Posts Made By: Rob Wiederrich

Tony Aguire said:

Not sure where to put this, but since it is political in nature.

To go over the cliff or not? Is it worth it to get some things done?

Greg Shaffer said:

According to data released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office since the 2013 fiscal year began Oct 1st we have borrowed 46 cents of every dollar our government has spent since Oct 1st.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/7/government-borrows-46-cents-every-dollar-it-spends/

Dave Snope said:

I'm all tingly with anticipation that the fiscal cliff could now turn in to an awesome bungee jump shot on GoPro video.

Jim Johnson said:

http://news.yahoo.com/californias-berkeley-college-scholarships-illegal-immigrants-022706936.html

At least it's private money. You would think 200 deserving legal CA students could be found who could use that money.

Jim J

Greg Shaffer said:

The only tried and true method of preventing mass shootingsþ. Of course most liberals will stop reading at "by Ann Coulter" to wipe their rabidly instant case of foaming at the mouth without finishing....but she is 100% correct.

WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

by Ann Coulter

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of
defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary
school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done
to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the
University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study
of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977
and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and
death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed
right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and
background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties
for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage
from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at
reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is
working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate
from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement,
poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime
rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings
was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate
generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state
only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal
planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone
in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free
zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public
schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where
James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where
a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.


Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but
they're not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to
you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping
mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation
was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only
two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the
mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the
shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted
mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because
there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother
Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public
shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case
was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases
where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at
public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones
where the shooter wasn't stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass
shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where
the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a
couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but
refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples
excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel
Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the
nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns
blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the
attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded
restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead:
Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean
and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more
ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a
third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as
well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened
to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the
shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people
at his high school, student heads for the junior high school;
assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car
and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total
dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance
being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and
stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far
higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead);
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School,
Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five
little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five
killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people
getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones
study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by
reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they
cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry
laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent
grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being
murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

Mel Maki said:

http://www.seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

Rod Kaufman said:

I know it's hard to believe but:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55961183-78/gun-checks-background-percent.html.csp
Whatever will the NRA do?...