Monday, July 15, 2013
Nugent on Trayvon on Zimmerman...
The best analysis of the Zimmerman verdict (and the reactions to it) was given by Ted Nugent:
http://rare.us/story/nugent-zimmerman-verdict-vindicates-citizen-patrols-self-defense/
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
DHS: the New "Duck and Cover"
The Department of Homeland Insecurity has released a video, "Surviving an Active Shooter":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcnA_Cq_Csk
This is the logical next step to Senator Dianne Feinstein's preferred option for all of us when confronted with an active shooter, namely, to cower and die in place while waiting for "the authorities." When asked after the Colorado theater shooting, wouldn't it be better if one or more of the trapped, unarmed victims in the "gun free" theater had been carrying a gun, she replied that, well, then you'd have a gunfight on your hands. And nobody wants that! Instead, a populace of helpless sheeple being slaughtered somehow makes her sleep better at night than the idea that armed citizens could deter or stop a criminal attack.
DHS should have saved some of our taxpayers' money and used this South Park clip instead:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149714/duck-cover
Notably absent from the emotional gun control debate in Congress is any mention of empirical evidence. Enter a study "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns" by two distinguished economists, and now you'll understand why armed criminals prefer to prey on people who they know must be unarmed (i.e. the residents of Chicago, New York, D.C., or any other "gun-free" zone).
Read the study here: http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gunslott.html
Or just read Ann Coulter's summary of the study in one of her recent columns (quoted below):
"Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws."
It's your choice: duck and cover and die... or own a gun.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Women in Combat
The Pentagon this week removed restrictions from women serving in combat.
Insofar as this is a recognition that there are no front lines for an occupying army fighting a counterinsurgency, and therefore all troops are at risk, then the Pentagon's decision merely acknowledges what has been reality for the last decade.
However, it is another matter entirely to suggest that this decision should allow women into combat units like infantry and special forces.
First, why are there no women playing against men in the National Football League or the National Hockey League? Is it perhaps because they would get knocked down and trampled with relative ease? Then we should think twice before letting women into an infantry fight.
This week on television I listened to a retired fleet admiral talk about how great a female pilot did, and therefore combat occupational specialties like infantry and special forces should be opened to G.I. Jane. I also listened to a retired female Air Force pilot make a similar argument, that she finished a triathlon faster than many men did, and therefore she should be allowed into a combat unit. These points are wholly irrelevant. Go prove yourself in the NFL or NHL first, before you risk getting our infantryman and special operators killed.
But put the entire argument about physical strength and endurance aside. There is a more important reason not to allow women into infantry and special forces, and it is barely ever mentioned.
When women and men serve together in close quarters over long periods, it is inevitable that romantic relationships develop. It is human nature. There is nothing wrong with this, except that political correctness demands we ignore human nature. The problem is that romantic relationships, or even a romantic attraction that is not acted upon or returned, undermines good order and discipline within a combat unit. Favoritism by any leader at any level, or even the appearance of or suspicion of favoritism, destroys unit morale and cohesion.
For combat units to be effective under the worst conditions imaginable, for leaders to be trusted by their soldiers to show no favoritism when it comes time to choose which soldier must walk point into the minefield, there can be no possibility of romantic entanglements. The chain of command must operate without distraction and without being questioned.
Women can serve in combat. They can fly aircraft, drive ships, serve on the ground in many occupations -- but they must not serve in infantry or special forces. The relatively few armies that allow women into infantry units (and some, like Israel, only let that occur in reserve units in the rear) are often pointed to as examples for us to follow. But put their infantry alongside ours, and guess who always performs better in the field?
We do. Let's keep it that way.
Insofar as this is a recognition that there are no front lines for an occupying army fighting a counterinsurgency, and therefore all troops are at risk, then the Pentagon's decision merely acknowledges what has been reality for the last decade.
However, it is another matter entirely to suggest that this decision should allow women into combat units like infantry and special forces.
First, why are there no women playing against men in the National Football League or the National Hockey League? Is it perhaps because they would get knocked down and trampled with relative ease? Then we should think twice before letting women into an infantry fight.
This week on television I listened to a retired fleet admiral talk about how great a female pilot did, and therefore combat occupational specialties like infantry and special forces should be opened to G.I. Jane. I also listened to a retired female Air Force pilot make a similar argument, that she finished a triathlon faster than many men did, and therefore she should be allowed into a combat unit. These points are wholly irrelevant. Go prove yourself in the NFL or NHL first, before you risk getting our infantryman and special operators killed.
But put the entire argument about physical strength and endurance aside. There is a more important reason not to allow women into infantry and special forces, and it is barely ever mentioned.
When women and men serve together in close quarters over long periods, it is inevitable that romantic relationships develop. It is human nature. There is nothing wrong with this, except that political correctness demands we ignore human nature. The problem is that romantic relationships, or even a romantic attraction that is not acted upon or returned, undermines good order and discipline within a combat unit. Favoritism by any leader at any level, or even the appearance of or suspicion of favoritism, destroys unit morale and cohesion.
For combat units to be effective under the worst conditions imaginable, for leaders to be trusted by their soldiers to show no favoritism when it comes time to choose which soldier must walk point into the minefield, there can be no possibility of romantic entanglements. The chain of command must operate without distraction and without being questioned.
Women can serve in combat. They can fly aircraft, drive ships, serve on the ground in many occupations -- but they must not serve in infantry or special forces. The relatively few armies that allow women into infantry units (and some, like Israel, only let that occur in reserve units in the rear) are often pointed to as examples for us to follow. But put their infantry alongside ours, and guess who always performs better in the field?
We do. Let's keep it that way.
David Mamet deconstructs Communism and Gun Control
... and you thought he was just a playwright:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
