The Department of Homeland Security often says this: “If you see something, say something.”
Unfortunately a lot of people fear what might happen if they follow that advice, as evidenced by this person who noticed suspicious activity at a home where the people accused of killing 14 in San Bernardino had been living:
It was believed that the Redlands home was the home of Syed Farook’s sister and mother.
The second shooting suspect who was killed in a shootout with authorities was identified as Farook’s wife of two years, Tashfeen Malik, 27.
Neighbors in Redlands were shocked that the suspects had ties to their area.
“I was in awe that it was happening four houses down from my property,” one neighbor said.
A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.
“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. “We’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.”
ALL those non-Islamic-related mass violence deaths were done by right-wingers, eh?
CNN also used the “since 9/11” technique to avoid escalating the Islamic terrorism numbers dramatically. That’s as ridiculous as making a chart listing deaths caused by Nazis and using the disclaimer “since June 1945.”
Also, if CNN used data before 9/11, they’d have to include wacky Ted Kaczynski, who wasn’t exactly a devoted fan of the GOP (Republicans don’t tend to have dog-eared, highlighted copies of Al Gore’s books in their collections).
Fifteen to 20 minutes running around shooting people without being stopped. On a U.S. military base — full of disarmed soldiers.
Can you imagine what kind of carnage would ensue if somebody were able to pull off a coordinated attack involving several gunmen at a base because of the ridiculous PC gun regs at U.S. military installations?
Last night I read some comments from people on lockdown at Fort Hood, and a couple of them said they felt safer and less helpless in Afghanistan than they do when they’re at Fort Hood. And no, Piers Morgan, they don’t feel less safe because others might have a gun. They feel less safe because they’ve been stripped of theirs.
You knew it would be said, but I thought Bob Costas might have been one that would have at least waited until all the facts are known before going off in this direction. I was wrong:
BOB COSTAS: Well, you knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective. Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf-life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective. You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree, but who today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.
“Our current gun culture,”Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.”
“Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?”
“But here,” wrote Jason Whitlock,” is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”
Yeah, just like O.J. Simpson. If he hadn’t had a… wait, nevermind.
The author quoted by Costas notes Belcher’s actions could have a “possible connection to football” — and yet Whitlock and Costas never once claimed that it might be necessary to ban football?
There’s a tremendous hole in the argument of those pushing to make handguns illegal everywhere. Murder is also illegal. If someone isn’t dissuaded by the latter law, what makes anybody think the former will deter them? Designing more laws to stop people who don’t pay attention to laws seems stupid, but what do I know? I’m just a bitter clinger.
Ben Stein made some good points in this article published over the summer:
In Sandpoint, North Idaho, where I live for most of the summer, it’s extremely easy to buy a gun. You can buy them at stores and at gun shows, or just at yard sales. Yet there are almost no gun deaths in Bonner County, Idaho.
The last ones of note in North Idaho were done by the FBI at Ruby Ridge, and that’s a different story.
On the other hand, in my beloved Los Angeles, where I live most of the year, there’s extremely strict gun control. It’s a real project to buy a gun.
Here, we have gang shootings and death by guns on a terrifying scale. In my native city of Washington, D.C., the same goes: Strict gun control and lots of shootings.
The same goes for Chicago. Strict gun control and a lot of killing.
Obviously, Sandpoint, Idaho, is a very much calmer place than Chicago, and I’m not saying that people in Chicago should be allowed to just tote guns in their cars the way many can, and do, in North Idaho.
But my point is that there is nothing easy or simple about the relationship between gun control and crime. If a man had started shooting in a crowd in North Idaho, probably several men in the crowd would have shot him down immediately. Maybe a woman, too.
I’m not for vigilante law enforcement. But I am also not for government disarming everyone but criminals.
Here’s Costas from last night, presumably spoken while guards carrying handguns kept NBC’s perimeter secure:
If I were black or Hispanic and my kids were in Florida schools I’d find this just a tad offensive:
The Florida State Board of Education passed a plan that sets goals for students in math and reading based upon their race.
On Tuesday, the board passed a revised strategic plan that says that by 2018, it wants 90 percent of Asian students, 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanics and 74 percent of black students to be reading at or above grade level. For math, the goals are 92 percent of Asian kids to be proficient, whites at 86 percent, Hispanics at 80 percent and blacks at 74 percent. It also measures by other groupings, such as poverty and disabilities, reported the Palm Beach Post.
What are the odds though that if you were to hold a bake sale in Florida similar to this one the Board of Education there would find it terribly offensive?
I’ve read the reports and have been told by members of the military that the rules of engagement are nuts, which is why this wouldn’t surprise me in the least:
Reports indicate U.S. soldiers and British Royal Marines have been urged to show “courageous constraint” by not shooting Taliban members spotted planting IEDs.
The reason? Shooting them might disturb the locals.
This news comes out on the heels of an investigation into the death of Royal Marine Sergeant Peter Rayner, whom witnesses say watched the Taliban plant IEDs at night but was ordered not to engage them. Families of other soldiers and Royal Marines are telling stories of how their loved ones were not allowed to use mortars or night illumination when they came across Taliban members in an area full of IEDs.
The reason given was that “the sound of shooting ‘might wake up and upset the locals.'”
Over 2,000 of our finest have died there and thousands more have made life-altering sacrifices, and some of these can probably be attributed to orders from on high to not interrupt beauty sleep for nearby residents? Maddening.