What If We Encouraged ‘Victims’ To Shoot Back?

Here is a scenario which should be food for thought in light of ISIS attacks in Paris and various nutcase shootings here in the United States.

What if some towlheaded representative of the religion of death stands up at a high school football playoff game with his weapon of choice—usually a Kalashnikov AK-47—and starts shooting? Only instead of the mass carnage they expect to wreak, one or two members of the crowd calmly reached into their waistband holsters, drew their Glock 26 semi automatic pistols and used two of their 10 rounds to double tap the shooter, aiming for center body mass? Or maybe their Kimber or their Sig Sauer?

In short, what would happen if one could reliably expect some of the “victims” to shoot back?

What if we stopped our government’s (at nearly all levels) obsession with gun control and started to encourage people to arm themselves, carry those weapons everywhere and use them in situations where it was called for?

Why do we automatically assume that we cannot trust law abiding Americans with their own defense?

Where is it written that we must depend on armed police to defend us in every situation?

Do you have any idea what might really happen if we removed every legal impediment to carrying a concealed weapon and, instead, encouraged it?

My guess is that we would have far fewer mass shootings because even terrorists don’t want to get their butts shot off.

Criminals and terrorists almost always go for the path of least resistance.

If there’s a better than even money chance that when you go into an arena and start shooting, someone who has some level of skill will shoot back, they might rethink their MO.  At the very least, fewer people will get mowed down because when people shoot back, they will shorten the carnage.

Instead of being horrified by people who carry weapons, what if we should encourage it and assist in the training of those people?

I know that you have heard this before, but it is true: Criminals and terrorists really don’t care about gun laws. Only law abiding people do.

Did a single person shoot back in Paris?

Of course not. There is no right to bear arms for the French; and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation. Kind of like the way Michael Bloomberg would like the United States to be.

As a result, when seconds counted, the police were only minutes away. And well over 120 law abiding citizens of France were shot dead. By people who knew they would face little or no opposition.

It all gets down to a matter of trust.

I actually trust my fellow citizens to do the right thing.

Our government and the French government do not. They both think that if nobody has guns, there will be no gun violence.

How’s that working out for us?

What if, here in the United States, we simply changed our attitude? What if we accepted the obvious fact that what we are doing is simply not working?

What if we eliminated all legal impediments to concealed weapons and allowed citizens to defend themselves and each other?

Would gun violence increase or decrease?

I’m betting that the more guns there are, the less violence there will be.

And I’d like to know from the Brady campaign just how many more people have to die before they will discover the flaw in their thinking?

Will Anyone Ever Again Take A Mizzou Degree Seriously?

I have never met Tim Wolfe, and it has been years since I have set foot on the campus of the University of Missouri in Columbia.

But I did grow up on a college campus where my father was a high level administrator as well as a full professor, and, I can tell you that if you think the United States Senate is a challenge, try the faculty and student senates of any university. That’s where the real politics of destruction lies. Campus politics makes the real thing seem like a walk in the park.

Wolfe was, until last Monday, the President of Mizzou.

Some morons on campus who think that somehow they’re more equal than anybody else because they’re “minorities” chased him out of town with a hunger strike, some demonstrations and, get this, a 4-5 football team.

That’s right. A football team, which has been on a four game losing streak, told the media it would boycott Brigham Young this weekend at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City if Wolfe didn’t resign because of his alleged poor handling of racial issues on campus. And their football coach, a clown named Gary Pinkel, said he stood with the students. Now I need to point out that the President of Mizzou makes about $400,000 a year while Pinkel makes about $3.1 MILLION. Ahh, state run academia… Of course, Wolfe resigned.

What’s this all about?

Apparently, you are not allowed to even mildly disagree if someone calls a campus institutionally racist. And, when a student cries “racist,” the President better hop to immediately.

Hey, I’m all for freedom of speech on campus.

But freedom should mean freedom. I saw NBC interview some student who said that some other student “called me the N word.”


I have a question for him that the NBC correspondent forgot to ask:

Did you ask your mommy to pick you up and dust you off afterwards? And did he call you a nigger or the N word? Apparently, some words are simply unacceptable unless they’re said by rappers or black big shots. And the penalty for a white student at Mizzou calling a black student at Mizzou a nigger is that the President has to resign? Seriously?

Let me tell you punks/clowns where all of this is getting you.

Mizzou is reputed to have a great school of journalism. My colleagues and I, one of whom is a Mizzou grad, hire a lot of journalists.

Do you think a recent degree from Mizzou will hold much weight with us going forward?

The reason you go to college is to get prepared for life.

In real life, you can’t get the football team to threaten a boycott if your boss doesn’t get fired.

That only happens on college campuses where the long suffering taxpayers are picking up the tab for a bunch of dilettantes allegedly getting an education.

You show me a legitimate example of institutional racism at Mizzou which rises to the level that the President should have to resign because of it, and you might get some sympathy.

But, so far, you have been long on noise and very short on details.

So the net effect is that the next time a recent Mizzou grad sends my colleagues and I a resume looking for a job, you know what we’ll be thinking.

Why don’t you ask your football coach for a job?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly Should Grow A Pair

I’ve been flying on Southwest Airlines more often recently because a friend of mine has purchased a radio network, and I’ve been helping return it to financial health.

A few years ago, I wrote that Southwest CEO Gary Kelly ought to spend more time sticking up for his customers as opposed to letting them be run over by those Thousands Standing Around who reserve the right to strip search you at the airport.

Shortly after I wrote that, I went on a business trip and, lo and behold, I had the TSA Pre-check logo on my boarding pass.

It made great sense. After all, I’ve probably flown more than a million miles on Southwest dating back to the days when their tickets were a cash register receipt and you could fly from Tulsa to Dallas for $19 on a Friday night. It’s not like I’m not in their Rapid Rewards database. They know exactly who I am and have voluminous records on my flying habits. Whatever some of their executives may think of me, they know I’m not a terrorist.

So, you would think that when I schedule a six segment week—about ¾ of a lap of America—they would use their good sense and allow me to go through the metal detector with my shoes and belt on and save us all a bit of time and money.

But noooooooo.

Of the six flights I took that week, only the last two, returning back to Reno from Raleigh-Durham, were TSA Pre checked.

And you wonder why Donald Trump is leading the GOP field of candidates.

Here’s a question for both the TSA and Southwest.

How could I be a potential threat that needs full screening for the first four segments and then, all of a sudden not a threat for five and six? Did it really take four flight segments in two days for some pinhead at Southwest to figure out who I was?  Not likely.

The TSA has nearly ruined business travel. The whole object of 9-11 was so a bunch of Islamic jerks could get us to fear something. As it turns out, what most of us fear is the complete and utter waste of time that dealing with the TSA has become. And the huge amount of lost productivity the TSA has caused.

What you see at the airport is largely eye candy.

People who don’t fly a lot probably think there’s some scientific method to TSA airport screening which keeps us all safe.

The truth is that TSA airport screening is to security what Obamacare is to healthcare.

It’s an insult to the collective intelligence of Americans who aren’t going to hijack an airliner or hurt anyone but just want to be left alone.

And the only way it stops is if the airline executives like Kelly grow a pair and tell the government where to shove it on behalf of their long suffering customers.

If the airlines demanded a stop to the nonsense, they’d get it because they know their customers would be behind them all the way.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone in Dallas was paying attention?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Here’s The MOST Disappointing Thing About Wednesday Night’s Debate–And It Doesn’t Involve The Candidates

If there was ever an exhibition of what is wrong with corporate America, it was on full display by Comcast subsidiary NBC Universal Wednesday night as CNBC hosted the Republican field of candidates for a debate.

Apparently, Presidential debates have made it to pay TV before the World Series.

Not only did CNBC not allow non paying customers to watch the debate on their own channel; about a third of the way through the debate, they called Youtube and shut off the stream.


We’re not talking about a sporting event where a broadcaster is trying to recoup rights fees.

We’re talking about a freaking Presidential election!

What’s the matter? The advertising revenue from a Donald Trump appearance wasn’t enough?

Forget the boobs who were asking the questions. CNBC has been going downhill ever since Roger Ailes lured Neil Cavuto away and founded the Fox Business Channel. You could expect stupid, biased questions from a bunch of know-nothing desk jockey talking heads who allegedly cover business, which all of the candidates took in stride and adopted Trump’s method of making those talking heads look stupid to everybody but themselves.

But the mere thought that you should have to pay to see a Presidential debate is simply anathema to our system of self-government—no matter how stupid the questions.

Apparently, NBC—which actually holds Federal licenses to operate TV stations in the public interest convenience and necessity—has forgotten its roots.

We’re talking about a Presidential election here.

I am of the opinion that nobody told the campaigns that there would be no alternate streaming of the broadcast because surely none of them would have participated.

After all, CNBC is a horsefeces little cable channel which normally has a rounding error for viewership.

Next time, the Republican National Committee (and the Democrats too) should make it a requirement that the channels be unlocked for the debate–and streaming shall be free to any distributor who wants it–or the debate will go to someone who will.

The truth is that Youtube could host the debate themselves and handle the viewers.

We no longer actually need channels like CNBC.

So, dummies (and you all know who you are), wise up. There’s a time for copyright issues, and that time is NOT during a Presidential debate.

Not only is America being run by stupid people—as Trump is fond of saying—so are some of its largest corporations.

That sound you hear is NBC founder David Sarnoff turning over in his grave.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

.00042372881355932% Of Voters Say Carson Over Trump

John Kasich, Ohio’s Governor and a nominal GOP Presidential candidate, told CBS News that “you don’t win jobs by bombast” talking about a Ford plant moving from Mexico to Ohio.

No, John, YOU won them by bribing Ford with the taxpayer’s money.

At least Donald Trump has an idea going forward.

Instead of bribing them with our money, how about a carrot and stick approach? The carrot is that we change the environment for manufacturing in the United States, and the stick is that we charge a tariff on American vehicles manufactured abroad while we renegotiate NAFTA, which was a terrible deal then and now for the taxpayers.

The fact is that companies like Ford go where they get the best deals–and if you think that Ford is a patriotic American company, you’re smoking crack. They’re a company which owes only an allegiance to its shareholders and then only a fiduciary allegiance. That’s OK because that’s how capitalism works. But, knowing that, don’t you think that the approach should be to make it unprofitable (or at least less profitable) to operate offshore?

It’s not like we haven’t used our tax code in the past to engineer the goals of the various administrations. It’s just that at no time do we ever use it to our advantage.

Which is why Trump has an advantage over any other candidate.

He knows the value of the tools a negotiator has, and knows how to use them. Compare that to the professional politicians who—in Trump’s own language—are just not very smart. They may know how to make promises, but they couldn’t negotiate their way out of a paper bag with a hole in it.

It is no surprise that the media en mass was practically giddy when a CBS-New York Times poll of 500 voters showed that Ben Carson had pulled ahead of Trump by the poll’s margin of error. They hate Trump because he is busy showing the alleged political “professionals” how to run a campaign, and they cannot stand being wrong.

Now, they want to write him off based on a poll of 0.00042372881355932% of the electorate. That’s right. 500 is 0.00042372881355932% of the 118,000,000 votes cast in 2012. And this is a “poll” sponsored by the old Grey Lady of newsprint and the Tiffany network. Sell that crap to your fifth grader.

Frankly, if the American public is dumb enough to fall for that, we deserve whatever we get.

And it shows you how desperate the media actually is if they are cheering on the manufactured “news” that Ben Carson—who they hate almost as much as Trump—is showing strength against Trump.

Only the stupid money would count Trump out right now.

And the reason is exactly that. Money.

Trump doesn’t have to raise any, and that gives him the kind of staying power that even Jeb Bush with his $114,000,000 of cash from people who want things from him doesn’t have.

Whatever else you can say about Trump, he has, to date, run a brilliant campaign and, in the process, given America something to think about. Even if he ultimately doesn’t win, he will have left scars on the political and chattering classes which may take years to heal.

The biggest of those scars will come from the realization of the voters that they no longer need to put up with liars and thieves in elected positions. That people they elect can just as easily be replaced.

And Trump could always walk away from this with a big enough power base to start a third party and make it stick.

So I have a hard time taking seriously the verdict of 0.00042372881355932% of the electorate. And so should you.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.