3 Boxes of BS

First up is Farouk Shami and a quick review of his issues page tells me most of what I need to know about his agenda.

Energy and Environment -Farouk Shami believes it’s time to act to close down our polluting coal fired plants once and for all, while also ensuring Texas has access to affordable and reliable energy that will meet demand today and into the future.

Given the technology doesn’t exist to make alternative energy sources anywhere close to the efficiency and cost of coal, nuclear or gas powered plants this is very pie-in-the-sky.

Education -Most importantly, he will dramatically increase Vocational/Technical training in our secondary schools to teach kids real life skills that can lead to a high paying job and help them become a productive part of the Texas workforce.

I like this part of his plan, we need to do away with as much of the politically crap in the lesson plans and focus on some hard science, math and skills.

Free, Online Tutoring Available To All Texas Public School Students

Farouk proposes a system modeled off of Alabama’s successful “HomeWorkAlabama.org” website where students can connect to a tutor for live help via the Internet. Tutors will help students through the use of instant messaging, interactive virtual “chalkboards,” shared browsing, and similar features including enhanced capabilities to help students with science and math. Tutors would be online from 3 p.m. until 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday.

Right and just where is the money to pay for all these tutors going to come from?

Transportation – Index the Motor Fuels Tax

Farouk Shami proposes a one time increase in the gas tax of 8 cents and implementing automatic increases in the gas tax annually from 2012 forward based on increases in the Highway Cost Index (HCI), with a four percent cap on any annual increase. Should the HCI increase by more than 4% in any year, the balance would carry forward to the next year and be added to any increase for that year. In years where there is a zero or negative increase in the HCI, revenue generated from carryovers would go toward reducing TxDOT’s existing debt.

Tax and Tax and Tax — anybody think this would be the end of taxing schemes to pay for roads?

I’ll lump all these next statements under the general heading of rights. See if you can spot the inconsistancies I did.

Criminal Justice – Farouk Shami believes the Texas criminal justice system has serious problems. Too many young people become career criminals. Often we are not sure if those convicted were truly guilty. Our correction officers are under paid and poorly trained. And the entire system is focused on retribution and not rehabilitation. ….Farouk will also crack down on criminals who are currently being overlooked, white collar criminals who buy support from political leaders

Internet Access – The digital divide in this country, and especially in Texas, continues to grow wider.  While broadband internet use continues to rise, it continues to be unavailable to those who live in some rural communities.

The state of Texas needs to lead the nation by establishing a universal service fee on all internet service providers operating in the state of Texas.  This small fee per customer would allow subsidies to go back to ISPs who build the fiber optic cable and/or wireless infrastructure to connect every part of Texas to the internet.

Animal Rights (that is the actual title of the section from his website) Farouk Shami firmly believes that animals ought to be protected. Furthermore, he wants to mandate all shelters in Texas become “no kill” shelters and provide state aid to rescue organizations. Finally, he wants to increase criminal penalties on those people convicted of abusing animals.

A Woman’s Right to Choose – Farouk believes in safeguarding a woman’s right to choose and will oppose all efforts by the Legislature to place further restrictions or roadblocks on decisions best left to a woman and her doctor.

Farouk is against placing restrictions on the access to emergency contraception.

Second Amendment Rights – Farouk unequivocally supports the Second Amendment rights of all Texans.

Farouk will fight any effort to restrict the ability of Texans’ to carry concealed weapons. However, he believes Texas’ higher educational institutions must be gun free.

Okay, What do you think? Is this someone you want running your state?
I don’t.

I see quite a bit of “income redistribution” and quite a bit about supporting some rights — but not all.

The kicker for me was his stance on abortion/contraceptive rights versus 2nd Amendment rights. He doesn’t mind having contraceptives available on campuses (neither do I) even if the school is morally opposed to that idea (many Catholic/Christian collegse) yet sees not irony in keeping people from being able to effectively defend themselves on those very campuses or to and from those campuses.

Sorry Farouk but “Farouk unequivocally supports the Second Amendment rights of all Texans” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

One of the most common refrains we hear is that people who carry concealed are constantly afraid. Really guys, couldn’t you come up with something new every now and then?

Let’s use today as an example and talk about the difference between fear and awareness.

At O dark thirty  (approximately 5:30 a.m. for you dreaded morning creatures) the Wife and I left on an errand. We ran her mom and dad out to the airport.

As with most occasions, I was carrying but it was no different then putting on my shoes as the saying goes. Just something that I do. I wasn’t afraid to go to the airport, I am just aware that crime can happen anywhere.

Can you antis understand the difference?

On the way back we stopped at a restaurant for breakfast. I’ll avoid the name of the place but it was in the area where several robberies have taken place in the past. I’ve talked about those on this blog. I was aware of the robberies but didn’t fear stopping there for breakfast.

Can you antis understand the difference?

While in the restaurant enjoying a good meal with my beautiful wife, I watched the people coming and going. I did as most everyone does, even the antis, I categorized the people. Elderly couple sitting together, Family of 4 together, Single male business suit, Young Couple with infant in carrier, Another single male – reading the sports section.

I wasn’t afraid of any of the people, just aware of who was sitting around me.

Can you antis understand the difference?

During the meal, there was a commotion at the front, by the register. Voices were raised by the customer. A few choice sentence enhancers used to tell the manager that his meal was free.

Since I was aware of who had been around us, I know that the gentleman discussing the issue was a single male, elderly — there celebrating his birthday. The place gives free meals to people with those conditions.

Because I was aware of what was going on, I wasn’t afraid there would be trouble.

Can you antis understand the difference?

Not once did my actions distract from my meal, from enjoying time with my wife. Was I more alert when the voices were raised, yes? Was I afraid, nope.

Can you antis understand the difference?

Okay, for the vast majority of my readers (3 out of the 4 of you) this will be old hat.

For some folks it might be useful, for me it is a way of documenting what I learned along the way. And since it is my blog, I get to write what I want

So, let’s talk about what to do when you decide to get your Concealed Handgun License as it is called here in Texas. Maybe you won’t do things backwards like I did.

I decided to get my license, started the paperwork, took the class submitted it, got my licenses — then figured out what firearm I was going to carry, had to buy said firearm, then figure out how to carry it, had to buy said holster.

Not as smart as I should have been.

I would recommend going about it a little differently.

1. Buy the firearm you are going to carry before you get your license.

Practice with it before you strap it on. I actually bought my Taurus after I recieved my license then didn’t carry it for a long time until I was confident that I could reasonable hit what I was aiming at.

Buy the gun, practice practice and then practice again.

2. Buy a cheap holster or two.

WHAT? I can hear the screams of many people already but let me explain. Most of us don’t have access to friends who can loan us holsters for our particular firearm, so what do you do to figure out how to carry it?
Buy a cheap holster or two.
You know you will have problems with that holster, but it will point out the problems with carrying in that position. Does Small of the Back interfere with you sitting down? How does IWB (inside waist band) change how you reach for things? Does an OWB (outside Waist Band) show too much when you bend over to pick up something? A cheap holster will help you answer these questions without going broke.
Just realize that the cheap holster is just that and a quality holster will make a world of difference.

3. Carry around the house and yard for a while before venturing out in public.

It is better to find out at home that you have to be careful going through doorways or else that brand new SSTz5000 Blastomatic will ‘clunk’ very loudly  then to have people wondering if you are part cyborg in public.

Many activities you formerly took for granted will present you with interesting challenges also. Does your holster keep your firearm secure when you are trying to fasten your pants after a visit to the little boys room.

Is your wardrobe sized sufficiently to let you carry IWB or do you need to buy half a dozen more pants. (People really look at you strangely if you wear the same set of slacks 5 days a week–just saying).

4. Practice drawing from your choice of concealment.

–UNLOAD THE FIREARM FIRST, then Check to be sure it is unloaded — Carrying a firearm in public won’t do a person any good if it takes 15 minutes to get into action.

I found that using an Airsoft version of my carry firearm was a great way to safely practice this.

Just general advise from a relative noob. What other suggestions do you folks have?

Please join the discussion.

I don’t know why everyone stops by but I wanted to say thanks for doing so.

I started this blog on April 15, made it public on the 17th of April and it’s been going every since.

In just under 10 months, I’ve been incredibly blessed to make many new online friends, meet a couple of people in real life and most importantly have people I admire stop by and read what I have to say.

I moved to this location in the middle of Julyso this represents something that is simply staggering to me.

15,000 visitors — thanks folks.

Dear Starbucks,

You are currently allowing people to who do not carry firearms in your stores.  I demand that you stand up for the safety of your customers and require patrons to possess guns in your coffee shops.

Guns  belong in restaurants where families and children gather in order to keep them safe from criminals. (After all, if there is a problem everyone wants the cops who carry firearms to get there as soon as possible.)

Implement a corporate decision.

Do not allow those who can not protect themselves, other customers or your employees in your store.

Thanks

Concerned law abiding citizen.

Please SIGN MY petition.

Edit to add –this was just a parody petition I threw together after seeing Snow Flakes In Hell mention  the Brady Campaign’s attempt. If anyone wants to use this to drop Starbucks a comment; Carl from Chicago provided the link to do so — go here

Or at least some of the numbers if the government is in charge.

First locally

One man beat a stranger with a pipe. Another battered a disabled person with a walking cane. Another smashed a large glass mug on his brother’s face.

Though none of the victims was seriously injured, state and federal authorities say each of the attacks was an aggravated assault.

But Dallas police disagree.

A pipe, a walking cane, a beer mug (notice how like most aggravated assaults this don’t involve a firearm?)  are used in a crime but the City of Dallas doesn’t classify them as  “aggravated assault”.

The Police Department classified the attacks as lesser offenses when reporting them to the authorities who collect crime statistics from cities across the nation. As a result, the offenses were not factored into Dallas’ reported violent crime rate.

Hmm, and what is the violent crime rate in Dallas (I’ll just focus on two  stats here)

Total Violent Crime rate — 894.8 per 100,000
Aggravated Assault –586.5 per 100,000

Edited — Total Violent Crime is nearly 1% only, add in property crime and we are differently higher then 1%. (Thanks Reputo for the catch)

Why would the Police Department do this?

Aggravated assaults make up more than one third of the city’s reported violent crime. So a change in them has a big impact on Dallas’ overall violent crime rate.

Why does this matter to advocates of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

First in the aspect it makes the city appear safer and there is less of a need for protection from crime.

As one of the department’s top accomplishments since he started as chief in 2004, Kunkle claims a 32 percent decrease in the city’s violent crime rate between that year and 2008.

The News sampled only one week. But given the department’s policy for assault reporting, it stands to reason that many other weeks would look similar. To understand what such underreporting could mean for the city’s violent crime rate, consider this dinner napkin calculation: If 50 percent more aggravated assaults were added to 2008’s total, the drop in the violent crime rate from 2004 would have been 19 percent rather than 32 percent.

Secondly, When non-firearm related weapons are used and under counted, it falsely portrays the firearm as a greater danger then it is.

Most of the misclassified cases involved people attacked with various blunt objects. They included bottles, pipes, bats, rocks, a walking cane, a broom handle, a brick, a glass mug, a vase, a chair and a barstool.

Others included attempted stranglings, cases involving serious injuries, one involving a knife and another involving a rifle.

That messes up any calculations regarding the social utility of firearms in favor of the criminal use of firearms. If half the assaults with non-firearm weapons are mis-classified, the calls for gun control laws look more reasonable.

In Fact according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics  about 75% of all aggravated assaults do not involve a firearm. Changing that statistic would make it.

While comparison of statistics across cities is fraught with problems, the reason for the Uniform Crime Reporting Database is to be consistent….ya know that Uniform business.

People should be able to trust the numbers provided by the law enforcements will be accurately reported. In many cases people use that data to analyze their risk and the precautions needed.

This isn’t the first time or the first place dealing with this problem

Then Else Where, we have a report that may or may not indicate a problem in New York.

A Brooklyn precinct is under investigation for manipulating statistics to make its cops look like better crimefighters, the Daily News has learned.

Two probes are centered around whether Bedford-Stuyvesant’s 81st Precinct recorded felonies as misdemeanors and refused to take complaints from victims – all in an effort to drive down the crime rate, sources said.

A law enforcement officer isn’t the most reliable of sources – especially one that may have a grudge. On the other hand, we know it is not impossible for it to happen.

Again, this is so important because so many anti-rights advocates claim that people will not likely need a firearm to protect themselves.

Of course the statistics are showing how wrong they are.

Please join the discussion.

Goodness I hope that MikeB302000 never stops blogging or commenting; I might have to do an honest days work in blogging instead of being presented such a ready source of blog material.

Over at Snowflakes in Hell (Great site, I’m sure all 3 of my readers have it bookmarked), Sebastian made this comment:

I would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.

MikeB302000 replied, in his usual fashion, with this:

I would almost agree. Here’s how I would say it.

“would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders WHO ARE POSING A LETHAL THREAT. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.”

Now Monday morning quarterbacking is what the police, prosecutors, grand juries and trial juries do — so it is easy or at least easier for them to determine if a criminal posed a lethal threat at the time of a shooting.

What I want to know is how someone like MikeB302000 determines (or thinks we should) determine who is posing a “lethal threat”?

I’m sure that MikeB30200 wouldn’t accept that someone being in my home, criminally with unannounced intentions to be sufficient cause to consider that a “lethal threat”. So what does constitute a lethal threat?

What do you say Anti-Rights Advocates want to define it for us?

Please join the discussion.