Advertisements

Category Archives: Guns

On losing hope

I’ve had at least one Army buddy commit suicide in the last several years.

It’s not something any of us like to think about, but it’s not an uncommon phenomenon. At least 20 veterans take their own lives every day, according to some reporting. Whether you believe that number to be inflated, it doesn’t matter. Veterans die by their own hands, and it’s not hard to imagine why.

Loneliness, nightmares, post traumatic stress, that feeling of being trapped, of being reviled, of being stared at on the street…

And that feeling of desperation isn’t just limited to vets. I was going to blog about “13 Reasons Why,” but I decided against it, because as interesting and well-acted as I found the Netflix series, I don’t like the view of suicide as a revenge fantasy, providing to the victim a scapegoat on whom to blame the pain and the ultimate act, and giving them the supposed satisfaction of being noticed, respected, and even loved in death that they couldn’t achieve in life. I won’t dwell on my issues with the series. I’ll point you to this article written by a licensed clinical social worker instead, which explains some of the issues I had with it.

But I’ve seen this desperation, this feeling of being trapped with no way out, this feeling of constant anxiety, malaise, depression, and outright terror that you will never get better. I’ve seen it in high school friends, and in family members. I’ve heard, “I wish you guys didn’t love me, so I could just kill myself without feeling guilty!” I’ve seen despair so deep, that I thought at any point, blood would start flowing from freshly opened wounds and drown me in its sticky agony.

I’ve told friends that life is a series of ups and downs, and that when you’re at your lowest point, there’s always a chance – however small – that your lifeline will begin to ascend again. But not if you stop it. Not if you end it. Not if you allow the hopelessness and despair to consume you and trick you into believing that this is the only option left.

Yesterday, Bob Owens made such a choice.

For those who don’t know, Bob Owens was editor at bearingarms.com and a fellow Second Amendment advocate and warrior.

He had a wife. He had two daughters. I cannot imagine the agony his family is feeling right now, having lost a husband, a father, and a friend.

The Washington Post wisely closed comments to its story. Scum such as Raw Story (no, I’m not linking to them) gleefully left the comments section open for vicious trolls to joyously roll around in the blood of a fellow human being while they revel in their oh-so-droll and tasteless snark.

In the end the fight to protect the Second Amendment lost a warrior, but a wife lost her world, two daughters lost their dad, and the community of online and real-life friends lost a kindred spirit.

I cannot imagine the desperation and pain Bob must have felt when he made the very final decision to take his own life. I cannot fathom how he thought his family would move on without him. I cannot judge another person’s agony.

I would, however, beg and plead with all of you out there who are experiencing the desperation and pain that is driving you to consider a very final, very irreversible cure to stop, reach out, allow those who care about you to reach for your hand and pull you up. You are not worthless, you are not cowardly, and you are not weak if you ask for help. Turning to another human being and taking the offered hand takes an immeasurable amount of courage. Allowing your lifeline to rise again takes an incalculable amount of will power.

Be stubborn. Don’t give up. Don’t lose hope. Reach out to everyone you can. We will help you.

The world needs you.

Advertisements

Dear Jacob Dorman – Don’t let the door hit ya in the ass!

If you haven’t heard already (because the drama queen was very public about his decision, so people would ostensibly realize what a loss he was to the school) associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Kansas Jacob Dorman has tendered his resignation, because he got his mangina chafed at the state’s decision to allow concealed carry on campus. Because, you see, Dorman believes his cowardice, inability to control his bladder, and utter disdain for human rights should trump others’ right to defend himself. Additionally, Dorman believes other professors are just like him – pusillanimous dick brains, who apparently don’t understand this nation’s history, despite having taught it for a decade, as he reminds us in his resignation letter – will leave institutions of higher learning in droves.

In practical terms, concealed carry has proven to be a failure. Campus shootings have become all too frequent, and arming students has done nothing to quell active shooter situations because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters and rightly fear becoming identified as suspects themselves.

It’s typical of a panty-shitting coward to start his claims with misleading information. He claims concealed carry has been a failure, which is a disingenuous assertion since most colleges and universities ban concealed carry on campus, and overall crime on college campuses, including those that allow concealed carry, is minuscule. In 2015 Texas became just the eighth state to allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses. Arkansas and Georgia in 2017 passed legislation to allow students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses. And given the misinformation vomited forth by Bloomberg-funded anti-rights groups about school shootings was debunked in 2014, Dorman’s claims are mendacious at best.

But maybe Dorman was claiming that concealed carry does not deter violence writ large. Could that be?

But beyond the fact that concealed carry does not deter gun violence, the citizens and elected representatives of Kansas must recognize that this is a small state, and in order to run a premier university, which is necessary for the health and wealth of the state, it must recruit professors from out of state.

Yep, that’s what Dorman is claiming, and that makes him look like a biased, uninformed douche tool, given the amount of evidence to the contrary. In fact, there have not been any problems with campus concealed carry in states that allow it. But hey, Dorman, don’t let that stop your froth-flecked histrionics! They’re effective kabuki theater for anyone ignorant enough about the issue and determined enough to fall for your hysterical rhetoric.

Fact is, Dorman thinks very highly of himself. He’s obviously quite the social justice warrior, as a student in his 300-level history class who rated Dorman only average, and noted, “I liked the course but I wish we had covered more and that it wasn’t focused only on race,” and he thinks that jamming the university full of progtards like himself is a desirable goal.

Recruiting the best trained professors necessarily means recruiting from coastal areas and progressive college towns where most people do not believe that randomly arming untrained students is a proper exercise of the Second Amendment’s protection of a well-regulated militia.

Boy, for someone who is supposed to be teaching history, Dorman is certainly illiterate and ignorant of what the Second Amendment actually says. I’ve referred to Roy Copperud – an acknowledged language expert – who definitively analyzed the text of the Second Amendment, and who shredded Dorman’s spurious claims, in multiple blog posts.

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

[…]

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

But maybe Dorman should take a grammar class before bloviating on the meaning of text he quite obviously does not comprehend, because this obviously illiterate fuck monkey is teaching impressionable students American history, when he has obvious issues even comprehending the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and that’s just no bueno. Probably a good thing he’s bidding the university a fond farewell.

And I won’t even address the incredibly tone-deaf, arrogant, supercilious claim that the “best trained professors” only come from progtard ranks where everyone is as ignorant as he is on the meaning of 27 little words, written in plain English!

Moving on, Dorman engages in some interesting projection when it comes to students carrying firearms. As a matter of fact, he essentially denigrates and demeans anyone in his class who may choose to carry a tool of self defense as someone apt to use their firearm in anger, someone untrained, and someone not in control of their temper. Further, he degrades adults who choose to exercise their rights as people intolerant of others views, when numerous events over the past few years have shown exactly the opposite to be true. Remember Yale? Remember Mizzou? Remember TrigglyPuff? Remember Berkeley?

Moreover, we discuss sensitive and highly charged topics in my classroom, concerning anti-religious bias, racism, sexism, classism and many other indexes of oppression and discrimination. Students need to be able to express themselves respectfully and freely, and they cannot do so about heated topics if they know that fellow students are armed and that an argument could easily be lethal. Guns in the classroom will have a chilling effect on free speech and hinder the university’s mission to facilitate dialogue across lines of division. That stifling of dialogue will hurt all students, including the ones with guns in their pockets.

You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you self-important, clue-deficient, bloviating, shit gurgler? The threat of being fired, expelled or otherwise sanctioned for expressing an opinion with which the leftist Snowflake brigade disagrees.

You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you narcissistic assbag? The open and public effort to hire only “progressives,” to teach at universities while working to shut out any professor whose views you find disagreeable.

You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you smug, insulated twat blister? Drowning out dissenting speech and threatening violence to silence speakers with whose views you may not agree!

Trained, responsible adults, who are known to have very low incidents of criminal activity carrying tools of self defense in your classrooms should be the least of your worries! But since you’re a quivering, flapping mangina, you’re solely focused on the presence of an “evil” tool which may or may not be present in your classroom (you’ll never know, asshat – much like you’ll never know if someone is illegally carrying a concealed firearm), rather than the environment in today’s colleges, which you help perpetuate, and which insulates students from dissenting views and allows you to publicly urinate on those with whom you disagree with impunity.

Kansas faces a very clear choice: does it want excellent universities with world class faculty, or does it want to create an exodus of faculty like myself who have options to teach in states that ban weapons in classrooms?

Yes, Kansas does face a very clear choice. Does it want professors on campus who, like Dorman, are intent on casting aspersions on the very students whose views claims to want to protect, but who obviously only cares about those views with which he happens to agree? Does it want professors who can’t even comprehend plain English (or alternately, intentionally misinterpret it to fit their views)?

Please, Dorman, take your options to teach elsewhere! Go away, and take your gaggle of insipid, cunt-chafed snowflakes with you!

You are the problem. You and your howling, perpetually outraged, spineless ilk are what stifles free speech on today’s campuses.

The University of Kansas should consider itself lucky to be rid of you.

No One Needs an AR-15

Scary, scary assault gun.

No one needs assault weapons. Why do you need an AR-15? Only criminals need these high-powered assault guns designed to kill a lot of people very quickly!

That’s what gun grabbers will tell you. As arbiters of what you need, they arrogantly remind you that this evil, high-powered assault gun, which you can spray fire indiscriminately and consequently kill multiple nuns and small children, should be banned, because no one needs it.

Until one does.

Three would-be robbers were shot and killed Monday when an Oklahoma homeowner’s son opened fire on them with an AR-15, authorities said.

Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies were called to the home in Broken Arrow, southeast of Tulsa at around 12:30 p.m. local time. When they arrived, they found the three dead suspects and two uninjured residents.

[…]

Mahoney said the suspects encountered the homeowner’s 19-year-old son, who opened fire after an exchange of words. Two of the suspects died in the home’s kitchen while a third was found in the driveway.

Subsequent updates to the story say the shooter was actually 23 years old, and the suspects were armed, with one wielding a knife, and another brass knuckles. To give the Washington Post credit, they did not hyperventilate over “assault” weapon use in this incident. They didn’t even mention the word. It’s nice to see.

Meantime, the Demented Mommies, Bloomberg, and other assorted gun-grabbing trash, I’m sure, are assiduously ignoring this story.

BBC’s Harry Law: Pushing political agenda and displaying cultural ignorance

second-amendmentAs I said previously, I do consider BBC’s straight journalism considerably superior to almost any American “news” outlet. Someone pointed out that BBC does lean considerably left, but it is easy to discern their reporting efforts from their features/editorials, so while I respect their journalism, their other work leaves a lot of be desired.

A few days ago, a writer named Harry Low decided it was time to add some spittle-flecked ignorance to the already-vast library of anti-gun loonery that the “journalists” of the world dutifully created in order to advance a global anti-freedom agenda. He penned a piece for BBC Magazine entitled “How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime.” This is hardly a news piece in any way, shape, or form, nor does it explore any new ideas. The author’s only goal with this dull-witted screed was to emphasize one message: GUNZ BAD!

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

suicidesNow, let’s start with the fact that the gun rate cited in the United States also includes cases of legal self defense as well as suicides. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of the 33,599 deaths via firearms in 2014 – or 21,334 were suicides, according to the CDC.

Do you want to know how many people committed suicide in Japan in 2014? According to the BBC itself, in 2014 on average 70 Japanese people committed suicide every day.

Every. Day.

That’s 25,550 people per year, which may be a function of another problem, which I will discuss below.

So comparing deaths by firearm in 2014 and including suicides in the United States, which comprise 63 percent of the deaths being compared is abject inability to analyze data at best, and outright disingenuous manipulation of data at worst.

A country that banned handguns and has incredibly tight controls on all other types of firearms in 2014 saw a higher suicide rate than the United States.

So point one: Harry Law is either a liar or an idiot.

But let’s remove the suicides from the picture. Out of the remaining 12,265 deaths by firearm, 464 were listed as legal intervention. That means a thug got ventilated by a would-be victim, which leaves 11,801 firearm deaths. Now, remember, these are legal interventions which resulted in the death of the violent vermin in question. This does not include incidents in which the gun was merely brandished, or the vermin was only injured. We have no idea how many lives were saved by those acts of bravery, but let’s leave those alone for a bit.

There were also 586 unintentional deaths – or accidents – which leaves 11,215, and there were 270 firearm deaths in which the intent could not be determined. This brings the gun homicide level to 10,945.

Still, Harry Law might say, nearly 11,000 firearm deaths compared to six is a big difference! While Japan in 2014 had a 0.3 gun homicide rate, the United States came in at a whopping 3.43 percent! And of course, Harry Law’s answer to the disparity is the lack of guns.

If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.

There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups. Then they check your relatives too – and even your work colleagues. And as well as having the power to deny gun licences, police also have sweeping powers to search and seize weapons.

That’s not all. Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed.

The law restricts the number of gun shops. In most of Japan’s 40 or so prefectures there can be no more than three, and you can only buy fresh cartridges by returning the spent cartridges you bought on your last visit.

And this is where point two comes in: Harry Law is ignorant on Japanese culture writ large.

The people are comfortable, he says.

There’s no clamor for a relaxation of firearms laws, he says.

And Japanese police officers rarely use guys, he says.

Japanese police officers rarely use guns and put much greater emphasis on martial arts – all are expected to become a black belt in judo. They spend more time practising kendo (fighting with bamboo swords) than learning how to use firearms.

“The response to violence is never violence, it’s always to de-escalate it. Only six shots were fired by Japanese police nationwide [in 2015],” says journalist Anthony Berteaux. “What most Japanese police will do is get huge futons and essentially roll up a person who is being violent or drunk into a little burrito and carry them back to the station to calm them down.”

Now, my juvenile giggling at a perp being turned into a burrito aside, I’m also not a fan of the militarization of police. I’m much more a proponent of effective training, whether with firearms, a baton, or hand-to-hand combat.

japan-homicides

That said, what Harry Law wrote demonstrates a remarkable lack of cultural awareness.

First, despite the lack of guns in Japan, the homicide rate actually increased by 6.76 percent from 2013 to 2014, according to the World Data Atlas.

But more than that what Harry Law is missing is the fact that the homicide rate writ large in Japan has always been significantly lower than in the United States. Japan saw 697 homicides in 2003 overall, compared with 11,920 firearm deaths in the United States. But while gun ownership has been on the rise since 2003, the gun homicide rates have generally declined.

Gee, maybe there’s something else at play that Harry Law, in his ridiculous zeal to advance a “GUNZ BAD!” message is missing?

In 1988 Dave Kopel wrote an article about Japanese culture that might clear up Harry Law’s confusion a bit.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors’ judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask “suspicious” characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police — even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community.

Bottom line: The Japanese public has had a historically very different relationship with law enforcement, police have broad powers, including the power to stop, search, and coerce confessions during interrogations. The Japanese culturally respect police officers as much as they respect teachers, and have willingly ceded their rights. I don’t know a whole lot of people in the West, and especially not in the United States, who are willing to scrap their constitutional rights in the way the Japanese have. Additionally, crime rates are generally low because culturally, to commit a crime is to bring shame to one’s family.

And in Japan, culturally, the sense of shame is significant. Shame, honor, and duty are a historic part of Japanese culture. Going to jail carries with it an extraordinary social stigma, which compared to other countries, where prison time gives you street cred, would make more sense in explaining the low crime rates than the presence or absence of firearms. And at the same time, there is a focus on keeping crime statistics low, and violent crimes such as rape go underreported in a society that is apparently still male-dominated and so intent on keeping its image clean, that no autopsies are performed, on even most obvious cases of foul play, and no crime is reported.

The existence of chikan (“perverts”, meaning men groping women in public) is a massive problem and has led to the creation of “women-only” carriages in most major cities. Japanese police are also criticized for failing to take victims of sexual crimes seriously time and again as a result of either chauvinist bias or an inability to investigate such crimes.

What are most disturbing are however arguments that the low crime is partially a result of a police culture that are obsessed with keeping crime statistics low. Former detectives claim that police is unwilling to investigate homicides unless there is a clear suspects and frequently labels unnatural deaths as suicides without performing autopsies. Coincidentally, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

This brings me to point three: Harry Law apparently knows fuckall about Japanese culture, and uses that ignorance to his advantage when pushing a political agenda.

Point four: Harry Law shouldn’t be taken seriously.

World’s Dumbest Criminals Try to Rob Gun Store

One gets capped.

The owner of Dixie Gun and Pawn on Veterans Memorial Parkway in Cobb County, along with one other worker, had just opened the store when two men with ski masks and guns came in, according to investigators. Police say the owner pulled out his gun and fired, hitting one of the gunmen.

The second gunman took off in a silver Dodge Magnum and headed east down Veterans Memorial Parkway. Police are still searching for that man, and said they believe he is armed.

I wonder what kind of defective genetic material created two sub-moron cretins so stupid, they would try to rob an establishment in which the would-be victims are sure to be armed!

potatoSomeone so imbecilic, that I had to take time out from spending holiday time with family to point and laugh at the desiccated carcass of the glue-sniffing retard that was created when two idiots had drunken intercourse one night to spawn this nitwit!

DERP POTATO must have been strong with those two!

Good for the store owner! This is what I like to refer to as chlorinating the gene pool. Anyone who is stupid enough to attempt to rob a gun store, where they sell… you know… GUNS, and where the employees or owners are… you know… more than likely armed, because their establishment sells valuable merchandise that’s in high demand by savages who think they’re entitled to use violence to relieve others of their property, is much too stupid to be allowed to walk the streets without adult supervision, and probably would have throttled himself with his own shoelaces while trying to tie his shoes one fine morning in the not too distant future.

I wonder how long before the donors of the defective genetic material I mentioned above come forward and complain about how the gun store owner didn’t have to shoot their precious little boy!

In 3…2…1…

%d bloggers like this: