Tag Archives: safety

The State can’t Protect you, …but it doesn’t want You to Protect YOURSELF, either

Two news items, both from Oregon, and both dealing with the right and ability to defend yourself. Apparently, the fine folks in Oregon are intent on having you as defenseless as possible.

The first one is from a week or so back, and received scant attention before the Memorial Day Weekend. From CBSLocal.com:

911 emergencyAn Oregon woman was told by a 911 dispatcher that authorities wouldn’t be able be able to help her as her ex-boyfriend broke into her place, because of budget cuts.

Oregon Public Radio reports that an unidentified woman called 911 during a weekend in August 2012 while Michael Bellah was breaking into her place. Her call was forwarded to Oregon State Police because of lay-offs at the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office only allows the department to be open Monday through Friday.

“Uh, I don’t have anybody to send out there,” the 911 dispatcher told the woman. “You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, …can you ask him to go away?

Continue reading

An Informed Opinion on Gun Control

The attached post is by far the most complete treatment of the subject I’ve seen anywhere recently. Its author says that until his suggestion is honestly considered, any alleged “national conversation” isn’t a debate, it’s a “lecture”…and he’s 100% right.


So please, take a few minutes and read it. It will either (A) change your mind completely, (B) reinforce what you already believe, or (C) leave you tremendously more informed on this subject than you were 10 minutes ago.

Disarming innocent people doesn’t PROTECT innocent people…

An excellent analysis…


A Must Read From David Kopel





” Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.


Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. The exception was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which set up an extremely severe registration and tax system for automatic weapons and has remained in force for 78 years.


Since gun controls today are far stricter than at…

View original post 172 more words

Thomas Sowell: “Invincible Ignorance”

Liberalism: creating the exact OPPOSITE of its stated intent since the ’60s.

Gds44's Blog

Invincible Ignorance – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com.

By Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

gunfreeThe key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban…

View original post 651 more words

Run and Hide

If our Federal Government would just take a day off from trying to run &/or ruin our lives, that would make me deliriously happy.

Courtesy of the Examiner.com:

U.S. Border Patrol Agents, along with others under the authority of the DHS and President Obama, are being told to “run and hide” if they encounter a shooter like the one Democratic Rep Gabrielle Giffords did, according to Fox News.  Federal law enforcement officers are never supposed to run and hide instead of fight and defend. So why is that now happening under the Obama administration through this new training video?

Police are never supposed to leave victims to their own devices in crisis situations. They are always supposed to risk life and limb to protect others. That’s even part of the pledge they take when sworn into duty: that they will defend the innocent and helpless.

Yet the latest DHS computer course, known as “IS-907-Active Shooter: What You Can Do”, is telling all federal employees (not just the civilians) that if they encounter workplace violence, like the gunmen who shot Rep. Giffords, that they are to evacuate, hide out—and as a very, very, last resort, ….maybe take action.

Border Patrol Agents definitely face the possibility of workplace violence guarding the U.S. borders. So telling them to evacuate where they are supposed to be protecting is like asking them not to bother doing their job.

Both FOX NEWS and Breitbart.com mention the disconnect between who exactly this training is for. The DHS is not exactly clearing up the confusion, either.

DHS officials maintain that the Active Shooter course was designed for all  employees—civilian and law-enforcement officers— and no one should rush into a  situation where they, or others around them, could get hurt.

I did some digging around on the web and managed to locate the online version of the training HERE.

And on the main page it does mention that it is intended for non-law enforcement employees. Still, if it were that cut-and-dry, the border patrol union wouldn’t still be raising a stink about it since June 20th, and/or the Feds would have responded clearly by now. Something doesn’t make sense.

We just might get some answers sooner than later, since this news caught the eye of Sandy Adams, Representative from Florida’s 24th District. Adams has already has sent a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, requesting clarification. Judging from Napolitano’s history, of course, I’m not exactly holding my breath while I wait.


Actually, my biggest beef is with the training itself. I’ve had to get through hours and hours of company sponsored, computer-administered training during many years in a Fortune 100 company. And this is pretty pathetic, even by comparison.  As a matter of fact, some parts of it are contradictory and outright dumb. For instance, check out this section on “how/where to hide”:

Your hiding place should:

  • Be out of the active shooter’s view.
  • Provide  protection if shots are fired in your direction (i.e., an office with a closed  and locked door).
  • Not trap you or restrict your options for movement.

To prevent an active shooter from entering your hiding place:

  • Lock  the door.
  • Blockade the door with heavy furniture.
  • Close, cover, and move away from windows.


So, somehow I’m supposed to find a place that I can barricade myself in, and yet be somewhere that doesn’t “trap” me? Huh? Where exactly would that be? In almost every office I know, the majority of rooms and offices have only one door, with the possible exception of the cafeteria.

(Hey, I think I just thought of a new regulation for FEMA to mandate! Yay, me!!)


I downloaded the test, too. It’s even worse than the training. My own standard for that determination is: if I can skip the training and STILL get 100% on the exam, ….both the test and the training are totally unnecessary.

Judge for yourself. Here’s an actual question from the test:

12. After an active shooter incident is over, human resources and/or management should analyze the lessons learned and:

a. Hold a press conference to describe how the organization handled the crisis and recognize law enforcement’s exemplary response efforts.

b. Identify the shooter’s mental health problems to exonerate the organization of any wrongdoing.

c. Require future potential employees to undergo mandatory psychological testing, to screen out anyone with mental health issues.

d. Develop an after-action report that describes how the Emergency Action Plan worked and how it might be improved.

Seriously? Someone got paid to write this? Glad to see brain-dead, bureaucratic CYA training is alive and well in the Federal Government.


For what it’s worth: If I was in management at one of these locations, the very first item I’d cover as part of MY preparation is noticeably absent from the existing training: I’d want to know how many people have a concealed carry permit, and if they regularly carry.

‘Cause personally, I’m guessin’ most folks would feel a whole lot safer “hiding” in THOSE people’s offices, if-you-know-what-I-mean.