Recent Posts From Tom Knighton
So-called “zero tolerance” rules have been in schools for quite a while. In theory, they are supposed to reduce school violence. Instead, what they often do is create a nightmare for administrators who often are forced to inflict serious punishments on good kids who make a fairly minor mistake.
However, here lately it seems that some administrators are competing to see who can be the dumbest about the rule. In Virginia Beach, Virginia, it looks as if an administrator is going for first place:
Two seventh-grade students in Virginia Beach, Va., were handed long-term suspensions Tuesday that will last until the end of the school year for playing with an airsoft gun in one of their front yards while waiting for the school bus.
WAVY-TV reports that 13-year-old Khalid Caraballo and Aidan Clark will face an additional hearing in January to determine if they will be expelled for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because the guns were fired at two others playing in Caraballo’s yard.
For the record, airsoft guns fire small, plastic projectiles designed to be fired at people with property safety equipment. In fact, airsoft is a pretty big hobby with millions of people spending money on guns and equipment to go out into the woods and “play war”. Now, clearly, Caraballo and Clark weren’t in the woods at an organized function, but they were clearly on private property.
A parent of one of the kids playing with the two boys called the police because she had safety concerns. Local law is a bit contradictory, but part of it does say that airsoft guns can be fired on private property.
Somehow, I get the feeling that columnist Henry Porter isn’t a fan of the Second Amendment. As he’s a British subject, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot. After all, he doesn’t get to vote on American issues. Porter seems to understand this. That’s why he’s calling for the international community to intervene here in the United States:
That’s America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks – last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC’s navy yard – and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.
Maybe because these deaths aren’t even remotely related to one another except that the implement used is the same?:
The annual toll from firearms in the US is running at 32,000 deaths and climbing, even though the general crime rate is on a downward path (it is 40% lower than in 1980). If this perennial slaughter doesn’t qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.
Matt Bors may well be known for his political cartoons, but he also apparently fancies himself as a writer. Recently, particularly following the tragedy at the Washington Navy Yard, Bors posted his take on guns and the gun culture here in the United States.
New York Times bestselling author Larry Correia, an actual gun expert, took aim at Bors over at his site (Larry’s language gets a little rough, but he’s generally pretty funny in his takedowns of people like this, so give it a read).
Much as I enjoyed Larry’s piece, I had a few things of my own I wanted to address:
After the first time I shot a gun, I couldn’t hear anything for two days. This is because it was a .44 magnum and because I was eight and not wearing any ear protection. It’s a huge gun—the kind Dirty Harry used—and my dad had to help me hold it as I pulled the trigger. The next day, he had to explain to my third grade teacher why the only thing I could hear was a loud ringing.
There are right ways and wrong ways to go about your gun-having. (And your son-having.) My dad did do a good job of teaching me about gun safety once I was able to hear him speak words again. He even went and bought ear protection. Growing up around guns made me feel comfortable with them. So, gun owners, I’m not against you.
Honestly, that’s amazing. If I hadn’t had hearing protection the first time I went shooting, I’d possibly be “against me” right now. Of course, Bors says this, but as the piece winds on, you’ll see differently:
I get a little sick of having to write this post every time some maniac shoots up a place. Every single time it happens, the left begins hand wringing and plotting how to take away our Second Amendment rights, and folks like me are left to talk about how new laws wouldn’t have prevented anything.
First, let’s note that it’s still very early so the policy wonks who are screaming at the top of their lungs like teenage girls at a Justin Beiber concert really can’t possibly know what the hell would prevent another tragedy like this even in their Utopian world of all knowing government and unicorns that poop cotton candy.
Now, let’s take a look at some facts. A shooting happened on Monday that claimed 12 innocent lives. It took place in a pretty secured building on a military base. It was, probably, the safest place to be in D.C. short of the White House and the Pentagon, right?
Military bases are great big “gun-free zones.” It was that way when I served in the mid 90’s, and nothing has changed in that regard. Neither military personnel, nor the civilians employed there, were permitted to carry a firearm. People have this view of military bases as bristling with firearms, but that’s false. There are tons of weapons there, but the rank and file troops have little to no access to them and they can’t carry personal weapons either.
The Washington Navy Yard is no exception. The laws already forbid weapons on the base, but the shooter (I am not going to use his name as a choice to not encourage the next maniac seeking to make sure he gets a Wikipedia entry) didn’t care. He made it through security, entered a secured building, and killed a dozen people and wounded more. Gun free zones clearly do not intimidate the criminal. It’s time that the left comes to terms with this fact.
Libertarians aren’t as in lock step on issues as one might think. There are various grades of libertarian, and a good example of how we’re not in lock step popped up over at Thoughts on Liberty yesterday. Cathy Reisenwitz took aim at “shaming” as a way to alter behavior, and had this to say on the subject:
Somewhere we’ve decided that the tools the state uses to influence behavior are “coercion” while the tools non-state actors use are cooperation. Where is the justification for this? I didn’t sign a contract with slut-shamers any more than I did with my government. I may find complete ostracism much more oppressive than a small fine. In fact, there are studies which indicate that social exclusion is far more psychologically damaging than property crime.
Reisenwitz went on to say:
But say my actions are completely and totally cooperative, but frowned upon. Maybe I’m doing heroin, or having sex with lots of dudes. What right then does anyone have to coerce me by threatening to criticize, ridicule, shame or ostracize me?
And how is this private coercion any better than public coercion? It is safe to say that those who would criticize, ridicule, shame or ostracize me do not have all of the information I have about my environment and behavior. The same knowledge problem which makes state planning inferior to markets makes other people shaming me into certain behavior inferior to me making decisions separate from that outside threat of shame.
I’ve had women tell me that I’m wrong for sharing certain advice to other women to prevent rape. I didn’t write the advice, but it made some sense Advice like not wearing a pony tail when traveling alone, after dark, because it can be grabbed and used against you. I’m told that instead of that, I should tell men not to rape women.
Folks, I get part of what these women are trying to say. They don’t appreciate the onus being on them for preventing rape. I shouldn’t be. Rape is a horrible crime with a psychological that doesn’t necessarily accompany the aftermath of other violent crimes. I wouldn’t appreciate anyone trying to present it as being “your fault” if I were them either.
Once upon a time, it was apparently standard practice for lawyers to defend men accused of rape by trying to paint the women as having “asked for it.” That’s BS, and it needs to be denounced any time someone tries that crap from now until the end of days.
However, that’s not what people offering advice to women are trying to do. Yes, it tells women that there are things they should do to minimize their chances of being selected as a victim, but how is that different than other situations. We also tell people not to flaunt how much cash they are carrying in an effort to minimize their chances at being robbed. We tell people to lock their car doors, especially in bad neighborhoods, to minimize their chances of being carjacked.
Recently over at Red State, John Hayward talked about the firestorm Serena Williams found herself in over her opinions on the Steubenville rape case that made national headlines:
Don’t you just love it when people who don’t really understand your ideology decide to pontificate on just what is wrong with it? Well, that’s what happened over at Bloomberg when Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu took to the bandwidth to announce that libertarians are the new communists.
Oh yes, you read that right:
Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: The first glorifies personal freedom. The second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways. Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.
This just tickles me because it comes from two progressives. You know, progressives: the guys who have given us the non-recovery from the worst financial crisis since the great depression? But catastrophe will follow if our policies were implemented?
Funny, if complete BS:
Let’s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values. By communism, we mean the ideology of extreme state domination of private and economic life.
Some of the radical libertarians are Ayn Rand fans who divide their fellow citizens into makers, in the mold of John Galt, and takers, in the mold of anyone not John Galt.
Way to completely miss the point on Ayn Rand’s works.
I’ve heard a lot recently about the minimum wage. Fry cooks throughout the nation took to the streets to lament their dreadful lot in life. Liberal wonks have taken to the airwaves to complain about how one just can’t live on $7.25 an hour, and it should be raise. Some of these wonks say it should be doubled even.
Oh, cry me a freaking river.
Before I get into specifics, let me point out that as an entrepreneur, if I took how much I made running two businesses and divided it by the number of hours I work, I’d probably make less than $1 per hour, so don’t try to counter this as being “the rich looking down on the poor.” I can barely pay my bills, so I hardly count as rich. Also, for the record, only one of these businesses is mine, so don’t pull the “you own two businesses, so clearly you’re well off” crap. My wife makes more than minimum wage, but not by a whole lot. We have two kids. We are scraping by, and just barely.
Now, about the minimum wage. There are some things the wonks are right about. One can not live on a minimum wage income — $7.25 per hour just isn’t enough to pay rent, a car payment, insurance on said car, utilities, and some kind of phone.
Of course, it’s also not meant to do that.
Minimum wage jobs aren’t skilled labor. They’re entry level jobs. That means they’re for people entering the workforce. They’re for high school and college kids. They’re for people who have left high school and are trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up. They’re for the young person trying to get established. Hence the term “entry level.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul released the following statement today in response to the President’s request for Congressional authorization of the use of military force:
“I am encouraged President Obama now says he will fulfill his constitutional obligation to seek authorization for any potential military action in Syria. This is the most important decision any President or any Senator must make, and it deserves vigorous debate.”
Following the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary School late last year, President Obama began his crusade against guns. This despite a first term election promise to not do anything about guns because he didn’t have the votes. Well, as President Obama found out, he still doesn’t. But that’s not stopping him from doing whatever he can to solve problems that don’t really exist:
With no chance remaining for a legislative solution on gun control, President Barack Obama on Thursday targetted the issue for the first time in months with a pair of executive actions.
The moves, along with the morning swearing-in of Todd Jones, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, mark a fresh push to spotlight presidential efforts to fight gun violence in the face of congressional inaction.
The ATF will now require background checks for all guns that will be registered to a corporation or a trust, the White House said.
Obama’s second order will stop authorization that allows the re-importation of military-grade firearms that had been sold to allies or given as military assistance.
The White House said the government has approved requests to re-import more than 250,000 military-grade firearms since 2005.
First, let’s address the issues of trusts and corporations purchasing firearms. On the surface, this isn’t a big deal. After all, theoretically, a felon could establish a trust and bypass the background check to purchase firearms. That’s what the White House says happens. Of course, they say that without providing anything like numbers as to how many felons have purchased guns this way.