Open Carry in Detroit

Several residents note that carrying openly has been a deterrent against scumbags. There's also the fudd police chief noting that he doesn't have a "quarrel" with people carrying lawfully, and then goes on to paint these lawful residents as being part of the problem of shootouts in the streets. Perhaps if Detroit's police chief did a better job of preventing the shootouts, residents wouldn't feel they need to carry guns for protection.

I love this part:

Over a 24-hour span beginning Aug. 12, seven people were shot to death and nine others wounded. That prompted Mayor Dave Bing to issue a "call to action" to city residents to take a stand against crime.

By "taking a stand", I presume the mayor and his police chief mean to be quick on the cellphone when they're victimized, or to take good notes and be a better witness. What a joke.

"Be vigilant!!"

"Take a stand!!!"

"We need the citizens help!!!"

My question is: how? How does a man or woman do any of those things without the means to? It seems to me that the people the article is talking about have figured it out on their own, and the mayor and the chief are whimpering about it. Good.

Menace to society

This post is many parts; the lesser of the post being the first, which is that coyotes in King George's county, Virginia are now in an almost continuous open season, and hopefully this will extend to other surrounding counties, as my county is starting to see their population increase. I take issue with some parts of this ordnance, the main one being that if you use a rifle, it has to be larger than .22 caliber. I'd love to see some evidence of how this regulation was established, and would enjoy seeing some bureaucrat publicly defend it. It's asinine. If you frequent predator forums, you'd be hard pressed to miss that hunters note the faster calibers being the ones that put coyotes down quickly, and thus "ethically" like the DGIF official wants. The gist of it is hunters have had well hit coyotes run off after being hit with larger calibers with less velocity, and anchored them well with the same hits with zippy small caliber rifles. Call it what you want, but there's definitely a trend. My guess is that this regulation is put here now to make sure that icky AR rifles don't end up being the killing tool for coyote hunters.

I'm going to go off on a tangent for a minute: this caliber restriction applies to whitetail deer hunting as well, and I've never seen any scientific evidence or studies that show that .22 caliber bullets are less effective than anything larger. The .223 Remington cartridge is a premier deer round in states where it's lawful, but general public ignorance and baseless ordinances have led them to be demonized. I've argued this with people for years, and none of them can offer anything other than "it's not powerful enough." Do you have proof of that claim, because I've seen evidence that says otherwise.

Interestingly enough, many hunters that I've known throughout the years who subscribe to this bullshit tote a magnum caliber rifle that they can't shoot because they flinch with it on every shot, and believe it has more "knockdown power" because it's so biiiiiiiiiiiig. I've tracked a ton of hit deer for them, too, some of them where the hunter felt confident to shoot a 180 lb running doe square in the ass because their cartridge case has a belt, and that bullet will definitely make it to the vitals, sure. "IT'S A GREAT BRUSH GUN!!!!" - my personal favorite. To be blunt, I've tracked more dog-sized Virginia deer hit with a magnum than I can count, but never had to track one hit with a .22 Hornet, .22 Magnum, or .220 Swift. I don't account this fact to the caliber, but to the fact that the trigger man did his job and hit them properly, and did not rely on 30 extra grains of powder, 2 more millimeters, and piss poor shooting to get the job done. Just to ensure that this dead horse is adequately beaten, if you claim that to use a .223 Remington or other similar caliber cartridge on deer, you have to "hit them just right," you are implying that using a larger cartridge means that you don't have to hit them just right. Get it?

Good. Moving on.

The "no hunting on Sundays" is an archaic regulation that needs to be repealed. I don't know where it comes from, but to my knowledge folks believe that God will be angry with them if they're in their treestand on Sunday vice raking leaves or fixing the sink. The Lord didn't smite David for eating the showbread, and I don't think He will condemn Elmer Fudd for sending a ballistic tip through Wile E's guts. If you believe otherwise, then I invite you on a witch hunting journey with me in Salem. It'll be swell! My county this year has had a continuous doe-day this hunting season in a vain effort to control the population, and if they let hunters hunt one more day out of the week, a balance in the herd might be struck. The insurance companies would surely be happy with this concept, as they wouldn't have to shell out millions every year because of all the deer hit by vehicles.

Next up on my list of shit I don't like is this:

King George doesn’t allow the use of high-powered rifles during hunting season. Bullets fired by more powerful weapons travel farther, and that can be dangerous in areas with dense populations or flat terrain, which is the case in King George.Caroline County has the same restriction.

Now, this DOES NOT apply to shooting coyotes in the county -- it's for deer hunters -- but going off on a tangent again (I can do that, you know) I note that this is an asinine regulation, and it's one that plagues many counties around mine. Whoever came up with this should be kicked in the balls. The concept is that rifles are dangerous because the bullet has the potential to go further, so some counties only allow hunting with shotguns and muzzleloaders. The problem with that is that that concept is baseless:

Of Pennsylvania’s approximate 900 miles of border with other states, it was found that the centerfire rifle was unlawful along the entire boundary with the exception of western Maryland. They found that in no case was any state able to provide definitive information upon which they based their decision. In fact, most reported that they simply responded to the public perception that shotguns were less dangerous than centerfire rifles. At that time, PGC staff found there was no data to support the contention that shotguns and muzzleloaders are any less risky than centerfire rifles. They found, instead, that in the “shotgun-only” states this appears to be “an issue driven by emotion and politics rather than sound scientific data.”2

You mean to tell me that laws and regulations subjected on Pennsylvanians was born out of politics and emotion instead of facts? Weird. Don't quote me, but I think this sort of shenanigans has happened elsewhere in the country.

Anyhow, the conclusion from the linked study from Pennsylvania is that shotguns are "more risky" when fired from the ground at a zero degree angle, and Paw Paws 30.06 is "more risky" when fired at an angle, such as from a treestand -- but the risk factor in the study is based on the "danger zone" after the projectile has ricocheted, which is based entirely on the distance that it travels. My point is that who cares if the round ricochets one mile or ten: it's one bullet, and it's dangerous no matter how far it goes before it lands. It would be different if the bullet rained death down on everything below it during its brief flight, whereas the further and longer it flies, the more harm is done. That's not the case though; what we're talking about here is if a hunter fires a rifle at a deer, and the bullet skips off a rock and heads out of the pasture, that if it strikes Timmy in his back yard a thousand yards away it's "more safe" than if the round came down and struck grandma in the next county. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

According to the PA study, the criteria for the "danger zone" came from studies done by the US military on the ricochet distance for small arms for military ranges. So yeah, a two mile danger zone behind Edson Range is a good idea because thousands of Marine recruits fire millions of rounds there, and all those rounds will fall in a predictable area. Finding out how big that area is and making sure some developer doesn't build a Kroger there is in the public's interest. How this somehow applies to Elmer and his carbine is anyone's guess; I just don't see how a shotgun slug bounding half a mile is less dangerous than a .30 caliber Accubond skipping two miles. The telling part to me is the chart on page 26, where it shows that the probability of a rifle round ricocheting when fired at a 10 degree down angle is 38%, and the probability of a .50 round from a muzzloader or a shotgun slug ricocheting from the same angle is 91%; what I get from this is that there's less chance of an errant projectile to begin with if I stick with a rifle, damn the distance it flies. Go ahead and look that chart over real well. See how much more probable a ricochet is when you don't use a rifle?

It seems to me that we have the dumbest possible people struggling to make public policy, which I guess is better than letting them figure it out on their own using common sense, or worse, emotion.

Moronic statement to start the year

The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.

Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

"The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," Wade said.

This piece of jackassery is in response to the sociopathic gunman who shot and killed a Park Ranger at Mount Rainier park shortly before stripping off what little protective clothing he had and wandering around until he died from exposure. The madman obviously didn't read the law, as shooting up house parties and federal agents and blowing through police checkpoints is illegal. If we are to take Mr. Wade seriously, the gunman may still have left the scene of his previous shooting with his guns, but would have stopped cold when he reached the boundary of the park, as violating firearms law is all illegal and shit.

It's a wonder why his "misconduct discharge", domestic violence charges, pending mental health evaluation, and restraining order didn't bar him from owning firearms. Maybe there should be some laws there which would certainly have prevented this tragedy just like keeping parks gun free would have. It's only common sense.

***ETA: Great minds think alike! A post at Hell in a Handbasket discusses the same shooting and the same moronic statement from Mr. Wade.

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand targets the ATF and U.S. AG Eric Holder

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says she will be backing a bill to crack down on corrupt gun runners and dealers.

Alriiiiight! Keepin' the streets safe by prosecuting those who sell guns to violent scumbags! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

I know right where she can start -- prosecuting an armed gang who brokered the sale of illegally purchased firearms for violent drug cartels who used those weapons to kill innocent people. ZING!!!

Oh, wait. . . .

Recently, State Attorney General Eric Schneidermann announced that his office plans to crackdown on illegal gun distribution in the state. In fact, a probe conducted by his office revealed that many gun sellers disregard state mandated background checks, according to the Associated Press.

Ohhhhhhhhh. You mean she's backing a STATE law that would make the process of buying and selling firearms in New York even more illegal and convoluted. . . . I read you now. For a minute there I thought a member of congress actually gave a shit about preventing violent people from using firearms to commit violent crimes. My bad. I see now that state commerce has captured the interest of Rep. Gillibrand (I thought she was pro-gun? David Codrea was right about her, you know).

Well, you can't blame a snake for biting any more than you can blame a revenuer for revenuin'.

Since I'm knuckle deep in this article now, I guess I should let the mocking begin. I did find this amusing:

An individual gun seller can is legally accountable for the guns they sell, but not a gun show operator.

What's a "gun seller can?" Is that like a can of man that sells guns? I'm imagining now a secret factory run by the NRA that packages men who sell firearms into little cans in order to execute an eeeeeevil covert plot to saturate the country with individual gun sellers. The logistics of it is genius -- a pickup truck can only handle perhaps a half dozen individual gun sellers in the bed; I can't even fathom how many cans of men will fit back there. Hundreds maybe? Thousands?

And "gun show operators?" I admit to seeing one or two of those guys at every gun show I've ever been to -- they're the ones wearing old camo, and decked out in cheap nylon holsters and vests with too many pockets, handing out High Points to kids like candy. They're easy to spot, with all those patches and urine stains on their uniforms, and more than a little creepy. I had no idea they were exempt from state laws! That's totally backwards! Rep. Gillibrand is absolutely right: Gun Show Special Warfare Operators should be accountable for the guns they sell, but not canned men who sell guns. They're in a can, so they can't do much harm. Besides, how many guns will fit in a can?

Just when you though it was over, there's more:

The proposed legislation toughens penalties for illegal gun sales. Traffickers could face nearly 20 years in prisons.

Holy shit! Not *A* prison; we're talking multiple prisons! From what I'm reading here, if a gun trafficker gets caught, the court could have him torn to pieces and sent to prisons all over the state! Maybe they'll put his head on a pike in one prison, and gibbet his bloody torso in another. That's a bit morbid, but it would surely do more for placing fear in illegal gun traffickers than a bill that targets basically anyone not perfectly rehersed in the law.

New York may very well have something here. . . .

The news isn't fun to read anymore

It's too depressing. This morning I open Yahoo! News to find that Andy Whitfield has died. I enjoyed Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and somehow hoped that Whitfield would return to the part because he played the character so well. His character was re-cast, and the new season starts early next year.

The first news article that caught my eye this morning though was the headline/quote from president Obama stating that "America does not give in to fear," which made me snort just a little bit. The news has been awash with stories fear for eleven days, pondering the next terrorist strike that is bound to happen at any moment. Any minute now. . . .

We have uniformed government workers sexually assaulting random Americans at airports and bus stops, F16 fighters escorting air planes to the ground, bomb scares in Boston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and D.C. ; and in New York:

New York police amassed a display of force on Friday including checkpoints that snarled traffic in response to intelligence about a car or truck bomb plot linked to the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Officers armed with automatic weapons were stationed at city landmarks including Wall Street, Times Square and the September 11 memorial site where the Twin Towers once stood.

[snip]

New Yorkers who have grown accustomed to bag searches at subway stations and random displays of police presence encountered increased vigilance after the threat, which prompted President Barack Obama to order a redoubling of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Yeah, we sure don't give in to fear not one little bit. Nothing tells me that the republic is at ease like amassed police with automatic weapons in major cities. My favorite, sweet little truffle from yesterday morning's news:

Mejia now is close to marking her fourth year as a TSA security officer. She has worked every September 11, she said. "It's somewhat an honor to be here today, to watch, to say that people are not afraid to fly, and we are here to help," Mejia said.

This is from an article titled "Travelers feel fear, resolve about flying on September 11." Someone should probably tell her that thousands, if not millions of Americans fear flying the other 364 days out of the year because of the fear of having their intimate body parts rigorously fondled by blue-glove wearing tyrants who work for the TSA.

"Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR
TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. Four times. Back right and left, and
front right and left. In my vagina. Between my labia. I was shocked -- utterly
unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there. It was government-sanctioned sexual assault."

I know I always feel safer about travel knowing that when I get to the airport, there is a high likelyhood that some disgusting stranger in a dirty blue shirt will painfully grab ahold of my satchel; but it's awesome though and totally worth it because some spineless wimp of a man behind me will feel like these good hearted goverment agents are dilligently keeping everyone safe. Even though they're not.

Fear not, muslim friends, we're here to find terrorists. I'm clearing your minds of all anxiety." - Sarah; Team America: World Police

Have a safe day!!

Deerly beloved

What's this!?!? Can't feed the deer? Does this mean the Commonwealth can fine you if Bambi is caught gnawing on your azaleas? Can I still feed them 123 grain A-MAXes?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Really this asinine law adds up to nothing considering whitetailed deer are amazingly prolific and can eat pretty much any plant in the state. So what, putting handfuls of corn or apples in your yard is going to bring about famine and pestilence to the whitetail population?

Feeding them can unnaturally increase population numbers that damage natural habitats and can increase unwanted human-deer conflicts.

Human-deer conflicts? Like this kind? If you really wanted to reduce said conflicts, then how about rescinding that other asinine law that says folks can't hunt on Sundays. I bet in two seasons the number of vehicle/deer collisions would plummet. And how exactly does feeding them increase their population? Deer are some of the most fruitful creatures on the planet; I highly doubt saltlicks and C'Mere Deer are going to make them hornier than they already are.

Now lets talk about the "damage [to] natural habitats." Do you really think that DC has at times had 200 deer per square mile because residents feed them? I think the vehicular slaughter and mangled gardens and flower pots should be considered as damaged natural habitat, as it includes both human and deer living space. Maybe something should be done about the explosion of the deer population in highly developed areas before the state resorts to fining grandma for tossing peaches into her yard.

***ETA: I didn't catch this little gem the first time around:

The practice can also be misconstrued as deer baiting, which is illegal.

I side with Ted Nugent in that everything a hunter does to make a kill is "baiting."

Sitting in a stand watching a corn field?

Baiting!

Propped up against a tree on a ridgeline watching the creek?

Baiting!

Waiting for a buck to come back to a scrape?

Baiting!

It's all an illusion made to keep you in a particular mindset. I raise the bullshit flag on this one; if the state cares so much about a healthy deer population, they would shelf stupid laws like this one and let hunters shoot deer on Sundays.

Is firefighting not dangerous enough?

I have to hand it to them, DC politicritters have a super active imagination! Their latest bright idea is to post firefighters in high crime areas and have them just stand there, unarmed, with the belief that thugs will stop robbing and assaulting people because of the flashing red lights.

What happens when the thugs decide that taking lunch money isn't exciting enough, and that the chance to drive a firetruck is as easy as taking out unarmed firemen? Funny how it's "everyone's job to make sure that our city is safe," as long as "everyone" is on the government payroll.

The police officer interviewed in the video is spot on, and I can appreciate his angst. I'd be pissed, too!

***Here's a short article on it, naming DC Police Union spokesman Kris Baumann as the vocal person grilling the idea.

Why not hire Batman instead?

It would be a better idea than the one proposed:

On the heels of an uptick in violence that claimed the life of an off-duty cop, Newark's city council voted Thursday to require all late-night restaurants that serve less than 20 people at a time to have an armed security guard posted from 9 p.m. to closing.

Mmmmm hmmmm. I see. So you want the restaurants that presumably bring in the least amount of profit to shoulder the major financial burden of hiring an armed dude to just stand there, all because a cop was gunned down by scumbags who sped by suddenly in a car and open fire? What exactly is an armed guard supposed to do to prevent a drive-by shooting? Would an armed guard fare better at stopping a drive-by than a cop? Will the city pay to have ballistic glass installed on the restaurants, and buy body armor for the guards?

Here's a novel idea: why don't you allow the store owners and patrons to be their own armed guards? How hard is that? It's doubtful that it would prevent drive-by shootings, but it would certainly make the stores a harder target for thieves and thugs.

If it seems like I have a lot of questions, it's because the idea of making small businesses hire armed security is a stupid fucking idea. It's the sort of non-solution that can be expected from a city council of Newark; although it does seem that Newarkians don't really give a damn about protecting themselves, so maybe it's warranted.

What could possibly go wrong?

On Tuesday, the United Nations again made itself an international laughing stock – except perhaps to the American taxpayers who continue to foot 22 percent of the bill – by appointing North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament.

Well, it is for only four weeks, and it's not like they were the first pick; it works via alphabetical order, and Madagascar or some other country already got their shot (My pun, can you feel it?). It still makes me wonder why the rest of the U.N. conference can't just skip over North Korea like short people get skipped to play basketball and maybe pick a country that is not so insane, like Nigeria.

In other news, Mayors Against Guns has picked Lee Boyd Malvo to be the next spokesman against gun violence.

Metal folding chairs and spandex underwear

That's all that separates the federal government from another exciting form of entertainment: professional wrestling.

Both industries use sensationalism and theatrics to make for an exciting spectacle; both have clearly divided casts of characters that can go from antagonist to good guy in a moment; both have orchestrated maneuvers for the safety of all parties; and most importantly, both have predetermined outcomes. It's all fake but interesting entertainment carefully crafted to keep you dramatically chained to the edge of your seat.

The news this morning is awash with the story of how President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were in heated "negotiations" this weekend over issues with buzzwords like "debt ceiling," "spending cuts," "deficit cutting," "divided government," "Ministry of Darkness." Well, maybe not that last one. I'll leave it up to y'all to determine which politicritter played Rick Flair and which one played Ricky Steamboat.

Thinking about it, is there really a deficit? Does it exist? Does any of this really matter? If Americans were not struggling against perpetual debt, trying to pay off a federal deficit, they would be in a perpetual struggle to pay off something else. We have become too comfortable running like hamsters in a wheel to achieve something we believe we have to achieve.

While the fruits of the federal government's labor (funny, right?) does affect millions of people, I consider it totally fake and will continue to love my family and serve my fellow man with complete indifference. Water off a ducks' back. If anyone needs me, I will be in my bunk dreaming of one day being able to shoot F-Class, and fish for Marlin on my own boat.

Political seppuku

The Obama administration has apparently decided to jump aboard the gun control train and see what kind of wreck they can make of it. I am surprised at this; I expected that they would light the torches around the gun control altar after President Obama's re-election is determined. Either way, I don't see how there can even be an agreement when the vast majority sees gun ownership as being a basic human right, and not a political gemstone that needs to be placed on a political party's ring.

There's some good stuff in there, like here where President Obama lashes out at Congress for slacking on their duties to the American people:

"Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it," he wrote.

Oh, wait, actually he was directing that statement at firearms, and not necessarily firearms used against Americans by evil people. Silly me. Here's a catch-all statement that can mean so many things as to be virtually useless:

"I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on a gun."

I would offer that I could agree with that statement as long as "dangerous criminals" is strictly defined as criminals that have committed the most serious of an act such as violent rape, murder, or attempted murder, and not someone who verbally distrusts the government and has faded Reagan stickers on their bumper; and I would also add that the mechanism for keeping these dangerous criminals from getting their hands on a gun is by placing them in prison forever, and not delaying millions of non-dangerous people from buying guns at Wal-Mart. I think we may have something there. Sadly, I don't believe that that's the conclusion that President Obama and his administration is shooting for:

Obama called for "sound and effective" steps to prevent lawbreakers from obtaining guns. A system of criminal background checks must be better implemented and made more efficient, he said.

Hmmmmm. Preventing violent criminals from ever seeing the light of day again would qualify as "sound and effective," no? I'm thinking his intent though is to delay the purchase of a Colt at Gander Mountain by five-time serial rapist murderers on parole to the tune of a week or so, and not finding a way to keep them behind bars.

"Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation,'" he wrote.

He doesn't read gun blogs very much. This line here shows me that he doesn't have his finger on the pulse of gun owners these days. I would also add that congress has not made it apparent that confiscation is not on the top of their list, not even by a long shot. And in case you're wondering what type of people President Obama considers "dangerous criminals:"

"A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun," Obama wrote.

The Army rejects amputees, paraplegics, and people who sleepwalk as being unfit for Service, so they should be barred from buying a gun? Is that where you're heading? Sounds like it's going to be an epic train wreck.

Like LEGOs

Committee looks at how to allocate 4,000 housing units in Stafford County

Why not just start stacking them on top of each other? That seems the only logical choice these days considering the sheer amount of homes built in the county over the last decade. So this is exactly what a county plagued with insufficient amount of schools, water, roads, and power needs: more frickin' houses to be filled with more frickin' morons with more frickin' cars.

I've got news for you retards: there ain't many more trees around here to knock over to build your Sim City. It would be wise for you to take your pipe dreams and shove them up your ass.

When unrestrained growth is allowed, you end up with a ton of people in an area that cannot support it ("ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag" - thanks dad!), and when the economy tanks, you end up with tens of thousands of people who want to work but can't. Here we have county politicos suggesting that the fix for this mess is to have more unrestricted growth to get all of the morons working again.

UDAs [Urban Development Areas] are required by state law to accommodate at least 10 years worth of population growth. Eliminating UDAs in Brooke and Widewater left Stafford’s plan with six UDAs—and 4,000 housing units short of its 14,661 requirement. The committee was tasked with finding a place for those units.

Very clever. Stafford county (my county is guilty of this too) completely ignores that "10 year accommodation" part in favor of just rapidly putting up houses and filling them with people, because it's not like they're going to stop the funding stream for one moment. Pockets are being lined, and we can't have reality stand in the way. Notice that three UDAs were eliminated, probably because there couldn't be justification to keep adding to them, and now it's recommended that there be three new one's added, conveniently.

And now there's a recommendation to add a "downtown" area? Where the hell are you going to put it? I don't suppose you are planning on building it in space and then crashing it into the dirt on top of nine subdivisions?

Here's an idea, how about taking the tens of millions of dollars in imaginary funds that you don't have and plan on fixing the nightmare of a roadway and infrastructure problem before you go about making any other plans!

The committee also approved the addition of a 600-unit UDA in Boswell’s Corner. That area had been considered for a UDA last year, but was rejected because Marine Corps Base Quantico officials were concerned that more residents in that area could adversely affect the operations of the base.

Ya think! Completely absent from this article is that 2,700 more Marines and Servicemen - complete with their families, SUVs, and need for shit like power, water, and roads to drive to work on - will be moving into Stafford county this July. I guess that their basic needs take a back seat to other more pressing needs like fresh new architecture to look at "downtown", and maybe a few more Starbucks stores and another Target to buy CDs at.

Snellings also questioned whether the Brooke area could sustain a UDA, as it has a limited road network and no access to public water and sewer.

Have no fear, the county head shed will no doubt publish an exhaustive "study" consisting of a paragraph or two stating that it can support everything as is, and that it can just keep borrowing stuff from the adjacent county.

This jackassery of fueling the overcrowded fire with more bodies is a symptom of being a Virginia politician, I wager. These idiots that the local morons elected will need to hire craftsman skilled at building skyscrapers if they intend to keep up this pace. I'm seeing that the larger picture here is not to turn what used to be a cozy hick town into a bustling place of commerce, or to settle with maintaining it's current status as a suburb of DC, but to turn it into DC.

Fantastic. Lets just hope that somewhere in this madness someone suggests building a Cabelas.

Resurgic Acid

A "resurging" community in DC discovers that it's not so resurgent, with two shootings in two weeks, and residents fearing for their safety. Understandably, something needs to be done. Action must be taken.

So what's the proposed answer? Lighting. More lighting is needed to thwart the "spasm of violence" that rips at the soft underbelly of this community. Oh, and abandoned houses; something needs to be done about them too.

Great job Mayor Grey! Way to step it up there and take the bull by the horns!

When DC leaders respond to crisis like this, you know what it reminds me of? Madlibs.

DC officials are concerned about (adjective) ________ violence in a South East DC community. Just last (time)_______ twelve people were (past-tense verb) _________ while on their way to (utopian place)________. DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier is considering (majestic verb)__________ with (type of people, plural)______________ in an effort to stop them from (verb)___________. DC officials have also considered installing (plural noun)_______________ and (noun)___________ to prevent (adjective)__________ (type of people, plural)______________ from destroying the very fabric of the community.

Go ahead and have some fun with that one.

I bet you a shiny new nickel that there's some government employee that works for the mayor's office who's sole job in life is to dream up words to fill in those blanks, and when the media comes hunting for some BS story, that's the dude they look for.

As for solutions to the violence problem, you know where I stand on such matters.

Dropping acid should be a crime

Obviously what Prince George's county needs these days is some statutes making attacks like this a felony. Maryland is under siege by angry hoodlums; there have been fourteen homicides in nineteen days, so something has to be done. Disregard what the ignorant and tone deaf anonymous commenter wrote in the second article erroneously suggesting that the populace -- not a lack of laws known to effectively regulate malicious human behavior -- is to blame for the scourge of violence. It is Mary-land after all, where everyone is perfectly happy, including disenchanted drug smoking former girlfriends of your recently paroled lover who buy up Assault Solutions (sounds like a cool name for a gun shop) with such wild abandon and use them to bend people to their will.

It's clear that Easy access to dangerous chemicals with no background checks or rectal exams means that any terrorist can get their hands on some and maim or kill. If we could ban a third of the shit that is sold at Wal-Mart, we could end this senseless violence once and for all.

Good grief, what a cesspool PG county has become. The feds have stepped in to help the local cops, who are asking the helpless community to chip in, all the while the cops are increasing their presence in a "show of force". Is that even going to help? Something tells me that knocking on doors, pulling over 1,500 cars, and handing out 100 misdemeanor citations is not going to bring the scumbags to their knees. Just like South East DC, I think it would take a biblical intervention to straighten that whole area out.

There is a way though for PG residents to find real safety from the violent people among them, and it doesn't involve massive police effort or baseless promises from a clueless mayor:

Move.

Pack your shit and move 3 miles West, across the Potomac River, and there you will find a nice place to raise your kids where your chances of getting shot, stabbed, or having your face melted off are slim to none. Be advised though, Alexandria is under a crime wave too, and the police have suggested turning your house light on at night to deal with it, so you can spend your money on good light bulbs instead of kevlar. If you happen to be one of the scumbags causing so much problems in Maryland or DC, know that unlike most of the folks in those areas, Virginia natives are perfectly capable of helping the cops quell community violence, and don't be surprised to see VCDL presence there.

Help us lock up felons and anyone else

That's what I'm getting from this proposal from Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

"Baltimore can be a safer city, and with the help of the Maryland General Assembly, we can pass tougher penalties on illegal gun possession and we can continue to reducing gun violence to historic lows," said Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

And who wouldn't want to reduce illegal gun possession, right? Wait though, what exactly is her definition of illegal gun possession?

She doesn't enlighten us on that, but her proposal gives you an indication:

The bills the mayor will push are for up to 15 years in prison for felons in possession of a gun and a mandatory 18 months in prison for anyone carrying an illegal and loaded weapon.

Let's break it down: Felons in possession of a gun. The Mayor starts off right out of the gate about repeat gun offenders who are dangerous bad guys, and that is what she would lead you to believe she is after, but she is not suggesting 15 years for a violent gun offense; she is saying that possession of a gun contrary to written code is grounds for 15 years off your life, regardless of intent. If an individual served a two year sentence forty years ago for possession of marijuana, that individual can get a 15 year sentence if they live in a residence with someone who owns a Marlin .22 rifle. Same individual in a car pool van that gets pulled over, and one of the passengers has a legal .25 auto in their pocket: does that count as a "felon in possession of a gun?" I would bet that it does.

Now, to the issue of anyone carrying an illegal and loaded weapon: carrying an unloaded weapon is useless unless you are carrying it to the range, and again, I've never seen that qualified. Usually laws are written in an attempt to cover the person who sticks their unloaded gun in the trunk of the car and goes to the shooting range, but even that gets hemmed up as in the case of Brian Aitken. And if you make guns as illegal as possible for anyone to own, you end up with a handy tool to make anyone a criminal. So really the law is aimed at anyone who has a gun and ammunition on or about their person, and there's a lot of grey in their for the legal minions to work with.

But what about the dangerous criminals who repeatedly get caught using a gun in the commission of a violent felony? How do we ensure that they go to prison for a long long time? If you have to ask that question to somebody, you're a retard. I mean that.

Fisking this tired mantra about strengthening gun laws as a means to put criminals behind bars is getting old. It has nothing at all to do with the criminals and everything to do with control of the general population, as they are the ones who are most likely to get hung up in this mess, and there are money making ventures in that.

If a violent scumbag repeatedly gets caught hurting people, then you already have the Nature and Cause to lock them up for eternity. A gun law is an inappropriate and unnecessary tool to that end. If there are gangbangers who won't stop shooting up the streets of Baltimore, than the next time you catch them committing a violent act, that is your chance to keep them out of society by using the laws against hurting people that have existed since Exodus. It ain't any harder than that.

So this whole "we can't stop them unless you pass this law" is a bunch of bullshit that needs to be called out.

DC murders down

According to the Washington Times, there were 131 homicides in the District in 2010, down nine percent from last year. It’s the lowest number of slayings since 1963.

While I'm reluctant to give quarter to DC's Police Chief or her insane crime lowering ideas, her reasoning on the tip line and community intel seem logical. Until there's some bona fide evidence that gunshot detectors do anything but cost a fortune, I'll dismiss the technology part on its face, and note that Chief Lanier made no mention of the hard work and long hours that DC cops put in to lower that homicide number. Shame on her.

The Times reports that it is the second straight year that homicides have declined in the city and the seventh time in 10 years that the nation’s capital has recorded fewer than 200 homicides.

Hold the phones!! Did that just say the second straight year? As if homicides have declined in two years instead of jumping up? I could have sworn I heard predictions about all the shootings, blood in the streets, and mass chaos that would surely stem from the Heller decision.

Who would have known that ordinary human beings could behave themselves?

Well, maybe not these guys; but it seems that the general population doesn't strike the notion to go out on a killing spree that day just because they have a Mossberg in the closet.

A lame duck in denial

"There seems to be some denial about what's contributing to the crime and violence in our community. . ."

You got that right, Mrs. Bland.

Hey, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and assaults county employees for starting a meeting without master. . . . .oh, wait.

And, apparently, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Hmmm.

Full predatorial release

It takes a true bleeding heart to suggest paroling violent kiddie humpers back into the wild before their time is up, but hey, the laws the law, right? It's mandatory!

What could possibly go wrong?

CONCORD – Saying they had no other choice under new mandatory parole laws, state Adult Parole Board members yesterday agreed to set free eight inmates nearing their maximum term in jail. Among the paroled were child sex predators who have not completed prison programs aimed at rehabilitating them, according to Department of Corrections records. "

You are a danger. You are a predator," board member Mark Furlone said to Robin Woodburn Jr., 34, of Manchester. "I think it is disgusting we have to parole you out."

So do I. Of course, states say that they will monitor the lunatics as close as possible, but that's usually only until the cameras are off. Something tells me that guys like Woodburn aren't going to run out and land a job at Pep Boys, find an apartment in a beautiful community, and start an account at eHarmony to help find a meaningful, committed relationship.

Why is it that rule makers decide to blanket everything with their dumb laws? Seriously, of all the people suffering in the world, these dipshits decide that violent scumbags are suffering more, and need the attention of the government to help them pass the time faster. Go save the homeless or something. Their is a reason that prisons are known as places of suffering.

Advocates for Senate Bill 500 have said the bill would reallocate savings from the early release into programs within the community and provide treatment such as counseling for inmates.

And hopefully rape counseling and child victim rehabilitation, too. Let's not forget about the non-felon members of the community.

They argue that in the past, inmates who "max" out their time go into the community without any plan or support, and that this change ultimately would be safer and give victims more knowledge and control.

Apparently not, as felons are paroled regardless if they have a fat 401k, trust fund, and Bentley driven by loving family members waiting for them at the prison gates. And how does releasing them early give them control? What kind of control?

Sex offenders Woodburn, Michael Navarro, Anthony Blakney and Theodore Roosevelt are among the first inmates to be released under Senate Bill 500.

Awesome. Go on and read about what upstanding members of the community these guys were, and now envision them using the enlightening experiences that they earned in state prison for the good of all. What, why are you laughing? You don't think Navarro can make it as a grounds keeper at the local elementary school? Maine won't let him have any porn, which we all know will definitely keep his urges suppressed in the safest fashion. Wouldn't want him looking at nude pictures of consensual adults; we need his mind focused on flowers and stuff. And Blakney? With a little sprinkle of hope, and a dash of state sponsored caring, I am sure that he will do just fine as a little league coach. Your little Tommy is gonna have a smashing good swing with some of Blakney's gentle touch. Just watch!

(H/T to my brother)

It's the culture of violence, stupid

It's absurd that political mouthpieces in DC keep hammering away with the idea that they can control the actions of people at some future time with new laws today. That is the whole concept behind gun laws; make it harder for people to buy them by passing the laws, and maybe they will choose a life that does not include crime.

Nowhere is this concept more tauted than in DC. The problem with it? How about this story:

As the funeral for 21-year-old Ashley McRae at Walker Memorial Baptist Church in the 2000 block of 13th Street let out and cars lined up for the funeral procession, shots rang out, Collins reported.

People were getting into a car, presumably to join the funeral procession, when shots were fired at that car, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said.

Two cars sped onto U Street where more shots were fired. One car flipped onto its roof, and another crashed into a truck. The incident ended at 11th and U streets.

Just to make it abundantly clear what happened yesterday: at a funeral for a girl shot to death over a simple domestic dispute, gang bangers attending the funeral taunted one another to the point where they decided it was best to not let the funeral procession even get to the location to put the first shooting victim in the ground; no, it was best to get into a vehicular firefight on a busy street and flip cars and kill one another.

The Wild West is so yesterday folks. We're talking new age stuff now -- the Wild East. Obviously what is needed here isn't a change in the violent culture that nobody wants to talk about, but some new laws. Because nothing shows you're dead serious about keeping the peace like some fresh ink on the books at City Hall:

"We are absolutely fed up with this madness, which is present today, but it has been present before," said Graham, who returned from vacation when he heard about the shooting. "And we need new legal remedies."

Mmmmmm, yeah. I feel it now. Give me those legal remedies! Every DC citizen should post them on their door to show those pesky gang bangers that shooting up a funeral or terrorizing a neighborhood can land you a lifetime decade in the slammer! That'll show em'!!

Hey jackass!! Something tells me that "Mess with the best and serve like the rest!!!" doesn't quite send the hardcore message that you intended. So I can get this straight, in my head, you're suggesting that the laws barring criminals from murdering, attempting to murder, discharging firearms in the streets, shooting from a moving vehicle, etc., are not strong enough legal remedies? More are needed? Like what, exactly? Shooting from a Vehicle in the First Degree?

That's what the revolving door of DC's justice system reeeeeeally needs! MORE HINGES!!

"This resulted from a taunting," said Councilman Jim Graham. "This was a taunting at a funeral! And we have this kind of a serious consequence as a result.

"The young girl whose funeral was held today, she's dead because she was talking to somebody other than her boyfriend at a club. This is the level that we're dealing with right now in terms of the madness and insanity that permeates these activities."

"It's a continuation of a pattern of violence in this city that's gone on too long," Weaver said.

We need some seriously worded stuff here, like Class A Felony Taunting While Attending a Funeral. There's no time to lose!

Why oh why somebody, anybody, is not bringing up the fact that there is a cultural problem that very well may be the key to the front door of the violence problem. But let's not get into that! It's TOO HARD!

There is another way, and that's to stop letting the gang bangers out of prison like six frickin' times, giving them the chance to wreak havoc. Compare and contrast the outcomes of the justice systems separated by that muddy water and tell me what works. How about instead of giving a convicted violent felon the benefit of the doubt, you try giving him three times the maximum sentence. Scumbags who are behind bars have a hard time shooting up city streets and flipping SUVs, so I hear.

Under whelmed

According to the latest Mayors Against All guns report, the ATF could only trace just over half of the guns found at crime scenes, and of those successfully traced, 70% were originally purchased from the state where the crime was committed.

Oh yeah, but the other 30% of the guns traced were not perfectly distributed amongst the 57 states, so there's cause for alarm. You know, I haven't had the time to read through the entire study, but something tells me that there's a bunch more under whelming stuff in there. I'll get right on top of it.