The Bible and Self Defense pt 2

Over on my new site ---http://3boxesofbs.com, I have a follow up to the scriptural basis for self defense.


Thanks for checking in here and if you haven't, please update your bookmarks or blog roll.

Tell me again

That is the title of my new post at Wordpress -- Tell me again.

If you haven't updated your blogroll or bookmarks, please do so and then come read.

Okay Folks

It's time for the move....please check out the new digs.

I've tried to start off right, we will continue the discussion of Freedom from Fear

And first thing Monday morning, I'll have a post up about "The Bible and Self Defense"

Please update your blogrolls and bookmarks to the new site : http://3boxesofbs.com

This is a new Wordpress Blog created by my son as a late father's day present. He also created and paid for my own domain name.

Thanks TR, it is a great gift for a son to give to a father.

Freedom from Fear

I would like to talk about an absolutely ludicrous notion that I've heard several times at different places, mostly in discussion with pro-ignorance, anti-freedom people about firearms.

The concept is they have a RIGHT to be free of fear.

Let's get some definitions established

Right - Freedom, immunity, power, or privilege, due to one by agreement, birth, claim, guaranty, or by the application of legal, moral, or natural principles.
(as a side note, just trying to define a "right" is worthy of it's own post)

Fear -

a. A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.

b. A state or condition marked by this feeling:

Do people have a right to be free of fear, the answer may surprise you, but I say YES.

Now it is not a Constitutionally protected right, like the Right to Free Speech or to Keep and bear arms.
Nor is it an unlimited right, this right is definitely limited. First it is limited by the nature of the problem. It is not practical to remove all the things people fear from the world, it simply can not be done. Some people fear the dark, yet under no technology can we banish the dark. Nor would it be wise since the natural cycle of life requires dark.
Those who suffer from one fear probably suffer from others -- explains much about those who fear inanimate objects...wonder if they also have Ablutophobia : Fear of washing or bathing. How do we determine who fears what, where they live in relation to those things they fear. The logistical nightmare of trying to implement this concept of freedom of fear would require massive government intervention and bureaucracy -- which should tell you why the United Nations includes it as one of their human rights. According to research, at some time in their life 11% of the world's populatoin will suffer from phobias....not just fear -- most extensive list I could find has 417 listed, the world would be paralyzed if we tried to get rid of things people fear.

If the practical and logistical challenges are so daunting, why shouldn't I end the conversation here? Well, there are some other issues to consider. Let's look at the first part of the phrase - a right to be free of fear.

Do people really have a right to be free of fear, is this an actual right? That depends on how you define rights. I was intrigued to see so many definitions of the word. The most common definitions in dictionaries do not even include the meaning as I show it above.

I say that the only portion of that definition that applies in this case is due to birth. Just being alive gives a person the right to be free of fear....but it is an oh so limited right. If someone is afraid of beards (I happen to have one-full disclosure), they have no authority or power to require me to remove mine. The person who fears beards can not grow one or request their spouse not to grow one. But nothing in the legal, moral or ethical code in the world grants that person the authority to enforce their wishes on a single other person.

A person's right to be free of fear was not listed in the Constitution as a right as the right to keep and bear arms was thus the government has no power, no authority to take actions for the benefit of individuals. Now as a nation as a whole, there are things we fear - war, famine, pestilence, etc and the government is required to take action. I'm not sure how to fully explain the difference other except this way -- the government can and should act only on those issues that the vast overwhelming majority of the people properly are concerned about.

Actions needed to remove the fears and phobias individuals have do not trump my constitutionally protected liberties. PERIOD.

My wife is afraid of snakes but that fear gives her no authority do demand that anyone else does not keep a snake in their house or apartment. What it does give her the authority to do is take reasonable and legal precautions to avoid what she fears. We've put out snake away products, we remove from OUR property places where snakes may want to inhabit, we plant flowers & plants that are known to help repel snakes.

Let's go back to the definition of fear -A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.


The mere presence of a firearm does not endanger an imminence of danger either, the firearm is an inanimate object. It by itself can perform no action. This view that firearms by themselves do not create a public disturbance or danger has been confirmed by court cases.

This is why the people who fear firearms or the people who carry them do not have the authority to limit my carrying them....I do nothing to endanger an imminence of danger. NOTHING.

And that should be the end of the story....but it won't stop the attacks on our right to keep and bear arms.

(by the way, this will probably be the last new post at Blogger. I'm going to try to port everything over to the WordPress site and domain my son has provided for me today.)

Please join the discussion

July Range Report

Okay, time again for me to admit how I'm doing -- better but still not a sharpshooter

First off, lessons learned from today -- DON'T go to the range in the Texas Summer without a taking water with you. I might have burnt up more .22 if I hadn't been completely parched.

Ok, that's out of the way. Let's see how I did. I started with my Teas Father In Law's Buckmark 22. If I haven't mentioned how great my in laws are, let me do so now. TX FIL has allowed his Buckmark to reside over here for several months and is willing to let me keep it for a while longer.... I have great in laws.

(click to enlarge all images)

Not bad, a couple of flyers that I know what I did on....but that is an 8.5" by 11" target, center square 1" at 7 yards. That was my first target out of 4 or 5.....shooting the Buckmark it's easy to loose track.

After a "warming up" for a while I switched to the Ruger GP-100. I'm coming to the conclusion that I enjoy shooting autoloaders more than wheel guns. I just as I was getting into a steady pattern it would be time to reload. This is a standard B-27 target at 7 yards....36 rounds


The flyers high and right I'm going to blame on sweat getting in my eyes, didn't say that was WHY...just that i was going to blame it on the sweat. Not bad...I do notice that with the revolver I tend to pull slightly right. Might have to talk to the Family Finance Officer about getting a carry rig for the GP-100, would make a change from carrying the PT-145 especially in the winter.

I moved back to the 22 for a while, taking advice from my more knowledgeable and skilled commenters. One of the things I like about switching up was that I tired me out. Good practice for whatever defensive situation I might find myself in.

After smiling through about 50 rounds of 22, I started with the PT-145. I really wished to spend more time throwing rounds down range but several factors prevent that....ammo availability and not wanting to set in bad practices. Stopping at 50 rounds allows me to think about what I'm doing wrong.

Best of the two targets I used. I realized that I was bending my wrist downwards as I squeezed the trigger....learning in the process what "breaking the wrist meant. I tried to correct that on this target, still a little bit but considerable improvement.

After a short break....mostly to mop buckets of water off my head, I moved to the 15 yard line. (Taking a towel to an outdoor range during Summer is one thing I didn't forget.)

Well, that is 50 rounds of 22 at 15 yards. Not bad, I'll do in a pinch.

I'm trying to keep in mind my objectives. The first phase is to become proficient at self-defense ranges and firearms. I didn't even try the PT-145 at 15 yards yet. I figure I'll keep practicing with the Buckmark for a while, move up to the GP-100, then the PT-145.

Well, I'll ask again for advice. I have appreciated and benefitted from the ideas, tips and suggestions previously given, thanks.

Please join the discussion.

Media Bias

I was single for a very long time (until I was 39) so I'm very aware how the media portrays men.

Here is an example of the bias in today's media.

Idaho Babysitter Accused of Having Sex With 14-Year-Old

KXLY-TV reported Tuesday that 28-year-old Summer Nelson, of Post Falls, was charged Monday with four counts of lewd conduct with a child.

Court records say Nelson was a friend of the boy's mother. Police say the abuse was reported in December 2008, after the boy's mother grew suspicious of Nelson's attention toward the boy.

Investigators say Nelson told the boy's siblings that she was in love with their brother. Detectives say Nelson and the boy had at least four sexual encounters.

Now, imagine if the sexes had been reversed, what do you think the headlines would have been?

What charges would a man be brought up on if 4 times he had sex with a 14 year old female? Do you really think it would have been "lewd conduct"?

Go back and review all the publicity surrounding the female teachers having sex with their male students...then look at male teachers. See the difference?

What do you think? Is there a bias in the media, in the general population?

Please join the discussion

Weekly Crime Beat

This week's Crime Beat takes a look at a case being tried in Fort Worth, courtesy of the Star-Telegram.

FORT WORTH — Lucia Milan was working alone at her family’s store in the Fairmount neighborhood on a Saturday in 2006 when a man came in, counted out 50 pennies for a canned cola and left.

An hour later, the man briefly returned, asking to use a restroom, Milan testified Wednesday. When he returned a third time, he demanded money and then struck her repeatedly with a hammer before she could comply, she said. (emphasis mine)

Let's look at a couple of common misconceptions associated with things in just the first two paragraphs.

First, most violent crime does not involve a firearm. The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that only 9% of all violent crime involves a firearm. Those that wish to make firearms harder for the average citizen to own are trying to return us to a time when might made right. Here is an average female being attacked by the average male.....who has the decided advantage -- even without the hammer?

A firearm possessed by the female store clerk, and the willingness to use it, could have prevented this attack, this vicious attack.

As she tried to shield her face with her hands, Milan said, the man kept hitting her despite her pleas that he stop so she could give him money from the cash register.

"He didn’t give me a chance," she said. "I tried to put up my feet to get him off me, but he just kept on hitting me."

Milan said the blows stopped briefly after she fell to the floor but then resumed with one strike to her temple, which still bears a scar that she showed jurors. She also showed a scar on her left hand that was permanently injured with broken bones and torn tendons, she said.

Next, that attack shows the misconception that thugs only want money. He didn't wait to see if she would give him the money....so much for giving them what they want, eh?

Next, let's look at the misconception that you don't need a firearm around the house or to carry a firearm.

As the man climbed store shelves to disable the security camera, Milan said, she limped across the street to her home, where her younger sister and brother answered her frantic knocks. (emphasis mine again)

She lived across the street from the store. Violent crime occurs most frequently near a person's home. Very few violent crimes occur more than 50 miles from a person's home. So carrying at home or at work makes sense. Especially if you work in a retail business like this unfortunate victim.

In 2005 -

• The location of about a quarter of incidents of violent crime was at or near the victim's home. Among common locales for violent crimes were on streets other than those near the victim's home (19%), at school (12%), or at a commercial establishment (8%).
  
  
• For violent crime, about half occurred within a mile from home and 76% within five miles. Only 4% of victims of violent crime reported that the crime took place more than fifty miles from their home.
  
  
• Of victims of violent crime, 22% were involved in some form of leisure activity away from home at the time of their victimization, 22% said they were at home, and another 20% mentioned they were at work or traveling to or from work when the crime occurred.
  

So, tell me again why it makes sense to make it HARDER for the average person to keep and bear arms? Did the lack of a firearm prevent this thug from savagely attacking the store clerk?

Was she better off with or without a firearm? Did just complying with the demands of a violent thug keep her safer?

I realize this is an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote isn't data but in the long run aren't we talking about individual rights?

By the way, here is the current crime map for the area of the attack. Doesn't appear this is an isolated incident. Here is the link to the crime map

By the way, the attack took place in the area where my wife works.

Please join the discussion

Conversations in the Car

To steal a theme from Lawyer with a Gun

My wife's response when I noted she was a little cranky this morning.

"Since I've working out and dieting, I've decided that I am a tired, hungry, angry, white woman bitterly clinging to her guns and religion....and what little food allowed by the diet."

One of the thousands of reasons why I love her.

Stay tuned for a Location Change

I will probably be moving to WordPress and my own domain name here in the very near future.

My tech savvy Marine son has set me up with all the works.

I'll let him explain it in his own words

I am InfamousMetal (webname) and i have set this blog up for my nOOb step dad who just started blogging. I have my own Web server and as a late fathers day gift i set him up his own blog because i really don't like blogspot anyway.

Not quite the nOOb, he says...but very cool.

So, I've been working behind the scenes at Wordpress to learn my way around...and soon will start moving to the new digs.

Pretty special kid, isn't he?

Ethics of weapon use by Oleg Volk

Repost with permission -- if you aren't checking out Oleg's work, you are missing much.

Imagine a child playing in a backyard sandbox. The child's parent observes a viper about to bite the child. Acting quickly, he picks up the snake and tosses it gently into the distant bushes. No harm done to the snake or the child. Was that action ethical?

Now consider the speed with which the man would have had to act to safeguard the kid and to avoid getting bitten in turn. The snake probably landed roughly and was injured or killed by the impact. The man used his hands as a weapon to stop the snake from biting and, as a side effect of stopping it, caused it harm. Was that action ethical?

Would your answer change if the man throws a rock, or uses a stick? What about a hoe or a shovel, both gardening tools but used as weapons? The outcome to the child would be the same, as would be the outcome to the snake. Still ethical?

Now imagine that the father was too far from the snake to keep it from biting his child by throwing a rock. Maybe the father is old or infirm and not very good at throwing stones accurately. Could he ethically use a crossbow or a rifle to stop the snake from harming his kid?

Now, let's back up to the first hypothetical. The viper is only half-day to the sandbox, it gets picked up and tossed gently...into the sandbox with the child. Angry, it strikes and bites at once. The same human hands were used as a weapons, but was the use ethical? Would the use of a stick to goad the snake towards the sandbox have been any better?

Tools don't matter. Actions with them do.

Let's imagine another situation, the kind quite common in many restrictive jurisdictions. The same man sees the same snake in readiness to strike. He is too far to reach with his hands, or with a stick or a rock. A rifle would have saved the day, but it is forbidden to him...or locked up in a safe according to the legal requirements. The delay is fatal. Who bears the legal responsibility for the delay? No one. But what of the ethical responsibility?

Would the ethics of the situation change if the threat to the child is not a snake but a rabid, feral dog? How about a rogue human? Unlike animals, humans are presumed to be capable of ethical behavior -- those who are not are termed sociopaths. So a human who knows better than preying on other humans decided to do so anyway and attacks the kid: must the parent be limited to his bare hands in stopping the aggression? For a martial artist in his prime, that may be possible, though perilous. The attacker would still suffer physical harm. Would that be ethical?

Would a stick be allowed for the defender? A rock? A piece of pipe? A sword? A crossbow? A pistol? So long as the intent is ethical, in this case prevention of harm to an innocent, what does it matter if the attacker is hit with a two-pound rock or a quarter-ounce bullet?

Tools don't matter. Actions with them do.

"But we don't mean to disarm the law-abiding!" say those who disagree with my conclusions. Whatever they meant to do is less important than what they actually do. They can only disarm the law-abiding, as the rest wouldn't play along. Moreover, "law-abiding" is not a compliment when the laws are harmful to decent humans and thus not worthy of obedience. Laws that disarm force decent, peaceful humans to choose between putting themselves and their families at additional risk of victimization by freelance criminals for lack of defensive tools (including, in some times and places, even sticks) or retaining arms and risking imprisonment or death at the hands of the law enforcers. Forcing people into such a dilemma is hardly ethical.

Punishment of needlessly violent behavior is ethical. However, capability for violent behavior cannot be prosecuted. Even a man stripped naked, deprived of all tools or weapons, has the capability for violence. He can punch, kick or bite. He kick pick up another person and drop him. Except for infants, people in straight-jackets or quadripalegics, all others are capable of physical violence. The use or, more frequently, abstinence from violence are governed by the upbringing and the personality of each individual.

So how can we ethically justify employing threats of violence (in the form of law enforcement) to disarm peaceful individuals? We frown on armed robbery by individuals, why condone the same when done by groups operating under the color of the law?

Another consideration is the reduction of law enforcement effectiveness in disarmed countries. A person made less secure by legal disarmament would naturally view law enforcement agencies as enemies and withhold cooperation. Without widespread cooperation, police would be much less effective than in areas where it has popular support. Even those who view police favorably are still deprived of effective protection. Of course, legally "police protection" is a misnomer. There's no legal duty to protect individuals, only to uphold the laws for the society at large. Which brings us back to the ethics of depriving individuals of the means of self-protection while providing no bodyguards to compensate.

Providing bodyguards to everyone is a logical impossibility. Who guards the family of the bodyguard assigned to yours? Even assuming some magical source of bodyguards, what of the loss of privacy from having a stranger next to you at all times? In the old days, slaves were used for such purpose -- no one minded the loss of privacy to slaves, as they were hardly more than beasts or pets to the owners. Is that an ethical alternative to simply letting everyone take care of their own security?


"But I don't want to live like that!" Many people prefer to go unarmed. To them, the slight reduction of risk is not worth the effort or they find the armed lifestyle distasteful. That's a perfectly ethical position. Forcing others to do likewise would not be.

Please join the discussion

Militia Training or Youthful Fun

I post you decide. Is this the youth training program for a "well-regulated" militia or just a group of young men having fun while learning to use different arms.

A favorite merit badge of just about every Scout is Rifle shooting. Summer camp is the first time many young men learn to safely use firearms. The Scouts are mostly limited to single shot bolt action .22s at camp, but that doesn't seem to matter to them.
(click to enlarge all pics)

(this picture courtesy of the York Adams Area Council Camp Tuckahoe)


Occasionally, Scouts get the opportunity to fire blackpowder rifles. I believe these are inline models. I'm sure someone can tell me exactly which ones, but I never knew.

The other staple of just about every Summer camp is Archery. These two shots actually are of my boys a couple years ago.





Most Camporees have a theme with differing Scout activities worked into the weekend as events.

Here Scouts learn some more uncommon weapon systems; blow guns and the Atlatl.




Knife throwing is an event that is a favorite (even for the Adults) that can be used in many different themes. I think these came from a Native American theme.




Tomahawk or hatchet throwing is another fun event. In all the times I've seen it as an event, I've not seen or heard of a single injury due to unsafe practices.



While the tactical and practical are usually highlighted, Scouting offers many chances to learn strategy, from "Capture the Flag" to Sock War shown below.

The socks are filled with a cup of flour that acts as a marker when the Scout is "hit", greatly reducing the "you missed me factor". The hit is usually quite visible. Normally the a different troop referees for the opposing troops, keeping the play fair.




Of course, the Scouters have to set the example where they can.





Please note that safety is a huge concern and priority at every Scouting activity. The Scouts receive safety instruction at every event. There are Range Officers and people in control of the activities to insure no injuries.

So, what do you think? Foundation and youth training for a Well Regulated Militia or just Young Men having fun........or both?

Please join the discussion.

Manipulated Statistics

Not here in America....but the land of gun controlled Australia (hat tip to Strange Justice)

SENIOR police say they are being forced to "fudge" reports, and test drivers for drink-driving at times and places they know few offenders will be caught, to manipulate crime statistics.

Officers from at least three Local Service Areas have told AdelaideNow it is common for reports to be manipulated and for traffic blitzes to be held to improve statistics and meet specific targets

It is not just alcohol related traffic incidents that are being manipulated but think about that. We often compare firearms to cars and here is a systematic attempt to lessen the crime rates for drunk driving; that over inflates the impact that firearm related crimes.

Crime statistics are analysed daily from police incident reports (PIRs) and one senior officer has described how reports are commonly manipulated to keep crime statistics lower and apprehension rates higher.

"Say a car gets broken into and something gets stolen," the officer said. "Rather than two charges, illegal interference and theft, it just gets entered as a theft – one charge.

"If we happen to stumble across someone who'd broken into a car, then they would get charged with both, so your statistics show your crime rate lower, but your apprehension rate being high."

In offences with multiple victims, the victims are often grouped or become witnesses and the matter is entered as one incident report

Now, why would the law enforcement agencies want to lower the apparent crime rate? Perhaps it would reflect badly on their performance. Perhaps it would reflect badly on the laws they have passed, including the ones that work to disarm the population. Perhaps if people knew how bad crime really was, they might want to have firearms to defend themselves and their property, eh?

One person told AdelaideNow one management directive was to redirect schoolyard assaults back to the school so they were not recorded as crimes.

"That way the LSA can claim a downturn in assaults," the person wrote.

Hmm, sounds much like what the United Kingdom has been doing for decades with their numbers.

Crime statistics at one of Britain's most beleaguered police forces are being manipulated by detectives, who are under pressure to record burglaries and robberies as lesser offences to meet targets for cutting some of the most feared crimes.

Serving officers in the Nottinghamshire police force have revealed to The Telegraph the techniques they use to help manipulate the headline crime figures, enabling Steve Green, the Chief Constable, to claim that he is winning the battle to combat burglary and robbery....

A former head of CID with Nottinghamshire police has also claimed that incidents of gun crime have deliberately not been logged by the force, effectively halving its number of recorded shootings.

Retired Det Supt Peter Coles said last night: "I know for a fact there have been incidents of gun crime which have not been recorded. People have turned up at hospital with a gunshot wound and told the police to go away because more often than not there is a disinclination among villains to pursue the matter. Despite the fact that there has obviously been a shooting, the crime has not been recorded by the force."...

In a separate development, crimes which would formerly have been recorded as attempted burglaries, and therefore been included in overall statistics for burglary, are now being logged as criminal damage.

Where an effort has been made by a criminal to force an entry, such as by jemmying a door or window, it is being marked down only for the damage caused to the property. The figures for criminal damage are also far less likely to attract adverse publicity than those for burglary, a crime which inspires a high level of fear in the general public.

Mr Coles said: "The offence of attempted burglary is virtually non-existent in the figures now. If someone contacts the police in Nottinghamshire now to say that a burglar has tried to get into their home, with a window broken but nothing stolen, that will go down in the Nottinghamshire figures as criminal damage."...

And yet some people have trouble believing that the crime rate in the United Kingdom is higher, nearly 4 times higher than that of America.

Troll of the Day Award

Folks, we have a first (but I'm sure not to be last) 2, that is right TWO time winner of the coveted TROLL OF THE DAY AWARD.

This win pushes the Candidate ahead in the standings for the first Annual Troll of the Year Award.

Today's winner is once again MikeB302000 -- long time friend of criminals and foe of the law abiding.

How do I reach that startling statement? After reading his blog for a long time, seeing him defend criminals time and time again while attacking the law abiding. Nearly every defensive gun use is meet with derision and doubt, questions about legality and cover ups.


Background information -- MikeB estimates that has many as 10% of law abiding gun owners are criminals or criminals in waiting. That would be about 8,000,000 gun owners folks . Even though the Bureau of Justice Statistics only show a total of 500,000 or so firearm related crimes a year and the FBI estimates that 80% of crime is gang/drug trade related.

This comment puts MikeB over the top for today's award.

mikeb302000 said...

Reputo asked, "So are we to believe that you are under the impression that 10% of police officers shouldn't be police officers?"

Actually I would guess it's far higher among the police.

Your example of how few actually get dismissed misses a point I've made a few times now. The 10% folks are not all committing crimes. These are people who shouldn't have guns because the possibility that they will misuse their guns is just too high. You remember my categories.

(Emphasis mine)

Get that Folks? Instead of waiting for people to misuse their firearms---that is actually commit a crime, MikeB thinks they should be disarmed because the POSSIBILITY that they will misuse their firearms is just too high!!!

Never mind waiting until people break the law, never mind due process, never mind that MikeB pulled his 10% out of a body orifice normally kept concealed from public view-- just the possibility of misuse is enough in his opinion to disarm people.

Obligatory Independence Day Post

Being new to blogging, I realize there are certain occasions that must be marked with a post. Independence Day is one such.

Many people have talked about the Declaration and rightly so, it is a document worth everyone talking about.

I have a slightly different take today; based on something many others have noticed about celebrating today.

I'm sitting here listening to a few (or more) of my neighbors violating the law....and I don't mind. They are shooting off a variety of fireworks instead of "leaving it to the professionals".

I think that is the major, fundamental difference between those who want more and bigger government and those that don't. It may be safer to leave fireworks to the professionals, but it isn't as much fun, nor do I believe it is in the spirit of the holiday.

See our government...that which is "OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, and BY THE PEOPLE" wasn't founded by professionals. There were no professional rebels, just average citizens deciding they had enough.

Read the Declaration, pay attention to the first line

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another

Not "when it becomes necessary for one government to take action" not "when it becomes necessary for one colony to dissolve",not "when it becomes necessary for professional rebels to act"....just people.

The people who want big government are the people who want the professionals to handle everything. The people who want big government are the people who want to reduce individual risk...who want to make the world safe. These are the people who forget the country wasn't founded by professional.

There are people who want to make their own decisions, risk their lives, their fortunes, their health. These are the people who remember how the country was founded.

The people who wrote that Declaration, the Constitution, and founded the country didn't wait for the government to solve problems nor did they wait for the professionals.

For those tempted to forget how the country was founded...look further in that incredible statement by the people.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Enjoy the Holiday...enjoy the fireworks, but remember the reason we celebrate.

Debunking availability pt 4

Tell me again how firearms are making America the "most violent" developed country?

Tell me again how gun control will reduce violence.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it is revealed today.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

United Kingdom - worse rate for all types of VIOLENCE than the USA. United Kingdom with just about every imaginable gun control law...and it is more violent than America...how is that possible.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Not just a little more violent....but over 4 times as violent as the gun filled USA.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

In America, it is considered to be simple assault so the numbers are a fair comparison. Since these are rates per 100,000 people, it is also a fair comparison.


As I've said repeatedly, it isn't the tool that makes the difference. Let's work on reducing the causes of violent crime, let's work on keeping those who commit violent crimes in prison, let's work on letting people be able legally defend themselves without myriad of hassles to do so.

Those things will reduce violent crime, not gun control.
(h/t to SayUncle)

A tale of two people

Just an interesting tidbit from this article Federal agents hunt for guns, one house at a time

Near the end of the story about how the ATF agents are going door to door following up on "suspicious" firearm purchases.

Another tip took agents on a 30-minute drive from the shack to a sprawling home with a pool in the back and an American flag out front.

It turned out two handguns, of a type drug gangsters prefer, were bought by a pastor for target practice.

Some stories, they say, are hard to believe.

The lamest so far came from a police officer: He said he bought a few military-style rifles, left them in his car and — on the same night — forgot to lock a door. He couldn’t explain why he didn’t file a police report or why he visited Mexico the day after the alleged theft.

And just who gets exemptions from most firearm laws? Would it be the private citizen or the law enforcement officers?

Clements Scout Ranch

There are some places that simply refuse to change. For some of us, one of those places is Camp Cherokee at Clements Scout Ranch in Athens Texas, a very scenic place for a Summer Camp

I wish I had the skill to describe the beauty of the camp, the way it appears to be a movie studio set of what people think a summer camp should look like...but I don't so I hope the pictures do the camp justice.

At the parking lot, looking at the Perryman Lake, the largest of the 3 lakes on the property.

Two views of the Chow Hall, this is the same Chow Hall I ate in as a young Scout in the 70s.
This building was torn down last year and a new two story, airconditioned building replaced it. Note the open sites which were wide enough for a breeze to cool the place...if there ever was a breeze.

On Thursdays, the camp has family days and does a fairly decent barbeque, moving the benches and tables from the Chow Hall out into the area next to it called the Pines.

The camp is large enough that the staff area is well separated from the Troop areas. This is a shot looking across the lake at the Staff Camp. Their tents have electricity and are larger, of course, they live in them for about 6 weeks.

Want to make any Scout or Scouter nostalagic? Heat up some old canvas...old musty canvas. The tents are made to last....I think may have used the same tent as a kid and as an adult.

Of course, everyone remembers the latrines. Clements improved most of their facilities years ago to include flush toilets in most of the sites and every latrine actually had a water heater for hot water. In the summer that wasn't needed in the afternoon, but a morning shower definitely needed it. The Camp has actually built larger multi-troop shower/latrine facilities to augment the site capabilities.

I have pictures of the different activity areas that I'll post another day. Hope you've enjoyed this trip down memory lane. I've been to enough Summer Camps to know this is fairly representative of the beauty of Scout Camps.