The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
I have little to say about mass shootings these days, as I prefer to let our opponents exploit these tragedies for political gain. I will say, based on the age of the shooter, I’d bet this is a case of schizophrenia. I’ll also bet if that’s the case, there were plenty of people that knew this guy was a ticking time bomb and did nothing.
UPDATE: See Instapundit: “Others may blame Hollywood. In both cases, it’s a mix of opportunism and a desire not to confront the existence of evil.”
Gene Simmons, eat your heart out. It would seem that guided bullet technology is close to coming to fruition. I doubt that this technology will be able to perform miracles. You’ll still likely need to get the bullet somewhere in the neighborhood of a man sized target, with the bullet doing the real precision work. Any change in bullet’s trajectory is going to dissipate energy and reduce range, and you’d need range to be able to affect a large change in the point of impact. I’d say that for shooting people at ranges under 500 yards, this isn’t likely to replace plain, ordinary bullets anytime soon. I’d also imagine the bullets themselves will be rather pricy. I’d almost imagine you’d be better off using a small, portable mortar launcher, with a guided mortar. If you’re going to incur the cost for guidance, send the enemy something that goes boom.
What do you all think?
Chris from Alaska finds quite a gem of a quite from one of the Brady Campaign’s board members. One other thing I would ad, is even if any major newspapers weren’t calling for DC v. Heller to be overturned, it should concern them greatly that we have at least one, and probably four Supreme Court justices that want to overturn the decision. For years, I think the elites in the gun control movement really convinced themselves they were up against rubes. Now that it’s becoming abundantly clear their elites are not all dripping with intellectual talent, the tiger is finding it difficult to change its stripes.
On the policy front, a recent tactic you’ve seen from the gun control elite is to pooh pooh the notion of the “law abiding citizen.” You can see a recent example of it here. This is such a thoroughly weak argument that one laughs over the fact that they are even presenting it. Most people, I believe, recognize that Minority Report was a work of fiction, and we do not have a magical ability to look into people’s heads to assess whether or not they might in the future become criminals. All we can do is look at past criminal behavior as an indication for future criminal behavior. That’s what the NICS check is about.
So yes, some people who can pass a background check now will later go on to commit crimes. This is hardly surprising. But the more important question is how you deal with this fact in terms of public policy? You really have to start with the default assumption that everyone is a potential criminal, and either make buying a gun impossible, or so onerously difficult that only the strongly motivated bother. And in the realm of motivated people, where does someone who’s planning on committing a crime with a gun rank?
If the answer is that you have to assume everyone is a criminal, and make it generally difficult or impossible to obtain or buy firearms, how does that jibe with the keeping and bearing of arms to be a fundamental right? Why am I paranoid, as gun control elites suggest, for suggesting their end goal isn’t just a few “common sense” regulations, but a draconian public policy regimes aimed at unconstitutionally disarming most of American society? Their own rhetoric betrays their true intentions. The only reason they joke about our paranoia is because we have them at the end of their rope, and they realize it more than we do. I realize it, but I aim to cut that rope, and help accelerate their movement’s plunge into the dustbin of history. I don’t see any reason to let up now.
So much for that narrative, that our opponents have been crowing about since the incident, suggesting that Stand Your Ground emboldens ordinary people to turn into murderers because the law makes it easier for them to get away with. Makes you wonder when the gun control crowd will realize they can’t win over ordinary people if they only have contempt for them. That must also be why the gun control crowd is bitching at the poll results.
Dave Hardy notes that the new boss ain’t much different from the old. In other news, it seems if I don’t post, someone else won’t come along and do it for me. Who knew?
It’s long been known in the shooting and hunting communities that if a teen with a life-threatening medical condition has a desire to go hunting, Make-a-Wish will turn them down. Their wishes aren’t politically correct enough for the organization. This week, an Oregon outlet is covering a local Hunt of a Lifetime chapter and makes sure their readers know why Make-a-Wish decided to bar kids from hunting:
In 1998, Matt Pattison of Eerie, Penn., was losing his battle with Hodgkin’s lymphoma when the Make-A-Wish Foundation denied his request.
Not only was the 19-year-old just over Make-A-Wish’s age limit, but his dream — for an Alaskan moosehunt — put the international nonprofit in a tough spot with certain donors, among them animal rights and gun control activists.
A year later, while Tina Pattison mourned her son, Make-A-Wish made its stance official — no hunting-related wishes.
Yup, gun control activists helped create the policy that it’s better to keep a dying teen out of their program instead of granting a wish that involves firearms or bows. How very reasonable of them. It’s just common sense, after all, to not even allow a 17-year-old who probably won’t see his/her 18th or 19th birthday to be considered for a hunting wish.
I’m told I didn’t really create this blog, but that someone else did it. I’m going to do something else for a few hours, and see if someone else will come along with a post on some topic of interest. If not, I guess I’ll have to find something to write about then.
I’ll be curious to know if the motive for this staged shooting is ever discovered.
Indiana Conservation Officers don’t believe a Bloomington man’s story that he was shot by an unknown person while visiting McCormick’s Creek State Park on June 25.
Instead, Conservation Officers say evidence suggests Peter Raventos, 43, shot himself in a staged incident designed to portray him as the victim of a random shooting. …
On June 25, Conservation Officers and other agencies responded to a 911 call at 10:05 p.m. reporting that a man had been shot at McCormick’s Creek. The call was made by Raventos, who told Conservation Officers he was shot in the back by an unknown assailant while walking along a park trail.
Conservation Officers, McCormick’s Creek staff, the Owen County Sheriff’s Department, Spencer Police, and Indiana State Police conducted a thorough search of the park and nearby area for a possible suspect but found none.
Raventos, meanwhile, was taken to IU Health Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, where he was treated for wounds inflicted by more than 20 shotgun pellets and later released.
From witness interviews and evidence found at the scene and at Raventos’ home, Conservation Officers have since concluded that Raventos rigged a shotgun so he could fire it at himself from some distance.
Witness statements led Conservation Officers to an area of the park where the shooting was believed to have occurred. There they found bungee cords, fishing line, a spent shotgun shell, an unspent shotgun shell, and a small piece of plywood embedded with shotgun pellets.
Conservation Officer K-9 units searching the area also found a shotgun wad-a small plastic cup inside a shotgun shell casing that separates the pellets from the gunpowder. When fired, the wad is expelled and falls to the ground.
Conservation Officer scuba divers searched the nearby White River and located a 20-gauge shotgun that was later linked to Raventos.
Search warrants for Raventos’ home, cell phone, and vehicle turned up additional evidence.
I’m very curious about the evidence from the cell phone. That seems like an odd place to find anything relevant unless it reveals some kind of premeditation that could disclose the potential motive.
I just can’t fathom why anyone would shoot themselves in an effort to make a park look bad.