Awaiting Your Response

Do you still feel the same way about your policy now, Mr. Hincker? Will your faith in that policy provide comfort to any of the victims' families?

How about it, Larry? The first time around, you ridiculed Mr. Wiles' pleas with words like "mind-boggling...out-of-touch" and "inane."

I'm sure your dismissal of his latest letter will be equally contemptuous and witty.

Take the Airsoft Challenge

There's a lot of debate going on right now about what the results of the Virginia Tech massacre might have been had just one targeted student been armed.

Here's a way we can approximate real world results: Stage an Airsoft mass shooting.

Gather around 20 friends or so. Pick a room to conduct the test. Everyone should have protective gear. One person should act as recorder/tally keeper, off-limits to the action.

One person will act as the shooter. He will enter the room where everyone else is seated in simulation of a classroom setting. He will block the only exit and begin shooting. In order to be faithful to the Virginia Tech scenario, no one will fight back. You can run, you can duck and cover, you can play dead, you can plead, you can pray, but you can't counterattack. Feel free to add to the pandemonium, though. If hit, raise your hand and remain in place.

What were the results?

Now we're going to repeat the test, but this time, one person in the room will have a concealed Airsoft pistol, and will draw and fire it at the shooter when they think they can. Again, to be faithful to real world conditions, this person should have practiced with the "weapon" beforehand to approximate the skill level of a trained and knowledgeable gun owner. And to keep things as realistic as possible, don't tell the shooter or anyone else this scenario is planned. THIS IS IMPORTANT. Let them get through one massacre, and then tell them you want to do it again to reconfirm the results of the first test--that way, the shooter will be just like Cho, or Harris or Klebold--he won't be expecting resistance from his prey--and the "victims" will likewise not have cause to react differently.

What were the results this time? If the person shooting back is hit, could he likely have continued firing? Note that this does not guarantee everyone will survive, or that there won't be collateral damage--what we're looking for is simply a difference in raw numbers of people shot. The recorder will call a halt to the action when the initial shooter is deemed stopped, and ask everyone to remain where they are and report if they've been hit and where.

Then we can up the ante. Pick a new shooter, again one who doesn't know there may be armed victims. Now add another concealed carrier in the classroom, or maybe a couple more--after all,those opposed to armed defense would have us believe the more people with guns, the worse such situations are likely to become--why not test that theory as well? As the number of concealed carriers goes up, what happens to the number of victims?

Feel free to come up with variations and rules of your own--this is just a rough idea at this stage. If anyone actually conducts these or similar tests, I'd be interested in hearing the results.

Disclaimer: If you do this, I'm not responsible for any consequences. Here's some information you may find useful, but I ain't vouching for it. It might not be a bad idea to let local "authorities" know about your intentions so you don't get mistaken for real shooters and shot. Even firing Airsoft equipment may be illegal in some jurisdictions/prohibited in some locations. You may want to get everyone to sign waivers, but that's not legal advice. Here's an online manual I found-- follow its suggestions at your own risk.

"The Gun Lobby Doesn't Disagree"

The gun lobby—typically opposed to any attempt to tighten federal gun controls—doesn't disagree. The National Rifle Association has decided to make no public comment about any aspect of the Virginia Tech tragedy, according to a spokesman. But a source close to the gun lobby (who asked not to be identified because of the organization’s sensitivities about making any political points related to the tragedy), pointed out that pro-gun lobbyists and groups like the NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records to background check databases. "We have no problem as long as one is adjudicated mentally incompetent [in denying gun purchases] and we have no problem with mental health records being part of the NICS," the source said. "The problem is not with the gun community. The problem is with the medical community" that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds.

That's it?

Four days after the fact--when the whole country is furiously debating the impact of the Virginia tech shootings on the Second Amendment--there's still no leadership from our self-proclaimed leaders? All we get are plausibly deniable signals sent through seconds that they'd endorse an expansion of NICS if only there were some way to work around privacy protections?

I'll repeat myself: anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. But absent due process, you cannot deprive a citizen of his rights. That's one of the prices of a free and open society.

I expect the recognized leaders in promoting the Second Amendment to promote the Second Amendment. I expect them to lead us in demanding an end to victim disarmament zones. Are they so cynical to believe that fighting unbendingly for the truth and for liberty is indefensible? Are they really so afraid of the Bradys--who are currently out grubbing for massacre money--accusing them of "making political points"? Does anyone at Fairfax really believe that saying nothing will accomplish anything?

[Via Ryan H]

Thanks for the Three...Uh...Two Bills!

I wish I'd gotten a a screen shot of the original post. Still, someone forgot to delete "HB 2457" from the subhead. I guess by this latest incarnation, someone at HQ decided cheering on an "Only Ones Only" bill might be problematic?

[Via 45superman]

How to Deal with Workplace Violence at Virginia Tech

What to Do When Violence Occurs

• Try to stay calm. Raising your own voice may increase the anxiety of a potentially violent person.
• Speak slowly, softly, and clearly to reduce the momentum of the situation.
• Listen empathetically by really paying attention to what the person is saying. Let the person know that you will help them within your ability to do so or you will send for additional help.
• Do not agree using distorted statements or attempt to argue.
• Avoid defensive statements. This is not the time to place blame on the enraged person.
• Ask the belligerent person to leave the area and come back when they feel calmer.
• Ask questions to help regain control of the conversation.
• Ask uninvolved parties to leave the area if this can be done safely.
• Use the prearranged code word to alert your coworker(s) to call the Campus Police.
• Never challenge, try to bargain, or make promises you cannot keep.
• Describe the consequences of any violent behavior.
• Avoid challenging body language such as placing your hands on your hips, moving toward the person, or staring directly at them. If seated, remain in your chair and do not turn your back on the individual.
• Do not physically touch an outraged person, or try to force them to leave.
• Move away from any object, such as scissors or heavy objects that could be used as a weapon.
• Calmly ask the person to place any weapons in a neutral location while you continue to talk to them.
• Never attempt to disarm or accept a weapon from the person in question. Weapon retrieval should only be done by a police officer.

They forgot a few:

• Tell the attacker you have an STD.
• Vomit.
• Use a rat tail comb.
  

But under no circumstances use a weapon. That would be against the rules.

[Via J. Peel]

A Very Strong Proponent

I am a 36-year-old gun owner. I started target shooting at the age of 5 and hunting at the age of 14. At the age of 21 I joined the NRA and became am NRA certified shooting instructor and spent three years teaching shooting skills with the Boy Scouts of America. Not surprisingly, I am a very strong proponent of the right of Americans to own firearms. What some people do find surprising is that I am also a strong proponent of stricter gun laws in this country...

The only realistic solution is to enact strict federal laws that require background checks for the purchase of all firearms, to have mandatory waiting periods for purchasing firearms, to federally regulate ALL gun dealers in the country and to limit the number of guns that can be purchased by an individual during a given time period, such as per month or per year.

Nothing disgusts me more than gun owners for gun control. There's a term for such creatures...

[Via HZ]

Bridge Out Ahead

Absent some sort of federal "Missouri Compromise" where y'all agree to leave us alone and we agree to leave you alone, state by state, there really is nothing our two countries can negotiate about. We may share a past, we do not, cannot and WILL NOT share your intended anti-liberty collectivist future.

Mike Vanderboegh takes on Tommy Denton (again).

We're the Only Ones Minimizing a Lot More Losses Enough

SMERCONISH: Well, wait a minute. I think you`re speaking my language now when you say we need to arm the general public. Is your thought process that we`d be better served if more individuals, law abiding Americans, were carrying firearms so that they could take down whomever it is that perpetrated these acts?

BROWN: You bet, Michael. I`m one of those people. Yes, I do believe that.

SMERCONISH: OK, well, that makes two of us. And I imagine, Lieutenant Rogers, we may not get a beef out of you on that?

ROGERS: Well, the problem with that is, that, when the police, who are well trained to deal with these situation, enter into a dorm, who`s the shooter? Who`s the killer? Who`s the murderer?

You know, it`s an easy fix to say, well, let`s arm everyone. But we`ve got to be concerned about how many more lives could be lost. These police officers, and I agree with Pat, you know, they`re reacting to a tragic situation. But what they did, what these officers did this morning was no doubt minimize a lot more losses that could have been incurred by this suspect.

No doubt. "Only Ones" crouching behind trees while victims are being slaughtered works every time.

[Via Whose Paranoid]

Last Wish

Except it's time to stop wishing. It's time to start doing.

Before this happens.

[Via Declan]

Radio Rankin

Larry Rankin got some air time on The Colab Report , following a special appearance by Columbine survivor Crystal Woodman Miller. I didn't have time to listen to her segment, so I don't know if she came away from the experience with an appreciation for armed defense or not.

Click on "Download" for the April 19 show. Larry's segment starts a bit past half way through.

End the School Grounds Loophole

In a surprise move, a House panel voted Wednesday to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments - including parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster - or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it - has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

As amended, the legislation still wouldn't allow guns on school property, however.

Nicely done, Rep. Nicely. And brilliant amendment, Rep. Briley. But why not finish the job? Why do we leave the most obvious targets still vulnerable? Isn't it time to End the School Grounds Loophole? (Feel free to adopt this slogan.)

And why not challenge that idiot Janis Sontany to publicly demonstrate what she would do if a madman started shooting up the place while she was there? Why not challenge antis everywhere to do this? (Feel free to adopt this tactic.)

I notice from her website she's doing a "Tour for Life" for animals. I guess her constituents' lives aren't as important or sacred as cats'.

[Via Brian Puckett]