...She doesn't even know I exist but I hope that one day she will even blogroll me. Who? Rachel Lucas of course. She is just too cool and she has comments on issues affecting many of the previous posts I've made today (you'll see them as you scroll down) with perfect alacrity. Of course, in recent days she has offered her (thank you!) comments on "my kind..." and drawn the heat for it from some of the life-forms in Darwin's Waiting Room... I know she is widely read, and a "piker" like myself couldn't possibly help her, but I always enjoy reading her blog and appreciate her outlook on things. In case there are one or two visitors here who don't know about her yet, go there now and enjoy.

But wait! Again, she (along with the always interesting and seemingly always under siege A Small Victory blog,) are still being "de-linked" by those tolerant, free-speech folks on the left. As usual, it is the "enlightened" liberals who make a big issue out of refusing to link to anyone who disagrees with their agenda. How tired; how unsurprising; how typical of the left. And then they stand around in stunned amazement that they continue to lose credibility -- not to mention elections.

You know, I thought I had put the whole "de-linking" thing to rest with a post that even my blog-father linked to (scroll way down.) But apparently not. Anyway, I've added both of them to my list of links (and hopefully will be able to move to my "friends" links soon.) not just because they are being "de-linked" by others, but because they have truly great blogs.

Aside from Rachel's supportive comments about people like me (and folks, I can tell you that it is a strange feeling to sit here and read comments by folks stating their feelings about whether I'm a good person or not...) but also... well, I'm not going to make a big deal over all this, just visit Rachel and enjoy a great blog.

As an aside, my buddy Aubrey Turner offers his support on the subject. And on the subject of "de-linking," my friend Diane is wrestling with the issue from a much different standpoint.

---

So there you go; some great stuff to check out this weekend. As I said at the beginning of today's posts, I usually take Saturday off but with all this good reading around... Anyway, NOW I really am taking the rest of the weekend off. I plan to spend my (once per month) weekend catching up on my mystery and sci-fi pulps, and playing StarCraft. So I'll see you all here Sunday night, same Bat-Channel. Thanks for stopping by.

So for those who didn't know: I'm gay. And Jewish. Despite the notoriety of Vermont's Civil-Unions bill, you might be surprised to learn that there aren't a whole lot of gay folks around here. And (probably) even fewer Jews. So I know what it means to feel unique and alone so to speak. Anyway, a post by Mike Silverman comments on the rise of anti-Semitism in America these days with results from a disturbing poll. He is also a gay Jew. He brings an important perspective, relating his proudness of being gay, to how Jewish folks should respond to anti-Semitism. He concludes thusly:

We've survived thousands of years of persecution, and we're not going to be f*cked with by snooty idiotarian academics, terrorism apologists, or biased news media. The vast majority of the American people are good people and are on our side. We mustn't forget that.

Exactly. (Ghod, Glenn's good influence on me affects everything!)

Meanwhile, Lynxx Pherrett has a major post at Assume The Position from last week that I somehow missed. You shouldn't. It's about the worldwide scope of trade in human (mostly women and children) slaves forced into mostly prostitution. This is in response to reports that somehow this all came about in the Balkans because of the presence of NATO peace keeping forces. Here's a quote:

By underestimating the worldwide scope of trafficking in persons, especially women and children tricked or forced into sex slavery, its easy to claim the peaceakeepers are the cause the problem. But the slavers would be in the Balkans whether there had been a NATO intervention or not, and the only thing Henley's economic analysis of prostitution and war really indicates is whether any location is more likely to be a source of sex slaves than their destination. And that analysis leaves out relative economic and ethnic considerations. For example, Poland is both a source and destination. It is a destination for women trafficked in from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria; and Poles are trafficked out to Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.

This is a disturbing story and Lynxx has sorted through and commented on a lot of information. It deserves a wide readership.

However, there are some cool things around the blogosphere I'd like to point you to. Think of this as my usual "Sunday drive" a day early...

First of all, a post by William Quick further demonstrating how pathetic the left (particularly in our learning centers) has become in trying to control all of our thoughts and punish anyone who dares exercise their 1st Amendment right of free speech. In this case, a student wrote something on their home computer! And now has to apologize to the school... Bill sums it up:

We are talking thought crime here, folks, and that is the absolute antithesis of free expression. It is the province of the dictatorship, the tyrant, the whip and the chains. As for the bozo speaking for LULAC, he should take his Marxist collectivist search for a "solution" and insert it in whichever of his collective orifices will accept it, given that no doubt the preferred solution involves ignoring Huang's constitutional right to free expression and forcing him, under pain of punishment, to grovel "apologize" and undergo bootlicking "sensitivity training,".

I've ranted on this before but usually in connection with England, where the police now spend their time arresting anyone who makes any vaguely disparaging remark about any group of people.

I wish I had more time to rant about this but I have to head off to work shortly. Maybe someone else can pinch-hit for me. A couple of new anti-gun articles appeared on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page, reporting on a just released study by Stanford University law professor John Donohue. From L.A. Times writer Aparna Kumar, here's the story and a quote:

WASHINGTON -- State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution.

The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict an influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

Since the late 1970s, 33 states -- California is not among them -- have enacted "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun permits to qualified applicants. Among the states are Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nevada.

But social scientists, represented on opposing sides by Donohue and Lott, remain stubbornly divided over the effect of such laws on crime rates. "If somebody had to say which way is the evidence stronger, I'd say that it's probably stronger that the laws are increasing crime, rather than decreasing crime," Donohue said Wednesday in an interview. "But the stronger thing I could say is that I don't see any strong evidence that they are reducing crime."

Here's the other article from Robert Crowe of The Houston Chronicle, which relates more directly to the effects in Texas

Anyway, I've always said that you can make statistics show anything you want to. John Lott's findings are widely respected (even if loathed by liberals) and you just knew someone would try to twist things to show a contrary position. Folks can hurl statistics at each other till the cows come home but I refuse to give up my guns and right to carry. If someone wants to attack me, I will put up a fight.

In the meantime, it might be revealing to look at another of anti-gun John Donohue's "studies." In 1999, he co-authored a repulsive study linking increased abortions to dropping crime-rates. From the Detroit Free Press:

CHICAGO -- Two scholars studying the causes of the declining U.S. crime rate have reached a provocative conclusion: Legalizing abortion in the early 1970s eliminated many of the potential criminals of the 1990s.

The research, which has been circulating among economists and criminal-law experts, suggests those who would have been at greatest risk of criminal activity during the peak crime years of young adulthood -- the unwanted offspring of teenage and poor women -- were aborted at disproportionately high rates more than two decades ago.

Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and John Donohue III, a Stanford University Law School professor, conclude that legalized abortion may explain as much as half of the overall crime reduction the nation experienced from 1991 to 1997.

Yes, let's just kill minority children so they don't grow up to become criminals. I'm running out of time here -- I really have to get ready for work -- but most regulars know I lean toward the Pro-Life position. Not foaming at the mouth, but certainly I consider abortion disgusting considering how inexpensive birth-control is these days. Anyway, Angela Franz of NRLC says it all here:

There are several problems with the Levitt-Donohue study. First of all, their study only demonstrates that lower crime rates chronologically followed high abortion rates, not that high abortion rates caused the lower crime rates. In logic, this fallacy is known as the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, which means that they assume that, since x happened after y, therefore x happened because of y.

Despite their protestations of neutrality, by singling out the abortion rate among poor and minority women instead of focusing on much more likely scenarios such as changes in economic prosperity within society as a whole or on changes in urban law- enforcement techniques, Levitt and Donohue reveal themselves to be deeply committed to the pro-abortion ideology.

Second, Levitt and Donohue are perhaps ignorant of the dangerously flawed historical pedigree of their "provocative" ideas. Similar "provocative" thoughts were offered back in 1925, when eugenicist and Chicago Municipal Court Judge Harry Olson said, "Crime prevention, finally, is seen to be the weeding out of defective stocks."

Judge Olson advocated not abortion but forced sterilization for those "defective" types. Not coincidentally, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), invited Olson to participate in her 1923 Middle Western States Birth Control Conference, during which the reduction of " delinquency" (that is, the propensity to commit crimes) would be discussed.

By the 1930s, German legal and medical journals were full of " evidence" that linked the reproduction of certain kinds of people to greater crime. In 1935 Nazi medical leader Gerhard Wagner claimed that criminality was higher among Jews than non-Jews, a " fact" that helped to justify the systematic extermination of Jews.

The Levitt-Donohue study and such eugenic "findings" share several common characteristics. First, there is the predisposition to label certain classes of people - - not surprisingly, the most marginalized and powerless classes - - as predetermined, whether genetically or environmentally, to committing crimes, an approach that would lead naturally to the conclusion that those classes of people really ought not to reproduce their kind.

Second, both the Levitt-Donohue study and other eugenic "findings" are a prime example of bad science being used in the service of a lethally racist ideology. Levitt himself acknowledges that the study does not provide the kind of "certainty that, say, a scientist might want."

Exactly. So now we know a bit more about John Donohue. And how his methodology works. So in regards to his latest study claiming that law-abiding citizens owning guns leads to more crime... No thanks, I'll throw my lot in with Lott.

Swen Swenson has a very entertaining blog, Coyote At The Dog Show and even put a very nice mention of Alphecca up. And he added me into his blogroll --under my proper name, which puts me right next to "you know who..." Maybe some of Andrew's Midas Touch will rub off on me... Anyway, thanks very much Swen, I appreciate the linkage.

...I'm still trying to decide what to do with comments you folks send in. I've been putting them in the comments column on the left side-bar but I realize that some of them seem meaningless out of context. So tonight I'm trying a new system, sort of what my blog-father does; incorporating them into the posts themselves. So you'll see that as updates in several of my postings below, including my "weekly tally." Let me know what you think. Or should I just include them after my postings so as not to disturb my precious diatribes? I still don't believe I will actually have a comment machine like most blogs as I really want to control the silly or rude stuff. I have no problem about including dissenting opinions --as you can see-- here and on the side-bar.

Incidentally, I received a donation today. It's only the second since I asked for help last year. I'm keeping my contributors anonymous but I sincerely thank both of them. It gives me a sense of worth about what I'm doing here and I appreciate it very much. Thank you!

And as always, I thank all of you for stopping by and just a reminder that if you have a blog and you blogroll me, please let me know so I can reciprocate and add you to my blogger-friends list on the side-bar. And it does help keep you on my radar, so to speak...

...But now I really like the stuff. Anyway, I had a couple drinks at the local pub tonight. I only say that because I got an email today from my buddy and fellow RUSH fan Jay Manifold letting me know he had dedicated this post to me at A Voyage To Arcturus. And being a little fuzzy right now, I haven't a clue to what it's about. But I thank him and I will examine it again when my sheets aren't blowing in the wind...

Yes, it's time for the weekly report from the Alphecca Research and Statistician team. Every week we check on the slant of the articles and editorials posted on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. They call it a "debate" and yet they seem to have forgotten to invite anyone from "our" side... Granted, Yahoo is a "left coast" company filled with liberals. But you would think they would strive for some sort of balance. You'd be wrong... Here's this week's tally:

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page Articles
Sample Date	For More Gun Control Or Is Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment	Neutral Articles	Concurrent Events Notes
01/22/03	18	1	1	Sniper victim lawsuits against gunshop & Bushmaster and AZ arms cache
01/14/03	14	1	4
01/08/03	16	3	2	England gang murders & ban on air/replica guns
01/01/03	15	4	1
12/25/02	15	4	1	NJ "smart gun" law
12/18/02	13	4	3
12/11/02	13	6	4	Canadian registry fiasco
12/04/02	15	2	3
11/26/02	17	2	1
11/20/02	18	2	2
11/13/02	14	2	3
11/07/02	17	4	-	Sniper caught
10/26/02	21	4	-	DC Sniper

I guess we few folks who still support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have virtually no voice left in this debate. It is now so heavily slanted towards the anti-gun forces that only one article was offered as a counter-balance to the liberal arguments. And much of that is our fault; there was nothing offered from our side in places such as the Wall Street Journal or the National Review. And --of course -- they don't count or check what Glenn Reynolds or The Volokh Brothers or Dave Kopel have to say. So the scales are tipped further to the "more gun control" side then ever before since I started this chart.

There were a lot of new articles this past week, most of them gushing with support for the lawsuits filed by two of the victims of the DC snipers against the Washington gun store (which in my opinion is deserved) and against Bushmaster (in my opinion un-deserved.) I've dealt with this earlier this week.

Then, a spate of stories about the illegal arms found in Arizona. From Dennis Wagner of The Arizona Republic, here's that story...

Federal investigators working on a nationwide illegal-weapons case discovered a huge arsenal of rocket launchers, hand grenades, machine guns and military explosives Thursday in a Queen Creek storage locker.

Among more than 200 weapons seized by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were at least 10 rocket launchers and bazookas, some with rockets.

Look, I'm not going to defend the ex-convict who amassed this store of weapons. I defend the right to own guns of all sorts but rocket launchers and grenades aren't guns and even my broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights has trouble encompassing these -- forgive me -- "weapons of mass destruction." An argument could be made for allowing them but it eludes me.

---

Update: Edward V. writes in:

I believe the argument for possession of these sorts of weapons would be based upon the "Militia" Clause. That is, as a civilian 'Militia', one would need weapons to counter todays military weapons. While it has some legal validity (perhaps a lot) it also means that you or I could keep an A-Bomb or two in the event the "Huns" of Canada crossed the Border. That the Canadians are more likely to be in an old VW, looking for grass and B & J doesn't negate that "right".

---

The one lone op-ed supporting gun-rights came from Britain (!) from Joyce L. Malcolm from the BBC (!):

Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

Read her whole editorial. It would be typical of something that I -- or other like-minded Americans might write, but for a "Brit" to write this, and for the BBC to publish it is absolutely amazing. Dare we, or should I say, dare Britains, have a glimmer of hope that some sane voices are starting to speak out on what a total failure England's total disarmament of it's citizens has been? Probably not, just one of those anomalies that pop-up from time to time.

---

Update: Rand S. writes in that Joyce L. Malcolm is American. Thanks, and that explains the pro-gun slant. Yes, yes, I know, there are many real "Brits" lamenting their loss of gun-rights. But it really is an American thing. I guess we're just corrupting them with our culture...

---

The one "neutral" story was from the CBC (Canada) and referred to the continuing controversy over the huge cost over-runs and discontent over Canada's new long-gun registry. A man, Oscar Lacombe, protesting the registration laws, tried to turn himself in as a violator of the law. Here's a quote:

On Monday, Lacombe went to police headquarters in Edmonton hoping to be the first person charged with owning an unregistered firearm. Lacombe wants to challenge the gun registry in court.

Police had said they would charge him, but when they asked him to come into the station, they only questioned him.

Police spokesperson Wes Bellmore said investigators are struggling to understand the new legislation.

The upshot is that the police didn't arrest him as yet and don't even seem to know what they should arrest him for. You know what? Thinking rationally for a bit, neither do I... With so many of Canada's provences filing formal protests against the registry, and so many of Canada's citizens protesting the new law, I'm glad that the cops, at least in this case, are proceeding with caution and a bit of, possibly, humor. What an incredible disaster this would be if tried here in the United States. I suspect that protests and dissent and open defiance could quickly escalate to something approaching a civil war.

So that's the weekly wrap-up. As always, your comments are welcome. I'll see you back here soon. Thanks for stopping by...

New legislation is being introduced that would ban smoking in all bars in Vermont. Of course, it already is banned from all restaurants and most bars. But some establishments have applied for "cabaret" licenses that exempt them from the law if they can prove their liquor sales are greater then their food sales. But here in the socialist, nanny-state of Vermont, that isn't good enough for some. Here's an excerpt from an editorial in today's Hanoi Free Press:

Some people think it's a bad idea for people to smoke less.

Those people would be bar owners who are fighting a proposal to ban tobacco smoking in places that serve alcohol and are currently exempt from the state's 1993 Clean Indoor Air Act.

While smoking is illegal in most Vermont workplaces, schools and other public facilities, including restaurants, it is permitted in cabarets, which state law defines as businesses that bring in more money with alcohol sales and entertainment than with food receipts. That loophole subjects bar patrons and employees to the proven dangers of other people's smoking.

As usual, they're wrong. Bars are not a legally required stop on anyone's itinerary. Nor is there any current law forcing people seeking work to apply to a smoke-filled saloon. But the sociopathic liberals in our world insist on protecting us from ourselves by passing as many laws as they can to take away any possibility of free-choice in our lifestyles. And nothing is going to deter them until they've engineered us all into little campfire groups strumming guitars and singing Peter, Paul and Mary songs.

I'll address the second question, workplace smoke, first. A person has the right to apply for any job they want. They might not get that job, but they can apply. But certain jobs have inherent characteristics. If you want to be a fire-fighter, you will eventually have to actually rush into a burning building. If you want to work in construction, expect to work outdoors in the cold. Want to be a commercial fisherman? Hope you enjoy sea-sickness... Want to be a waitress or bartender but hate smoke? There are a ton of smoke-free establishments to apply to. Just don't apply to one that does allow smoking. If you don't like the purposed working conditions, don't apply for that job. Pretty simple, huh?

Which brings me to the other point. Why not let the marketplace decide, that is, let people themselves choose what kind of bar they want to hang out in? Many clubs and bars advertise themselves as smoke-free. And they draw plenty of people grateful for it. But some clubs do have cabaret licenses and do allow smoking. So patrons have a choice: Go to the one you want to go to. The marketplace will determine which succeed and which don't. Isn't that what choice is all about?

If you don't like Italian food, don't go to an Italian restaurant. Don't like disco music? Stay out of dance clubs. Don't like cigarette smoke? Then go to a smoke-free bar instead. Seems like that's pretty simple too. Let the bar owners determine which kind of establishment they want to run. And let the common subjects of Vermont decide which of those establishments they want to spend their leisure time in.

One last thing, people are so concerned about second-hand smoke so they want to ban smoking. I've said elsewhere that yes, in large offices, schools, et cetera, smoking shouldn't be allowed. These are compulsary places to go to. Bars aren't. But if you really are looking out for the peoples' health, then why not ban alcohol completely, except in the privacy of your own home. Isn't that what you want to do with smoking? Last time I looked, second-hand alcohol was killing 35 thousand people on our highways each year. Not to mention all the crime, sexual assaults, and murders committed by people under the influence of alcohol. What hypocrites!

---

Updates: Firstly, Max writes in to say:

You should forward your comments to the Illinois state board since they are considering similiar legislation in Chicago publics bars and restaurants.

So you all should get going on that. Then, I'll quote-in-full a letter from Dakota L. :

On my first trip to your site I was pleasantly surprised to find a lucid site dedicated to offering the opposing side on an all too frequently poorly researched and misrepresented issue. However, I have one bone of contention to pick with you that has more to do with process than substance. You write:

As usual, they're wrong. Bars are not a legally required stop on anyone's itinerary. Nor is there any current law forcing people seeking work to apply to a smoke-filled saloon. But the sociopathic liberals in our world insist on protecting us from ourselves by passing as many laws as they can to take away any possibility of free-choice in our lifestyles.

I could not agree with this statement more and have often taken the exact same position that you posit here when arguing with friends and family. If you choose to work in a bar you understand what you're in for, so deal with it. I do however disagree with you on your use of the term "sociopathic liberal." Here are my two reasons why.

1) You assume without providing any evidence to support your statement that those who believe in banning smoking are liberal. I'm not arguing that the people proposing this unnecessary legislation aren't liberals, I just don't know how you know that they are liberals. All I know is that they want to ban smoking in bars, a fairly illiberal and fascist stance.

2) Your use of the term sociopathic liberal dilutes the impact of your point. I was immediately turned off by your vilification of liberals (whatever the hell that means anymore, it seems to be a catch all for stupid, lazy people) and this directly impacts the message you're trying to convey. Lay off the bashing and stick with the facts.

Thanks for the site and for listening. I'd be interested to know what groups are behind the no-smoking ban in Vermont if you have the time to post the information.

You are absolutely right. And I am wrong. I have no basis to just assume that it is only "liberals" behind these new restrictions. And here in Vermont, most Republicans are only a hair to the right of Democrats, just as NYC Republican Mayor Bloomberg is fighting against smokers. I will try harder in the future not to be so "knee-jerk" in my broad assumptions. In my defense -- in the past -- I have attacked both Democrats AND Republicans. I'm an equal opportunity ranter... I tend to dislike both parties. I consider your comments and criticisms valid and welcome. (I defy any of you to find another blogger who would offer a "mea-culpa" like that!)

Further Update: It was two Democratic legislators who introduced the measure. One from Windsor County, the other from Chittenden. But I suspect that the measure will pass and Douglas will sign...

Further Update: Bernadette D. writes in to remind me that Gov. Gray Davis is -- of course -- a Democrat. Don't know what I was thinking but I've excised that sentence from my comments to the first update... Ah, it's tough getting old...

---

01/21/03 9:12 AM by Jeff Soyer

Look what came in the mail today:

Dear Mr. Soyer,

I was so surprised when you published that photo I sent you a couple of weeks ago. It seems as if someone had tampered with it. I'm so sorry; I've had a good long talk with my secretary. Anyway, I certainly want you to have a good picture of me to remember me by and build on our new friendship. So here's another one:

Sincerely, Barbra

Thanks Baboo ...er Babs.

---

01/21/03 9:00 AM by Jeff Soyer

I'm not sure if this is real or what...

Arthur Silber has a posting about a local protest against de-clawing cats. And it turned anti-semitic. Of course, everything the left gets involved in turns anti-semitic. You'll have to draw your own conclusions. Personally I am very against de-clawing cats but I don't think there should be a law against it...

---

Update: Arthur tells me he has removed that post so I've eliminated the live link.

---

01/19/03 3:36 PM by Jeff Soyer

My thoughts on the lawsuit...

Many have already commented about the lawsuit filed against the gun-shop in Washington where the D.C. snipers allegedly obtained the gun used to kill so many innocent folks last fall. The lawsuit also names Bushmaster (the maker of the gun) as a defendant. I'm not going to rant and rave here because I already have in a similar case involving the widow of a slain teacher in Florida. Please read it. In any event, the gun-maker in that case was held five percent liable. I thought it was wrong. In this case, I still do. I hope --here-- to present my thoughts on why Bushmaster should not be named in the lawsuit.

For those (valued by me) visitors who might not be familiar with the suit, here's the story from A.P. via Yahoo:

The family members of James "Sonny" Buchanan and Conrad Johnson claim the gunmaker and store showed "gross negligence" that caused injuries and death, according to the complaint. The relatives are represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The case, filed in Pierce County Superior Court in Tacoma, seeks unspecified damages. It names Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, which either sold the rifle or lost it in a theft; store owners Brian Borgelt and Charles Carr; Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine; and sniper defendants John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo.

"If Bull's Eye and Bushmaster and the other gun industry defendants had acted responsibly in the sale of their guns, Muhammad and Malvo would not have been able to obtain the assault rifle they needed to carry out their shootings," the lawsuit claims.

Now, I can certainly understand why the Brady Bunch wants to include Bushmaster in the suit: They (Bushmaster) are the only ones with "deep-pockets" who can shell out lots of money to satisfy the garbage-can trial lawyers. And, of course, the Brady Bunch has had a tough time of it lately, what with a pro-Second Amendment President and with so many of these frivolous suits brought by various cities being thrown out. The Brady Bunch needs to raise funds and they also know that the only way they can possibly enact more gun laws is through litigation, since they can't by legislation. And NO, I will not provide a link to this garbage, anti-American fund-raising-machine organization.

Anyway, in regards to this case and the gun shop in question,
I discussed this as well way back last November. This gun shop "lost" a bunch of guns from their inventory and didn't report it. And this was not the first time. In fact, the ATF had been investigating losses from this shop dating back two years. But they hadn't closed them down! So look, I have no sympathies for the gun shop and in my opinion they deserve to be a defendant in this suit and they probably do bear some of the responsibility. Not that we know that for certain.

Of course, the bulk of the responsibility should lay on the shoulders of the two mutant criminals who committed these terrible crimes. But let's face it folks, the thugs who did the killing, and the negligent gun shop probably don't have much money. And, in my opinion (I have to keep inserting that to protect my 1st Amendment rights) the plaintiffs and their lawyers really just want to make a bunch of money off of this horrible incident. In my opinion, if they really wanted to create change for the better, they would sue --not for money-- but for legislation, and the lawyers would offer their services "pro bono" (if that's the correct Latin... I refuse to look it up right now...) My point of this whole long and boring post is that Bushmaster shouldn't be included in the lawsuit.

Actually, this is all secondary to what I want to grumble about today. Let me start by using an analogy:

Popov Vodka (through their distributors) sells to liquor stores and bars. Let's call them dealers. Popov has no way of knowing if some of those dealers are selling to minors or drunks or pregnant women who shouldn't be drinking booze. They can't; there are thousands of dealers. Popov makes a legal product and sells it, as the law prescribes, to dealers who are licensed to buy it and then sell it to consumers. These liquor dealers are regulated and inspected and licensed under the supervision of the local or federal authorities. If one of those bars or liquor stores are selling to minors, you couldn't possibly hold Popov responsible.

Folks, there are THOUSANDS of gun dealers in this country. They are licensed and inspected and regulated by the ATF. Bushmaster makes a legal product and sells it (usually through distributors as do most gun makers) to these thousands of gun dealers. Oh! A licensed gun shop is placing an order with us. Well, the regulatory branch of the U.S. government hasn't told us there is a problem with this shop so of course we will ship to them. Folks, why shouldn't they have? How can they (Bushmaster) possibly keep tabs on every gun store in America? That's the Government's job (both state and federal.) God knows they're consuming enough of our state and federal tax dollars. Just as (to return to my analogy) the regulation of liqour is supposed to be performed by the local state authority in charge of such things.

Of course, the Brady Bunch and the garbage-can trial lawyers keep insisting and calling this gun-in-question a "sniper" or "military" gun. I can look at an SUV and call it a road-rage machine for people with small dicks. It doesn't make it so. A gun is just a gun. The labels that anti-gun groups attach to it are meaningless. The Bushmaster gun in question is a legit hunting rifle with a legit caliber. It isn't advertised as a great gun to go killing people with. But, of course, the liberal TV and Newspaper writers just can't help themselves when they describe it as a "sniper" gun.

Unfortunately, I suspect that when this case actually comes to trial, the garbage-can trial lawyers for the plaintiffs will somehow extract money from Bushmaster. After all, they pick their juries based on just how stupid and gullible the jurers are. You want to see REAL reform in the litigation forum? Don't allow lawyers on either side to have ANY rejections. Luck of the draw and true trial by peers. This will never happen, of course but then we will never live in a perfect world. And in all of this "noise" about the case and with all the possible rewards of cash that the plaintiffs and trial lawyers are hoping to win (because the odds are much better then playing the lottery) the real facts of the case are completely lost: Two mutant criminals went on a shooting spree. They will, of course, do time in jail, but as far as the plaintiffs and lawyers are concerned, they really weren't responsible. That is the tragedy of our legal system today.

---

Now...

You might ask, "Hey Jeff, what the hell do you know about being a victim? Well since you asked... In 1985, a mutant stuck a knife in me seven times. He didn't like gays. Of course, he probably was gay since he came-on to me and tried to move in with me and previously had lived with a gay man. But then (and no, we never had sex and NO, I never tried to have sex with him) he freaked out, probably because he was (I think) on crack at the time.

It took the ambulance corps 45 minutes just to stop the bleeding and stabilize me before they could even transport me to the hospital.

I know what it's like to lay on the trauma-table at that hospital for six hours while two surgeons operated simultaneously on me. I had lost four pints of blood and my lung was punctured and collapsed, so no anaesthesia of any sort could be administered. The doctors relied on my being in shock (I never lost consciousness) to insulate me from the pain of surgery and chest-tubes and all that. And let me tell you folks, when a doctor says, "You might feel some pressure now while I use this rib-spreader..." Well, I can only tell you that THAT was an understatement... I thought about a lot of things that awful night but I distinctly remember asking one of the nurses to, "please hold my hand" because if I was going to die, I wanted to feel that last bond with another human being.

And the detectives didn't think I would live so all the while I was on the "table" they were trying to interview me and show me "mug-shots" and all that. And the hospital didn't know I was Jewish so they had a priest standing by. Weirdly enough though, all I could think about that scary October night was, how did the Giants do against the Cowboys?... And also, how I didn't want to die because I didn't want my parents to see how messy my apartment was...

When I talk about crime and victims and all that, unlike most others around the blogger world, I actually know something about it. I've been a victim and I've been very close to death. I've done my time in intensive-care.

So I really do feel for the victims of the D.C. snipers. But just as I never held the maker of the knife (that was used on me) at fault, so should the surviving victims (and their lawyers and the jurers) not hold Bushmaster at fault for making a legal product. In reality, if ANYONE (besides, of course, the mutant snipers) should be held at fault, it should be the ATF for not closing down the gun shop for all their previous violations. But you can't sue the government. *sigh* And so it goes...

---

I had planned on several posts today but this one has drained me out, so I'll see you all here sometime soon. If you think Alphecca (that is, me) is worth a read, please consider a small donation. Just scroll down the left side-bar and click on to the starving cats picture (Okay, they're not really starving...) and help me out. Anyway, Thanks for stopping by...

---

What has gone before...



View last week's postings

---