Because only the cops should have guns

My deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Andrea Rubello

from The Blaze

MINEOLA, N.Y. (TheBlaze/AP) — Authorities say a police officer’s bullet killed a New York college student during the response to a home invasion at an off-campus home.

A young N.Y. woman was taken captive by Smith a large black male criminal on parole from a first degree robbery conviction.   

Smith, of Hempstead, Long Island, had been arrested for robbery in the first degree in 1999, promoting prison contraband in the second degree in 2000, robbery in the first degree in 2003, assault in the second degree in 2003 and robbery in the second degree in 2003, police said.

Given his record one might wonder what sort of MORON would parole him, let alone a group of MORONS  But then we're talking about N.Y. where creating victims is the goal.  
 
So in the target rich environment of  Gun Free New York where only the cops should have gun, The gun toting cop rushes in to the rescue. Smith, using the girl as a shield apparently aims a gun at the cop. 

But Wait - he's a criminal, on parole, with a GUN oh my god we need more GUN control.  Because obviously letting violent career criminals out on parole is the correct course of action.   Just think how bad this would have turned out if the people in the house were armed, I mean the home invader would have undoubtedly taken those guns and used them against the victims home owners.  Must be a gun control problem.  Everything is a gun control problem.  

So, the home invader points a gun at the cop, and the cop in typical N.Y. fashion starts shooting.   Now I don't know how many shots were fired but given the 85% miss rate which seems typical of N.Y. cops, I'm betting it was more than the 7 that hit Smith and the ONE that killed the girl.  Ah, did you notice (see quote at the top) that it was a bullet that killed the girl and not a gun? Because cop guns don't kill people, bullets do. It wasn't the cop, it was the Bullet. 

Now you have to wonder at the wisdom of shooting at a man who is using a woman as a shield, but at 15 feet or less, I'd have probably taken the shot.  Shot - not 8+ shots.   I don't want to second guess someone in a situation that stressful, but training kicks in - or at least we're told by cops, the military, and professional trainers that it does.  So I suspect if you've trained to empty your magazine every time you pull the trigger and you're only concerned with hitting a Silhouette Target, then perhaps this outcome was inevitable.  Given the statistics of New York's finest when the guns come out, emptying the magazine - and we're not talking about what they let the citizens use - where talking about the 18 round type - is the norm.   I suspect the cop feels worse than I've ever felt in my entire life.  This is where I believe we need to make the people responsible pay the price for their actions.

The parole board who let that SOB out should be facing charges, not being a lawyer I'm not sure what those charges should be, but criminal negligence, and contributing to the death of citizen should be close.  The cop should be looking at involuntary man slaughter with extenuating circumstances, and the NYPD should be looking at criminal negligence in training.  The Bloomberg and the rest of the politicians should be facing charges for turning the honest citizens of N.Y. into victims.

Moral to the story:
Don't count on the cops to save your ass - you're just another target.
Carry a Gun - the criminals do.
A masked person breaks into your house, Shoot Them BEFORE they or the cops shoot you.
Practice - Small Targets.   Don't rush, just like driving - slow is smooth, smooth is fast.  Fast comes with repetition.   Practice with hostage targets, Practice with small targets, and when your done, practice some more.  
(Yeah I know practice is particularly difficult right now, since ammo is so friggen hard to come by.   So practice with Dry-Fire.)

Wanted

Wanted:  A country that supports property ownership and property rights.   In theory I own property - in reality I rent it.

Wanted: A country that respects the right to carry arms, and respects the individual. It maybe a right but it's treated like a privilege that I have to pay for, and one that a lot of folks want to take away.

Wanted: A country that hasn't decided that Logic, Common Sense, and Facts are thing of no value. Which is what 60+% of my country has decided.

Wanted: A country that respects privacy.

Wanted: A country that values productivity.

Wanted: A society that understands when it's being lied to and doesn't fall for it.

Something tells me I'm going to be left wanting - because as near as I can tell that describes absolutely no place on Earth.

Unions and Government

I can't say I'm even the least bit surprised with the IRS scandal.   We know the Unions don't like Republicans, and they HATE the TEA party. So why would anyone be surprised that the NTEU (National Treasury Employees Union) - a Liberal union that uses IRS employee money in the form of union dues to support anti TEA party candidates, use it's power over it's member to screw with TEA party and other conservative groups.  Oh sure, it will be individual members who take the fall, but that's just the way it's done.   People lower on the totem pole always take the fall for their bosses - sometimes they even get compensated for it.

I'm not convinced Obama knew anything about it, but you can bet his appointee to the federal salary council, Colleen Kelley knew.  Being the president of the Union that spent almost $550,000 of union member dues on Democratic candidates fighting TEA party candidates, how could she not.     

I'm not really even surprised that the Main Stream Media is covering it, after all, it takes space away from the Benghazi investigation.  So, maybe Obama did know - hard to say.

What I will say is this:  Mixing Unions and Government is a BAD idea.  Right up there with mixing Religion and Government.  I've talked to enough union people to know some treat the union as if it were a religion, and I suppose if someone made sure I got benefits
 that no one outside of a union would ever even consider reasonable, I might think that way too.... Nah, I have too much self respect for that.

Lowering the bar - Alot.

So, they've decided to charge SCPOS#34* with using WMD's - yep Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Apparently Saddam did have WMD's but then with this new definition, so does everyone else.

I suppose it fits in with calling Libertarians extremists and potential terrorists.  Or, well, anyone who disagrees with the Obamasiah and his fellow progressives. 


* SCPOS#34 - Scumbag, Cowardly Piece of Shit: Awhile back I decided to never mention the actual names of the glory seeking morons who commit atrocities - so they get numbers.  SCPOS#23 died a few nights ago in Boston, SCPOS#12 offed himself in CT awhile back. Forgot about SCPOS#1 from Colorado (probably because I'm trying to forget about Colorado as well).

The Stupidity Market

I'm not sure who decided having a citizenry of idiots was a good idea, perhaps it was the lawyers, maybe it was the politicians.  When you want to know why the market for something grows,  you need to look for the incentives or disincentives.  In the case of stupidity, it's growing steadily - but why?

Lawyers make it profitable by suing companies because they failed to tell you not to do something incredibly stupid with their product, for example - using your rotary mower as a hedge trimmer.

Health care has lowered the risk of doing something stupid by getting to the point where they can fix things that stupid people do to them selves.

Politicians incentivise stupidity by offering free money to lazy people.

So what's the down side to stupidity?   At the moment, it would seem there is almost none.  It's profitable, it's easy, and the risks are very low.    Don't expect a market like that to do anything except grow.

Can't we just all agree

Obama doesn't like to use the term Terrorist, although his supporter seem to be fine with it when they can link it (no facts required). To the right.  Everyone seems to like the term perhaps more than they should.

So My definition of terrorism agrees with Krauthammers:

A politically motivated attack on civilian targets.

Now keep in mind, when your talking about a theocracy, religion is politics.  This is where things get messy.   So if the religious motivation is to spread, force agreement with, or cause fear of a religious ideology, it's political.  When you start screwing with people who are not of your faith, it's political.  Screw with people of your own faith - it might be politics or it might be doctrinal. 

There's one point here where Krauthammer and I part ways.

And here the president faces a challenge. Will Obama level with the American people and use the word? His administration obsessively adopts language that extirpates any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. It insists on calling jihadists “violent extremists” without ever telling us what they’re extreme about. It even classified the Fort Hood shooting, in which the killer screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered 13 people, as “workplace violence.”
In a speech just last month in Jerusalem, the president referred to the rising tide of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists as the rise of “non-secular parties.”
Non-secular? Isn’t that a euphemism for “religious,” i.e., Islamist?
Yet Obama couldn’t say the word. This is no linguistic triviality. He wouldn’t be tripping over himself to avoid any reference to Islam if it was insignificant.

(emphasis - mine)

Since Fort Hood was a military target, and the attacker a military person, I would classify that as an act of war and Major Nidal Hasan as a traitor.   The inability to point to the globe and say - it was them - is irrelevant. The rest of it? Yep, I agree.

So was Boston a terror attack.  Sadly I think I jumped too soon in an earlier post.  I added Serbian err Chechen + Islam + possible jihaddist + civilian attack and came up with - YES.  It's really a reserved Probably. Maybe all those people being able to run that distance aggravated a feeling of inferiority (probably not).  

I'm not sure why some folks seem to think jumping to Terrorist is useful.  Maybe it's because we know what to do with a terrorist, but a mentally ill person is harder. I do agree with Krauthammer about Benghazi - there was no doubt when that story broke what was really happening so, yes absolutely.


Do I care if Obama used the word Terrorist or Terrorism? No because he really had no way of knowing, and at the time of writing this, I still don't think it's 100% clear (just highly probable) so as much I really dislike the guy, I'm not going to fault him on that point. 

The Problem with Speculating on events

So Borepatch put this up.   I'm not even a tiny bit surprised by any of those comments. 

So Judson Phillips @ Tea Party Nation is spouting facts that aren't. 

So the Huff Post responds with it's own crap

The statement on the website claims these kind of terrorist attacks will happen again, sooner rather than later, because the enemy is determined, and because "we have a government that is not committed to protecting America." The statement goes on to say it's "a pretty safe bet right now that this attack was carried out by an Islamist. ... [O]ur government is not committed to destroying our enemy. Radical Islam is our enemy."
Despite early reports of a mysterious "Saudi national" possibly involved with the bombing, no credible evidence currently links the Boston explosions to Al Qaeda or Islam.
That, of course, has not stopped groups like Tea Party Nation from making the connection themselves. In the aftermath of the attack, Tea Party Nation's opinions were echoed by noted anti-Islam advocate Pamela Geller, who took her own unsubstantiated views to social media:

OK so Tea-Party Nation says something unsubstantiated and gets taken to task by Huff, but the crap spouted by Moore, Mohr, NPR and company is fine.
 
There still is no link between the attack and AL-Qaeda, regardless of  what CBS reports and Al-Qaeda may wish for.   The information so far does not support this.  So why the hell speculate.  When your wrong, it makes you look as stupid as NPR, Michael Moore and, Jay Mohr.  

You're all Idiots.   Stop being in such a hurry to be WRONG.

You want to know why the divide between the right and left is growing? Because the media supports that divide, it sells Simulated News-Like Entertainment©.  This crap is accomplished on both sides by spewing speculative garbage as if it were fact, then counting on the emotional leverage, but also counting on the actual statements to be forgotten if they happen to be wrong.    Yeah, well the Internet Never Forgets.   Congratulations your a Moron for All Eternity.