The Media - Who's Being Brainwashed

 

Aside from ad hominem attacks and accusations of pedophilia, a common theme of (non) retorts from the far right individuals I've attempted to engage with is being a slave to CNN or MSNBC.  These two news channels are seen by the far right as brainwashing their audiences and acting as fluff pieces for the left.  In order to test this, I decided to screen grab the home pages of CNN and five right wing news outlets to see how they differed.  I've broken down stories into three categories:  fact based reporting, opinion, and fluff.  

Fact based is just that, but may include quotes from the sources of said story.  An example would be CNN's top story of Russia warning the US about shipping Patriot missiles to Ukraine.  

Opinion stories are interviews or more frequently Op Eds from supposed experts on a controversial subject.  Readers should take note of these pieces, because they're written from a single point of view and because they're someone's opinion, there's no representation of being factual.  In other words, these are the pieces that would be most likely to indoctrinate a reader to a particular viewpoint.  

Because this entry's intent is to uncover bias, I consider anything beyond this scope to be fluff.  Also, I don't give a shit whether William screamed at Harry or not, so it automatically hits the fluff category.  Because certain people won't read stories, this may not be the best representative sample of what people are consuming, but I don't watch much TV and prefer reading to watching videos; I can get through the stories much faster.  That being said, I didn't read most of the homepage articles because of time constraints.  Also, because of how each outlet's homepage is structured, spending time on actual numbers is a fool's errand.  I'm fairly certain you can identify trends without this data.

I'll start with the baseline and alleged brainwashing outlet, CNN.  Of the stories, I see a smattering of fact based and fluff, with two exceptions.  First is labelled "Opinion", with the other being "Ex-Trump White House lawyer makes prediction".  Lots of stories, but fairly straightforward, with most of the stories addressing what the average American is interested in, I guess.

Moving on to Fox News, you can understand why I'm not quantifying; the number of stories located on the homepage differs between each outlet.  The left column is nothing but opinion, with two fluffers.  The top story is fact based, but if you read the article, it's chock full of comments from the GOP deriding the bill, with one quote from a Dem.  The four in the center consist of two fact based, an opinion, and a fluff.  In summary, opinion pieces are the most common on this site.

Moving down the ladder in quality, but up it in bias, we hit Newsmax.  The main story is fact based and sourced from AP, with the Newsmax TV box populated by all opinion, save the Kirk Cameron hard right fluff piece, which is an opinion piece in disguise.  Another page even more dedicated to opinion.

Moving on to OAN, we see the top story as an opinion piece, along with the stories about Trump and Mayorkas.  The remainder could be considered as fact based, as they report what others have said and done, but when what those people have said are lies, I'd argue they don't fit in that category.  

There's no way anyone could categorize RSBN as anything but a Trump propaganda outlet.  There's nothing but Trump fluff pieces and opportunities to join in with other Trump supporters.  

Finally, I decided to include Red State, just for the hell of it.  As you can see, there's nothing there except for opinion pieces with an obvious hard right slant. 

Having gone through this exercise, I noticed a massive gap in what I was seeing; there was only one story each on Hunter Biden's laptop and the Twitter Files.  Also, no Bannon or other of the grifters.  I'd originally intended not to go down the rabbit hole to the basement of right wing media, but I wanted to see at what level the real conspiracy shit showed up. So, down the rabbit hole I went, using the sources noted by right wingers on the shooting message boards I spend time on.  

Let me tell you, there are a ton of them.  Just a cursory stroll through a few days of posts, I found links to the following:

Breitbart - This is semi mainstream, but delves into some conspiracy nonsense

Gateway Pundit - It's really hard to find the articles, but they're there and a hair below Breitbart

The Blaze - Lots of links to loons like Glenn Beck, who spew conspiracy lies

Citizen Free Press - One long page of links to other sources; some legit (MSN, ABC, AP) and others to some way out shit

The Federalist - Anti Biden, Pro Trump, light conspiracy stuff

American Wire News - More of the same

American Gulag - Fun stuff like J6 was a benign party

After identifying the ones above, I lost interest and my eyes began to glaze over.  How the hell can there be so many right wing media outlets?  Granted, they're all online only, but they do tend to run together.  What's notable is the lack of really hardcore conspiracies.  Sure, there were multiple stories about the laptop, and one about the federal government covering for Biden (but not alleging him being a criminal).  Of the eight reasons given, four were about the laptop and the rest were utter nonsense, meant to boost the total.  It should go without saying that there were a ton of non conspiracy lies, but again, nothing bonkers like I've seen on Twitter.  That begs the question of where are the right wing folks getting the information for the out there crap, like Biden being in China's pocket?  I have guesses, but I'm bored with this entry.  

Wrapping this up, it's become clear to me that the further one goes down the right wing media food chain, the further away from fact based information you become.  It's also crystal clear right wing media is far more interested in indoctrinating their users than the MSM.  In fact, some are outright propaganda.  This all leads to a question for the right, which is are liberals the ones being brainwashed?  

No, My Dog Doesn't Want to Play!

As one might imagine, there are a fair amount of dogs in the subdivision I live in.  In the middle of the subdivision, there's a park, which is roughly 75 meters square, and many of us use it as an area to walk our dogs.  Most of us understand the unwritten "rules of the road", when it comes to meeting other dogs, within the park, which typically involves whoever gets there first owns their track, whether that be clockwise or anticlockwise.  

We do this because some dogs don't like other dogs and direct contact could be unpleasant.  My dog doesn't like most of the dogs she sees, although there are some she mostly ignores.  But again, caution is better than a dog fight, unless your name is Maverick.  

Tonight, when we reached the park, there were two other people with their dogs.  One (Dog 1) was in the center, off lead, but well behaved.  The other (Dog 2) was on the same side as me, but headed away, so I went in the opposite direction to eliminate contact.  Much to my chagrin, this individual crossed the park and I found myself headed to a contretemps between Dog 1 and Dog 2.  It seems the well behaved off lead dog (Dog 1) wasn't perfect in the return command.  At this point, I reversed course and headed the other way, mildly annoyed at Dog 2's owner for dicking around.  

After my dog and I got around the corner of the park, I see Dog 2 and owner jogging across the park in my direction.  At that point, I passed through annoyance into pissed.  As Dog 2's owner got closer, he asked if mine wanted to play.  WTF???  My response was quite pleasant for me.  "No she doesn't want to play, which is why I kept changing direction to get away from you!"  I'll take the pat on the back for not using the words "dumb fuck".  

Bannon Behind Hunter Biden Smear Campaign

Someone sent an article to me and it's quite eye opening.  If you're at all curious where the material from Hunter's laptop you've seen came from, read on.  

Spoiler alert:  If you think Hunter Biden slept with underage women or that he and the President are being blackmailed by China, congratulations, you've been played by Steve Bannon and the Chinese. 

In my previous laptop entry, I noted how Rudy received a copy of the hard drive from the computer repair guy and how at some point after, numerous files were added to the drive.  From there, the "augmented" drive made its way to the New York Post to be used in the story everyone knows about.  The FBI and CBS News have the original version.  Some of the nude photos of Hunter wound up on Twitter.  These are the tweets highlighted in the Twitter Files that were removed at the behest of the Biden campaign.  These tweets were a violation of Twitter TOS and laws against revenge porn.  All facts, confirmed by multiple sources.  

The outstanding question that I hadn't considered was how those photos, along with similar videos made their way onto the internet.  

The article, which I've linked to, explains how Steve Bannon worked with the Chinese and developed a smear campaign against Hunter Biden, in the hopes of influencing the 2020 election.  

Article

This is all detailed in the article, but since it's a long read, I've highlighted a few key sections below.  The italicized portions are direct copy paste. 

The third tweet cited in Taibbi’s screenshot, the Internet Archive shows, came from an account that features a logo and slogan indicating the user is a member of New Federal State of China. The NFSC is an organization set up in 2020 by Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui, an exiled Chinese mogul, who has aggressively promoted false claims about Covid vaccines and the 2020 election. Numerous former allies, and multiple lawsuits, have accused of him of working as an agent for the Chinese government. 

This would be the same Guo whose yacht Bannon was arrested on.  Apparently Guo has a small army of followers, who support him in his "endeavors".  

In another message, referring to various Hunter videos, Guo ordered: “Post one right now, one every hour from now on…I want everyone to fully promote it.”

But they didn't just post these pictures and videos; they created false narratives to accompany them. 

 

According to multiple people involved in distributing the material, Guo ordered them to claim that the laptop material included images of Hunter Biden having sex with underage Chinese girls. There is no evidence supporting this allegation against Hunter. Guo also told subordinates to assert that the Chinese government had obtained the material and used it to blackmail both Hunter and Joe Biden.

Worth repeating is I'm not taking Hunter Biden's side.  If he broke the law, he should be punished accordingly.  However, there's no verified evidence from any reputable source of any wrongdoing, particular involving the President.  Only innuendo and hearsay, which is proof of nothing.  

In conclusion, one should always question the source and motives behind the "earthshattering" revelations you read, particularly on the internet.  

PS - Others who've shared this article on Twitter are being shadow banned; it's documented.  Another example of Elmo's hypocrisy and allegiance to the far right.  

Elon Musk, Twitter, and Grooming

Elon Musk has been celebrated by the far right for probably close to a year now, participating and in some cases, propagating right wing talking points.  However, since acquiring Twitter, Elmo has risen to demigod status with the group.  The amount of fawning over him in far right circles is quite honestly astounding.  There are literally people calling him things like the most significant American ever and greatest advocate for free speech the country has ever had.  But is he the savior they think he is?  On a side note, see if you can spot the parallels between Elmo and another right wing idol. 

He tweets random, vague phrases which his followers devour as though it's wisdom from heaven.  The rest of us see them as the faux intellectual nonsense they are.  He could tweet about a dump he took and they'd consider him even more of a messiah.  Because he's one of them.  

As I've already mentioned, the first dump of the Twitter Files was a nothing burger that the right was practically orgasmic over.  If you recall, it said both presidential campaigns had access to request the removal of certain tweets and that Twitter suppressed the NYP story about Hunter Biden's laptop.  Twitter being a non-government entity, it's free to do that.  But Elmo is on the scene to make things right in the world.  

Last night saw the second dump of Twitter material and it was an even bigger non-event, at least for most users.  It essentially confirmed they moderated content, as they saw fit, per their TOS.  Again, the right wing screamed for blood, since most of the accounts suppressed were theirs.  Who knew that stochastic terrorism and disseminating false information wouldn't be well received?  On the flip side, they again hailed Elmo as the messiah that would amplify their voices, allowing them to properly propagate patently false lies to their followers.  (Did you know that many right wingers believe we have literally open borders?)

While it's obvious Elmo is courting the far right, because he's one of them, it's equally obvious to me his motivation lies beyond providing a platform for free speech for them.  First and foremost, the man is a certifiable narcissist and the adoration he receives from the right provides sustenance to his voracious ego.  You can see this in his increasing number of faux intellectual tweets.  

The second is because he sees these rabid fans as a gravy train.  Most people are aware that Twitter has lost 80% of its advertising revenue, due to concerns over Musk's right wing ilk and lack of stability.  He attempted to bring revenue in via his ill-conceived and poorly executed $8 monthly fee, that he killed after a few days, and a verified fake account drove millions of value out of medical companies' stock.   However, if he can't fund the platform with advertising, the best avenue toward profitability remains revenue from users, which is his end game with the far right.  He thinks they'll love him enough to support a massive take rate on a monthly fee.  Considering their record of giving their money to their idols, I'd say he's right.  In other words, he's a groomer.  The elephant in the room is there aren't enough right wingers to completely offset the lost ad revenue.  

Back to content moderation, which is where Elmo is essentially trolling the right wingers.  They clearly think Twitter will be a complete free for all, where they'll be the dominant voices, because Elmo loves them.  If you read the tweet below, which seems to have been conveniently passed over by his cult, you'll see that won't be the case.  Even crazy Elmo knows that if he doesn't keep the far right out of the general population, the mass exodus by the rest of society, and complete abandonment by advertisers will accelerate.  Elmo's banking on the far right not noticing they're only seeing each other and based upon their gullibility, he's probably right.  

So, if you're one of the many Elmo worshipers, be aware you're being groomed.

Of course, this is all predicated on the platform not imploding, as various staff continue to exodus.  Today saw two key members of its Trust and Safety Council resign over Elmo's policies causing a decline in safety.

It seems the far right has an affinity for wealthy, faux intelligent and self made, pied pipers who secretly despise their followers.

Drag Shows and Right Wing Hypocrisy

 One of the pillars of conservatism has always been self-reliance; work hard and you won't need handouts, you're responsible for yourself and your family.  A recent addition to "conservative values" is that a parent knows better than anyone else how to educate their children.  I have thoughts on that at the end, but for once, I won't digress.  These two themes are repeated over and over from right wing voices, so I'll consider them to be without dispute.  

Drag Shows
As it moves further toward the extreme, the right has become obsessed with drag shows, in particular ones billed as family friendly.  They're angry that these shows are tantamount to what they call grooming, convincing children who attend to become drag performers (I guess?).  First, normalizing something doesn't do that; the brain doesn't work that way.  I could write a whole post on the grooming topic, but I'm not an expert, so won't.  Back to drag shows, the right wingers claim the shows aren't suitable for children.  In all honesty, they may be right in some cases, but it doesn't matter, as you'll see.  

This sentiment (if you believe them), has caused a documented spike in harassment and violence toward the LGBTQ community.  There are social media accounts, the worst being Libs of TikTok, who publicize dates and times of these shows, for the sole purpose of stochastic terrorism.  The person who runs it says it's purely for awareness, but that claim goes well beyond disingenuous.  With the information these accounts provide, armed right wing looneys, wearing face masks, frequently show up to protest these shows.  Strike that, when you show up openly armed to the teeth, you're no longer protesting, but engaging in intimidation  But the right's activity has begun to gravitate further toward violence.  On the extreme, some shot up a substation here in North Carolina just to stop a drag show.  Forty thousand people without power; a life threatening situation for many, all because of bigotry.  On a side note, I don't think the act was organized so much as a few hillbillies being bigoted inbreds.  With their history and path toward escalation in clear view, it's a matter of time before the right wing shoots more than power stations.  

The Hypocrisy

To summarize, the hard right is trying to destroy something they don't like so that parents (for all age shows) don't have the choice of whether to take their kids, who they know what's best for.  In other words, the hard right doesn't really adhere to their own values.  When they decide they hate something, for reasons noted below, they want it destroyed, full stop.  I may not be a child development expert, but "destroy things that you don't agree with" may not be the message to send to your children.  But it isn't about protecting children, is it?

Parents and Education
As I mentioned above, one of the new cries from the hard right is they know best what education their children need.  In other words, a single mother from the Midwest, with a GED, who's never left her home state has a better understanding of learning development than a properly trained educator who's dedicated their life to it.  Nothing more to be said there, because it's ludicrous.  

This, of course, has nothing to do with proper education, so much as them not wanting their kids exposed to subjects they're intolerant of.  Anything to do with whites not being the master race or gender.  CRT is one of the buzzwords here.  Here's your parting piece of hypocrisy - these parents are angry over what right wing media tells them their kids are being taught, but never actually engage with educators to learn the true story. 

Athletes Dropping Like Flies

I wrote this during the height of the pandemic, but never felt the need to publish it.  However, Dr. Fauci's recently testifying has apparently whipped the Trumpanzees back into an anti vax frenzy, fueled by (big surprise) falsehoods in right wing media.  

 Yes, this is another 'today with the right wingers' post, but this one's a lot less controversial than most (my debunking didn't get me called a cocksucker).  Call it an observation and identification of weaponized facts that lack context.  It piqued my interest, so I did a smidge of investigation.  

One of the assertions from the hard right is that the vaccines have caused a massive spike in cardiomyopathy among the younger of those who've received the vaccine.  "Children are dying because of the shot!" , along with a picture (that I neglected to attach) of literally every person resembling an athlete who died recently they could find.  

A quick survey of a few of the names confirmed they'd all passed recently, although none of the ones I looked at had any sort of COD identified.  But for the purpose of playing along with the intent of the post to shock readers and lead lead them to a certain conclusion, I'll pretend all died of cardiac failure.  Surely, that many of them dying in the same way isn't normal.  Except when it is normal. 

One article from July of 2010 (pre-pandemic) article I found said: The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates that approximately 2,000 people under the age of 25 die from sudden cardiac arrest in the U.S. each year. It is the leading cause of death in young athletes in the United States – resulting in 1 death in a high school student every 3 days, according to some experts.

Indeed, I recall hearing about students dropping dead on athletic fields from time to time.  If you want to learn more about the underlying causes, feel free to research on your own.  In any case, this is another example of why you should always be skeptical of what you read and careful about jumping to the same conclusions as the author.

TL;DR - Unfortunately, young athletes dying due to cardiac arrest is nothing new and not something suddenly caused by Covid vaccines.

Links to a few prepandemic articles, all saying the same thing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017912/

https://cme.lww.com/files/SuddenCardiacArrestinPediatrics-1475006727808.pdf

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/129/4/e1094/32355/Pediatric-Sudden-Cardiac-Arrest?autologincheck=redirected

Hunter's Fucking Laptop

 Breaking this out from the Twitter Files entry.

You probably already know Hunter's laptop had been dropped for repair due to liquid ingress in April, 2019.  However, because the computer guy was blind (not sure how that works), he can't confirm whether it was Hunter himself who brought it in.  When the shop reached out to advise the work had been completed, every call went unanswered.  Most repair businesses have a policy that any equipment that remained unclaimed after a specified period of time becomes the property of said business.  This business must have had a fairly short window, because the owner, a MAGA Republican, reached out to the FBI in July of that year to advise them of what he had. The FBI collected the drive in December of 2019.  Mac Isaac, the computer guy, also made copies of the drive "just in case".  

It was about that time that Rudy Giuliani was headed to Ukraine on his mission to dig dirt on the Bidens.  This adventure was receiving a lot of attention and our MAGA computer guy thought the drive might be of value.   Computer guy connected with Rudy's attorney and sent him a copy some time during Summer, 2020.  Then, in October, the New York Post began publishing articles on the contents of the drive.  All straightforward, except the drive had gotten bigger.  

Earlier this year, the Washington Post obtained a copy of the NYP / Rudy drive.  They had two separate computer experts analyze the drive and published the findings in a March 30th article.  The short version was the drive was full of corrupt data and they were only able to authenticate ~15% of the emails as definitively originating with Hunter Biden.  But also discovered something quite remarkable.  From the WAPO article that I've linked at the bottom:

"Soon after that period of inactivity — and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.”

Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.

Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden."

In other words, someone had doctored the drive that that was used for the NYP article to include what one can only deduce is fabricated evidence of criminal wrongdoing.  Even our MAGA computer repair guy said, in an interview, there was a great deal more data on the drive than his original.  For those who may have dozed off, at some point after Max Isaac sent to the drive, but before the NYP article, the drive was modified in an attempt to portray the Bidens as criminals.  To close the WAPO portion, they published a story in April that echoed the March findings, along with the sentiment of "no, it really is a piece of shit and don't pay attention to it."

Some have challenged this information (because WAPO would make shit up?) by contrasting with a recent CBS story (link below) where they authenticated the drive's contents.  How could both be true?  Easy, CBS had a copy of the original drive, provided by the computer guy's attorney and not the doctored one.  They even note the existence of two versions in their story.  Of course, the doctored version is the one that's been circulating, although I think in tiny pieces, through right wing media.

Because MAGA is apparently a bunch of Karen's, they keep asking why none of the validated material has been released.  My response is "how long do you have?'  First, the FBI won't release a damned thing; period.  If it sees the light of day, it'll be part of discovery prior to a trial.  Speaking of criminal proceedings, what's a hard drive's value with no corroboration as evidence?  And is a computer guy handing the drive over considering a legal search and seizure?

Then there's the question of who really owns the data.  It's obviously legal for the repair shop to claim a piece of equipment, when a customer fails to retrieve it, but can they really claim ownership to the data on it to do with as they choose?  What if the contents of the drive included a lost Beatles album or offshore bank account numbers and passcodes, does the shop owner have the right to sell or use as his own?  From a strictly personal point of view, I'd like to think that answer to be no.  Anyway, the answer to that question, which I think is being asked in court, determines whether the drive can be used as evidence or if CBS can think about sharing. 

Also, does the data include attorney client material, intellectual property?  Would the shop owner now have a claim on an invention he didn't create?  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Publishing material that hints at criminal behavior, but never leads to a charge, would be monumentally stupid.  It would be a piece of cake to convince a jury that the Bidens' reputations have been materially damaged.  In a flash, the Bidens would own CBS, with money still being owed.  Obviously, it's a different story if the material is associated with a guilty verdict, but that's a huge reach.  Finally, keep in mind that DOJ rules prevent investigating a sitting President (which is why Trump fended off multiple actions while in office), so don't expect to see any activity from the FBI for two or potentially six years.  In summary, no legitimate entity is going to touch this thing, which means you should be very suspicious of those who do publish supposedly valid material from the drive.  

As a post script, there are a few other comments I'd like to add.  First, I agree that Hunter Biden was asked to be a part of Burisma and other endeavors because of who his father was and not for his qualifications.  Who wouldn't accept a cushy high paying role?  Also, everyone in my circle (and I of course) agrees that if either Hunter or Joe actually committed crimes, they should be tried and punished; period.  

WAPO Article

CBS Story

Twitter Files and Yes, Hunter's Laptop

 My intent was to avoid writing about the nothing burger from two nights ago, but the right wingers have all embraced it with such orgasmic delight that I feel I should.  Seriously, there were some sore right arms out there, yesterday morning.  The document release was done over 20 something tweets, which was annoying as fuck, especially since they seem to have been written by an 8 year old autistic child.  But someone figured out the format would blow up engagement numbers, which I'm sure it did.  Advertisers still won't touch the train wreck, though, for the same reasons they exited in the first place.  But I digress as usual.

What was actually said in the release:  In October, 2020, Twitter suppressed a New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop.  The action was initially justified based upon Twitter's TOS on hacked material, but the internal emails admitted that was a stretch.  Also, Twitter apparently suspended Kayleigh Fuckininey's account for two weeks.  It wasn't clear whether the two were related or if it was, I didn't care.  Also, the Biden campaign requested some defamatory posts be taken down.  It was specified that both the Trump and Biden campaigns had access and could / did make such requests.  Trump's requests weren't noted (and apparently won't be in the next cluster fuck, either).  

But this is apparently what the right wing looneys read:
Joe Biden had the Hunter laptop story buried and had incriminating evidence removed, which influenced the election.  Although, some rightly picked up that Twitter actually suppressed the NYP story.  

The right wingers were pissed that they lost (as usual) and began marching out all of the baseless accusations and claims of what's on Hunter's laptop back to the surface, which further worked the chimps into a lather.  Seriously, they were euphoric.

For clarification, some research in the internet archive uncovered the tweets the Biden campaign requested be remove were nudes of Hunter and tantamount to revenge porn, something quite illegal.  So, the right wingers are full of anger over not seeing Hunter Biden's dick.

And now, for the context:  Twitter burying the laptop story didn't violate anything; most certainly not the First Amendment.  No government forcing the act, so no foul.  If it influenced the outcome of the election, who cares?  It's not as though Fox News, OAN, and the others haven't done the exact same thing for the Republicans.  If anything, one would have greater expectations of truth from a "news" outlet.  

If you haven't already, right now, you should be asking yourself why you didn't hear about the NYP Hunter's Laptop story from another source.  The paper is a Murdoch property, so why didn't it show up on Fox News?  News agencies frequently report on one another's investigations, so why wasn't this bombshell everywhere?  Why hasn't there been follow up in the two intervening years?  One might conclude that the story really wasn't one.  

My research has shown that's the case.  Apparently, it was well known within the journalism community the NYP story was a hail mary at an October surprise, by the right, in an attempt to influence the election (my, how did that worm turn!), and was considered toxic.  

Others wouldn't touch it because a large portion of the hard drive's data is questionable or at the very least, unable to be verified to belong to Hunter Biden.  Of the 130k emails on the drive, less than 15% were able to be established as original.  That's to say they aren't authentic, just that they can't be 100% sure they are.  This comes from a Washington Post story in March, where they gave the hard drive to two forensic computer experts.  Here's a link to the article.

WaPo Article

When you read it (and I highly do), take note of the number of files written to the drive after Biden dropped it off at the repair shop, including three folders titled “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.  

But what about CBS stating the hard drive was confirmed to be Hunter's and the data was uncorrupted? CBS received a copy of the version in the FBI's possession.  You see, there are two versions of Hunter's hard drive.  From the CBS article:  

Some other versions of the laptop data circulated later appeared to have had data added after April 2019, a sign they could have been tampered with, according to reports in other media outlets, including The Washington Post. 

There was to be a second drop last night, but that didn't happen.  Elmo made a comment they're still filtering through the data (translation:  cherry picking material that seems more salacious), so it might be tonight.  The course to excellence continues at Twitter LOL.  

To wrap up, the Twitter Files was about the furthest thing you can get from a bombshell; more like a dud.  Hunter's laptop is a dead end because people fucked with it.  Bottom line, I don't know what Hunter was involved in and neither do you, because any evidence on the hard drive is suspect.  So long as the President wasn't party to it, I don't care.  If Hunter Biden committed crimes, he should be tried, convicted, and punished accordingly.  

First Amendment For Dummies

 There seems to be a lot of discussion around free speech, lately, with Elmo allowing spewers of hatred and disinformation back onto the cesspool that Twitter has become.  Almost every comment on the topic displays a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment.  Let's begin with the actual text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It actually seems pretty straightforward to me, but for some reason, many have the completely fucking wrong idea that Twitter must allow free speech.  News flash kids; as a private corporation, it doesn't have to allow jack.  

Let's say I owned a bar; as a business owner, I want a positive experience for my customers, so they'll return and maybe recommend my establishment to others.  What I don't want is to be seen as someone who endorses and gives a platform to that which most reasonable people find objectionable.  Therefore, if someone came in, spouting praise for Hitler, their ass would be tossed with malice.  That person has the freedom to espouse their love for Hitler all they want, but not in my private business.  I have the right to abridge free speech all day in my establishment, because I'm not the government.

It's the same situation for Twitter, in that the (previous) management was focused on providing a safe platform to exchange ideas, and cat pictures.  More users ultimately results in greater advertising revenue.  Right wing hate speech, meant to incite violence, and dangerous medical non-advice degrades that safe environment for users.  It also drives away advertisers who don't wish to be associated with such material.  News flash for the right wing looneys; most people find that shit objectionable.  

Yet, there are those who continue to clamor for all of the banned accounts to be restored, claiming their voices are being suppressed.  To that, I offer a hearty, "who gives a shit?"  Twitter can ban whomever they want, whenever they want, and remove people for saying things they don't like, because again, they aren't the government.  

Since I started writing this one, the whole Twitter file nonsense has broken.  As expected, it was a big fat pile of nothing.  Twitter suppressed some tweets, which were essentially revenge porn of Hunter; something that's quite illegal.  BOTH the Biden and Trump campaign had interactions with Twitter on these types of situations.  

I'll make one comment on the Hunter Biden laptop, which is one more than it deserves.  The data on that hard drive has been spread far and wide and is well known at this point.  If there were damning evidence present, it would have been broken by now, by more than the fringe right wing media.  

The Far Right - Completely Uninformed

 As regular readers know, I've had my encounters with the far right on shooting message boards.  These were mostly cult members, who refused to believe anything negative about the Orange Traitor.  As an example, I noted Cheeto Face's raging sociopathic narcissism, to which I was challenged, of course.  I posted links to articles from a wide range of sources (to prevent being accused of believing "commie garbage") and none of those cult members believed any of it.  Not shocking, I know.  The thing is there were a finite number of right wing looneys who did most of the screaming.  

Fast forward to today, with me more active on Twitter, and discovering more cultists.  There seems to be an unending supply of them on the site and they know absolutely nothing about reality.  Recently, I interacted with someone who was part of the "investigate Biden" crowd.  I'd commented about how odd I found it that not one Republican Congressperson took the least bit of interest in Jarod's $2 billion payment from the Saudis.  There were two folks who chimed in, calling my comment a lie.  Long story short, they were completely unaware of that payment until I posted proof.  

My favorite of the week, so far, is the guy who refused to believe Trump had been in legal trouble before, so I posted an official link to the outcome and settlement.  His response?  "That's your opinion."

I just remembered my true favorite for the week.  There was outrage amongst the looneys that the Orange Traitor was forced to turn over his tax returns, with numerous comments to the effect that "if our lord and savior had to turn his over, where's Biden's or Obama's?  They should be forced as well."  After I explained that Trump had to turn his over as part of an investigation, I posted links to the tax returns they demanded and informed them the only Presidential candidate, in over 50 years, who hasn't voluntarily provided their tax returns was Cheeto Face.  

These people have literally zero understanding of the world around them.  Fortunately, I've reached that point of zen where I won't waste time spoon feeding anymore...they just get blocked.

Physical Appearance and Lack of Differentiation

 Life here in RTP remains blissful, but I discovered a challenge to living in my neighborhood.  As I mentioned in Minority Report, most of my neighbors are Indian.  As I also mentioned, they've been kind, friendly, and welcoming, but I can't tell them apart!  Specifically, I'm referring to the women in the neighborhood where most of them look like they're out of central casting.  Every one of the Indian women on my street, between their 30's and 50's are 5'4", slenderish build, with long, straight, black hair, no makeup, and very subdued clothing.  What doesn't help matters is my distance vision is on the edge of needing correction (thanks laser surgery for lasting almost 20 years!) so making out fine facial features any further than 25 feet is all but impossible.  As I mentioned, they're all very friendly, but I never know whether I'm looking at my next door neighbor or someone from two blocks over.  I find this frustrating, because it prevents me from "placing" them and offering more than a "Hi".  

The fact of the matter is white women are easier to place because of the greater variations in body type, hair color / style, height, and mannerisms.  Facial features are easier to place at some distance because of heritage.  Women with Italian genetics look different than ones with Scandinavian or Slavic.  Makeup also plays a big role in differentiating.  That all means that white "familiar stranger" women tend to stick in the memory banks more easily.  

The men are much easier because of build, facial hair, the way they carry themselves, and a bit more varied heights.  

These are the things I spend my days pondering...damn, I need a life!

It's The Guns - Revisited

 Despite my best, good faith efforts to illustrate the relationship (or lack thereof) between gun violence and gun ownership, there are those who remain unconvinced, some of whom have been nasty, insulting, little pansies about it.  They continue to cry "it's the guns" that are causing the epidemic of firearm related homicides.  Obviously, you can't have firearm related homicides without firearms, but that's where the correlation ends.  

Consider a basic equation: 

GO+X*XX=GH

GO represents the percentage of households that own guns and has been declining steadily since the 70's.  It's probably increased slightly since the pandemic, based on how many new buyers have been purchasing guns.  For the purpose of this exercise, we'll peg it at 35%

GH is the number of gun related homicides

It's simple math that if GO remains constant (or within a margin of error), and GH changes dramatically, there must be a factor that impacts the outcome of the calculation.  

Some visuals may be helpful.  

This chart represents the total number of homicides by year, from 1985 through 2021.*

Things to note:

Upward trend, beginning in 2013, totals in line with early 2000's

Massive decrease over the course of the 1990's

These are raw numbers, not per capita.

The red line illustrates the downward trend in firearm ownership, per household.

Takeaway:  Our murder rate has definitely increased since 2014, but remains nowhere near what it was a few decades ago.  

This next chart illustrates number of firearm related deaths resulting from mass shootings.**  

This chart shows a clear upward trend on deaths from mass shootings, particularly in the past three years.  Of note is how the total remains less than 10% of all firearm related homicides.  

Finally, because everyone loves charts, this one illustrates number of mass homicide fatalities by year.***  One could argue the average is trending downward.    

In summary, any rational, intelligent individual would conclude guns are not to blame for the increase in firearm homicides.  Looking at the data, one could argue there really isn't an epidemic.  Gun violence is absolutely something we need to address as a society, but we won't make any progress while simpletons blame everything on one factor.  You're not helping!

*Source - FBI CDE Expanded Data, includes all homicides, not just firearm related.  However the vast majority are.  FBI changed their data availability last year to where you're no longer able to download large chunks of data, instead being forced to use their explorer, which offers zero granularity.  

** Source - Gun Violence Archive

***Source - Mother Jones Mass Homicide Database (their name is mass shooting database, but it isn't)

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE. 

 

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie..

Gun Culture and Banning Guns

 Based upon some of the questions and comments from readers of my previous entries on gun violence, I thought it may be of value to step back and examine the origins of America's gun culture and why that culture is so strong.  In addition, I'll throw out some gun owner's insight on our hobby. 

Gun Culture in the USA

In order to best understand why guns are so ingrained in American culture, I thinks helpful to understand why other countries don't have it.  Let's go back to the founding of this country for a quick look at the two sides that fought each other.  The bad guys lived under a monarchy and were professional soldiers for the largest empire on the planet, where the good guys, who kicked their asses, had a fledgling democratic government and were anything but professional soldiers.  This is the first glimpse of the everyman as a hero, fighting for his very freedom.  This underdog kept his musket by the front door, should he be called upon by his country.  Contrast this with the Red Coat, who upon returning home, exited his service and no longer needed his musket.  England had a standing army to repel invaders.  By then, Europe was mostly stable, relative to fighting between neighboring countries, apart from those War Wars, of course.  Fun fact:  English common law allowed carrying of guns, but only white members of the English church.  

Finally, I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of system of government on a country's views toward gun ownership.  Until WWI, every country in Europe was run by a monarch, mostly all from the same German family (hence the stability).  And monarchs aren't terribly fond of the general populous owning weapons that could be used to overthrow them.  The same can be said for dictators.  Therefore, Europeans have been accustomed to not having guns for centuries, so our gun culture frequently baffles them.  

Returning to America, once freedom had been won, it was time to explore the rest of our great land and tame the Wild West.  Those pioneers and explorers needed guns to hunt for food as well as defend themselves from predators.  They also carried for another reason that continues to echo today.  There's not much law enforcement present when there isn't a state, much less a town to elect a sheriff.  In other words, you were left to your own devices to defend yourself against those who may wish to do you harm, so a gun could come in quite handy.  This perpetuated guns as a symbol of the everyman hero.

Guns in Popular Culture

That segues perfectly into American popular culture and the theme of rugged individualism that's echoed for a couple of centuries now.  When someone is murdered or grievously wronged, the hero that brings justice to the bad guy(s) is rarely law enforcement, or at least not typical law enforcement.  The bad guy frequently ends the story in a body bag.  Again, think about the Wild West movies and books that glorified the Colt Peacemaker and Winchester Model 1873 as the guns that won the West.  

Some random examples that pop into my head:  John Rambo had to defend himself from incapable law enforcement in the first movie, then, still shunned by the establishment, headed back to Vietnam and rescues POW's and returns a hero, having fired hundreds of thousands of rounds.  Who doled out justice when they killed his dog?  John Wick, of course, with lots and lots of guns.  For the most part, the only time when law enforcement is portrayed as the hero is when one member goes rogue, climaxing in a shootout where the villain leaves in a body bag.  Case in point - While John McClain was a cop, he was essentially a rogue hero, who had to contend not only with Hans Gruber and company trying to kill him, but the LAPD's incompetence.  He was the true hero of Nakatomi Plaza, and Die Hard is definitely a Christmas movie.  And that's how many American men want to see themselves - the rugged hero who kicks ass.  And kicking ass requires a lot of firepower!  For most American wannabe's, the only elite unit they would be qualified for is Meal Team Six, but that's another story.  Contrast that with how law enforcement is portrayed in other countries' pop cultures, where they're shown as professional, capable, and bring the bad guy to justice as a team, through hard work, collaboration, and intellect.  At most, rules are bent, but never thrown out the window.  There's rarely a gunfight involved.  

Banning Guns

Rather than focusing on whether a ban on firearms would be a good idea (it isn't), I'd like to hone in on feasibility, or lack of it.  Let's begin with legality.  Even if legislation could be passed, which it wouldn't, any ban on guns would be immediately struck down in SCOTUS, particularly with the current set of justices, on the basis it violates the 2nd Amendment.  In reality, it doesn't, as I stated here.  But that doesn't matter.

Since we're already in the land of make believe, let's take it a step further and consider enforcement.  If you learned anything from the above on gun culture, it should be that enforcement will be painful.  First, there's no registration database to work from, except for NFA items (machine guns, short barreled rifles, etc.); knowing who has what guns is impossible.  You'll have more people claiming to have lost the ones they had in boating accidents, it'll seem like even those living in New Mexico are coastal.  The folks required to enforce the ban and confiscate all these guns are the ones who'll object the strongest to such a directive.  In other words, law enforcement won't enforce such a ban and won't collect shit.  That won't matter in certain jurisdictions, which will declare themselves gun sanctuaries.  This happened with several counties in Virginia, when the state seemed poised to ban assault weapons.  Also, armed skirmishes will happen, causing further death.  Seriously, there are those out there that mean it when they say, "you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."  Then, there are the more radical elements...  

As I said above, banning guns is an absolute pipe dream, so maybe focus on the problem, instead of the way it manifests itself.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

My Relationship With Guns

 This is what I hope will be a brief exercise to explain to those who vilify shooters that we're pretty damned normal and targeting us is plain dumb.  Admittedly, I'm not known for brevity.  

I've owned guns for over 30 years, compete with them, tinker with them, and enjoy shooting them.  I consider myself to be a shooter versus a gun nut.

My first exposure to firearms was my grandfather teaching me how to shoot around 12 years old.  Some of my most cherished memories.  He had a fair amount of land, that included a small dump in a gulley at the edge of the property.  It was the 70's, so we didn't know about the whole environmental impact.  I learned how to safely operate guns, the discipline required to hit the target, and the responsibility to clean your gun immediately after returning from shooting.  We used 22 caliber guns; a revolver and a rifle that I still have in my safe.  This same story applied to a fair number of my friends, as well.  If you grew up in the country, you shot guns for leisure and/or hunting.  And you were safe / responsible, or you didn't touch a gun.  

Shooting is Fun

That leads me to a point that those on the extreme left can't seem to recognize.  Shooting is fun.  Going to the range with your friends and seeing who can be the most accurate or just enjoying the comradery.  Even more so, when you shoot competitively; nicest and most giving folks I've had the pleasure of interacting with.  Going by myself is also enjoyable and provides a respite from daily stressors.  Nothing can cloud your mind when you're trying to hit a target 600 yards out.  Most of my practice is solo.  Everyone I know shoots at targets, whether they be paper, cardboard, or steel.  I've never encountered another shooter who looked at a target and saw a bad guy or someone they hated.  

There are likely still those who find firing a gun to be abhorrent, so I'll share a story.  I've dated three different women (married one) who despised guns, particularly the AR-15.  Considering how much I competed at the time, such a disparity in views was problematic.  I took each one to my shooting club (voluntarily, of course), along with an AR-15, and taught them to shoot it.  As I packed up afterward, the sentiment of all three were identical (almost verbatim) - When can we go again?

Carrying A Handgun

Because I grew up around guns, and both my father and grandfather carried, it was only natural that I'd have a concealed carry permit.  More in Who's The Danger To Society

Grooming

Looping back to youth learning how to shoot, I'll share one final point and a story.  Teaching your kids how to shoot is not grooming.  As I previously noted, those shared experiences frequently become cherished family memories.  My now ex wife had two kids in their preteens, when I met her.  After I moved in, one of the first things I did was teach them gun safety and let them hold a gun to remove the mystery / fascination.  Then, I taught them how to shoot; both kids were interested.  Before I let them fire a round, I lined up three milk jugs full of water and fired.  Watching the first jug explode gave them a quick education on the power that guns hold, so always be safe.  To be clear, ALL of my guns were ALWAYS under lock and key, but kids can be quite resourceful and better safe than sorry.  Did my grandfather groom me or was I grooming my stepkids?  Dumbest question on this entry; of course not.  Are those who take family Christmas pics with everyone holding firearms grooming?  No.  I consider it the height of poor taste perpetrated by white trash (it's always a white family), but there's no grooming going on that pertains to guns.  Being a scumbag, maybe... 

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Mass Shootings / Mass Homicides

Written 11/25/22, with updates 3/26/23

This entry is part of my series on guns; the master entry "Guns Redux", which includes links to the rest of the series can be found HERE.

Because of current events, I've finally decided to wade into an area I'd previously avoided.  Mass shootings are ugly, from an analysis perspective, because there's no agreed upon definition for them and reporting, frankly, sucks.  Rather than getting bogged down in numbers, this effort will focus more on common threads and causation.  Before digging in, it's important to confirm terms and definitions. 

Mass Homicides are defined by the FBI 4 or more fatalities, not including the shooter, with the victims not being blood relatives.  They're typically characterized as follows:   

• Rarity, accounting for less than 100 deaths per year
• Committed by sociopathic loaner white guys, typically radicalized by right wing media
• Take place in seemingly random locations (to anyone without a history of the shooter) 
• Shooter goal - maximum number of victims and make a statement
• Victims aren't known to the shooter; strangers (with a few exceptions)
• Firearms are legally obtained and frequently include a semiauto rifle

Writer's note:  Apparently, Gun Violence Archive has begun to break out these two types of crimes, referring to them as mass murders.  In order to maintain consistent terminology, that's what I'll try to call them, going forward.  However, I may slip occasionally or ignore it altogether.  

Mass Shootings are generally considered to be involve four or more victims (wounded or dead), not including the shooter.  The victims can be anyone, not solely those unrelated to the shooter(s).  They're typically characterized by:

• Being more commonplace, but still a small proportion of total fatalities (400-600 per year or 5% of firearm related homicides)
• Committed by someone who's pissed off at another party or group; multiple shooters aren't uncommon
• Less affluent locations where groups of people are present
• Shooter goal - kill those who he perceives as aggrieving him 
• Shooters and victims are frequently known to each other, with the exception of innocent bystanders that get shot
• A much too high percentage of victims and shooters who are children
• Firearms have been obtained via both legal and illegal means and are typically handguns
• Exception being where gangs are involved
• I show my work below

All mass homicides are mass shootings, but not all mass shootings are mass homicides.  The media likes to lump them all together, so they can maximize the shock value.  If they can convince you that Sandy Hook is happening 700 times a year, you'll understandably lose your mind.  

The observations below are a mix of qualitative and quantitative.  Those seeking statistics can visit my all numbers entry HERE.  

Investigation and Methodology

In order to dig into the mass shooting phenomenon, I spent time in Gun Violence Archive's (GVA) mass shooting database.  What I wanted to know were the circumstances under which the shootings occurred.  Unfortunately, there's no way to download incident data en masse and they don't bother to classify anything, so I surveyed fifty events; first one on each page and one from the middle, categorizing each incident best I could.  No, it's not scientific or irrefutable, but 50 is a significant sample size, according the quality folks.  It's as close as you're gonna get for free, kids.  

Gun Violence Archive Database

Before I get into my findings, I'll point out that the GVA's obvious agenda is to ban guns.  Therefore, it's in their best interests to maximize the hell out of the numbers.  This becomes obvious when you dig into their material, as I did.  I found a number of incidents reported that objectively can't be called a mass shooting.  The most egregious are the cases where people were shot in different locations and no confirmation existed these weren't unrelated incidents, yet they were combined and classified as mass shootings.  Because of the database being so cumbersome, there's no way to know how much this practice has inflated the numbers.  

Also, I found three shootouts in the incidents I reviewed where Venn Diagram of victims and shooters completely overlapped (i.e. 2 pairs of dudes shot each other in a gunfight).  While definitely gun violence, I say it's not a mass shooting, because there really weren't any innocent victims.  Also, Gun Violence Archive's front page includes multiple stats, including total firearm homicides by year.  Their numbers are ~20% higher than the FBI data, which is publicly available and easily accessible, and the source they cite is bullshit.  Their data is sloppy with inflated numbers to further their agenda of banning guns.  Unfortunately, GVA is the only source publicly available and the one most news outlets utilize.  It sucks, but it's the only game in town. 

Observations

Circumstances

24% were drive by shootings

20% occurred at parties (house or block)

10% happened at bars

10% gang related.  One could make the argument the drive by's were gang related, which would mean gang violence accounts for over a third of mass shootings.  

The remainder were smatterings of sports events, fights, drug dealer stuff, and one police ambush.  My personal favorite involved neighbors feuding over hedge heights.  You already know it was in Florida.

Also very noteworthy were the large number of incidents where the shooter was either a minor or a felon, neither of whom may legally possess any firearms.  

Only one of the incidents I reviewed involved an assault style weapon.  I'm sure more than one involved this type of gun, (i.e. drive by shootings), but many seem to be spur of the moment, which would indicate the firearm being concealed on the shooter's body.  Plus, rifles tend to generate higher deaths versus injuries.

Geography

I downloaded their 2022 YTD basic info, which told me that the highest number of incidents were in Chicago (no surprise), but of the top ten worst cities for mass shootings, it had one of the lowest number of incidents per 100k population.  The highest was Baltimore (.023), followed by Miami (.020) and Minneapolis (.019).  The lowest in the top ten was Phoenix (.004)

Common Themes / Conclusion

In my opinion, mass shootings tend to be:

• More prevalent in poorer areas
• Perpetrated by younger shooters who wanting to "get back at" their victims
• Reflective of diminished value placed on human life
• A mirror into the majority of firearm homicides

Lest someone accuse me of confirmation bias, because there's always one, I went into this exercise thinking I'd find something completely different.  Instead, I allowed myself to flow with the information I uncovered.  

Prevention

Considering that mass shootings, and one could argue firearm homicides in general, seem to be directly related to socioeconomic status, addressing the root cause is more than challenging.  As noted, life seems to have become cheap to many in impoverished areas; how do we reverse that trend?

With many guns used in these crimes being obtained illegally, further gun control measures won't have much of an impact.  It may be a tired gun rights trope, but it remains true that if you make guns illegal, only the criminals will have them; and it's obvious they always find a way.  So, stop with the banning talk, because it's nonsense.  

There is a measure that I'd endorse with respect to gun control, which is compulsory training with a twist.  In addition to safety, force any new buyers to sit through a video showing the impact of gunshot wounds; the more gruesome the better.  If you want a sample, Google "rifle wound" (at your own risk).  At least half the class should need to use the course supplied barf bags.  Ensure new gun owners understand the consequences of their potential actions.  My rationale is that most who pull the trigger on another human has only experienced watered down media and video games.  Make it half a day and $50; neither are onerous.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Who's The Danger To Society?

 Because I'm a left leaning conservative gun owner, I frequently encounter those who are, shall we say, misinformed on the subject of firearms.  This will be a quick one.

First, understand those of us who identify as shooting enthusiasts aren't the dangerous ones.  The data that I've digested suggests that those most likely to commit crimes are younger, haven't owned their guns long (or legally), and typically only own one or two.  

It would follow that those gun owners who are least likely to commit crimes with them have owned their guns longer term, have multiples, and are over 30.  We understand the consequences of pulling the trigger; the finality.  That makes us more placid and will cause us to walk away from an encounter, rather than escalate it.  We also recognize that pulling the trigger will cost us $100k in attorney's fees because we will be charged with 2nd degree murder, even if it's ultimately dropped.  If a situation is obvious (i.e. you've got 5 dead ninjas laying by you, all swords drawn), a charge might be avoided, but we'll still have to pay an attorney until the DA declines to prosecute.  

Besides, do you think the ones who openly admit to owning guns are the ones committing crimes?

So, if we gun owners get a bit snippy on social media, it's because we're sick and tired of having fingers pointed at us, when we're not the ones pulling triggers on innocents.  

Concealed Carry

First, I recognize the likelihood of having to use my gun for personal defense or in defense of others is slim to infinitesimal, but it's not zero.  So, just like I keep a spare tire and flashlight in my car, I carry a gun, pretty much everywhere I go.  It's a tool, that may be required under a very specific set of circumstances.  It remains properly concealed at all times.  Honestly, carrying a gun is a nonevent for most of us.  

Despite my gun always remaining concealed, wearing one makes me feel good, in the same way women feel when they wear nice lingerie.  Hear me out...  Most of my carry guns are custom built to my specifications, as are my leather holsters.  They're works of art.  So, even though no one will see how nice my equipment is, I feel a sense of pride carrying custom guns.   

I will admit that more than a few law abiding gun owners are a bit overzealous, LARP training and thinking they need a conceal carry gun with a light, red dot, and 29 round capacity.  In my opinion, they're harmless, even if they're training for a fantasy.  

Most gun enthusiasts, including myself, consider open carry to be just dumb.  First, it makes you a target for the real criminals, who simply have to wait for your attention to be focused elsewhere to swipe it out of your holster, and maybe use it on you.  I've seen multiple videos of just this happening.  Second, open carry freaks people out, including some of us gun owners.  So, if you think open carry is objectionable, know that true shooters look down on the practice too.  The only time the practice is acceptable is when you're in the wilderness and may encounter bears that view you as a snack.

The Time I Pulled My Gun

Sometimes, the act of pulling your gun can diffuse a situation and take the menace out of someone who would do you harm, were you unarmed.  Because these events are rarely reported, solid data doesn't exist on frequency.  I've heard anywhere from 5k-500k times each year.  Here's my story.  

My (now ex) wife's ex husband was a truly evil individual, who caused not just stress in our household, but outright fear.  He did time for armed robbery, had been a junky, and allegedly killed two people; he was a sociopath of the highest order.  He always wanted more time with his son, but always spent it doing nothing with him, preventing the boy from spending time with friends or participating in anything, really.  He would harass my wife any way he could think of, such as the time he smashed in our bedroom window, while I was traveling.  He knew I was a competitive shooter, so he'd harass me from afar, like the one night he was so militant about it that he was ultimately convicted for harassment.  But he was super savvy in working the system, so he'd get away with most of his shitty behavior.  Finally, he'd done something really bad that I won't get into, but he was convicted of child endangerment and was subject to a PFA; no closer than 500 yards for any and all of my family.  This was in effect when my stepdaughter came running back to the house one morning, in tears because asshat was stalking her to her bus stop.  He clearly didn't realize I was still home.  After him repeatedly evading punishment, I'd had enough.  I jumped in the car, backed it out of the garage, and discovered he was literally right across the street.  I pulled my car level with his and pointed my gun at him.  After likely soiling himself (his face was a combination of surprise and pure terror), he hauled ass out of there and never bothered us again.  If he reported me, he'd also be admitting to violating the PFA (a felony) and driving on a suspended license, so I knew I was in the clear.  The cops and DA hated him so badly that I wouldn't have been charged anyway.  You can argue what I did wasn't the right thing, but you'd be wrong.  

And finally...

Why Do You Need to Carry a Gun?

Those who make this challenge to you will invariably find your reasons to be insufficient for them and are universally anti-gun.  I'm confident I speak for most shooters when I say I refuse to subject myself to judgment from someone with an agenda, yet has never actually shot a gun.  Their opinion of me is inconsequential.  Furthermore, it's ludicrous to challenge someone as to why they engage in a behavior that's legal for them to do so.  Therefore, I will never respond to this question.  If pushed, my answer will be "fuck you".  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Guns Redux

 

 There's been a lot of talk about gun violence for, well, decades.  I've found many on both sides of the discussion to be more uninformed than those with strong opinions should be.  For that reason, I've been writing this series on guns and gun violence, adding new entries as I think they're needed in the hopes of educating both sides of the debate.  

What makes me more knowledgeable on guns than the average person?  I'm a 30+ year competitive shooter and former firearms instructor, who holds a USPSA Master classification and a PPC High Master ranking.  I've owned many of the controversial guns being discussed, perform my own ammunition load development, and lived through the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  As a data driven, reformed conservative, I let facts take me wherever they lead.  

About the data:  Unless otherwise noted, my sources are consistent across the series.  For mass homicides, I use Mother Jones database, Gun Violence Archive for mass shootings, and FBI reports for everything else. I don't "cook" anything to support a predetermined narrative.  I use the FBI definition for mass homicides and choose meaningful time windows (i.e. five years, ten years, from 2000 onward, etc.)

My AR-15 figures include all other semiautomatic rifles, such as MCX, AK47, AR-10, etc.  

This post will serve as the directory of all the posts in the series.  I've broken the posts into three chunks; 

The Core, which I think contains the most valuable information
The AR-15 Section, which contains additional information on the AR-15, beyond the entry in the Core
Others - These posts contain what I think to be value (or I wouldn't have written them), but wouldn't necessarily view them as "must read".

As always, your feedback is welcome.

Core

My Relationship With Guns  

Is a short introduction to me, along with my background.

Gun Culture 

Why does the US have so many guns?  Why are they so interwoven with American society?  This entry takes a semi sociological and historical view of the subject.   

Gun Homicides:  The Numbers 

Provides a thorough and objective analysis of gun homicides; historical, by weapon type, and by incident type.  How many deaths occur during mass events?  If you read one entry, make it this one.

It's The Guns

Yeah, it's not that simple.  A deep dive into some interesting stats.

Mass Shootings and Mass Homicides

Some insight into the differences and similarities.  

Mass Shootings Deux

Why do we care about some and not others? 

The AR-15

Everything you wanted to know, or should know, about the platform.  Are there legitimate reasons to own an AR-15 (or other semiautomatic rifle)?  How evil is the gun?

Can We Ban Guns?

What happens if we try to ban guns?  This one also applies to subsets of guns, such as semiautomatic rifles.

My Ideas For Addressing Gun Violence

Or at least deal with the symptoms, since no one seems to care about the core issues.  

How Gun Violence Can Be Traced Back to Who Settled There

This is a unique take I found in an article I thought I'd share.

The AR-15 Section

Stopping Power, Shot Placement, and Other Considerations

This is a companion piece to the above entry that provides insight on why some guns are well suited to self-defense.  

The Impact of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

What measures did it include and how did that impact gun violence?  

The Founding Fathers and the AR-15

What would they think of the gun?  Also, some food for thought on their danger.

Pistol Braces For Dummies

This one provides an explanation of pistol braces and whether they matter.

Others 

The 2nd Amendment

What does it really mean?  A review from a historical context perspective.  

Good Guy With a Gun

"Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun."  Does the old saying stand up to reality?

Giggle Switches - The Real Gun Problem No One's Talking About

Going full auto with your Glock has become way too easy.

Which Gun Owners Are The Danger to Society?

More Random Thoughts on Gun Violence 

The Fallacy of Holding Gun Manufacturers Accountable

Specifically, what do we hold them accountable for?

Must Remain Concealed

As regular readers know, I've been a gun guy for a good chunk of my life.  Learned to shoot around age five, began shooting competitively at twenty five, achieved high master in one discipline few years later.  Continued to compete in another shooting sport for more than a decade beyond that, started competing again off and on a few years ago.  I've taught gun safety and competitive shooting classes and held a concealed carry license almost continuously for close to three decades.  This will become relevant in a moment, I promise.  

If you recall, Kansas made me take a safety class before they would issue me a concealed carry license.  As one might imagine, it was mind numbing.  I thought North Carolina would dispense with such silliness, but I thought wrong.  I reached out to the local sheriff's department to see if the class was still required for someone who already possessed a valid license from another state.  Negative.  So, guess who will be spending all day, next Saturday, in a concealed carry class?

As I understand it, this one is structured differently from the Kansas classes, which had the practical at the end, preceded by building skills such as "this is the trigger".  This class will begin with the practical and unlike the KS test, which which required you to hit a target roughly the size of Cleveland this one has a much smaller scoring area.  

The rest of the course is apparently about applicable laws.  This will be painful, just like Kansas.  I've always taken an interest in the concealed carry laws of my state.  And after carrying in three different states, over thirty years,  I've learned these laws are generally pretty universal, with a few variables that may or may not matter.  NC only has one that I may need to consider, which is called "duty to notify".  This requires you advise the cop that just pulled you over that you're carrying.  Kansas didn't, so when I got nailed for speeding, I didn't bother informing the officer of my compact 9mm in the center console.  Beyond that, I don't care about the laws.  That may sound cavalier or reckless, or make me seem like more of an asshat than usual, so let me explain by covering some of the other variables.

First is whether you can carry in bars.  I don't go to bars when I'm not traveling, so let's move on.

Next concerns whether you're committing a crime by entering an establishment with a gun when a no gun sign is present.  KS was a no, NC is a yes, but I don't care.  The first word in concealed carry is, say it with me, concealed.  If someone spots my gun, I've failed at that crucial part of the process.  And I never carry in a way that makes the gun stand out or print.  Am I an asshole for disrespecting a business's wishes?  Probably, but I don't care and I'll likely only do it once per business, because I'll go elsewhere next time.

There are a few intricacies of castle doctrine (meaning the rules change when you're in your own home or hotel) that influence how much freedom you have.  Toasting a home invader is always legal, and fun, but what about a pushy Girl Scout who walks in your front door selling cookies?  Again, don't care, because I'm not using a gun unless I absolutely have no other option.  Besides, putting holes in little Susy prevents me from cookie acquisition and I want my fucking Thin Mints!

Finally, you've got whether stand your ground applies or if you have a duty to retreat, before using deadly force.  Both KS and NC are the former, but I don't care, because I'm always going to try to deescalate (I can totally do that!) or exit, using a trigger pull as an absolute last resort.  This isn't solely because of my regard for life; it's fucking expensive if you shoot someone.  Even if you're in the right, you'll spend $100k for an attorney to ensure some overachieving gun grabber DA doesn't bushwhack you.  

Don't wave your pistol around or brandish it, don't escalate a situation to make it a lethal force scenario, disparity of force means if half a dozen ninjas approach saying they plan to kill me, I'm legally justified in shooting the cagey little fuckers.  

I'll be a good boy for the class, just like I did for the one I had to sit through in Kansas and chuckle at being the only student who already has a valid concealed carry license.  Because NC and KS recognize each others' licenses, I've been carrying here in NC since arriving.  Probably a bit much if I carried a gun into the class, huh?