The Irony of Gun Control

Every time there’s a shooting, the dems want to talk about gun control, because they have no desire to argue law enforcement and crime. They know that is an argument they will always lose.

The irony is that they refuse to enforce the gun laws we have now. Especially in NY, NY, a crime is committed with a gun and the criminal is arrested one day and released the next. Don’t think that is a debatable position to anyone but the libs.

Perhaps, maybe, possibly, we should not add more gun laws until the ones we have are enforced. The unenforced law only affects those who obey the law. There is no effect on criminal types.

Dems Complain About Gun Sales

According to the news media, the Democrats are complaining about the recent increase in gun sales.

Me thinks they need a lesson on cause and effect. Most, including myself are considering buying guns because of the rise in crime. I assure you, if I buy a gun, it will not cause crime. On the other hand, it just might decrease it some.

Just maybe, if the dems decrease crime, such as riots, arson, pilfering and outright murder, we’d not have as much urge to spend the money for our training, weapon(s), ammunition and practice to keep ourselves safe.

And, by the way, if any of us does need to defend ourselves and families, we stand stand the rea1 risk of imprisonment. Which can result the family being left out in cold. Still better than the wife and kids waking up dead because some no account DA is not doing his duty.

At the very least, a person using his gun in his defense will need to defend his actions, perhaps even without ever shooting it. Indeed, it is illegal to brandish a weapon, even though brandishing the gun might save multiple lives, including the assailants.

As near as I can tell, a lot depends on the DA. As in Rittenhouse’s case, the DA went after him for about a year. I cannot imagine what he paid for lawyers. In the end he won, but it could have gone the other way. He could be sitting in prison while most the rioters would go free. I just might be wrong, but I don’t think the DA went after one of the arsonists, even though I don’t think any of them can claim they set the fires in self defense.

Me thinks the DA is a LITTLE biased. And such might be the case for any person firing a weapon in self defense.

IIncidentally, in every case of self defense, there is a true crime, the assault by the one wounded or killed. Without the attack, there is no need for the defense!

Guess

Two streets of 10 homes. Those living in the houses on 1 street are never permited to have guns, bows & arrows or baseball bats.

On the other street they are required to have at least one hand gun and one shotgun. The homes that have the guns are well known.

Guess which of the homes are more probably going to have robberies. Guess which ones are more probably going to come under assault.

Now, let’s change things. Still only 10 homes are armed but no one knows which ones. If you were a burglar, which homes would you choose to rob.

Logically, not many would take a chance to rob any. The 10 armed homes would effectively provide some protection for those not armed.

For this reason, I suggest it is advantageous to all that some are armed. If no homes are armed, all homes are subject to robbery, armed robbery or outright assault. In other words, that fella down the street with an AR15 or a 12 guage or even that .38 is helping to keep you safe, almost as effectively as that entire police department.

News @ Ten

The program went off and the 10 o’clock news came on. The first report was about two people being shot. I slapped the arm of my chair and explained, “Every day!”

I guess the city of Memphis does have days where people aren’t shot but it seems they are rare. I might be wrong but it doesn’t seem it was that way a few decades ago. Then again, maybe I just wasn’t aware of it.

I really don’t know. That just might be normal for a city the size of Memphis. Regardless, I believe it to be far too frequent.

So, what do I suggest?

  1. Pray. Some will argue it won’t help but it certainly is more effective than praying for the victims after the fact.
  2. Make sure those committing the crimes are imprisoned. I’m not saying just killers. Thieves, drug distributors etc too. I would suspect murder is not the first crime of those criminals.
  3. Build the families. I suspect most criminals do not come from good homes.
  4. Parents, teach your children about God, about right and wrong and about the special importance of human rights, and to have a proper respect for others.
  5. Teach your children proper respect for guns.
  6. School teachers, teach that killing and stealing is wrong. They too should stress the importance of common respect.
  7. All of us need to be reminded from time to time to respect the law and those who inforce it. Without the law, without those who inforce it, we would lose far more than 2 a day.

1 year practicing the above, and there would be a noticeable positive difference. Then again, that’s not what the dems want. They like blaming guns for what people do and the love pointing out the differences between the haves and have nots as a reason to steal. I’m still trying to figure out their logic on the advantages of drug abuse.

The fact is, only the dems benefit from crime. Those two that were shot today didn’t benefit from crime, regardless of party affiliation.

New & Old

A while ago, I noticed a new shooting range nearby. For a number of weeks I drove by looking from a distance. Yesterday, I went in, just to look around. I must say, I was very much impressed.

First, it was well stocked. They had a wide variety of new and used. Yes, they had many varieties of the AR15, the civilian version of the M16. To my surprise, they even had an M14.

Came close to buying it. It had been over fifty years since I touched one. I was surprised to realize that it felt quite familiar to me, if you’ll permit, as a long lost friend. Even so, I was reminded of its nine pound weight. I reluctantly decided against the purchase. I could afford the gun but not the hobby. Also, it would be a magnet to many a thief who might find out I have it.

Secondly, the staff was friendly and knowledgeable. It didn’t take long for me to realize it. If a person is going to buy a gun, it is good to know they are buying from someone who knows his wares.

Finally, it seemed a good business. It is modern, clean and well organized.

I suspect they are the type that would seek out complaints, but there aren’t likely many.

Why can’t all businesses that way.

As for the M14 I much prefer it over the M16. I qualified with both and, though the M16 is much easier to tote and fire, I have far more faith in the M14. It might be older. It might have more kick. I am sure that it is more accurate and lethal. And that is what a rifle is for.

Who Do You Trust?

It’s an interesting question, one you should ask of yourself as well as others. I must admit the question was prompted by an old TV show where the question was the title. During the show the contestants were asked if if they trusted themselves or their spouse to answer a question.

However, we must admit that we make decisions of of trust, not only daily, but by the minute. We trust the others to follow the rules of the road. We trust those who work in stores restaurants, mechanics and many other merchants. Most of us take it for granted that when we turn that key in the ignition, the car will start. (Or we become angry) We flip the light switch in a room and, usually the room is lit.

I have noted that, according to trust, people can be divided into at least 3 categories. As in the national motto, some of us trust God. We are called Christians. Some trust themselves and not God. I call them libertarians… conservatives without morals. Then, there are the liberals. Their motto is, in government we trust. In general, they lie, cheat, and steal all for themselves and the advancements of government control. In many cases they don’t even know it. But if they have no trust in God or themselves, who do they trust.

They rely on government for medicine, welfare and their next meal. If they don’t get substance from God or their own hands, from whom will they get it? The almighty government will provide but only if the almighty government is almighty. On the other hand, Christians and libertarians don’t want want to rely so much on government. So they really prefer keeping government size down.

I have an idea. Let’s put all the liberals in 25 states…their choice. Then we stand back and watch to see how long it takes for them to destroy those states. When everyone has their trust in their government, it will take very little time for their government to fail. I suppose some states will last longer than others. Some may actually figure things out and stop putting ultimate control in the hands of fallible humans.

The Epitome of Stupidity

I just heard a report on CBS that was so unbelievable that I just had to verify it before writing on it. Sure enough, it’s accurate according to NPR (Becky Sullivan)

Henceforth, VISA, Mastercard and American Express will (or have) created a code for gun sales. This is in hopes of decreasing gun violence.

Sorry, that will have little or no affect. The reason can be determined by a smart 6th grader (One who does not attend public school). Those who plan to use guns illegally are not likely to use a credit card to buy a gun. Hidden near the end of the article is a stat that pretty much confirms this. About 7% of those using guns during crimes buy them legally. There is no record of the purchase of over 90% of guns used in crime.

If I decide to buy a gun without my M.C., all I need do is go to the ATM and withdraw 6 or 7 hundred dollars and go find someone interested in selling their 9 mm.

I have no such plans nor do I currently have any guns, although if the FOCs continue to run things as they do, I just might go out and buy a few automatic pitching machines with which to defend my home. I’m not sure, but I’d think it would be a good legal way of defense. Any smart burglars burglaring my home would be wise to bring their baseball glove.

As I have said before, the way to stop gun violence, or any kind of of violence is three-fold. Teach respect of human life in the home, in the schools and from the government. Pray and encourage prayer before the violence. It doesn’t help much after. Make sure everyone knows basic gun safety.

One more thing thing that would help is to lock up those who commit crimes, especially the violent kind. Many violent crimes are committed by known criminals, most which don’t use guns.

A Curiosity

There is a question of small significance based on the Bible and prophecy. Just why is it that the US is not mentioned in the Bible. It does seem to many that the Bible has left out half the world. Some might even suggest it is one of the more important parts.

Many have asked the question. Some have suggested answers. Personally, I don’t know. I do consider it something of a curiosity, though I would never let such a thing cause any doubts in the accuracy of God’s word.

As near as I can figure, what happens in terms of prophecy in the western hemisphere, is of little significance. Currently, that seems highly unlikely.

However, it would not take but a few days for that to change.

  1. A natural disaster. California, the Mid-south and many other places in Mexico and South America have serious fault lines. Just lately I found out there are faults under New York too, though not currently active. From time to time, I have been reminded that Yellowstone sets a top a huge volcano capable of destroying most of this country and send ashes worldwide. Such a thing just might help fulfill prophecies. I don’t know. As I say. I just observe.
  2. It might be war or a few terrorists. China, Iran and a few other countries would like American history to end. The Dems, on the other hand, seem to be inviting terrorists over an open border. A few well placed nuclear weapons would destroy our nation. Just look what 3 well placed planes did. Many take our national security for granted. They like the advantages of living here but they are not willing to help pay for it.
  3. Finally, there is the possibility of destruction from within. Those who say the Republicans are destroying democracy are tearing our Constitution asunder. Without the 10 amendments to protect us, the US will crumble.

Maybe none of this will happen. I don’t know. If any of it does, I hope I don’t live to see it. On the other hand, the more I observe, the more I believe it will be the third. With the dems such as they are, the Lord will not need to send natural disasters or even an enemy to destroy the nation he sees going very much astray. We will do a really great job of destroying ourselves.

Surprise, Not All Stove Are Hot

It is something, likely, as old as stoves. Most folks quickly learn not to touch hot stoves.

Actually, it is not so important today as it was a couple of centuries ago when ole Ben first started building stoves. Generally speaking, when someone would touch a hot stove, they were not apt to repeat it.

Actually, I suspect it went back even farther than that. Before there were stoves, there were fireplaces. Before fireplaces campfires, or their equivalent.

I even heard a tale of one of the big wigs at Levi learning not to kneel next to campfires…first time. It was then that they decided to remove one or two of the rivets from the area just below the fly of their famous canvas trousers.

The one thing brought away from the first experience was the probability of pain, sometimes a little embarrassment too. However, here’s the news. Not all stoves are hot. Not all rivets are hot. It just is that once exposed to these experiences we mostly come away thinking they are, or at least can be. It is referred to as inductive reasoning. Because the first stove we touch is hot, we assume all stoves are hot.

What if the reverse is true. What if the first stove you touch is ambient temperature? Do we then assume that all stoves are cool to the touch. If we do this, we expose ourselves to many painful experiences. This is called inductive reasoning.

While it is useful, it can easily lead to errors. For instance, if we see a brown Labrador retriever, it would be wrong to assume that all dogs are brown and weigh eighty pounds. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that all Labs are brown. Oddly there are some that are black.

On the other hand, suppose we touch a hundred cool stoves. Can we then assume are stoves are cool? If we see a hundred brown Labs, are we to assume that all labs are brown.

You see, even though we see a large number of examples, we cannot truly assume anything.

Until we see a large enough number of examples, we cannot positively say that we know all labs are brown and that all stoves are cool. Even when working with large numbers, inductive reasoning can lead us astray.

I wish that kids in the eighth grade were required to spend a few hours learning about inductive and deductive reasoning. I am convinced the concept is extremely important in so many parts of life.

Let’s take for instance, the woman that is robbed by an African American. Is it right for her to be afraid of all African Americans? Of course, not. Yet, it may take her years to get over the experience. Our fears are not always founded on good logic. Indeed, her fear might keep her from many good friendships.

The somewhat opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we draw conclusions from many, perhaps exhaustive numbers of examples. It is best that these examples are at random. It is the way that medical research is done. I suppose we can say that statistics and deductive reasoning are interrelated. The more the examples and the more random, the more accurate will be the stats deductive reasoning that depends on the stats.

If we have a random selection of a million dogs, it is likely that only a few will be Labs and we will likely see a few black dogs, white dogs and even a few multi-color dogs. Therefore, we can have a more accurate idea of the coloring of dogs. If we take a random measurement of a million stoves, we might actually find that only 30% are hot enough to cause pain, or even discomfort. (only a wild guess, not am actual statistic)

I’m not going to try to create an equivalent example with the thievery. It’s far too complex and there are too many ways it can go wrong with my imaginary statistics. Moreover, I am not going to suggest that a woman should get robbed a million times. Two or three maybe, but no more. Still, the principles remain firm. With a larger number of examples, we would be able to draw more accurate deductions.

However, we need to be careful about drawing snap conclusions. When we go from the millions of examples and try to derive a single situation from millions of examples, we can still be wrong. For instance, if I may. It would not indicate that a thief is of any ethnicity, and it would be wrong to make any such suggestion.

Yet, every day, I see some people blame Black men because of individual as well as vast statistical data. Those methods just don’t work. And, by the way, the methods don’t work on Caucasian policemen, again, regardless of past inductive or deductive reasoning. You cannot convict a policeman based on past experience just as the woman cannot convict based on past thieves.

Perhaps the most horrible example of inductive reasoning is when the person says, “Single parent families are just as good as two-parent families.” Then they go about calling out two, three or four examples of good kids brough up by single parents. That logic has two holes. First, it is based on a very small count of examples. Second, there is the probability that, if there is a second parent, the child would likely have turned out better. The statistics back it up. We are talking millions of examples not just two or three.

On the other side of the coin, I see people say that a particular person turned out good or bad because of his parent(s). The stats prove that some good kids come from bad or broken homes and bad kids come from homes with good parents.

In this case, the inductive logic gets us nowhere and the deductive logic only shows trends. The trend shows overwhelmingly that two parent homes are better. But logic tells us that it is only true if they are good parents. Abusive and or alcoholic parents rarely qualify as good parents. Yet, again, some good kids come from homes with abusive parents. Sorry. I have no explanation for that. I’m not sure there is one.

For those who are not truly familiar with the terms inductive and deductive reasoning, may I suggest you take an hour or two and look into it on the net. Most will find it far more complex than most of us realize. For instance, one thing that must accurately be determined in inductive reasoning is an accurate correlation. For instance, that dance by that Voo-do doctor likely has nothing to do with that solar eclipse. On the other hand, all that rain I dumped on my lawn the other day likely had nothing to do with the thunderstorm we got the next day, though it did seem a little coincidental. If we collected enough data, it is likely to be proved that the one thing had nothing to do with the other.