GUNS ( Part 6: Defund the Police and Defend Yourself )

Mixed Messages in the Era of Gun Control

But let’s take this one step further.  We have established that the cops have a 6.5% hit rate in armed encounters.  If we are seeking to defund the police and effectively reduce their presence, one can logically assume that crime will increase. Nature abhors a vacuum.  Without law enforcement, the citizenry will have to rely on themselves for security.  And nobody drives that point home better than a democrat administration in the White House, whose anti-police and anti-gun rhetoric has driven gun sales through the roof.  Ironically fueled by government stimulus checks, the FBI broke its record for background checks for gun sales, and concealed carry permits in March. According to Forbes, “background checks for gun purchases and other firearms related actions totaled 15.96 million in the first four months of 2021”. And since the start of the pandemic “more than 8.4 million Americans have purchased guns for the first time”.  Gun manufacturer Sturm Ruger reported a “50% spike in quarterly sales and more than doubled its profit.” So Mr. Biden, America is listening and responding appropriately to secure their safety.   So here’s the dilemma: if more Americans are forced to rely on firearms for there own security while the government reduces our police presence, how does that mesh with the government simultaneously seeking to restrict the citizen’s access to a firearm? And here’s where the statistics become very inconvenient.  If law enforcement, trained professionals are scoring only a 6.5% hit rate on assailants, how exactly will the relatively untrained citizen score in a similar situation? The Biden Administration seeks to impose a ban on “assault weapons”, an ill-defined construct that lumps the AR-15 sporting rifle into that category, a rifle that accounted for 61% of all civilian rifle sales in 2016 according to CNN. There are more than 15 million AR-15 rifles in the hands of American citizens today. So how is such a popular firearm that even CNN states was “designed for close, confusing combat”, an apt description for say, a home invasion, deemed unfit for civilian use? Without launching into that argument, we all know why. It has been the weapon of choice in certain high profile mass shootings and serves as the most effective poster child for the narrative of not allowing a “military style weapon designed to kill people “ in the hands of the public.  It’s modular, it’s ugly, it looks evil, it’s black and that’s probably racist. It also serves as the “camel’s nose under the tent”, the observation that in other countries that have instituted all-encompassing gun bans, they started by demonizing one type of firearm, banning it in the name of public safety, only to incrementally expand their definition of what is “allowed” until they were all eliminated.  And the party of science is choosing to ignore the data.  The Clinton era assault weapon ban, misleadingly titled The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a 10-year prohibition on the manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms, ill-defined as “assault weapons”, as well as large capacity magazines greater than 10 rounds.  Despite notorious ant-gun Senator Diane Feinstein crowing that the 1994 ban was “effective at reducing crime”, the data is clear that the legislation resulted in no statistical change in criminal activity, or firearm homicides. In actuality, the homicide rate with firearms was less in the three years preceding the ban. Christopher Koper, a professor at George Mason University concluded “the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect”.  Of course, good liberal that he is, he suggested, “it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period”.  May have.  Possibly. Just give it time.  Uh-huh.  But back to the premise at hand:  The government, who we have established is forcing us to fend for ourselves, is intent on eliminating the most popular rifle in America, popular due to it’s ease of use, customizable features, effective caliber, handling, manageable recoil and magazine capacity?  Which gun do the pros use, you know when the SWAT team shows up to clear the building?  I want that one. Why do I want a Kitchen-Aid mixer in my kitchen?  Because that’s the one the Cake Boss uses.  And yet, the government expects the citizen to be restricted in his choice of equipment, restricted in the number of rounds in his magazine and yet still have the skill to stop the threat, even when our professionals, armed with the best equipment, training and unlimited magazine capacity have shown that they only score a hit on their intended target 6.5% of the time.  So we are expected to perform better than the professionals, with less training and less rounds in the magazine.  You have to be kidding.  And the ten round magazine restriction, law already in most blue states, is creeping its way through Congress as we speak.  Going back to Sheriff Ken Campbell: “If armed with a firearm containing 16 rounds (15 round magazine plus one in the chamber)” statistically  “12-13 rounds will may miss the target entirely.  Of the 3-4 rounds that [score hits on] the attacker, none may be effective in immediately stopping the attack. If restricted to a 10-round magazine it’s likely that all 10 rounds may miss the target and the citizen will be “unable to stop the attack”.  Comments by liberal author Stephen King who said in 2013 “If you can’t kill a home invader with ten shots, then you need to go back to your local shooting range”, are totally out of touch with the reality of armed engagement.  But Sheriff Campbell astutely points out, “it’s not about hunting”.  Andy Cuomo infamously bellowed in his grating downstate accent: “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”, while promoting banning magazines greater than 10 rounds for New York State’s preposterous SAFE Act.  Similarly Joe Biden latched on to the ridiculously unrelated hunting theme with this patronizing nonsense: “talk to responsible gun owners-they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having hundreds of rounds in a weapon.  What do you think the deer are wearing, Kevlar vests?”  No, Joe I don’t. But it’s unlikely that deer are going to break into my house. Besides, dummy, most high-powered rifle rounds will penetrate Kevlar…… providing you are able to hit it. Of course, the preposterous notion behind this whole magazine restriction nonsense is the assumption that the attacker, specifically those engaged in a mass shooting incident, can be stopped when they pause to reload. More hooey. Not only is it unlikely that the criminal will choose to adhere to your magazine restrictions, but Sheriff Boone showed in a live fire exercise that, even with a relatively unpracticed shooter, the difference between emptying two 15-round pistol magazines into a target and five 6-round magazines was somewhere on the order of four seconds.  With a seasoned shooter, this was reduced to less than two seconds. He placed a runner 25 feet from the shooter and had them speed towards the shooter when they perceived the shooter was engaged in a reload.  In none of the exercises was the runner able to reach the shooter before the reload was complete. You could argue that a potential hero could be closer or could surprise the shooter from cover, but that would require a lot of luck and a huge set of….intestinal fortitude.  Statistically, experts recommend running for the nearest exit, specifically advising, in order of preference, evacuation, barricade yourself, prepare for attack if cornered, distract the attacker, and lastly swarming the suspect with improvised weapons.  Doesn’t that sound appetizing? Unfortunately, there have been few instances where such a disarming has occurred, most notably the Tucson shooting incident where a 61 year-old woman managed to wrestle a magazine away from the shooter.  But in another high profile supermarket shooting, it appeared that two potential heroes lost their lives in an attempt to disarm the attacker.  It may actually be more dependent on assessing the skill of the attacker. And frankly, the government and the media shouldn’t be promoting this nonsense. Wait until he attempts to reload, then rush the attacker.  Seriously? But none of this would apply to a home invasion where we are right back to the statistics game.  If confronted with an attacker or, worse yet, multiple attackers in your home, with no means of egress, with the likelihood of you scoring less than 6.5% hits on your attacker, how many rounds do you want to have in your magazine?  And you have to assume that if the attacker is armed as well, it is unlikely that he is concerned about adhering to your state’s magazine capacity restriction laws.  Sheriff Campbell summed up his study best; “Proposed magazine bans are absurd.”   

Impeachment Theater

There is so much going on in the news it is overwhelming.  Federal debt reaching 100% of GDP with more spending proposed, Andy Cuomo satisfying his critics by demonstrating that he is indeed as corrupt as we thought he was, the teacher’s union steamrolling over Joe Biden’s education policy, Trump acquitted once again as the media rails against him.  It is indeed a target rich environment.  Where to turn my sights?  If this is the Biden Administration’s idea of a “return to normalcy” it’s going to be a busy four years.

Alas, let’s have a look at the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal.  With only a handful of Republican Senators onboard for this theater of the absurd, and that would include the usual RINO suspects: embittered Mitt Romney, the Maineiac Susan Collins, Alaskan Lisa Murkowski, Nebraskan Ben Sasse and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, no one with any political acumen suspected that a guilty verdict would be forthcoming.  45 Senators agreed with Rand Paul that “this sham of a trial is unconstitutional”, making “this trial dead on arrival in the Senate”. But in all probability, that wasn’t the point, nor the intent of the exercise.  The goal has always been to wound Mr. Trump, subject him to a death by a thousand cuts, and in this latest impeachment incarnation, to prevent him from running for office again.  With the democrats calling for impeachment long before he even took office, and some suspect as early as that escalator ride in Trump Tower, the left has sought to discredit, impede, obstruct, and destroy everything from cabinet appointees to policy, hobbling the Trump Administration with sideshows to distract the American public from his accomplishments.  Distractions included two impeachments, the Mueller Russia-collusion investigation, a Ukrainian phone call, a tax return witch-hunt, assorted “whistle-blowers”, and even a porn star.  And if a case were to be made for Mr. Trump being, in essence, a despicable character, why on earth would you bring forth a cast of minions with an even higher despicable quotient?  I bring you the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Schiff, Waters, and Swalwell to name but a few.  If the media ever wanted to engage in dumpster diving on the other side of the aisle, this lot serves up a smorgasbord of lies, scandal, guilt by association and swarmy backroom dealings.   And now with acquittal take 2; cue the predictable outrage from the media.

With so many medial outlets crying foul, it is difficult to choose but one as an example of excess.  Politico, desperately trying to portray itself as objective, but following NPRs proven tactic of an attack-appease-attack narrative in their reporting, led with “This Acquittal Sends Three Dangerous Messages to Future Presidents” as a headline.  With quotations and analysis from various sources, a majority of content negative, they engaged in predictable subterfuge with the adjective game.  “Brilliant impeachment presentation”.   “Failed to convict in either trial-despite overwhelming evidence.”  “Lack of conviction sends chilling message”.  Brilliant is hardly the word I would use to describe our elected officials given their recent conduct.  Perhaps frothy or maybe rabid would suffice.  Overwhelming?  Based on the fact that he used the word “fight “ multiple times in his rally speech, and in particular: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” That should be an embarrassing line of attack after the defense produced a montage of democrats using the same admonition ad nauseum.  Apparently the only thing these mental midgets really should fight for is a thesaurus.  And “chilling”?  Really? Like they’re promoting a new Steven King thriller, speaking of rabid leftists. When adjectives aren’t enough, they resort to a few well-placed nouns and a couple of action verbs: “Trump was not exonerated”.  “Exoneration……will embolden those and their ilk who stormed the Capitol”.  By “ilk” I have to assume you are referencing Hillary’s “basket of deplorables”.  Or perhaps Obama’s “clinging to their guns and religion” crowd. You know……..Republicans. 

It’s amazing how these catch words circulate among the media’s talking heads.  As if “insurrection” wasn’t enough, find me a media outlet that hasn’t attached “deadly” to it.  With recent evidence suggesting that the Capitol police officer died, not from getting his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher as the media would portray it, but from a cerebral vascular accident (a stroke), with no external signs of trauma, hours later.  A tragedy that anyone died for sure, but it would appear that the only person who died directly as a result of violence at the Capitol was the ill-fated, unarmed female protester, veteran Ashli Babbitt, who when lifted by protesters to breach a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby, was shot by a Capitol Police officer.  I haven’t heard President Biden calling for non-lethal marksmanship like shooting her in the leg, a tactic he once suggested should be employed when police officers are dealing with assailants of color.  And why isn’t anyone alarmed that breaching a window conveyed a death sentence? I certainly don’t see Ms. Babbitt’s name adorning the back of NFL player’s helmets. Wrong color, wrong riot, perhaps. But Politico made some bold statements that can’t be ignored.  “Republican Senators had closed minds and would put party and personal political advantage over loyalty to the country”.  Seriously. And the four tortuous years of democrat obstruction, baseless accusations and hypocrisy wasn’t an example of partisan politics, of putting party before country?  Please.  Don’t you recall that politician that said, “Elections have consequences?”  You remember him. Why then, did you refuse to accept the results?  

But perhaps the worst commentary from Politico was the following diatribe: “The disgraceful sacking of the Capitol was, like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, a seminal day in American History and, like them, it can be easily distorted in the future, spawning a thousand conspiracy theories.  The House managers laid down an ironclad narrative, well documented and crisply reasoned, that will forever guide discussion of this event and prevent later, self-serving distortions of what happened.  They worked to engrave the story in our national memory”.  Wow. Do these people actually go back and read this nonsense after they write it? Where to start?  How about sacking?  As in Attila the Hun, or the Vikings perhaps?   Maybe they were inspired by the guy with the horned headdress.  What BLM rioters did to New York City and Minneapolis…..now that was sacking. I haven’t seen anyone wearing Nancy Pelosi’s Nikes or selling AOC’s signature white pantsuit on eBay as a result of Capitol looting.  Nor has anyone declared, like they did last summer, that looting is a form of redistribution that should be tolerated. Was this vandalism, yes.  Destruction of property, check.  But certainly a minor league, half-hearted example of sacking as compared to the wanton destruction of our cities in a series of riots that were most often defined as “peaceful protest” by the left. And comparing the Capitol riot to Pearl Harbor and 9/11?  Absolutely disgusting. This has to be the result of public school education when we allow the teacher’s union to educate our children.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Pearl Harbor saw 2335 American servicemen killed, 1143 wounded, and 68 civilians killed in an unprovoked attack by the Japanese Imperial Navy in 1941.  The United States, then a neutral country in the conflict, suffered 4 battleships sunk, 3 cruisers sunk, 4 battleships damaged, 3 destroyers damaged and 188 aircraft destroyed.   How dare you make this comparison and dishonor the memory of those lost when the bodies of sailors still rest in the overturned hulk of the USS Arizona. And 9/11 should be recent enough that the memory of that horrific day should be fresh, preventing you from making such a misguided comparison.  2606 American civilians in the towers and the complex as well as all 157 passengers aboard the two aircraft lost their lives.  All the buildings in the World Trade Center complex were destroyed, the collapse of the towers resulting in damage to an additional ten buildings surrounding the complex.   I don’t recall seeing any congressmen leaping to their death from the 80^th floor of a burning building. Any of these crazy comparisons coming from the left, comparing Republicans to Nazis, the Capitol riots to the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor or 9/11, are reprehensible, and need to stop now.  In these hyper-partisan times, journalists should choose their words more carefully.  Who then is more complicit in inciting violence anyway? And regarding the comment that the events can be “easily distorted”.  Well isn’t that exactly what we are witnessing by the democrats and the press?  Aren’t these over the top comparisons themselves distortions?  “Spawning a thousand conspiracy theories?”  Theories like Trump incited the violence, or he of the horned headdress and facepaint is a QAnon kingpin instead of the mentally impaired miscreant he turned out to be?  And don’t even get me started on the “ironclad narrative, well documented and crisply reasoned” without allowing me to don my hip boots.  Did anyone who stayed awake long enough to listen to the argument, find any of it crisply reasoned? It was all showmanship and subject to interpretation. Even Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, who for four years has been behaving like Trump ran over her puppy, declared that “democrat floor managers were at their best when they were direct, unadorned, and dealt crisply with information and data, as they did most of the time.”  Crisply again. When exactly was that, Peggy? It is apparent that Ms. Noonan longs for the days of Reagan when decorum and civility reigned.  Those days are over, sweetie. What upset her most was  “when vandals strolled though the abandoned Senate chamber and rifled through the desks of senators. Those are literally the desks of Mike Mansfield, Robert M. La Follette, Arthur Vandenberg, John F. Kennedy and Barry Goldwater. They each had, in accordance with tradition, carved or otherwise had inscribed their names in them. It looked to me like history itself was being violated.”  Easy there, old girl.  It was wrong, it was unlawful.  But we are not a monarchy and the king’s scepter was not being used as a toilet plunger.  It was the People’s House that was violated, a house that now, surrounded with fencing and razor wire, conducting business that offends half the nation, looks to be one step further removed from representing “We the People”.  The one thing Politico did get right was quoting Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor who stated, “We were left with a show trial”. In the same article, Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council, called it “an act of rage and vengeance rather than sober deliberation” Bravo. Somebody is paying attention.  And as far as “engraving the story in our national memory”, I suspect that they accomplished that goal, but not in the way they anticipated.  Witness Congressman Jamie Raskin digging deep, invoking his children and stifling a sob, in a performance worthy of Academy Award consideration.  Laughable in its disingenuousness.  But if Cuomo can get an Emmy for his coronavirus ruse, then certainly Raskin should garner attention from the Academy for this performance. This is what I will have forever “engraved” in my memory: the shameful partisan bickering, the disdain for the Constitution and the refusal to accept election results.  The disenfranchising of half of American voters to thwart the agenda of a duly elected president.  And to unconstitutionally persecute him after he has left office to assure he cannot disrupt their progressive agenda.  Even the Supreme Court took a pass on this political theater. What a disgrace.