks have been found to have occurred because the driver was distracted, no person who smokes, uses a cell phone, or has children under the age of 18 shall be allowed to have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since chances of survival in a motor vehicle wreck go down sharply at speeds over 55mph, the maximum speed limit shall never exceed 55mph. Any person convicted of speeding 5 mph or more over the speed limit, any speed limit, shall immediately have their operator license revoked and shall not be allowed to own, nor have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since many young people die as a result of motor vehicle accidents, no one under the age of 21 shall be allowed to own a motor vehicle or have an operator license for a motor vehicle.

Since many older people have and cause accidents, no one over the age of 65 shall be allowed to have an operator license, and shall surrender their operator license to the appropriate authority on the day before their 65th birthday. They shall be able to retain ownership of any motor vehicle, but may not drive it.

Since motor vehicles use flammable and often explosive substances such as gasoline, ethanol, diesel fuel, and natural gas, no person shall be eligible to apply for a motor vehicle ownership permit or an operator license that has not attended and passed, with a score in the 95th percentile or higher, a 40 hour certified course in the proper dispensing, use, storage, and mitigation of potential hazards of these dangerous substances.

Since many stolen motor vehicles are used in crimes, any person who allows their motor vehicle to be stolen shall be prosecuted in tandem and charged equally with any criminal using the stolen motor vehicle, and shall be personally liable for any damages, actual and punitive, resulting from the theft, including those of the person who took the car.

Since motor vehicles have been driven into crowds of people and have resulted in fatalities, no motor vehicle shall be allowed to operate within 1000 feet of any group of 10 or more people.

Since red is a color of aggression and red motor vehicles would potentially be involved in more wrecks than any other color, no motor vehicle shall be painted red.

Since black and gray motor vehicles are too difficult to see after dark and are more likely to be potentially involved in an accident, no motor vehicle shall be painted black or any shade of gray.

Since color-blind persons can mostly see colors only in shades of gray, no motor vehicles may be painted any color other than white

No person may own or operate any vehicle that looks fast when it is sitting still.

Let’s do it for “the children”…

If you see a gun: STOP!...

We recently entertained a houseful of company for seven days; my wife’s parents, her sister’s family which included a 6 yr. old girl and a 3 yr. old boy, and two other nieces aged 12 and 18. The 6 yr. old girl is one of the most inquisitive children I have ever known, and the 12 yr. old is not far behind her. This presented a problem for me since I own several firearms and typically, since we do not have children of our own, several of them are readily accessible most of the time we are in the house.

In the morning, I separated the firearms from their ammunition and locked both up. At night, I took out my defensive firearms, loaded them, and put them in their customary place. In the morning, they went back into storage. I considered this prudent; I do not know how (or if) my nieces have been trained regarding firearms.

I was reared in a rural home in which firearms were kept. My Mom and Dad taught me early to respect them, so when they taught me to respect firearms, I learned that lesson well. I don’t remember how I was at age six, (and I refuse to believe the stories my Mom tells; surely she exaggerates!) but I remember age 13 quite well. When I was at others’ homes, I respected their privacy and their property. I didn’t go pawing through drawers or looking into closets. If I had seen a firearm, I would have pointed it out to an adult and let them deal with it. I wasn’t unduly curious about firearms anyway. Since an early age, I was allowed to shoot with supervision, and it wasn’t the “forbidden fruit” that it seems to be for many who haven’t had that exposure.

The recent death of a Taylorsville, KY teen, has received much coverage. His death was due to mishandling a firearm. I do not know the circumstances. I place blame on no one. That is not my place. I understand there is talk of starting a “Mothers Against Guns” chapter. I suggest starting a “Mothers for Gun Safety” organization which would ensure children are taught the proper response when they see a firearm.

For whatever reason, many children do not have proper exposure to or training about firearms. Since safety is the first consideration and best taught when young, the NRA has developed The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program. The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense.

Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle®, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:

If you see a gun:
STOP!

Don't Touch.

Leave the Area.

Tell an Adult.

Begun in 1988, The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has reached more than 20 million children -- in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.

Anyone may teach The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, and NRA membership is not required. The program may be readily incorporated into existing school curriculum, taught in a one- to five-day format, and used to reach both levels or simply one or two grades. Materials available through this program are: student workbooks, 7-minute animated video (available on DVD or VHS), instructor guides, brochures, and student reward stickers. Program materials are also available in Spanish.

The NRA is committed to helping keep America's young children safe. In efforts to do so, they offer the program at a nominal fee. Schools, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, daycare centers, and libraries may be eligible to receive grant funding to defray program costs. Grant funding is available in many states to these groups to cover the cost of all program curriculum materials.

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program for Pre-K to Grade 3

Program Materials Center

However, even with training, children don’t always do the smart thing. I didn’t, and you didn’t either. (And if we were honest, we’d admit we still don’t) There will be many children who will die because they did something they were told not to do, went somewhere they were told not to go, or played with something they weren’t supposed to. They have minds of their own. But we should still teach them about the potential hazards they will face. And since parents can’t be with their children 24/7, sometimes that’s all that can be done.

GBW

(Some materials in this post are from the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program website)

"How your 'X-ray vision' can expose armed suspects"

Most officers who get shot are caught by surprise—but does that have to be? If you know how to read the subtle cues that indicate a concealed carry, can you anticipate that you’re dealing with an armed subject and gain a preventive edge of timing and positioning?

This article for LE from PoliceOne.com and Calibre Press by PoliceOne Senior Contributor Chuck Remsberg talks about how to spot concealed weapons on the street. There are two aspects to consider as you read this.

1. If you are in any observational condition above White, this information may help you assess your environment more accurately so you can avoid goblins who are carrying.

2. If you carry concealed, this information may help you avoid the mistakes that make you look like a criminal to law enforcement personnel.
GBW

Idaho Sheriff: More concealed carry will boost public safety

Idaho Sheriff: more concealed gun permits would boost public safety

MOSCOW, Idaho -- The sheriff of a north-central Idaho county where a shooting rampage left four dead and three wounded last May wants more people to obtain concealed weapons permits and carry guns, including on the University of Idaho campus, to improve public safety.

"In my opinion, if there were more students with (concealed weapons permits), the world would be safer," Latah County Sheriff Wayne Rausch told the Lewiston Tribune on Tuesday. "Just because we (law enforcement officers) are charged with protecting the public, doesn't mean the public shouldn't be able to protect itself."

(Remember, police have no duty to protect anyone, say the courts.)
Here, here, Sheriff Rasch.
GBW

Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs or Reasonable Self-Control?

Interesting look at self-defense claims in criminal court. The author makes some excellent points..

Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs or Reasonable Self-Control?

KENNETH W. SIMONS Boston University - School of Law
Boston Univ. School of Law
Working Paper No. 07-14

Abstract: The reasonable person test is often employed in criminal law doctrine as a criterion of cognitive fault: Did the defendant unreasonably fail to appreciate a risk of harm, or unreasonably fail to recognize a legally relevant circumstance element (such as the nonconsent of the victim)? But it is sometimes applied more directly to conduct: Did the defendant depart sufficiently from a standard of reasonable care, e.g. in operating a motor vehicle, that he deserves punishment? A third category, which might be viewed as a subcategory of the second, has received too little attention: Did the defendant fail to act with the degree of self-control that can fairly be expected? Many criminal acts occur in highly emotional, stressful, or emergency situations, situations in which it is often both unrealistic and unfair to expect the actor to formulate beliefs about all of the facts relevant to the legality or justifiability of his conduct. A
"reasonable degree of self-control" criterion can best account for these contextual factors. Conventional criminal law norms often conceal the importance of "reasonable self-control," instead artificially applying cognitive or oversimplified conduct criteria.

In self-defense, for example, it is conventional to ask whether the actor believes, and whether a reasonable person would believe, each of the following facts: (a) an aggressor was threatening him with harm, (b) that harm would be of a particular level of gravity, (c) his use of force in response would prevent that harm, (d) the level of responsive force he expects to employ would be of a similar level of gravity, (e) if the force was not used, the threatened harm would occur immediately, and (f) no nonviolent or less forceful alternatives were available whereby the threat could be avoided. United States law typically requires an affirmative answer to each of these questions. Yet in many cases, an actor threatened with harm will actually have no beliefs at all about most of these matters. It would be unfair to deny a full defense to all such actors. At the same time, if we want to hold such an actor to a standard of "reasonableness" - and there are good reasons to do so - then we must reformulate the criterion as requiring a reasonable degree of self-control in response to a threat of force.

Keywords: Crime,
Criminal Law, Self-Defense, Justification, Culpability, Reasonable Person

JEL Classifications: K14

Working Paper
Series

Simons, Kenneth W., "Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs
or Reasonable Self-Control?" . Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No.
07-14 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1000906

Two shot while NOT resisting robbers...

Two bank tellers were shot yesterday in Louisville, KY. For no apparent reason, the armed robbers shot one teller in the abdomen and the other teller in the arm.

Neither teller was resisting the armed robbers.

We see more and more of this as time goes by, and I will once again link to Anarchangel's excellent post, Don't give them what they want.
GBW

Time to admit the gun nuts are right...

The following is an editorial from the Journal Inquirer, a Connecticut newpaper, regarding the story about the multiple murders linked a couple of posts back. I'd be willing to bet he gets crucified for taking this stand.

Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right
by Keith C. Burris

In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why?
There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.
Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."
Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.
Can't we better monitor the probation process?
Can't we do a better job of predicting -- figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?
Are home alarms really effective?
How about dogs?
But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.
That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?
Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.
Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?
Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.
Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?
I think the answer is yes.
And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.
I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.
Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?
And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.
I don't say it would have.
I say it might have.
Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.
Moreover, the three victims here were women.
What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?
It's worth thinking about.
Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.
And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.
A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."
They are.
And they are right.
Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.
No one should have a gun who has not been trained.
Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)
And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.
A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no "answer" to crimes like the Petit murders.
An "answer" does not exist.
But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.
All possible remedies should be on the table:
-- Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.
-- Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.
-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.
-- Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.
-- More and better home alarm systems.
-- More cops visible in more neighborhoods.
-- Dobermans.
All of these approaches have merit.
So does self-defense.
None of these options "fix" a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.
No one step or program can plug every hole in America's justice system, or its soul.
But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.
Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.
--------
Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.

A Horrible Story...

An alarm system and firearms may have gone a long way toward preventing this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml

Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?”

There are peer-reviewed studies which show that countries with stringent firearms laws do not have the reductions in murder and suicide that would seem to be “common sense” to many people. In that bastion of gun rights, the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, researchers Kates and Mauser recently asked the question, “Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?” (See link to article below) Their study of international statistics said no. These gentlemen are not right-leaning gun nuts, either. Their research shows essentially the same results that such studies have been giving for at least 15 years. I quote their conclusion below.

*************************
CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.
© 2007 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
*************************
The article may be found in its entirety at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf. It is 46 pages and not a bad read for a statistical article.