Now It's Going to Get Interesting

I was browsing online news headlines last evening and it's being widely reported that Jerry Falwell, Jr., the president of Liberty University has suggested that students twenty-one years and older should consider legally arming themselves and carry their weapons with them. The idea is that if licensed gun owners are sitting in a classroom that is targeted to become the next shooting gallery, those gun owners can take out the perps before they wipe out the entire classroom.

Now, on one hand, I agree with this. The idea of trained and qualified gun owners - people who use their weapons for something more than a conversation piece - being mixed in with the innocents who would otherwise be targets for the shooters, is appealing.

After all, guess what: if you fly on domestic American airlines on major routes, chances are you are sharing that airspace with people sitting there with a concealed weapon. They're called air marshals and are there to ensure that flights aren't high-jacked by loons. If someone stands up mid-flight and starts threatening to blow the plane to Kingdom Come, those marshals (usually in pairs separated across the seating area) are supposed to stand up and take that shooter or bomber out before he can act. There are two for redundancy. One might be killed or wounded and the other becomes the fail-safe. In theory. I've never heard of a case where it's happened, but I know they're there.

The deal with that though is that those people are trained. They had to qualify for the job by showing proficient handling of their weapon in order to be entrusted as a wolf among the sheeple.

It's the same concept on the university campus, except they're not requiring these students or staff who might carry their licensed weapon to show proficiency in using it. What is amusing though is that there's a contradiction in what was said and what the policy actually contains. But I'm sure that it's going to get straightened out when one of those edumacated people on the university board spots that contradiction.

Students are encouraged to carry their weapons, but they're not allowed to carry them in class or the dorms. Hmm.  Is this a version of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the 1990's? Do it but don't tell me about it? Maybe.

So the talking heads on all the news stations are throwing their hands up in terror, crying "foul"! It's become political in that Hilliary Clinton and all sorts of other left-wing pols are talking about what a bad idea this is, as if it's unique. But it's not.

No, really, it's not.  Here's a list of other universities that allow students and staff to have weapons (and the pols and talking heads aren't talking about these):

Examples of other institutions permitting students and others to have concealed weapons with state permit and/or campus police permission: 

Colorado

• UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
• COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
• Aims Community College
• Arapahoe Community College
• Colorado Northwestern Community College
• Community College of Aurora
• Community College of Denver
• Front Range Community College
• Lamar Community College
• Morgan Community College
• Northeastern Junior College
• Otero Junior College
• Pikes Peak Community College
• Pueblo Community College
• Red Rocks Community College
• Trinidad State Junior College

 Michigan

• Michigan State University*

 MISSISSIPPI

• University of MISSISSIPPI

 Utah

• University of Utah
• Utah State University
• Southern Utah University
• Utah Valley University
• Weber State University
• Dixie State College of Utah
• College of Eastern Utah
• Snow College
• Salt Lake Community College

 *Doing a bit more reading to ensure the accuracy of this information, University of Michigan does not allow students or staff to carry weapons on campus. They filed a suit against the State of Michigan which prohibits any entity but the state legislature from passing gun bans and, just last week, won the case.

Otherwise, the above list is "lifted" straight from here:

http://www.liberty.edu/administration/lupd/index.cfm?PID=4153

Interesting reading, huh?

A key point is that the individual must have a concealed carry permit allowing them to carry their weapon concealed - out of plain view. Meaning they can carry it in a backpack or book bag, in a holster on their belt or under their arm, or via some other concealed means.

So, while the left runs in circles crying in fear the people who have concealed carry permits will go about their business.

An interesting question this raises for me is: How long will it take for people who are frightened by the mere thought of a gun to become curious? If these people start seeing other people carrying their weapons and seeing that these other people aren't doing anyone any harm, how long will it take for them to stop thinking emotionally and start thinking rationally? After all, "what if" is a good question to ask because it raises other points.

What if two or three of the people in the room at the San Bernardino building that was shot up last week had been armed? What if they had acted? What if one of the shooters had been taken out almost as soon as they fired off the first round? What if they had been confronted, right out of the gate by two or three armed "sheeple"?

It probably wouldn't have ended as it did. With one down and one to go, I'd bet that second shooter wouldn't have waited around to see what happened next. Once the cohort was on the ground, wounded or dead, the first shooter would either have dropped their weapon or turned tail and run. Yes, it's possible they would have turned and fired at the individual thought to be responsible for taking out the cohort, but that would provide a clear shot for the other wolves amongst the herd and perp two might well be taken out.

Instead of fourteen dead plus the two shooters, maybe it would have been five or seven dead plus the two shooters. It's still a horrific death toll, but much better for the families who might have gotten their loved ones back upright and whole instead of lying flat in a box.

I just hope that this idea spreads. Along with the requirement and expectation that if you are going to carry your weapon - open or concealed - that you will undergo hands-on training by a certified instructor. I would also like to see a requirement that anyone who wants to carry must take regularly scheduled refresher courses and pass them, and complete a minimum number of hours each year on a licensed firing range.

No matter. This is not something that's going to be resolved soon or easily. With every shooting people get righteously knotted and start screaming to ban weapons. The problem is that the bans and restrictions don't work. Another problem is that without the wolf descendants (sheep dogs) mixed in, the herd (the sheeple) is less protected and the wolves have an easier time of it. They know they won't be challenged and go in with confidence - making their assault easier.

Be safe, watch your back, and think about it.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

I Think We're All Probably Sick and Tired of This

San Bernardino is the latest place where (yep - I'm going to say it so cover the children's eyes) FUCKING MORONS who don't deserve to walk the face of this planet went on a shooting spree. And of course all of the Chicken Littles have thrown their hands up, screaming for still more legislation about gun control.

What they don't get is that we have laws aplenty for controlling firearms. The problem is the bad guys ignore the laws. If the bad guys don't pay attention to the law, how will passing another law or another boatload of laws change anything? It won't. The bad guys will still get guns and will still go out and do bad things.

My attitude toward this stuff is that the bastard who was one of those perps who was shot to death and lay on the street for a couple of hours got precisely what he deserved. I'm pleased to know that the other one died, too. Now at least the taxpayers don't have to support either of them while they wait for their trials, pay for the trials and then pay to keep them in jail until they die of old age.

To say I hate people who do stuff like this is a gross understatement. If you deliberately and knowingly do harm to another human being you are not worthy of living. Period, end of story. And if anyone finds that unpalatable, tough.

Society is forgiving. We have laws that create borders and bounds and living within them really isn't that hard. 99.9% of humanity manages it quite well every single day. It comes down to basic decency: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's simple. Play nice, play by the rules and all will be well.

It's that other 0.1% who cannot live within the rules and who, in my opinion, don't deserve to be here.

Now I know the bleeding hearts will wring their hands - for all the good that will do for the fourteen families who lost loved ones yesterday, or the three who lost family members last Friday in Colorado Springs, or those one-hundred thirty-nine families who lost loved ones in Paris a few weeks ago, and all the others down the decades.

Is just one of these bastards worth that? No. A resounding NO.

With all of that said, I am sick and tired of the same whining from the left about guns and gun control. I have said it before: what's needed is widespread education about guns and gun safety.

Beyond that, aside from that is what is behind this stuff?

Of that 0.1% who do stuff like this, I think about 99.9% are rational. They know what they're going to do, but don't care. They don't care because they think, probably truly believe, that once they commit the act, they'll get away with it. But what if these vermin knew they might be walking into a place where other people have guns? What if they thought, beforehand, that maybe, just maybe, a few of the people they're targeting might have guns, too? Is it possible they might think twice? I don't think they go in planning to die for whatever cause they think they're advocating. I think they honestly think they'll get away with it.

Another thing that I think is behind this kind of stuff, or if not directly behind it at least alongside it, are the really graphic, violent movies and video games that are so prevalent now. If you see someone blown up, shot, dismembered, eviscerated, or whatever again and again and again, probably thousands of times, it can't help but desensitize you. Your humanity leaks out, a little at a time, because it's not real. If you die in one of those games, your character gets back up, dusts themselves off, and gets to it again. Don't you think that warps reality just a little?

Then, at some point, for some small percentage of gamers, that adrenaline rush just isn't there anymore. They miss it and, of that small percentage, another offshoot decides or chooses to get that rush again - by taking it to the next level.

Look at things like Black Ops and the other graphic shooter games. How many thousands of times do gamers shoot and kill "people" in the video games they play? This is just more intense.

Shooter games are everywhere these days and so are these shootings. Gee, ya think there might be a link?

How many mass shootings were there in America in the 1960's? How about the 1970's? I went to Wikipedia and searched for mass shootings. America is not alone in this - most countries have had at least one in the past century. Most of have several - even in places where guns are banned (which points to gun bans not working, doesn't it?). Here's what I found have happened in the United States*:

*The complete list on Wikipedia, with cross-links, shows Norway, Great Britain, France, Germany, India and most of the other countries around the world. You can view it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings 

The table I've presented here is only for the United States. Take a look at that. Do you see a pattern? Do you see the increasing occurrence of these events year over year since the 1990s when shooter video games first started gaining popularity? I'm not saying that all of these are strictly attributable to video games and gamers, but it is interesting to note that since the 1990s the rate of mass shootings has accelerated.


So - the two perps from yesterday ended up dead, which is the best possible state for them. Sadly, fourteen other people were killed and those fourteen families are grieving today. Those people left behind have no recourse, nothing to put an end to the pain of losing their husband or wife or son or daughter or brother or sister or mother or father or... The other people who were there are probably wondering 'why them and not me?' and beginning the early stages of survivor's guilt - the hopeless round of 'they didn't deserve to die, it should have been me'.

I'll say it again: I think we need more gun education in this country, that firearms in the hands of the sane and rational can be good things, and that we really need to investigate the link between violent video games and movies (like the slasher movies that are so popular among the teens and twenty-somethings), and what happens in real life. I doubt there is no link to be found.

In the meantime, watch your back and be safe!

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories