Pages

Friday, April 17, 2009

Calhoun’s Ca(n)ons
for April 17, 09.


Shooting Daze

Let the killing commence. The economy has turned to quicksand, jobs have vanished, households are in chaos, Americans are afraid. Which means gun sales are on the rise, spurred in some degree by the vast right-wing conspiracy telling their frightened followers that President Obama is coming to take their guns away.

And every few weeks, another headline story about mass killing; deranged gunmen mowing down church worshipers, nursing home residents, killing their families then themselves, armed with a plethora of weapons, guns, guns, guns.

Also commencing again, as these mass killings arrive like the swallows at Capistrano, are the usual weeping, hand wringing and finger pointing. But now, in a scared America, pandering politicians are not calling for gun bans or tighter registration and control, but for more citizens to arm themselves with more guns. Guns for granny, guns for students, weapons hidden in pockets, purses, backpacks, a whole nation packing heat. After all, we are all Davy Crockett, John Wayne and Rambo rolled into one. Frontier Man, Dead Eye Dicks who believe that in the chaos of a random attack by a heavily armed crazy any average armed citizen could stop that crazy in his tracks – one shot!

That’s hokum, of course. More myth standing in for a hard reality that was clearly illustrated in a May 10th 20/20 program titled, “If I Only Had A Gun.” In that program, the producers, with the help of police officers and volunteer college students, set up a little experiment. Many of the students were very experienced gun handlers, fully qualified on the firing range, agile, young, athletic young men and women, with excellent sight, hearing and unimpaired reaction time. Other volunteers were given basic gun-handling training, far more than most average Americans ever receive. With that the basic set up was complete.

Unbeknownst to the volunteer students, the test class was also filled with undercover police officers, several of the volunteer students were secretly given paint-ball pistols and all were suited up in a class that they were told was to be a lecture about using protective gear. Helmeted and padded up, the class was listening to a lecture when into the room burst an “armed” crazy gunman who started yelling and then shooting at the teacher. In a split second, screaming chaos ensued, with students and “cop students” scattering everywhere. In the melee, one armed student got his pistol tangled in his tee shirt and was “killed” before he could get off one shot. Another student fired back while standing exposed and so was also taken down, while another, firing wildly, missed the “killer” but very nearly hit a fellow student racing for the door. In short, not one of these young students, many of whom were crack shots on the range, were able to do anything to stop the “crazy” shooter. Instead, they got themselves “paint-ball” killed, while the only survivors were the trained undercover police officers, who did everything right.

And the reason why these normal, typical students were so helpless is that this kind of chaotic killing field isn’t about guns; it’s about having 24/7 Cop Eyes and 24/7 Cop Brains, which is something that must be honed by proper training, discipline and constant, ongoing practice until it moves beyond the “normal,” into something instinctive that leads to accurate threat assessment, instant eye-hand coordination, increased peripheral vision, the ability (and training) to dismiss all irrelevant “chaos noise,” and to get it all correct in a split second.

All of which takes constant discipline and training. As one of the undercover cops said, if he doesn’t practice and refresh all those skills at least once a month, he’ll lose that edge, thereby putting himself in the same kind of danger as untrained civilians.

Which is something the politicians calling for more guns! more guns! seem to forget. After all, we are a nation facing an obesity epidemic that’s killing us because we lack the discipline to fend off Big Mac attacks. Yet we apparently think we have the ongoing discipline to stick with the constant training necessary to get and maintain 24/7 Cop Brains?

Well, not to worry. Our myths and movies are more important to us than unpleasant reality. After all, we’re Davy Crockett, we’re John Wayne, we’re Rambo. One shot wonders, all of us. Aren’t we? So give us more guns. They’re the only thing that makes us feel safe while actually killing us off in hilariously astonishing numbers.

Bang! Bang! It’s the American Way.

26 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

Law abiding citizens are above average.
Guns prevent more crime than they cause.

Cars kill more people than guns every year and cars are not constitutionally guaranteed.
Don’t forget about knives, cigarettes, polluted water, etc.

Watershed Mark said...

Oh and Spinach, Meat and "superbugs," antibiotic-resistant microbes that infect hospital surfaces and cause an estimated 88,000 deaths annually in the United States, the researchers say.

Watershed Mark said...

MRSA/Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus was discovered in 1961 in the United Kingdom. It made its first major appearance in the United States in 1981 among intravenous drug users. MRSA is often referred to in the press as a "superbug."
In the past decade or so the number of MRSA infections in the United States has increased significantly. A 2007 report in Emerging Infectious Diseases, a publication of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), estimated that the number of MRSA infections in hospitals doubled nationwide, from approximately 127,000 in 1999 to 278,000 in 2005, while at the same time deaths increased from 11,000 to more than 17,000.[2] Another study led by the CDC and published in the October 17, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that MRSA would have been responsible for 94,360 serious infections and associated with 18,650 hospital stay-related deaths in the United States in 2005.[3][4] These figures suggest that MRSA infections are responsible for more deaths in the U.S. each year than AIDS.[5] However, these are "associated" deaths, that is, people who died with, but not necessarly from, MRSA. To find the "MRSA attributable" deaths — the toll due to MRSA and not something else — is difficult.

Sandra Gore said...

Very fascinating, especially when it seemed so logical simply to arm the ships that are sailing in the waters off the Horn of Africa.

This perspective might just explain why the world's maritime has not handed out weapons to crews.

Churadogs said...

What the 20/20 piece showed is a couple of things. First, very few people are mentally disciplined and trained to respond well to sudden, out of the blue danger. The normal human instinct is for the three F's: Flight, Fight, and/or Freeze. Add a high-powered, rapid-fire weapon to those ancient instincts and the recipe for disaster is apparent.

On the other hand, in a well regulated, well trained militia, for example, the average citizen/soldier can do pretty well in a pinch IF he/she has had time to get past the initial 3Fs, understand the problem correctly, react correctly, plan, prepare, etc.

If I understand the piracy tales, the crew has advance warning. They just have no arms or training to fight back. (And the boat owners don't want to get sued by the families of any crew-member killed in a fire-fight, since crew members's job descriptions doesn't include being an armed merc.) It isn't like the pirates are silently parachuting down on the boat to sneak into the crew's quarters in the dead of night & etc. I don't know why commercial ships haven't hired heavily armed former Blackwater mercs to ride shotgun like Wells Fargo stagecoaches did in the good old days. Don't mercs sign non-liability contracts before they go to "war?"

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

For you to suggest that there is a constitutional right to guns is an overstatement. After all, not all guns are allowed and if I remember, the 2nd amendment only reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not that guns, in general, will be unregulated. Furthermore, the 1st clause suggests that guns should be allowed in the context of a regulated militia ... not that any tom-dick-n-harry should be allowed to own an automatic weapon for "self defense."

Please don't get me wrong here ... I am not an opponent of gun rights ... but I get really annoyed at folks who overstate or misstate facts (like that the Reclamator will keep Los Osos residents from fines and like that the Phoenix area is not in overdraft).

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

You might also want to know that the odds of suicide among recent gun purchasers is about 5 times the odds of suicide among those who hadn't recently purchased a gun.

Of course, Mark will argue about this also...

Watershed Mark said...

Creepy Steve...

Not2010Yet said...

Shark said: "For you (Mark)to suggest that there is a constitutional right to guns is an overstatement".

Shark shark shark, for all the good you usually write, you're letting your liberal educator bias show. What part of The Second Amendment don't you get? There is a pretty broad right, we just tossed out laws over that right.

After all, there isn't a wide open First Amendment to speech either (the old example, one can't shout "FIRE FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and cause a dangerous stampede). There are, however,as well there should be, very broad and wide open uses of the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. I don't buy that it's an "overstatement". I only see tired old quibbliing over semantics by those who would infringe the rights.

Shark continues: "After all, not all guns are allowed and if I remember, the 2nd amendment only reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not that guns, in general, will be unregulated. Furthermore, the 1st clause suggests that guns should be allowed in the context of a regulated militia ... not that any tom-dick-n-harry should be allowed to own an automatic weapon for "self defense."

Please don't get me wrong here ... I am not an opponent of gun rights ..."

Shark, you ARE an opponent, as in "if you ain't a fer us, you are agin us". Certain rights need to be aggressively defended, reasoned over constantly, spoken over and broadened at every opportunity. Speech is one, free assembly is another (whether teacher's union organizer in a red shirt or flag waver at a tea party).

Finally, it's tiring and disappointing to hear your educated fanny cite the "militia" thing. What part of the long argument over militia did you not read, what part of the Federalist Papers which exchange the Framer's views did you miss? C- for poor research, my friend.

As we all know, the Framers pictured universal firearms ownership (with exceptions perhaps for those incarcerated and those blush who were not free). We all know or should know that the clause about the militia should have been prefaced with "not only for this one big critical reason but for many others obvious to us all, a well regulated militia"...etc. etc. The remark, excuse me the clause about the militia was a supporting ADDITIVE argument as reasons for, NOT limiting of, the universal right to firearms ownership. When a county supervisor says we need quality paved roads for keeping commerce moving, he/she isn't saying "and only those who engaged in commercial trucking may drive those roads."

Uh, now, what did "regulated" mean in their vernacular? Well equipped is what "regulated" meant, well armed, NOT regulated as for example our regional water board might define the 200+ years later use of "regulated".

Please don't apply your considerable debate skills to the wrong side of the settled, over and done with, tired firearms limitation debate.

I will admit many don't agree with distributed firearms ownership and possession. That's a different debate. It is dangerous to mix debates and tactics when dealing with a precious right.

Oh, by the way, they parked the right to keep and bear arms right smack dab at the top of the list of rights to the people, which the Bill of Rights is, not rights to the militia, standing army, national guard, coast guard, etc.

I see this as a critical argument because the constitutionality of oublicly broad firearms ownership just came within the vote of just one additional slanted, biased, liberal, constitution-ignoring, heritage busting, oath-of-office "protect and defend" the constitution IGNORING, crappy agenda driven dirt-bag (insert passionate disgust and profanity of one's choice HERE______) United States Supreme Court justice. The four who voted as they did are pandering prostitutes to their liberal bias, monkeying with an honest precious heritage which they don't agree with. Their vote was chilling, and that means spine-chilling, holy crap one more biased and dishonest person seated on the court and they would have GOTTEN WRONG the intent of the framers. I think the University police need to threaten your classroom speech a few times so you can feel the chill. I'm serious. No matter how one might dislike firearms or their ownership, and this means everyone not just local parties to our debate, the idea that four ninths of the supreme judicial body of our land GOT IT WRONG, not in my opinion wrong but obvious in any fair review of the written intent of the framers, is a chill that makes the worries about the Los Oso sewer grief seem like a day at Laguna Lake Park with a picnic lunch.

I think it's dispicable that the members of the highest court in our land could have their vote predicted easily based upon the politics of the president who appointed them, with one exception.

Sorry to take you to task on this, but I don't like to stand aside while items of constitutional law are shaded, shaved, changed, incorrectly stated, etc. It's OK to dislike a right, personally I want to vomit over Lisa Schicker's right to speak publicly, but you'll never catch me saying it's not right smack dab constitutionally protected that she do so.

Watershed Mark said...

Truly enjoyable entertainment from the “old” days.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve, why so creepy?
You can have my guns when you can pry them from my cold dead hands. …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Eventhe super dangerous class assault weapon.Not Yet: Your logic and common sense are impeccable!

Shark Inlet said...

I see no need to aggressively defend the "right" of people to own anything called a gun simply because of some slippery-slope argument. The 2nd amendment doesn't mention assault weapons or handguns explicitly and so is clearly open to interpretation.

The courts have put some guns in the category of "okay" and others in the "not okay" category. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Even so, I was probably overreacting to Mark's claim that "Guns prevent more crime than they cause." He didn't say that all guns are constitutionally protected, but I am sick-n-tired of yahoos who do say that. I am curious to hear a justification for Mark's statement. Cedrtainly any claim along those lines would need justification and the only statistics I see out there in the whole gun debate are highly argued by both sides. I wonder if Mark is passing off as fact something which is questionable at best ... like his claim that the water table in the Phoenix area aquifers are at their historic levels.

Churadogs said...

Not2010yet sez:"Sorry to take you to task on this, but I don't like to stand aside while items of constitutional law are shaded, shaved, changed, incorrectly stated, etc."

I'm not an historian nor a constitutional scholar, but both historians and constitutional scholars can (and have) made the case clearly on both sides of the case and the Supreme Court has not ruled an unqualified right -- states and the feds are free to ban machine guns and RPGs, and tanks & etc,for civillian use, for example. So your general overstatment about crazed liberals is overstated, while you're ragging on Inlet for "overstating" things.

I would argue also that "well regulated" also means trained and organized since you could have lots of weapons (be well equipped) but if you couldn't operate the weapon or decided you were going to fight on the British side,you could hardly be said to be part of a well regulated militia.

The Swiss, for example, (oddly since Americans love to think they're the original "minute men) truly do have a well regulated militia. Trained, constantly trained and practiced, each citizen soldier is issued a standard Army issue rifle and other "well equipped" equipment and organised so as to be ready (and trained) to go into battle at a moment's notice. Contrast that with our own citizen soldiers; often untrained in even basic gun safety, armed with militarily useless popguns, not sufficiently organized so that anybody could even contact them to tell them to muster on the village green and once they did, would anybody in their right mind want to try to do anything "defensive" or "military" with that group of untrained, undisciplined, disorganized bunch of pistol-packing Paranoid Style pissed off, frightened, confused citizen soldiers? Yikes, not me.

The most interesting part of this endless debate is the truly astonishing deep and really scary visceral fear-rage factor at work in so many people when it comes to their "guns." Ranting and name calling is always just under the surface when the topic is touched on, as Not2010yet illustrates well. I know that the Paranoid Style is The American Style, but this issue gets positively Freudian and weird.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

"I know that the Paranoid Style is The American Style, but this issue gets positively Freudian and weird."

Just as the sewer issue has in our little burg.

Watershed Mark said...

Just ask Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name"...Lynette.

Steve, cut and paste my words that support your statement:"like his claim that the water table in the Phoenix area aquifers are at their historic levels."

When you can't we'll all know you are wierd. We can ask Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name" when we find him.

Watershed Mark said...

Why does "gun control" kill more people than guns in the 20th century?
GUN CONTROLS AND RESULTS:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were Rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
Total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves Were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
Million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded Up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenceless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century Because of gun control: 56 million.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

The word overdraft means that you've taken too much out. Like in a checking account, in an aquifer, overdraft means that more has been removed than can be sustained.

If aquifers are not at their historic levels (say, before farming and urban dwellers started overusing water), there is an overdraft.

Or ... are you gonna disagree with the definition of overdraft just like you've disagreed about the meaning of the word Phoenix?

Shark Inlet said...

When I asked Mark to dredge up any studies which show that "Guns prevent more crime than they cause" Mark trotted out a whole bunch of statements which are supposedly on the issue of Gun control.

First, note that not a single one of these statements addresses the issue Mark was supposed to address.

Second, none of these facts was even related to a western style democracy, let alone in the US.

It seems that Mark is perhaps either unable to comprehend the topic he is discussing (because his reply is soooooooooo off topic) or that he simply trying to snow us. Heck, that he tried to subtly change the topic without emphasizing the change or the limitations of his data makes it really clear that he's just plain not ready to participate in an educated discussion on the topic.

Again, I am not an anti-gun nut ... but I am someone who is sick-n-tired of duplicity from the pro-gun folks who pretend that RPGs should be legal for hunting and that accidents and suicides aren't a byproduct of their promoting "gun rights" at all costs. Maybe Mark isn't one of these ... but his numbers just don't add up to his claims. But that is no surprise to those who follow Ann's blog ... Mark's hero has told us that $250 is less than $200 so a minor error like thinking that the Soviet Union under Stalin in 1929 is pretty much just like the US today should be forgiven.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

A less snotty answer to your above comment is that all the data you cite are from dictatorships and other oppressive government situations and so you should be aware that your explanation is horribly confounded with the dictatorship question ... and all educated people know that an association does not imply a causation in such an observational study context as this.

What surprises me is that you would have the gall to criticize Robyn Letters for his misuse of statistics when you seem to have such a poor understanding of such issues yourself.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Shark, it looks to me that wsm has a deep fear of extermination.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Hmmmm. Has he pi$$ed off THAT many people? (Besides us I mean.)

Shark Inlet said...

I would like to delve a bit deeper into one of Mark's comments.

He wrote "Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a Total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves Were rounded up and exterminated."I actually find this comment particularly offensive as well as factually off-base.

First off ... the Holocaust is an unusual event in human history and to try to use it as way of saying gun control is wrong is simply offensive.

Second, the vast majority of the victims of the Holocaust were not residents of Germany but were from other countries taken over during a war. Surely Mark is not arguing that if simply Polish Jews had guns they would have survived.

Not2010Yet said...

Our esteemed and gracious host Chura finds: "astonishing deep and really scary visceral fear-rage factor at work in so many people when it comes to their "guns." Ranting and name calling is always just under the surface when the topic is touched on, as Not2010yet illustrates well. I know that the Paranoid Style is The American Style, but this issue gets positively Freudian and weird."

Well I'm interested to hear myself included in the same post with the term Paranoid, with ranting, and visceral fear-rage, but perhaps I can enlighten her, as well as others. Mine is safe, reasoned, controlled passion over a precious right from the founders, which is constantly misstated and misrepresented.

I agree that my fear is viceral and deep when one comes within a single vote of overturning history. Ann, as to your claim that historians and "scholars" argue on both sides, you ignore doing your own research about what the founders said in such corollary writings as the Federalist Papers. DO THE RESEARCH, dear, and you will realize that scholars who reason that a part of the Bill of Rights, just one part, was NOT intended for individuals acting alone are scholars who are wrong, or are scholars biased against Second Amendment rights, or both. Do your own research, and you'll see that whether you support the right or not, feel that it is applicable or valid in our current society or not, etc. etc., the intent of the framers is undeniable. Well, correction, the intent is undeniable by sound reasoning and honest observers.

Do I take serious fear in what four judges did in getting it wrong on the Supreme Court? Yep. Do I almost rant about it, yes but hopefully in a reasoned and sensible fashion, merely deeply empassioned.

Your thoughts on Switzerland have nothing whatsoever to do with American constitutional scholarship and implementation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The scholarly side of the thing is all but decided, at least by honest folk. The other issues you raise are easily to respond to, though off topic of constitutionality but since you so drifted, permit me: Have you ever phoned the police and they didn't come, they didn't even answer? I have. For DAYS. I lived in Los Angeles County. Did you do so during widespread rioting (civil disturbance or whatever you ivory tower Central Coast limousine liberals call it)? I did. Did you have a business which would have never recovered despite insurance had it been burned? I did. Was it grandfathered construction and land use which would have been barred from replacement by law despite having insurrance? I did. Were you a Planning Commissioner able to reasonably recognize that the place could never be rebuilt in kind, and therefore would be exterminated if it were burned by casual or determined rioters? I was. Did you use firearms, displayed skyward effectively and menacingly, thereby preventing the need to discharge or even point them? I did. Did you do it right in the face of a lawless mob of, at one moment, dozens of people? I did.

Dearest spoiled liberal child of the unmatchable Central Coast, where my grandfather bought his first retreat in the 1910's, I envy you that you never saw businesses owned by all colors torn apart by mobs of everyone including old appearing grandmothers who noted a looting, pulled their sedan aside and went in to join in the "free food rally" going on in what was once a 7-11, I envy you that the closest I'll bet you've ever been to a looting or riot is a cushy central coast TV set cathode ray tube, and I envy you that you have a soul so unimpacted by the personal witness of riotous wholesale civil unrest and breakdown of law, that you can feel as you do. Meantime, off the topic of constitutionality and on the topic of practicality, you better believe I have weapons which have specifically prevented crime by their very presence. I can introduce you to roofing company owners, equipment rental yard owners (one of them knew the Oasis people), florists, hair and nail salon proprietors and others who, exactly like myself, had to defend themselves, their property, livelihood and families by the display of handgun and high powered rifle weaponry. Calls to 911 didn't get answered, didn't get a ring tone, you were ON YOUR OWN.

As far as I am concerned, and with all personal respect, you are an opinionated central coast liberal with little or zero practical experience in maintaining order through the private possession and use (by display only in my case) of repeating rifles and repeating handguns not in existence at the time of the Framers. Far from being angry or raging or out of control, my experienced marksman hunter fanny(shaking in my shoes) used the absolute minimum (skyward pointing, loaded but unfired) display of force in the face of raging, out of control, maurading mobs of jerks bashing into stores up and down the street, burning some of them, many of which did not recover. When I could sleep, I laid with the acrid smell of the lives and businesses of others in my nostrils. You can believe that I take a personal interest in the desire to have firearms in the home. Mine are locked away for security and not loaded since if you awake to a standing burlgar and are sleepy, I deem it unwise and pointless to have things too close at hand, but I can unlock, access them and load them in a minute or so of time, enough to assess the threat, dial 911 AND make sure the threat is real and not a family member I might mistake for an intruder.

One last thing, yep suicides do happen by guns, accidents too. Suicides are routinely lumped into gun death statistics as crimes though they are mere instrumentalities of suicide. You aren't banning the ownership of cellphones and that nutjob MetroLink engineer killed 25 people texting on one on the exact stretch of track I ride to L.A. on Amtrak. Show me how to misuse that statistic also.

Muddy up the discussion and waters all you want, we can happily debate practicalities of gun ownership and restrictions, but the intent of the framers is absolutely NOT subject to fair or reasonable interpretation except that they meant essentially universal firearms ownership, control, and use.

Churadogs said...

Not2010yet sez:"DO THE RESEARCH, dear, and you will realize that scholars who reason that a part of the Bill of Rights, just one part, was NOT intended for individuals acting alone are scholars who are wrong, or are scholars biased against Second Amendment . . . ."


You mean "scholars" who disagree with your point of view are . . . wrong or biased. Sorry, but the case can be made on both sides by people far more expert than you or I, as I said.

2010Yet also said:"Dearest spoiled liberal child of the unmatchable Central Coast, where my grandfather bought his first retreat in the 1910's, I envy you that you never saw businesses owned by all colors torn apart by mobs of everyone including old appearing grandmothers who noted a looting, pulled their sedan aside and went in to join in the "free food rally" going on in what was once a 7-11, I envy you that the closest I'll bet you've ever been to a looting or riot is a cushy central coast TV set cathode ray tube, and I envy you that you have a soul so unimpacted by the personal witness of riotous wholesale civil unrest and breakdown of law, that you can feel as you do."

Sorry, but I lived in L.A. through ALL the best known riots and, uh, civil unrests, in a part of town a few blocks from long established Venice gangs, and other assorted criminal sorts, including one interesting middle of the night event that included a scampering bad guy hiding in my back yard in the middle of the night while police choppers, lights blazing, circled overhead. WAP!WAP!WAP! & etc. So your assumption that I'm some,how did you put it? Oh,Yes, "you ivory tower Central Coast limousine liberals" is wrong. But I find your assumption very telling.

2010 also sez:"Muddy up the discussion and waters all you want, "

Which is what you've done and what is so fascinating. My column was about a 20/20 experiment that points out the folly of politicians calling to ARM EVERYBODY! Give 'em carry permits! A gun in every pocket! As I clearly said, it's not about guns, it's about training and having 24/7 Cop Eyes and 24/7 Cop brains and discipline and more training and experience and our ridiculous belief that we're all Rambos, one shot wonders & etc. You somehow read into that all kinds of stuff not there and hence your strangely hysterical response which was a fascinating rant about the 2nd amendment, Central Coast liberals and other panty-waistes who you think never lived in a big city, your personal experience, which were dangerous and frightening to you, & other such off-topic scary stuff. Which is why I commented how weird I find it when normal people get all unhinged and raging when they (misperceive) a column about the folly of arming untrained people, thinking that that will keep them safe if they find themselves in a mass shooting by a heavily armed crazy that seems to be filling our papers recently and react, instead, as if I were advocating that somebody should touch or take away your . . . oooohhhhh . . . guns.

Also, . . . Dear . . . the subtext of my column is what is most fascinating about the whole Gun issue: the deep myths, the American Paranoid Style, our unresolved racial and class issues,(you know, THEM), the whole power/gender/ psycho/sexual/fear/Freudian issues, all of which make the whole Gun Issue so fascinating. (Ditto the War on Drugs issue, both of which concern deep seated irrationalities, hence are not very amenable to any scientific, logical, sensible, practical discussion or sensible solutions.)

Shark Inlet said...

I have a theory about why Mark hasn't been posting comments here in the last two days.

I think he finally looked into the whole Phoenix situation and realizes that I am right and it is embarrassment which is keeping him away.

There are exactly two main aquifers in the Phoenix AMA (the thickest portion of the Eastern one pretty much runs from NE Phoenix to Mesa and the thickest portions of the Western one are in the central Phoenix and Glendale area) and the city of Phoenix uses water from both ... in fact, it is the only city in the AMA which sits on top of both. Most of the water used by the region is from the Colorado, Gila or Salt rivers. Treated wastewater and water from the CAP (Colorado River) is being used to recharge the aquifers because they've been overused for so long. The state still says that they likely won't be in a state of health even by 2025 even with recharging.

Presumably, because the Arizona DWR says that the AMA is in overdraft (and Mark agrees), and Mark says Phoenix isn't (and DWR disagrees) ... Mark could identify which of the two aquifers is in overdraft and which isn't (note: the Arizona DWR AMA status report pretty much shows that both aquifers are similar with regard to the water table).

So then ... let's recap. If Phoenix isn't in overdraft but it sits in a region which is, one of the two aquifers Phoenix sits on and uses must be in overdraft and the other one not. However, the DWR report shows both aquifers are the same.

Nope, Mark was drawing his facts ex-rectum when he decided to criticize me for my error. Presumably he wanted to have something where he was an expert but unfortunately he has given us no evidence of his expertise ... just more reasons to doubt him and his statements.

Even if I'm being super generous and willing to grant him a point based on his confusion about what I meant when I used a common practice in the English language, referring to the area as a whole by the name of the chief City of the region (like LA or New York or Chicago or ... pretty much anywhere but Phoenix according to Mark) ... and even when I asked Mark to trot out evidence demonstrate his claim ... he relied on the scoundrel's defense: I'm right and I know it and you can't prove me wrong (which, a side note, has no integrity and is not sound logic and should be the first warning sign for people looking out for charlatans).

Well, now I've shown that Mark is wrong.

All that needs to happen is a full and proper apology and for Mark to disappear (and perhaps that has already happened).

Certainly, both would be better than just one, but I would settle for even one as both are admissions of guilt and as we all know now that Ron's biggest fan is ... um ... found out to be completely lacking in at least two of the the following three: integrity, the ability to understand English and logical reasoning skills. We just don't know which two yet...

alabamasue said...

Shark-
Maybe he's at the new In&Out burger joint that just opened in Mesa. Hundreds of people showed up for job interviews. Could be he's looking for a real job, instead of trying to sell stuff no one wants. :-)