Paranoia?

In a recent discussion, I was told that, since I own a firearm, I must be paranoid.
It's not the spare tire, jumper cables, fire extinguisher, emergency blanket, first aid kit, spare raincoat, and bottled water that I keep in my car's trunk that made this person  think I am "paranoid", but the presence of a gun in a safe in my home.
"Gun owners," they continued, :are paranoid about the government".

Really?   Let's compare...


I am required by the government to have smoke detectors in pretty much every room of the house, even though I carry a smoke detector with me everywhere I go (my nose), and don't engage in the behavior most likely to start a fire int he home (cigarette smoking).

I am required by the government to wear a seatbelt when I am in a car, even though I drive safely, and have never in my almost five decades on this Earth had an instance of a seatbelt saving me from death or injury.

Agents of my government whose primary function is to give out traffic tickets are issued bullet proof vests, firearms that they carry all the time, automatic weapons in their cars, and an armored vehicle at the station (yes, my local PD has an MRAP, even though we've never had the kind of incident that would require one).

When I enter many government buildings, I am forced to go through a search, including a metal detector - even though nobody has ever assassinated a government official in such a building in my town or county (there was one such incident, in a nearby city, but it was a recently resigned city supervisor and former police officer, so he had special access both to the facility and to the firearm that he used).

Who exactly is being paranoid here, me, or the government?

A Minority of One

If you see everyone as a unique individual, then each of us is a minority of one.

Changing the California High School Exit Exam? Yes, please do!

I recently heard a report that California is considering revamping the High School Exit Exam to bring it in line with the newer Common Core standards for Math and Language Arts.

I have to say that this is not the only change that we need to make to the “CAHSEE” (“Kay – Sea”), as the Exit Exam is called.  Not only do we need to make sure that the test is relevant to the standards we are teaching, we also need to change the name to better reflect the purpose of the test.
The test is one that has to be passed before a student can graduate from high school, but it is not an exam that allows you to leave high school.

The so called “exit exam” is given to students in the spring of their tenth grade year,  and covers skills and knowledge that most students will have covered before  that grade level.    If the students don’t pass, they can take it several more times before they finish 12^th grade.  Once students have passed this exam, they often feel that they are now ready to exit high school, as if it is a way to “test out” of the rest of their high school coursework.  I know that if I had taken and passed a “high school exit exam” in 10^th grade, my 16 year old self would have expected to leave high school the next day.

For students who repeatedly fail the CAHSEE, but finally pass at the end of their 12^th grade year, it can seem like they are right on track, in terms of their academic preparedness for life after high school.   Barely passing the confusingly named “high school exit exam” in the final weeks of their senior year may cause them to believe that they have learned everything that we expect of a high school graduate.
While the “Exit Exam” is one of the requirements to graduate, it is not the only one, and does not represent the level of knowledge we want our high school graduates to take away from their K-12 educational experience.   Unfortunately, each year we have students who struggle to pass the exam in order to graduate.

Wouldn’t it be better to call the exam by a name that better fits its purpose?  Why not the C-BASE, or “California Basic Academic Skills Exam”?   This name would make it clear that the skills being tested are not everything that a student should be learning in high school, but that it does hold students accountable for mastering basic academic skills.

Two deaths

We claim to love our pets almost as much as we love our families.   Yet when old age, illness, or injury reduces life to nothing but pain, we are not willing to give our family members the same relief from pain that we give our pets.

My grandfather was old and sick.   Nobody in the family could take care of him, so he was put into a care facility (at great cost).   The last time I saw him alive, he didn't recognize me, or other members of the family. He died alone.  I cried for him at his funeral, when he was already cold and his body was in a box.


My dog was old and sick, she had heart problems and cancer of some kind.  I reached a point where I could no longer take care of her, and she was spending most of her life in pain.  I took her to the vet, and held her in my arms as she quietly went to sleep, and her heart slowed down and stopped.  I cried as this happened, and one of her last acts was to try to lick the tears off of my face.

Which of those two died knowing that I loved them?

Which of these deaths would you prefer for yourself?

How concealed carry can prevent mass shootings from occuring

In a recent discussion on FB revolving around "mass shootings", and how best to prevent them at a college, a friend of a friend made this statement about guns not being able to prevent crime"
"You can't stop a shooter who is already in range with a gun unless you shoot him first. If you have not drawn your weapon you cannot shoot him first. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous."

I have to disagree.

"Mass shooters" are generally people who have some issues, including power issues. They create a situation where they have all of the power - the power of life and death over others. Their goal is to exercise that power, even if it means that they do not survive the experience. Another goal seems to be the fame that they will gain if they rack up a high enough body count, and are shocking enough in their actions. This is why I do not use their names, since using their names rewards their behavior.

An armed person in a crowd of unarmed people has more power than the others. An armed person in a crowd that includes other armed people does not have more power than others in the crowd, even if they will have the advantage of initiative by being the one who starts acting first.

In most cases, "mass shooters" end their rampages as soon as they encounter an armed opponent. Not when they are shot or even shot at by an armed opponent, but when an armed opponent simply becomes part of the scenario. In some cases, they surrender, but more often, they kill themselves.

Here are a few examples:

The December 2012, Oregon shopping mall mass shooting stopped when the shooter saw an armed citizen. The CCW holder never fired, because he couldn't get a "clean shot" that would not endanger others. The shooter entered the "gun free zone" hoping to tally up a bunch of kills, and with a sense of power, because he was the ONE who was armed. The mere presence of an armed citizen changed that dynamic, and the shooter committed suicide. Police were still in their cars, on their way to the mall.

The December 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting also stopped when the shooter first encountered armed resistance. He shot himself when armed police officers arrived. Police didn't have to shoot him. Again, the dynamic of the situation changed, and he was no longer the ONE with the power.

Aurora Colorado, "Batman" shooter targets the only theater in town that is designated as a "gun free zone", surrenders to armed police as soon as they arrive. Again, the dynamic changed, and he was no longer the ONE with the power.

At Columbine, which is an unusual mass casualty attack, because there were two people involved, instead of the usual "loner". The perpetrators initially planned for it to be a bombing, but switched to shooting when the bombs failed. Even so, they killed themselves when the (armed) police arrived, changing the power dynamic of the situation.

At Virginia Tech, the shooter had plenty of ammunition left, yet chose to kill himself as the armed police closed in on him. The dynamic of the situation was changing, and he was not going to be the ONE with the power when they arrived.

The 2014 Isla Vista shooter was a bit different from the usual pattern, as he initially exchanged gunfire with police, but after he wrecked his car, and was no longer able to move freely, he shot himself as the armed police approached. In this case, loss of mobility was part of the changing dynamic.

In all of these instances but the last, the killers exclusively targeted people in "gun free zones" where they had a greater than normal chance of being the only armed person there. The gun didn't give them special power, being the only one with a gun gave them special power. If you are the only armed person, you can shoot again if you miss the first time. You don't have to worry very much about defending yourself. Others will run and cower - in many schools, teachers and students are taught to make themselves docile targets, rather than to "run, hide, or fight" (the DHS recommendation for workplaces).

Add a bunch of licensed concealed carriers (a group that includes off-duty cops), and the dynamic changes dramatically, making them less likely to strike.

Militarization of Police, part 2

If only the "militarization of police" would include instilling the discipline and professionalism that our military has, and our civilian law enforcement agencies so often show that they are lacking.

When soldiers and Marines in combat zones have more restrictive rules of engagement for dealing with armed enemy combatants than police officers in our own cities do for dealing with citizens suspected of criminal acts, there is a problem.

When military members step over the line and do illegal things, we tend to find out about it, because other military members step forward. Remember Abu Ghraib? When those reservists, most of whom were also civilian LEOS (cops and corrections officers) mistreated prisoners, another soldier notified his congressman and the press.

When civilian cops commit felonies - like assaulting a cameraman in a McDonald's, for instance - other civilian cops aid and abet them in that crime by not only refusing to arrest them for the felonies committed right in front of them, but also by helping them to hide their identities. At that point, every cop in that McDonald's needs to be arrested, stripped of their badge, gun, uniform, and pension, and put on trial for felony assault, false imprisonment/unlawful confinement/kidnapping, and other crimes (those who stood and allowed it to happen need to be charged as accomplices/accessories, as well as with criminal negligence, with depraved indifference) - all committed under color of authority, thus increasing the severity of the offenses.

Lessons from Ferguson, MO: Philosphy of Policing

We have seen two different approaches to police work in action in Ferguson, Missouri this week.

The first had the city and county cops playing soldier. They used dogs, tear gas, armored vehicles, and heavily armed officers with their uniforms, names, and badges hidden by mounds of tactical gear to disrupt and try to shut down what was a peaceful, but angry protest. Their actions escalated tensions, and their disruption of the protest event created confusion and chaos which allowed some people to riot and loot, while neither protest organizers or the police could effectively communicate with, or control them.

These same local agencies treated the media as a hostile presence, gassing TV crews and arresting and roughing up reporters.

People in the community - and all over the nation - lost a lot of respect for law enforcement due to the poor choices made by the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police.


Then, a professional police agency was brought in to restore order and rebuild public confidence and trust. With a smart leader, the Missouri State Police entered Ferguson wearing regular police uniforms, with their badges and name tags showing.- no dogs, no tear gas, no gas masks, no tactical gear, no armored vehicles, no "Rambo"s.

These officers mingled with the crowds, marched with the protesters, and told them that they could protest all night, as long as people didn't start burning or looting. The violence stopped as soon as the police started acting as peace officers and stopped provoking the citizens and escalating (if not causing) the tension and violence..


Time and time again, I have seen bad things happen when cops start covering up their badges and name tags. At that point, they become a faceless part of an occupying force, able and willing to break the law with little chance of ever facing the consequences of their actions, instead of police officers who people can deal with as human beings.