Mike's Home Page

David Mott Michael, we've talked about why posts that depict, encourage, or incite harm (including self-harm) are inappropriate. 

This is your second notice.
1 · 2 hrs
Benjamin Blatt
 
Benjamin Blatt I can't tell if you're being serious, but, and you may take this as legal advice if you are, in fact, serious, you should go away, like right now.
Benjamin Blatt's photo.
Like · 1 · 1 hr
Darryl AE Hadfield
 
Darryl AE Hadfield David, this is the first time that I've had to tell you that you're a whiny pussy, and how your attempts to control (either directly or indirectly) are inappropriate.

Do not transgress again.
Like · 1 hr
David Mott
 
David Mott My notices on these posts are a courtesy to Mike, whom I respect, and who I'm sure understands the possible impact that they may have on his status as a speaker and vendor at various conventions.

It's really up to him if the entertainment value here i
s worth the impact on those other hobbies. 

Also, you haven't been paying attention. He took down the first post for which I put him on notice. I presume it's because he's actually a decent human being.
Darryl AE Hadfield
 
Darryl AE Hadfield I... "haven't been paying attention" Because I didn't see a post that was taken down?

Your logic game needs to be stepped up a notch or 12.

As for your other comments... It's one thing to send someone a note privately - which, if we're going to talk "status as a speaker and vendor at various conventions" is probably a far better way of communicating with him.

I'ts another thing entirely to post a publicly condescending comment with an SJW-styled recrimination.
David Mott
 
David Mott I did privately ask if he'd like to receive input in a different manner; his response did not indicate a preference. In this way, I can collect screenshots that these issues have been brought to his attention. 

SWJ-style? Shit, I haven't reported this
 post to FB yet. SWJ (often) leaves no room for conversation. That's not who I am. I know that Mike has a full plate at the moment, so this can sit here until he has bandwidth to address it. 

Also, perhaps, there can be some civil discourse in the meantime.
Darryl AE Hadfield
 
Darryl AE Hadfield "I can collect screenshots"

Why, pray tell, would you need to track your commentary to him?


"I haven't reported this post to FB yet."

I'm certainly not enjoying the tone of your commentary.

"SWJ (often) leaves no room for conversation. That's not who I am."

Ohhhhh... so you're a MODERATE sjw who will condescend and try to publicly shame someone in order to coerce them to do as you feel is appropriate.

Yeah, gonna go with... you're one of the types of people I shall not engage in discussion with, moving forward. The mentality you display is alarming at best, and sinister at worst.
Michael Z. Williamson
 
Michael Z. Williamson David Mott I have no idea what other post you're referring to, but if my posts offend you, you're welcome to ignore them. That's a hint. Please take it.

Also, I have no idea who you are other than someone on FB and one of the thousands of people I r
ecognize from the hundreds of thousands I meet.

And he's your president in 64 more days, and mine, whether we voted for him or not.

And as for "Not reporting it yet," that's all I need to know. Bye.
Like · 2 · 2 mins
 
~~~
 
Seriously, I don't give a fuck who the fuck you think you are online, I don't take fucking orders on what I fucking say.  Go read something less offensive, like Dick and Jane books.
 

The first problem in the post-election meltdown I'd like to address is one of baseline rationality.  In any debate, there are two extreme poles, and in between, the middle. Now, the middle can weigh to one side of the graph or the other based on ratios of supporters, or extremity of position.

The problem the so-called "left" faces is that when you talk to them, they make it clear they consider Bernie's Stalinistic state to be "acceptable," and themselves "moderate," by which we are supposed to interpret, "Slightly right."

And anyone to the right of them is extreme, super-extreme, ultra-extreme, hyper-mega-extreme.

Then they go to their Fecesbook echo chamber and block any dissenting view.

They're not only unable to accept a dissenting view. At another level, they can't even fathom it exists.

This is intellectually and morally dishonest, and these people are idiots.

I keep seeing comparisons of "white voters with degrees" vs exit polls for whom voted for whom.

It's an article of faith amongst "liberals" that one cannot be educated without some sort of precious paper, and only that precious paper matters.

They try very hard not to attack black voters without degrees...a majority of whom voted for Hillary.

Apparently, education works differently for blacks and whites.

That sounds racist, and creates a dichotomy for them, except it is a proven fact, and even the Dept Education says so.  But point that out, and it's racist.

Except when it shows at election time, then it's not racist, except blacks and whites are different, except the same.

This is idiotic.

To show how educated these "liberals" are, they circulate a petition to have the electors not vote the way their states dictate, because "Hillary got more votes." You want them to "vote their conscience."

You should have been taught how the Electoral College worked in 5th grade or so. If you believe a petition can change it, you're an idiot. The Electoral College has been in existence for 220ish years, and there have been conflicts between EC and popular vote four previous times, most recently 16 years ago.  If you're not aware of this, or how the Electoral College votes, please don't humiliate yourself by pretending you're "educated."  You're ignorant. And an idiot.

My state's elector's conscience is that of my state.  Neither I, nor they, nor anyone else cares, nor should, what a bunch of burned out hippies and limpwrists in the Bay Area think.  Further, if the EC were to vote based on the bleats of petulant children instead of the electoral process, it would instantly lead to a civil war, which your side would lose.  You're an idiot. You're also assuming that their conscience would agree with yours. That's conceited, shallow and ignorant. You're an idiot.

They bleat about the popular vote, as if it's ever mattered. If you look at say, sports tournaments and find both final teams won the same number of games, but certain games carry more weight.  How about that?

Or what about college itself, where exams and papers count more than quizzes? You can have the same number of good grades, but certain grades will give you a higher score. How about that?

You're an idiot.

"More than half the protesters arrested in Portland either were not registered to vote or had not submited a ballot."

They are idiots.

"Most Trump voters aren't educated."  They'll sometimes say "college educated," by which the mean, "Has some sort of degree from somewhere."

I'm going to address this at length.  I know of one who's a retired laser engineer. He has no degree because there was no degree in such when he started in the field in 1971. He went to college, was drafted for Vietnam, came back and went to work for Lumonics/Laserdyne.  When he retired he owned his own shop that did work for Harley, several medical firms, Pratt and Whitney Canada, and others.  It ran three shifts, and he also consulted at $1000/day. He owned a half million dollar house in the Tucson Mountains, an $800,000 Dolphin Catamaran, and a $1 million dollar house on the side of a volcano in Hawaii. But he's "not educated" because he never wrote a paper about his inner struggle of the anima.

You're an idiot.

One is female (ZOMG! How could a female not vote for Hillary? They both have vaginas!) with degrees in International Relations from Johns Hopkins (BA), and American Military University (MA), and is a senior investigator for the Treasury Dept on terorrist money laundering.  But despite that, she's stupid for not voting for Hillary, and has "white male privilege" for voting third party.

You're an idiot.

Another is also female (ZOMG!HCAFNVFH?TBHV!) with degrees in biology (BS) and Information Security (MS), and voted third party, dropping all her...Native American, black and white privilege.

Don't try to libsplain anything to her. She's a certified genius, and you're an idiot.

One barely graduated high school, and is now a senior systems engineer who builds server farms for Nokia, The Weather Channel, etc.  No college. Obviously not educated.

You're an idiot.

Several others have "certificates" in technical trades and crunch calculus for breakfast while analyzing pipelines, steel extrusions, machined componenents undergoing heat treat, etc. But they've not graduated college, so they're not educated.

You're an idiot.

A black gentleman who works at a major government agency in administration, degreed in business.  He voted third party. A white liberal woman accused him of "privilege."

You're an idiot.

One got a degree in philosophy, hacked around as an Industrial DJ for a couple of decades on the brink of starvation, didn't even have music selections for older people at his marriage because, "Blues and rock and oldies are boring and not real music," got divorced, wound up with nothing, finally got bailed out when his father paid for a law degree, and now works overseas as an ESL teacher, insisting that "It's wrong that rich people get better health care than poor people!", which is true in every nation in the world. And then told us about his personal trainer. He voted for Hillary.

He is an idiot.

One wrote an article about how poor people in red states are neglected, and he's correct, and the attitude of the blue cities angers them, and he's correct. But then he went on that to understand them, you have to consider they came from areas that used to own slaves...

More than half the red states never had slaves, and none of them have since 1865.  He's an idiot.

And what do you have to say?

"I can't believe you'd vote for Trump. You must be racist, inbred redneck trash."

If you believe ad homimen is a useful persuasive tactic, you're not only stupid, you're not actually educated, no matter how many crayon sketches you did in college.

"They voted for Trump, who is a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot, instead of a woman."

So, her only value to you is being female? You're a sexist. And an idiot.

"You uneducated rednecks have destroyed the country."

So, not having persuaded anyone with ad hominem, you're doubling down on ad hominem? You're an idiot.

"Exit polls overwhelmingly showed we're smarter than you!"

A: You mean "Better educated" by "Having a degree in the History of French Phaggottry." 2) As we've discussed, that of itself does not make you educated. c} What, you think after you threaten to fire, burn, rape, kill people for not voting correctly, they're going to give an honest answer, or any answer, to someone outside the polls? You're an idiot.  IV] they don't award Voting Points based on education, and if they did, black people would tend to be at a disadvantage, which would be a repeat of the "literacy tests" you Democrats gave to blacks in previous decades. So you're continuing your party's racist roots. And an idiot.

Think about it: If you were actually smarter, you should have been able to form a strategy to beat those poor, benighted, rural white males (who, btw, are a small minority of the population. They couldn't have done it without sizeable chunks of the female, black, Hispanic and Asian vote).  So your argument is poorly thought out, unsupportable, and the mark of an idiot.

Also, there are universities and degrees in the red states, including Texas A&M, Purdue, Notre Dame, Ohio State, U Michigan, Rolla, etc.  Most of them teach much more useful subjects than the crap in the Poison Ivy League.

Someone complained that, "University precincts overwhelmingly voted for Hillary." 

Why would that matter?  You tell me people disconnected from reality voted for her, and I agree.  If only there were people with degrees (or other education) not in those precincts...

You're an idiot.

"Trump's anti-Muslim statements prove he's a racist." 

What "anti-Muslim" statements vs "Anti-terorist" statements? If you see no difference, then you're indicating you're what you claim to be against, and a hypocritical bigot. Also, "Muslim" is a religion, not a race. You're an idiot.

“Sexual aggressiveness with women by an elected official — if people have that experience in their own life, that’s upsetting,” Michael Reading, director of crisis services at a Seattle-area 24-hour hotline, told the Seattle Times.

Unless it's Bill Clinton doing it, and then it's just awesome, right?  
You're an idiot.

"Trump won a bunch of poor, rural counties that don't matter. "

Excuse me, but I thought caring about poor people was a liberal tenet?  You're a hypocritical bigot, and an idiot.

"I'm strongly considering moving to South America." 

You don't speak Spanish, you have few marketable skills, and most countries in South America ban abortion and expect "Traditional" roles for women.  You're an idiot.

"We're holding a cry-in."

If you think crying will accomplish anything positive, and not make you look like a petulant crybaby, you're an idiot. You should be left to starve in the street, because you are worthless, as an individual.

"We'll block the freeway and complain when someone gets hit by a car!"

I guess your education didn't include not playing in traffic.

You are a fucking idiot.

"I'll move to Canada!"

Mexico has everything you want. Gun control. National health care. Pot. So do Cuba and Venezuela. Yet you always pick Canada. Are you racist?  Or just an idiot times an idiot?

Also, Canada has standards of admission for visas, which you probably don't meet.  And you've threatened this in previous elections and didn't follow through.  You're lying. And an idiot.

So, how was it possible that Hillary didn't win?

Because her supporters are overwhelmingly bigoted idiots.

And if that wasn't obvious to you...

You're an idiot.

 

What Hillary Voters Can Do Now
Nov 10, 201612:51AM

Category: Politics

I'd like to bring up a lesson I keep trying to teach, that no one on the left learns.

"Racist!" is a pointless epithet to hurl at someone.

There are three categories of people in this context. People who are racist but don't know it.  People who are racist and know it. People who are not racist.

If someone is a racist, or has racist tendencies, and isn't aware of it, one needs to point out to them the errors, politely ensure they're aware of them and comprehend them, and ask if they can change.  Screaming "RACIST!" just pisses them off and makes communication impossible.

If someone is a racist and knows it, screaming "RACIST!" will either get you laughed at, or a lengthy "logical" (to them) screed on why they proudly are.

If someone is not a racist, and you scream it at us, we realize no rational debate is possible, since you're using epithets in lieu of any rational argument, and we ignore you. Unless, of course, you scream it as us then block us.  You accomplished nothing positive, antagonized an ally, and demonstrated that you are, in fact, stupid.

Eight years of this, accusing anyone who questioned any of 0's policies of racism, led us to where we are now.

Let me show one particular issue as example: Cash for Clunkers.

The INTENT, as I understand it, was to get rid of old, polluting cars, and give poor people assistance in replacing them. Not pointed out was that the vouchers were an advance against future taxes.

The IMPLEMENTATION required the cars be destroyed. The engines deliberately seized, the cars crushed.

The RESULT was that there were fewer old cars for people with little money, or for dealers in poor areas to make a few bucks off. There were fewer spare parts for old cars that needed cheap repair.  More new cars had to be made, involving metal founding and bunches of CO2.

So, it was a complete failure from ANY "liberal" perspective.

But failing to endorse it is "Racist" against the president who pushed it.

Had GWB pushed the same thing, would it have been a "benefit," or would he have been lambasted for wasting resources and hurting poor people?

You know the answer.

This is why you have no credibility.  By making minorities unanswerable to the same rules to which you hold "Whites" (which never seem to include yourselves), you are the racists, and you're projecting, because you're terrified that if you question a (minority of choice), it will show.

In actuality, it's blatantly obvious to everyone.

You've completely failed to get over yourselves, so you project at everyone else and try to harass them into your position. Which will never work.

This can't be fixed.  You haven't learned, show no interest in fixing it, you're just doubling down on more rhetoric.

So there's only one thing left.

Yes, Trump is going to put you personally in a concentration camp. No, you will never get a job nor amount to anything because racriarchilege.

Or rather, no, he won't, because he has no authority or means to do so, and you're just not worth the effort if he did, because you are worthless, and it's entirely of your own agency.

The only thing you can do for your country is to swallow a bottle of sleeping pills, wash it down with tequila and rat poison, chug some drain cleaner, and wash your mouth out with a shotgun.

Seriously, fuck off. And take your racism with you. Or kill yourselves.  No one cares.

As some of you know, I recently concluded a lengthy divorce.
 
Now, in any divorce, there may be a good party and a bad party, two good parties that just aren't compatible, or two bad parties. And there's really no need to go into that here.  We were married almost 22 years and eventually had to part ways. Enough said.
 
What I am going to address is two things:  Lawyers, and involvement.
 
Now, I understood from an early age, possibly because my parents got divorced, not to get involved in other people's drama.
 
My advice is this: When two friends or acquaintances are getting divorced, stay the hell out of it.  It's not your fight. Listen and be supportive to either or both, but DO NOT relay any information from one to the other. Don't try to "help save their marriage," as one friend did, based on meeting us for two weeks a year at an event. No, you don't know us well enough, and "God" doesn't want you to do that.  God wants you to stay the hell out of it.
 
The exceptions fall into two categories.  If you're aware of documentable, actual abuse or criminal activity, then by all means help the victim. "Documentable," is key, because no matter how "reliable" your friend is, subjective opinion is not objective.  This was not a factor in our divorce, btw.
 
The other is, "I know these people well enough to know their birthdays, former (or in some cases, current) partners, other friends, parents, and what underwear styles they wear."

Because if you don't know them that well, no, you really don't know them well enough to get involved.
 
I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but a lot of people apparently don't grasp it.  If you give money or other assistance to one party, YOU HAVE CHOSEN SIDES IN A FIGHT.  If you do this, and are surprised that the other party regards it as a hostile act, you're not just naive, you're an idiot.
 
And no, you're not "Helping."  Any money you give to one side for legal bills, for example, has to be matched by the other party.  All you're doing is feeding ammo to a civil war.  Remember that classic Star Trek episode, "A Private Little War"?
 
"Oh, but my friend is the poorer of the two and needs help or they'll be homeless."
 
You don't know this.  And it's not your problem. See above. Unless you have deep personal knowledge of the relationship, you have no way of knowing what the circumstances are, or why. Especially if you're basing it off social media posts. How many trials have we seen where everyone is "positive" of a set of facts from the news and Facebook, and how dare the jury decide "wrongly"?
 
HINT: The jury saw evidence you didn't. They're not wrong. You're misinformed.
 
Possibly your friend is the victim. Possibly they're playing the victim. Possibly both are victims. Possibly both are self-destructive assholes. YOU DO NOT KNOW.  
 
"But I'm SURE!..."
 
No you're not.
 
I'm aware of another divorce where marital rape was involved.  But after the dust settled, the victim admitted that possibly they'd misinterpreted an action and given a signal that could be taken as consenting. And if that sounds ridiculously complicated, you're right, it is.
 
Eventually, it turned out both of them had problems, neither of them had ill intent, and each of them needed someone entirely different to suit their personalities.
 
I knew these people reasonably well as friends, and had detailed info from both. I considered one a victim at the time, but that information was subjective.
 
As I was smart, I didn't try to "help them fix the misunderstanding," and I didn't give either of them money, even when the "victim" was couch surfing.
 
So here's an incident from my divorce, as illustration, and I'm going to name a name.
 
My ex's first attorney wasn't bad, but lacked some of the skills needed to get things moving.  Eventually, the attorney/client relationship ended.
 
My ex needed a new attorney. And this is when a "friend," "helped."
 
Actually, the friend was a tutor I'd hired for one of the kids, who was aware, "My ex has moved out. I have filed for divorce. I have custody of the children and interim possession of the house."
 
And that is all the information they were entitled to or would ever need.  Also, if you know much about divorce, there's a lot of pertinent information in that statement.
 
So, this person recommended an attorney friend of theirs to my ex. One Michael Schoen.
 
Michael Schoen is in my opinion an illiterate idiot.  I offer the below document (readily available in the court's public records) as evidence:
 
 
 
 
This official communication has no letterhead.  It is badly written to the point of incomprehensibility, and has atrocious grammar, spelling, and terminology (Contact/contract, Williams/Williamson). WTF is a "website display" and how would I show it other than to provide a URL?  How would I show changes that weren't archived, and there's no reason to archive them?  The Wayback Machine is available, please avail yourself of it. And this from a man who claims his undergrad degree was in English Lit.
 
When I responded that I couldn't answer these questions because I couldn't comprehend them, he refused to clarify informally, demanded trial, dragged me and my attorney into court, attempted to lambast us, was forced to admit his queries were nonsensical, and got the judge irritated--the judge we BOTH needed to be calm and reasoned for a fair settlement.
 
Then he insisted that by "contact" he meant "Contract" and by "Contract" he meant every receipt I'd ever written for a sale from my secondary business, ever, and every cable, internet or other bill, ever, to determine the"value" of things.
 
Hey, Schoet for brains, those are in my tax filings with the IRS.
 
Then he misquoted state law regarding custody, and insisted he was correct.
 
The judge then demanded his party, meaning my ex, pay for an evaluator to determine the value of the business.  In case you're not aware, that costs hundreds to thousands of dollars.
 
At mediation, with none of these issues resolved because they can't be, he then tried to argue tax and IP law and showed he had even less knowledge of those subjects, and hindered a deal (Which we eventually achieved through a better attorney) by which I willingly GAVE HER THE HOUSE and the accumulated equity (I moved to a new house.  There was no reason to waste the old one, but he seemed determined it was some sort of trick), BTW, this was the deal I'd offered originally. 
 
Then after four hours we had to call mediation unresolved because he had to leave to go to "his job." He wasn't even a full time attorney at that point.
 
The end result was, he was involved in the case for a year, cost her whatever he billed her, cost me $50,000 responding to his idiocy through my attorney (Andrew Bartelt with Hollingsworth and Zivitz, who managed to keep track of all this and respond methodically to complete idiocy.  Thank you, Andy).
 
So, I'm estimating, even if he worked cheap, $70,000-$80,000 we should have spent on our family and kids, wasted. All because someone "wanted to help."
 
And to prove the point, her third attorney Chris Barrows, whom I will also personally recommend, sat down with Andy and got this all resolved in a month and about 5 billable hours. Again, this was close to the deal I'd offered originally. Thanks, Chris.
 
Now, I'm going to do the tutor a favor and not mention them publicly. But I hope they realize that there will be no further work for them through my family, and no endorsement,.  It was none of their business, and their "help" wrecked both party's financial future for months if not years.
 
Everyone else should learn from this.
 
"Oh, you're getting divorced?  I am so sorry to hear that. Do you need a hug and a drink?"
 
And that's as much involvement as you should ever have.
And I wasn't even sure how to respond:
 
Michael,
You may remember me from a few years back when we shared dinner together in Atlanta Ga during Dragon Con. I really enjoyed our meeting and learned that I should NEVER accept a table next to the waitstaff station. No matter the case, this year I was in the hospital hoping to die, and your book "Rogue" gave me what little hope I have. I was well prepared to end my life, but your character not ending his because he felt responsibility to his daughter gave me pause. I will live a few more years because you created a character who would not abandon his child. I thank you for the lesson.
Very respectfully,
 
[redacted]

I'm seeing this myth more and more--that fewer people own guns, and just own more of them, yadda yadda.

A) 

Even if true, so what?

I bet .05% of individuals own 90% of the newspapers. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

2: I'm well-placed to debunk this.  If millions of people were getting rid of their guns, then one of two things would happen.  

2a} your local police station would have people lined up to turn in guns for destruction. Call them and ask. They're going to laugh at you.

2b] your local gun store would have people lined up to sell their guns, the market value would plummet, and I'd be buying used guns for twenty bucks a pop.  I only wish that were the case.

c; If this were a thing, it would mean fewer gun owners, so why the urgent panic to pass more laws?  The "problem" would be correcting itself, just as smoking is a dying habit.

IV: In other words, it's morally corrupt, intellectually dishonest bullshit from left wing cowards with small penises. As usual.

The Math of Church Shootings
Jul 26, 201612:07AM

Category: General

Taken from various sources and lists, including Wikipedia. Archiving for reference as a secondary source.

February 14, 2010 - Richmond, California - Three hooded men walk into Gethsemane Church of God in Christ and opened fire and then fled the scene, as the singing of the choir was replaced by frightened screams. The two victims, a 14-year-old boy and a 19-year-old man, were hospitalized.--shooters were hooded, unknown race. Town is mixed demographically, unknown victims.

March 8, 2009 - Maryville, Illinois - Suspect Terry Joe Sedlacek, 27, of Troy, walks into the First Baptist Church, and shoots pastor Fred Winters dead, point blank. Several church members are injured by a knife in the struggle to capture after the attack, The suspect also had stabbed himself, but survived, when his gun jams.--white attacker, probable white victims, per names and local demographics

July 27, 2008 - Knoxville, Tennessee - A gunman opens fire in a church during a youth performance, killing two people and injuring seven.--Jim D. Adkisson.  White shooter, white victims.

Dec. 9, 2007 - Colorado - Three people are killed and five wounded in two shooting rampages, one at a missionary school in suburban Denver and one at a church in Colorado Springs. The gunman in the second incident is killed by a guard.--probable white gunman and victim, per names

May 20, 2007 - Moscow, Idaho - A standoff between police and a suspect in the shootings of three people in a Presbyterian Church ended with three dead, including one police officer.--white shooter, white victims

Aug. 12, 2007 - Neosho, Missouri - First Congregational Church - 3 killed - Eiken Elam Saimon shot and killed the pastor and two deacons and wounded five others.--Micronesian shooter, probably white victims

May 21, 2006 - Baton Rouge, Louisiana - The Ministry of Jesus Christ Church - 4 killed - The four at the church who were shot were members of Erica Bell's family; she was abducted and murdered elsewhere; Bell's mother, church pastor Claudia Brown, was seriously wounded - Anthony Bell, 25, was the shooter.--black shooter, black victims

Feb. 26, 2006 - Detroit, Michigan - Zion Hope Missionary Baptist Church - 2 killed + shooter - Kevin L. Collins, who reportedly went to the church looking for his girlfriend, later killed himself.--black shooter, black victims

April 9, 2005 - College Park, Georgia - A 27-year-old airman died after being shot at a church, where he had once worked as a security guard.--given the demographics of the area, probably a black shooter and black victims

March 12, 2005 - Brookfield, Wisconsin - Living Church of God - 7 killed + shooter - Terry Ratzmann opened fire on the congregation, killing seven and wounding four before taking his own life.--white shooter and victims

July 30, 2005 - College Park, Georgia - World Changers Church International - shooter killed - Air Force Staff Sgt. John Givens was shot five times by a police officer after charging the officer, following violent behavior.--from article, attacker probably black

 Second more recent shooting at same church--black shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v8Y_pY4sIE

Dec. 17, 2004, Garden Grove, Calif.: A veteran musician at the Crystal Cathedral shoots himself to death after a nine -hour standoff.--suicide

Oct. 5, 2003 - Atlanta, Georgia - Turner Monumental AME Church - 2 killed + shooter - Shelia Wilson walked into the church while preparations are being made for service and shot the pastor, her mother and then herself.-black on black violence, domestic incident

June 10, 2002 - Conception, Missouri - Benedictine monastery - 2 killed + shooter - Lloyd Robert Jeffress shot four monks in the monastery killing two and wounding two, before killing himself.

March 12, 2002 - Lynbrook, New York - Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church - 2 killed - Peter Troy, a former mental patient, opens fire during Mass, killing the priest and a parishioner. He later receives a life sentence.--unknown, names and location suggest white

May 18, 2001 - Hopkinsville, Kentucky - Greater Oak Missionary Baptist Church - 2 killed - Frederick Radford stood up in the middle of a revival service and began shooting at his estranged wife, Nicole Radford,  killing her and a woman trying to help her.--black on black domestic incident.


Sept. 15, 1999 - Fort Worth, Texas - Wedgewood Baptist Church - 7 killed + shooter - Larry Gene Ashbrook shot dead seven people and injured a further seven at a concert by Christian rock group Forty Days in Fort Worth, Texas before killing himself.--victims appear to be mostly white

April 15, 1999 - Salt Lake City, Utah - LDS Church Family History Library - 2 killed + shooter - Sergei Babarin, 70, with a history of mental illness, entered the library, killed two people and wounded four others before he was gunned down by police.--victims white

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/18/from-bombings-to-fires-to-shootings-partial-list-attacks-on-black-churches-in/ — June 1996: Then-President Bill Clinton appoints a task force to investigate a spate of church fires, particularly at black churches in the rural South. Of 670 incidents that were investigated nationwide by October 1998, 225 involved black churches.

Looks like blacks kill a lot more black worshippers than whites. black shooters. And whites tend to target other whites. THAT is your pattern.  You can dislike facts, but you can't ignore them.  But doesn't it make sense that they're usually pissed off at someone in their own community?

As to burnings, it will take more time than available to ID the perps in those cases, but the sheer number suggests a small group dedicated to the task, and even then, black churches are only slightly over-represented on a demographic basis.

Does not include the more recent SC church shooting that was definitely racial in nature, with a white shooter and black victims.

Once again, we have a high profile shooting, and once again, the hysteria is out in force.

Let's start with some facts:  If you don't shoot, or have only occasionally shot on a range, then your opinion on how useful an armed respondent would be is garbage.  If you don't drive a car, you aren't qualified to tell professional drivers what they should have done in an accident.

Seriously, shut up, you're an idiot.

Second, everything is a cost-benefit and risk analysis.  Would a defensive shooter have made a difference? We can never know. We can know that it has helped before.

Here are some ways it can help:

The defensive shooter engages the hostile. The hostile must choose to ignore, take cover, or return fire.

If he chooses to ignore it, he remains a target and the odds of him being shot increase, and if he is shot, the engagement ends, and no further lives are lost. If this happens before he quits or runs out of ammo, it is a NET POSITIVE for the group.

If he takes cover, he is not shooting for a few moments, and in that few moments, more people can escape or formulate an attack. (Barstools can be as deadly as bullets, when thrown or swung.)  NET POSITIVE.

If he returns fire, anyone not in the cone near the defensive shooter is not being shot at. This is a NET POSITIVE for all those people, and a slight negative for those in the defender's immediate position.

It is possible the defender will hit a bystander in the process.  However, as he is deliberately choosing a single hostile target, the odds still improve for the remainder, and if the hostile is hit, the engagement stops. This is probably still a net positive.

The defender may be hit. Negative for him, but he accepted that risk. And in those few seconds, the fact is that more victims can escape or respond. This is still a NET POSITIVE for the GROUP.

Yes, the defender may decide his best course of action is to flee. If so...there is no negative nor positive for the group. They remain as they were.

But, this assumes an engagement takes place. Knowing certain areas contain a lot of defensive shooters, attackers tend to avoid them. NET POSITIVE for the group.

The only way to imagine a major negative is to assume that everyone carrying a gun for defense is some psychotic nutjob just waiting to break and spray bullets. There are zero studies or statistics to support this allegation.

This belief comes about from several issues. First, hoplophobia--a fear of weapons.  

Occasionally, it comes from projection. A person with poor impulse control assumes everyone else likewise is prone to outbursts, and of course, if they have a gun, they might act out with it, even though that occurence is demonstrably very rare. The overwhelming majority public and/or mass shootings are premeditated. They even frequently project their small penises into the argument. (Yes, that was deliberate contempt and turnabout on my part.)

Most commonly, it comes from fear and helplessness.  The promoter of these memes knows that in such an event, they'd be helpless, crying, and nothing but a victim waiting to be slaughtered.  More terrifying than that is the notion that NOT EVERYONE IS.  Some people might actually be able to control such a situation.  This means those people are more competent than the poster. It's a frightening notion that random death can visit us, but more offensive and jealous-making is the idea that it isn't just random, that some can change the odds in their favor and not be victims.

The sheep mentality, particularly among "liberals," is that everyone must be equal--equally poor, equally ignorant, equally helpless.

The only thing more outrageous than a killer is inequality, wherein better people (sometimes) survive. The most important thing to these people is to convince the competent that they're really not, or at least convince themselves of that, even if it takes trite, ignorant meme wars and blocking those who'd inform them otherwise.

They don't want education, they cherish their ignorance and fear. 

And they're what's wrong with humanity.

While some say we should pity them, I hold that their deliberate, cherished ignorance and cowardice makes them unsalvageable.

Simply remind them that they're worthless cowards, and be the best prepapred person you can be.  It may not matter, but it will not hurt.

BTW, if every building has fire extinguishers, why do we still have fires?

 

 

Orlando: The AAR and BFTNP
Jun 14, 201612:15AM

Category: Politics

This is going to be part pep talk and part "There there, here's a foot in your ass."

The Orlando shooting was not your fault. You bear no guilt and no shame. By embracing guilt and shame you give the terrorists what they want. Stop it. That way lies madness. 

THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. First, it's over. Second, even the experts who should have prevented it couldn't.  I'm somewhat trained in this field, and I'm not going to second guess them.  Even the best preventive measures have cracks. 20/20 hindsight on what the guy said, did, or owned is pointless.

THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, PART 2.  Are you a lawyer?  Political scientist? Threat analyst?  Weapons expert?  Security consultant?  If not, then really, you have nothing to say. Smarter, better-educated people than you have looked at every possible aspect you might suddenly imagine is new and clever, long before you did, and wrote the book.

NO, REALLY, YOU'RE NOT THAT CLEVER.  Really. It's easy to say ban this, restrict that, watch these people, do these things.  In reality those things are impossible, and wouldn't matter if they were.  There is no gun you can ban to prevent Sept 11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing. There is no fertilizer you can ban to prevent the Boston Marathon bombing. There is no pressure cooker you can ban to prevent the Bath School Disaster. There is no boxcutter you can ban to prevent the Tokyo Subway Attack.

Nothing.  Terrorists will find a way.

MAKING YOURSELF MORE HELPLESS HELPS NO ONE.  "I don't need guns," you say. I know more about guns than you, and you're wrong.  You may not want any, and that's fine, that's your decision to make, FOR YOU, not for me, nor anyone else.  "I couldn't have done anything."  You're right. So stop trying to Monday Morning Quarterback the whole thing. "Nobody needs an AR15."  Again, you're wrong, and at this point you should be reminded of the Dunning-Kruger effect. 

See this article here: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=219

Get that?  Access to firearms is a constitutionally protected right, and SCOTUS  says so, the end.

I could just as well argue that the 24 hour news cycle (CNN earns more money in 24 hours of ad revenue than the NRA gets in donations all year. Follow the money) extols, glamorizes and encourages these type of things.  How about my idea for a 24 hour choke on news?  What, First Amendment?  You're going to let an outdated document stand in the way of safety? WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS?

There, now wasn't that productive? I came up with a logical solution, and insulted you when you dissented. Now we're both on the same page.

And those people are still dead.

Next time, we'll talk about how your ridiculous "right" to internet in the house means you support child molesters, and your "right" to drink means you support drunk drivers.

The time after a disaster is a time for calm, not a time for attacking your fellow countrymen with differing beliefs and opinions.

Because that's how ISIS started.

BFTNP:  Blame For The Non-Participants.

US Civil War:  Democrats fought to keep their slaves.

1 million casualties.

Democrat James K Polk, Mexican-American War.

17,000 casualties.

WWI--Democrat Woodrow Wilson and a Democrat Congress authorized the carrying of war materiel on US merchant ships, thus making those ships legitimate military targets.

320,000 casualties.

WWII--Democrat FDR and a Democrat Congress authorized the carrying of war materiel on US merchant ships, and naval vessels to protect such ships and fire on German commerce raiders, thus initiating violence against a foreign power.  

1,076,000 casualties.

Korea--Democrat Harry Truman and a Democrat Congress authorized US involvement in a land war in Asia.

128,000 casualties.

Vietnam--Democrat Harry Truman authorized economic aid for another land war in Asia. Democrat JFK sent the first combat troops. Lyndon BJ sent thousands more US combat troops, all under Democrat Congresses.

211,000 casualties.

Dominican Republic--Democrat Lyndon BJ

330 casualties.

~~~

75% of violent criminals identify as Democrats.

The solution is obvious.

Outlaw the Democratic Party under RICO, arrest and jail all members, and US violence will largely disappear.