Tag: You’re Doing it Wrong

I Think Gifford’s Creation of a Gun Control Organization Speaks Volumes

Gabrielle Giffords, the senator who was shot in the head in Arizona, has decides to start her own organization to advocate for gun control:

A former US congresswoman who survived a gunshot wound to her head during a mass shooting has launched a campaign against gun violence.

Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions initiative aims to raise money for gun control efforts.

While I’m not one to criticize somebody for capitalizing on an event that befell them I think Gifford’s creation of a gun control advocacy group speaks volumes. Whenever a shooting occurs the only proposed solution we hear from claimed opponents of gun violence is more gun control. It’s almost as if the movement has no creativity. Even the National Rifle Association (NRA) managed to come up with a somewhat new, albeit misguided in my opinion, solution with their School Shield program. Why can’t claimed opponents of gun violence ever come up with something new and exciting? Do they ever advocate looking into the possible mental health side of gun violence? No. Do they ever advocate looking into the possible economic side of gun violence? No. It’s always a gun grab.

I think the lack of creativity demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the general gun control advocate. They seem to believe in a rigid hierarchy where the state is at the top, they are in the middle, the average person is below them, and gun owners are the lowest of scum. Their only solution seems to involve taking orders from the top by mindlessly obeying the state, which has a vested interest in disarming those it exploits. It would be nice if these petty authoritarians could jump off of the hierarchical ladder and begin thinking for themselves. Perhaps then they could comes up with some innovative ideas to address the root problem of violence.

Don’t Believe Everything You Read

This lesson shouldn’t need to be taught but you can’t always believe what you read. Case in point, I noticed a couple of individuals posting this story, which purports to provide evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was more than meets the eye:

(Thomas Dishaw) More twists to the Sandy Hook narrative. On December 11 Google indexed the United Way website that offered condolences to the family’s of Sandy Hook.

This is a full three days before the actual shooting that took place on December 14 2012. You can view the Google page here and the United Way page here.

If you go to the Google link provided in the story you’ll notice it’s a search for the results of “sandy hook united way” that appeared on December 11th, 2012. Since the shooting occurred on December 14th, 2012 you wouldn’t expect any results but results appeared for the United Way Sandy School Support Fund webpage. In of itself this appears to be a little fishy but rest assured there is a simple explanation for these results, Google’s date searching mechanism is a little wonky. To demonstrate this I did a search for “sandy hook shooting” on the date of December 1st, 2008 (click to embiggen):

Either the Sandy Hook shooting conspiracy was accidentally leaked to the Internet over four years ago or Google’s search by date function is a bit unreliable. I’ll let you be the judge.

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

While I admit there are multiple definitions of the world libertarian I don’t think any of them involve Glenn Beck:

Glenn Beck announced plans Tuesday during his online television program to expand the news operation in his media company, The Blaze, and refocus it as a libertarian network, opening three foreign bureaus, debuting a nightly newsmagazine show, and relocating his New York staff to showy new offices.

Glenn Beck operating a libertarian network would be akin to me operating a progressive network. Needless to say there would be no reason to take either seriously.

Additional Comments Regarding the NRA Press Release

I got through reading a transcript of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press release [PDF]. Everything thing I said in my previous post, which was based on a live blog of the event, still stands. I also have a few additional things I’d like to note. First there was this comment:

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

There is a great deal of irony in the NRA discussing the lack of a federal database in a negative light. A federal database for mentally ill individuals would be a disaster. Consider the stigma mental illness has in this country. Many people will not seek help when they are suffering a mental illness because doing so carries a great deal of social consequences. People who received psychiatric help are often seen as crazy. People in the United States also hold a general attitude that a mental illness is forever. How many people suffered from depression, post traumatic stress syndrom, and other temporary mental illnesses only to make a full recovery and lead normal lives? Do we really want these people to be listed in a federal database? Federal databases are already used by employers to weed out potential employees. Creating a mental illness database would likely lead to people in that database being unable to find meaningful employment. Federal databases aren’t a solution for violence and they aren’t a solution for mental illness.

Also consider the ramifications of a mental illness database. Who here could be diagnosed with a mental illness? Most Internet denizens could be diagnosed with some form of autism. If an adult version of oppositional defiant disorder is ever created I’ll be diagnosed with it. I suffer a severe case of psychological reactance (Does it show?), which could easily be labeled as a mental illness. Do we want to base the right to keep and bear arms on a mental illness database? Do we want our gun rights in the hand psychologists who determine what qualifies as a mental illness? What the NRA suggested is a dangerous path, one I don’t want to see this country travel down. We need to help those who need help. This means encouraging those who suffering from mental illness to get help. Considering the social stigma that mental illness carries in this country I don’t think creating a mental illness database is going to do anything but discourage those needing help from seeking it.

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice

This was a good point. The primary issue at hand is that violent criminals know the cost of performing violence in schools is relatively low because there are no armed personnel there. With that said, the NRA’s approach to correcting this issue leaves something to be desired:

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.

The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

In my opinion expanding the police state into public schools isn’t a good approach. I favor repealing laws that establish gun-free zones so that armed individuals can enter school property without first having to disarm. That solution raises the cost of performing violence in schools by removing the practical guarantee that no armed individuals are within. Having costume-clad guys with badges will further reinforce the police state on children. Furthermore I don’t feel comfortable having children guarded by individuals whose primary job description involves extorting wealth from people. A majority of police time is spent enforcing state decrees against nonviolent individuals who have harmed nobody. Do we want individuals guarding children when their job consists of kicking down doors in the hopes of finding other individuals in possession of a plant?

Putting bureaucracies in charge of protecting children is bound to fail. At the very least repealing laws that establish gun-free zones would allow local communities to develop more appropriate solutions to deal with school shootings. Ultimately though I think Jeffrey Tucker nailed it:

So armed guards it is, at least according to the NRA. Instead of letting school handle their own security and getting out from under the government’s central plan (see my article on this), the NRA is living up to the caricature and proposing that more weapons in anyone’s hands as the solution. The real solution is to deal more broadly with the issue of security itself.

[…]

Contrary to left and right, the solution is not more guns in the hands of the cops and other state officials, much less gun-totting teachers (or disarmed teachers and administrators, for that matter). The solution is to have schools deal with security in the same way that jewelry stores, banks, and private home owners deal with security issues.

One of the biggest problems regarding school security is that public schools don’t have any incentive to provide security. Children are practically mandated to attend schools that are either run or heavily regulated by the state. No consequences befall a school when something bad happens. Will anybody be prosecuted for failing to provide proper security to those children in Connecticut? No, because the state was tasked with that job and the state has a monopoly on determining who can and can’t be sued. Furthermore suing the state accomplishes nothing because it gets its money through extortion. If the state allow you to sue it and it grants you monetary compensation you merely motivated it to extort more money. The primary reason schools fail to provide security to students is because they are state managed institutions, meaning there are no failure conditions.

If you want to protect your children remove them from state managed schools. Homeschooling, unschooling, and agorist education solutions will allow you to regain control over your children’s education and safety. Why rely on the state? It has a proven track record of failing in the task of providing education and safety.

The NRA Press Conference

I haven’t had a chance to watch the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press conference yet but based on the live blog done by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned I’m not at all impressed. First I’ll point out the following notes:

Wayne now says the media is trying to hide a dirty secret that there are violent video games. He highlights a game called Kindergarten Killers that’s been online for 10 years.

Now he’s talking hurricanes and natural disasters. He then cites music videos that show violence – but who is airing music videos these days? He says that this stuff is the worst form of pornography.

He says that these issues bring cruelty into homes. He says that kids witness 16,000 murders in media by the time they reach 18. He says that the media is to blame.

Is this what the NRA has resorted to? They’re seriously trying to imply violent video games and media is, at least partially, responsible for the real violence we experience? Blaming violent media has been a favorite pass time for many groups over the ages but the simply fact is such blame assumes individuals are incapable of separating fiction from reality. I grew up playing violent video games, watching violent movies and televisions shows, and listening to violent metal yet I have never initiated violence against another human being. This is because I understand the difference between fiction and reality, as do most people. Blaming violent video games for real world violence pissed me off when I was a gamer and still pisses me off today. I’m not surprised to hear LaPierre trying to find something, anything, to blame but he should have focused his blame on issues that can actually lead to violence.

NRA, as the top instructor, is highlighting their law enforcement training programs and offering them to communities. He notes that NRA did use these training programs to help in WWII. He says they are developing a new model call National School Shield. It’s going to focus on many facets – access to schools and teacher training.

They have tapped former Rep. Asa Hutchinson to lead the National School Shield. NRA will pay for it. Schools get it free of charge. No money required by schools or communities to get the materials to get them talking about how to secure their school.

Wayne notes that we should be securing our schools at least as much as sports stadiums.

This concerns me as well. Securing schools as much as sports stadiums requires making schools even more like prisons than they already are. Many major stadiums have metal detectors, cameras everywhere, and guards performing pat downs on those entering the venue. Since stadiums are private institutions I don’t care how they run their operations. In his apparently desperate attempt to the Connecticut shooting on something LaPierre hasn’t considered the consequences of making schools more like prison. If he believes violent media causes violence in society then submitting children to prison style security is likely to make them more subservient to the state. As the state has a vested interest in disarm the populace it would seem counterproductive to the goal of protecting gun rights to instill even more obedience into today’s youth. Maintaining gun rights requires a populace that will stand up to the police state, not submit to it. Having children go through metal detectors, submit to searches of their persons and belongings, and being under the constant eye of Big Brother can only instill authoritarianism, which directly opposes the stated goals of the NRA.

I don’t want to spend all of my time lambasting the NRA without pointing at the conduct of gun control advocates. For some time now gun control advocates have been demanding a conversation about gun. Now that we’re having that conversation how do you think they’re conducting themselves? I’ll let you be the judge:

We have a Code Pink infiltrator getting in the way of Wayne. The Code Pink protestor is getting more attention since he’s being allowed to scream. The security didn’t remove the guy early enough.

[…]

Another Code Pink protester with credentials. She started screaming from the beginning. Now the media is interrupting Wayne on the protests. And he then starts attacking the media again. This is clearly a speech meant for NRA members & gun owners who support the policies of NRA members.

When they said conversation they must have meant a platform from which they could make their demands to a sizable audience while silencing all opposition. Advocates of gun rights have at least, for the most part, conducted themselves in a professional manner and have given gun control advocates the ability to speak their part unmolested. It’s too bad they won’t show us the same amount of respect.

I think the conduct of gun control advocates compared to the conduct of gun rights activists speaks volumes. The goals of gun control advocates are authoritarian in nature. They want to utilize the state’s capacity for violence to disarm non-state entities. Gun control advocates claim to desire peace but rely on the threat and use of violence against gun owners, whether they’ve done something wrong or not. Meanwhile the desires of gun rights advocates are the opposite. Instead of demanding authoritarian violence be initiated against nonviolent individuals gun rights advocates want individuals to go about their business peacefully. Those of us who advocate gun rights oppose punishing innocent people. We believe punishment should be reserved exclusively for those who have done wrong. This stark difference manifestes itself in the strategies used by each side. Gun control advocates attempt to silence any opposition, which is a very authoritarian tactic. Gun rights activists allow their opposition to speak and rely on argumentation, a very libertarian tactic. One side wants to control you while the other side wants you to be in control.

Even though I don’t like what the NRA said at their conference they at least conducted themselves in a professional manner. They waited one week before saying anything while gun control organizations moved in immediately to exploit the tragedy while it was still fresh. The NRA allowed gun control organizations to say their piece without interruption while gun control advocates attempted to shout down the NRA. In my opinion the most notable thing about this news conference wasn’t what was said by the NRA, it was what the gun control advocates did in an attempt to silence their opposition.

If at First You Don’t Succeed Lower Your Standards

People mistakenly believe that the goal of public schools is to educate children. This isn’t the case. In fact one of the top priorities of public schools is to provide circuses for local communities. What happens when continuously diminishing academic standards threaten the participation rate in sports? School boards consider lowering the standards:

The Minneapolis School Board was considering adjusting the GPA requirements to keep athletes interested in school by keeping them in sports — but they have tabled the plan because there are too many unanswered questions.

Though board members had planned to vote on the concept on Tuesday, the meeting didn’t go as planned.

The proposal would have lowered the athletic GPA standard from 2.0 to 1.0, but many board members say they simply don’t know whether the move would hurt or help students in the long run at this point.

“Many of our students slip through the cracks because of a lack of academic support at school and at home,” said Rebecca Gagnon. “National research shows that students engaged in school via student activities and sports do much better academically than their disengaged peers.”

Most school districts don’t have a GPA bar, Chief Commission Officer Stan Alleyne told FOX 9 News — but he said the 2.0 standard sets the school system apart from others in the state.

Perhaps a student with a GPA below 2.0 should be concentrating on something besides sports.

Something that Amazes Me Regarding Shootings

Something that always amazes me about shootings is the way everybody seems to play fast and loose with the facts. If you’ve been paying attention to the news revolving around Friday’s shooting in Connecticut you’ve probably heard that the shooter use an AR-15 and that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the shooter’s car. You’ve probably also heard that the shooter’s mother was a teacher and was entirely unconnected with the school.

The media, in its frenzy to get ratings immediately after a disaster, is often willing to report rumors as facts and seems unwilling to perform actual journalistic groundwork. Instead of researching and presenting facts the media reports on information obtained through second-hand interviews with individuals whose connection with the events in question are usually questionable.

The media’s coverage of the Connecticut shooting reminds me of their coverage of the Zimmerman case. Immediately after Zimmerman’s fatal confrontation with Martin media outlets were reporting about Zimmerman’s racist statements and stalking of Martin, neither of which panned out to be true. Now we have contradicting information being reported about the Connecticut shooting leaving those wanting facts high and dry.

I really wish the media would take their time and report on facts as they’re confirmed instead of rumors as they’re developed. As it currently stands we probably won’t have an actual picture of what happened for a week or two. This fact won’t stop gun control advocates and politicians from acting though. Already there are calls for a new “assault weapon” ban even though we don’t know for sure if the shooter used an “assault weapon” (better known as a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle). Our society is now based on reactionary policy instead of policies developed around confirmed facts.

The NRA Taking Undue Credit Again

The National Rifle Association (NRA) does a lot of things that really irritate me. On top of being unable to adopt new strategies in the fight for gun rights now that their strategy of political action has become less effective they also like to steal credit for that accomplishments of other gun rights organizations. Read the NRA’s press release regarding the gun rights victory in Moore v. Madigan. Do you notice anything missing? That’s right, the press released doesn’t mention the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Even though the case was initiated and funded by the SAF the NRA is taking sole credit for the victory.

Being dishonest by omitting due credit is a pet peeve of mine. In fact it irritates me to such an extent that I wouldn’t renew my NRA membership if I could do so and still remaining a member of the Oakdale Gun Club. My NRA membership fees would be far more productive in the hands of the SAF. The NRA is continuing to prove itself to be dishonest and incapable of adapting to changing circumstances. Both are unfortunate but I can at least understand the reason for the latter, it’s easy to become fixated on a strategy that has served you well in the past. What I can’t understand is the NRA’s unwillingness to acknowledge the efforts of other gun rights organizations. Far more could be accomplished through mutual cooperation than going it alone.

Members of the New York Police Department Need Additional Firearms Training

People who read the title of this post and instantly think about the incident earlier this year where members of the New York Police Department (NYPD) injured nine bystanders while attempting to gun down one individual who wasn’t currently acting aggressively are probably saying “No duh!” The conclusion in the post title wasn’t my own, it was the conclusion of a writer at the New York Times. Let’s look at the charges being made against the NYPD:

This year, there has been an unusual string of questionable and highly public shootings. It began in February, when a narcotics officer in the Bronx chased an unarmed teenager named Ramarley Graham into his building and killed him in his bathroom. The most recent came in October, when a veteran detective shot Noel Polanco, an Army National Guardsman, during a traffic stop on the Grand Central Parkway in Queens. In the intervening months, the police: fatally shot Darrius H. Kennedy as he waved a knife at tourists in Times Square; injured nine civilians near the Empire State Building while shooting Jeffrey T. Johnson moments after Mr. Johnson shot a former colleague; shot Mr. Bah; and accidentally shot and killed Reynaldo Cuevas, 20, a bodega worker who ran into an officer while fleeing from a robbery in the Bronx.

For a city run by a man who continuously implies that individuals outside of the state’s employ are irresponsible with firearms they sure have a lot of police officers who have acted irresponsibly with firearms. Seeing the extent of NYPD’s training it becomes apparently where the issue lies:

Some of Mr. Kelly’s troops disagree, going so far as to approach reporters with unsolicited views. One officer, who joined the force with a military background and spoke anonymously because he feared reprisals, said the problem was training. The department has “a factory line” approach to weapons training in which officers “get the basics — breathing, trigger control,” but not much else, he said. “It’s very brief, minimal.”

“Firearms training is important — it’s very important,” the officer concluded. “And it’s something that is not taken seriously.”

There are seven firing ranges at Rodman’s Neck, from Adam Range to George Range, and on most days, they crackle with the reports of weapons shot by new recruits or by officers who must requalify twice a year with an accuracy rate of no less than 78 percent in target practice.

Of the people I know who carry firearms a vast majority of them have training that is far more extensive than that received by members of NYPD. This really puts a hole in the claims gun control advocates often make regarding the insufficient training received by carry permit holders and the superior training received by police officers. The training received by members of the United State’s largest police force seems entirely inadequate, especially when you consider the job police officers are expected to perform (namely using their firearms against people who disobey the state’s decrees).

Price Controls Lead to Shortages

Price controls are a mechanism that the state often employes to prevent market forces from setting prices on goods or services. Generally the state fixes prices below market value in order to incentivize the use of a good or resources. One of the recent alarms that has been raise as of late it a purported shortage of helium. The problem has become notable enough that some individuals are demanding a ban on helium-filled balloons:

Dr Peter Wothers, a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a University of Cambridge chemist, will use this year’s Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to argue that there will be “serious problems” in 30 to 50 years’ time if the lighter-than-air gas continues to be wasted in party balloons.

Helium is a non-renewable gas that is used to cool magnets in MRI scanners in hospitals. It is also mixed with oxygen to make breathing easier for ill patients and can help save new-born babies’ lives.

However, there is currently a global shortage of the gas, which cannot be synthesized. The gas has to be extracted from beneath the earth’s crust and 75 per cent of the world’s helium comes from the US.

If helium is in short supply then the price should be going up. As we know the more scarce a good becomes, with all other things remaining equal, the higher the price will go. So why hasn’t the price gone up? Because the United States government, the worlds largest supplier of helium, fixes the price:

The federal government, which sets helium prices, announced in April that helium prices would spike from $75.75 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in FY 2012 to $84 per Mcf in FY 2013. (Last year, prices rose only 75 cents.) This price spike, along with uncertain federal policy (and a peculiar industry setup to begin with), is threatening to create a shortage. Here’s what’s going on.

There is no need to ban helium-filled balloons in order to conserve the gas, simply remove the state’s meddling in helium prices. If helium is in short supply and in demand the price will increase and therefore the gas will be conserved. Let’s say the cost of a helium-filled balloon goes up to $10.00, would more or fewer people buy them? Fewer. Now let’s say the cost goes up to $50.00 per balloon, what will happen? Fewer helium-filled balloons will be purchased. People wanting to buy floating balloons will look for alternatives to helium which will free up the supply for other uses.

Conservation is a side effect of market prices, which is why I always roll my eyes when a so-called environmentalists demands the state enact prohibitions against the use of scarce resources.