A Look At The Accuracy of the Three Threes

 Mike McDaniel has a post at the American Thinker entitled Gun Fights: Is the "three threes" rule accurate? He looks at several studies dealing with the distances at which gun fights are initiated. Of course, the second "three" deals with the number of rounds shot, which does not factor into any of the charts.

A common teaching tool among professional is the “three threes:” gunfights take place within three yards, take three seconds and no more than three rounds are fired. As a means of focusing student’s minds on the realities that when things go bad, they go bad fast, and one must be prepared for that, it’s a useful idea, but does it represent the truth? That depends on to whose statistics one refers, also whether the “gunfights” involve citizens or on-duty policer officers. In 2021, Chris Baker at Lucky Gunner provided pertinent details.

Interestingly enough, most of our data for the "three threes" rule come from law enforcement sources. But as McDaniel points out, law enforcement shootings may not match civilian shooting data. After all, civilians don't usually go after dangerous criminals on purpose, and normally aren't the target of dangerous criminals either. The more useful numbers come from Tom Givens of Rangemaster Firearms Training. Please see the graph provided at the highlighted article, which indicate that 87% of the shootings studied occurred at between 3 and 5 yards.

What lessons can we learn from these admittedly limited statistics? We might revise the threes rule to “around three yards+.” We don’t know the duration of these incidents, the accuracy of the anecdotes, nor the numbers of rounds fired. Experience suggests three rounds is in the ballpark, but that applies to the innocent shooter. More may be fired by bad guys.

Statistics are useful for generally constraining your training to the most likely of scenarios. So, McDaniel's "around three yards+" seems like good advice. The truth is that whatever you are confronted with will be what you have to defend. For most of us, the time we have to train is quite limited, with work, family and other responsibilities taking up most of our time. Of course, we should all be prepared, but understand that it is the bad guy who will chose the time and place to attack.

Restorative (In)justice

 At the American Thinker today, Mike McDaniel in a post entitled Restorative justice breaks real justice explains the consequences of the "defund the police" movement. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is this: when justice breaks down, we are left with vigilantism. We are thus forced to live by the feud, where might makes right.

Bail is intended not to punish the indigent, but to ensure their appearance in court. Criminals freed without bail have little incentive to show up in court or remain in contact with court-appointed attorneys. Bail is also intended to protect the public against sociopaths and psychopaths, violent predators whose actions and intentions represent a clear and present danger.

What evidence did Judge Anderson have that might convince a reasonable jurist Earnest was no danger to the public? Apparently, none. Anyone staging an ambush to murder their victim presents a compelling case for jail pending trial, and likely up to the 60 years Tennessee law allows for conviction on second degree murder.

An allied reality is jail also protect criminals from their victims and from the public at large. When citizens realize the system they fund, and upon which they rely, for protection against criminals refuses to protect them, they move inexorably toward dispensing it themselves. And why should they not? The police, prosecutors and courts are their invention, wielding their power on loan on condition of good behavior.

Obviously, actual vigilantism can’t be allowed, but refusal to do the duties the public expects can only lead to the public taking back their loaned power. That sort of justice tends to be final indeed.

To get a better handle on what McDaniel is talking about here, one has to remember the theory on which our Constitution and laws are based. God, our Creator, grants to each person a number of rights and powers. In a state of nature we each exercise these individually. But for the sake of the common good, We the People loan some of these to the state. The states in turn lone a limited number of them to the Federal government. One of the powers delegated to the state is the police power, for which we pay taxes. The police are there to protect both the victim and the criminal, so that the courts determine the truth of the case and can mete out punishment for the guilty and perhaps provide closure to the victims. That each of these duties is done imperfectly is a sign that we live in a fallen world. Nonetheless, we cannot allow the imperfection to convince us to give up the whole enterprise. Some justice is better than no justice.

McDaniel gives a good deal of time to discussion of one crime, and frankly, the commission of yet another by a rogue judge, mistakenly applying "restorative justice." But it really is not restorative, for what may or may not have been done to this individuals ancestors 200 years ago has no bearing on the crimes he is charged with today. It is, in the end, a phony theory to wreak havoc on society and must be crushed along with the rest of the Democrat/communist/socialist agenda.

Environmentalists Hate You and Me

 Selwyn Duke, at the American Thinker asks Let's say man is changing the climate. So what?

No, I’m not a guy who “just wants to see the world burn” (and that would be literally). Rather, if anthropogenic climate change were occurring, why should we assume it wouldn’t be beneficial?

Oh, it’s not just that the Earth is greener and crop yields are higher when CO2 levels are greater; it’s not just that relative warmth breeds life. It’s also this:

Some scientists have said the Earth will soon enter, or has already entered, a significant cooling phase. Others even contend that another ice age is nigh. And if this is so, any man-caused temperature increase would merely mitigate this naturally induced but deadly phenomenon.

A warmer environment is better for human life than a cooler environment. So, why assume that a warming world is bad? Duke thinks we can chalk it up to prejudice. I think there is something to this. Most devout environmentalists have the belief that man is a cancer on the earth. We do change the environment to suit ourselves, but then, what living thing does not? The fact that we can even exist is due to plants developing photosynthesis, providing oxygen for animal life. Beavers build dams which changes the environment to suit them. Bees will increase the flowering plants they like best. Mankind, being men, changes the environment more spectacularly, but we are doing what all nature does.

In reality, moderns’ thinking so often reflects a kind of misanthropism or, at least, a bias against Western-triumph-born modernity. People believing that extraterrestrials furtively visit our planet never assume the aliens’ matter-of-course environmental impact could be malign; they’re too advanced. People pondering a hunter-gatherer tribe (e.g., the North Sentinelese) generally assume they just must live “in harmony with nature” and be innocuous; they’re too primitive. Never mind that American Indians deforested stretches along, and caused the sedimentation of, the Delaware River long before Europeans’ New World arrival (to provide just one perspective-lending example). The activities of man, or modern man or Western man, depending on the precise prejudice, just must be harmful for the simple reason that he engaged in them. So, yes, racial profiling is a problem — against the human race.

In fairness, we can do and have done much to damage the environment. In fairness again, though, forested area in the U.S. is greater than it was a century back and our water and air are cleaner than they were 60 years ago. And in recent times the Great Barrier Reef has actually increased in size (this isn’t necessarily due to man’s activities). So we can also be good shepherds of the Earth.

Some don't merely believe we are a cancer on the earth, who should be eliminated (expect for them, of course), but believe we should all be humiliated as much as possible. Thus, Klaus Schwab thinks we should own nothing and be happy about it (or else.) He thinks we should eat bugs because...well just because. But even more bizarre is this story by Monica Showalter at the American Thinker entitled Globalists present their newest plan for us: Beer crafted from raw sewage. There is simply no reason to use sewage to make beer. It would be cheaper, if fresh water is in short supply, to use desalinized sea water using one of several systems. Or better still, import beer from a country with good water.

For a movement that claims to be all about saving the Earth, the green environmentalist globalists sure do come up with repulsive ideas.

...snip...

Like edible bugs, it's undoubtedly expensive given all the processing it would take to make it safe to drink. And like a lot of things, they may find they made "mistakes" in establishing the purity.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make the beer in some place where it makes sense to make beer, where beer tastes good, buying it from another country if necessary? Is there some reason there's a need to look to the sewage stream for one's beer? It's like teaching a dog to dance -- sure, it can be done, but why?

More to the point, the whole idea is repulsive.

Like eating bugs, the yuck factor makes one wonder why? But then, when you realize that at heart the save the planet movement is a misanthropic anti-human movement, you begin to understand. Gentle readers are urged to read both articles.

Man is Not the Measure of All Things. God Is.

 Anthony J. DeBlasi has an interesting article at the American Thinker today entitled Do Math and Science Add Up to Reality?. At heart, DeBlasi's point is that math and science can point to physical reality, but there is more to reality than the physical. In DeBlasi's own words:

What I have been saying in effect is that it is vital for humans as humans to understand that the scientific solution to everything is not, as Carl Sagan claimed, “a matter of time.” At best such boundless faith in science sustains the spirit to outdo what reality allows. At worst it spawns a blinding and devastating arrogance, as demonstrated by people like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab.

Reality is beyond the mind’s ability to know it in the way we know we’re alive or grasp it in the way we can manipulate the elements of nature. Reality isn’t discovered, the way we find what’s hidden under a rock. It’s not invented, something leftists have not learned. It is acknowledged, as the smartest in all ages have been doing, to their credit, to their successes, and to the benefit of everyone.

DeBlasi leads us on a journey toward the conclusion above. Science is about discovering the way the physical world works. Sometimes, as with quantum physics, the discoveries seem more like magic than physics, but these are still the physical world. And DeBlasi hints at our problem in discerning Truth: It is that we cannot use the mind alone to answer questions about the mind.

I pause to wonder, how can there be an answer to a question about the mind, using the mind? Is that not the ultimate conundrum? It would seem that ultimate questions of mind-reality lock themselves out of any attempt to answer them inside the cranium, where they are constantly restricted. In math, for instance, the fence is intra-consistent symbol structures and rules — in science, intra-consistent assumptions and methods — whose consistency with structured thought outside of the designated frameworks is imperfect and whose connection to reality terminates in at least one X outside of its operational field?

Because these mental structures enjoy a life of their own within their respective realms and disciplines, the answers they may provide for ultimate questions are of necessity “empty boxes,” however well-constructed. To think that the mind can transcend itself and see the world “as it really is” requires one to believe that the mind itself is not part of that world, a belief inconsistent with scientific doctrine, compounding the difficulty with “ultimate questions.”

What is missing here is faith. Whether we want to admit it or not, everyone gets through life by faith. We all believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, in the East and set in the West. We all have faith that gravity will continue to operate and things will not suddenly start falling upward. So, if that is true, then why not have faith also in the revealed Truth found in the Bible. We would not know if there is even a God if He had not revealed himself to Abraham, and Abraham had not believed Him. But He did, and he did. And becase He did this, we know that God makes and keeps promises. Moreover, we can even know why he revealed himself: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten (read unique) Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

One hears constantly that science and faith in God are somehow at odds, that one must pick one or the other. But I am an engineer. I use science and math to design solutions to make people's lives better. Yet I can clearly see the limits of science. Science cannot answer the ultimate questions of why we are here, or why we are so different from the other animals created. There is no evolutionary reason for music, for example, and yet nearly everyone can make and appreciate music. Indeed, faith and science are entirely compatible. After all, the God who revealed Himself to Abraham also created the world we live in and everything in it. And since He cannot lie, everything we learn about the world turns out to be compatible with His revealed Truth.

Please read the whole article highlighted above, and consider, if you haven't already, that the Bible may be the most important piece of literature ever written.

What About Pam Bondi on Gun Rights?

 Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms has a first take on Pam Bondi as the pick for Trump's Attorney General entitled Where Does Pam Bondi Stand on Gun Control?. The first thing that should be said is that literally anybody would be a better AG than Merrick Garland. Even a David Hogg would be better because at least your average person would be able to see through him. But, with that said, Bondi, as the former Florida AG has a mixed record on guns. Unlike Matt Gaitz, she is not a no compromise gun rights supporter.

Donald Trump's second choice for Attorney General is likely to find a warmer reception in the Senate than Matt Gaetz did, but she could face some hostility from Second Amendment organizations over some of her previous positions on guns and gun control.

Pam Bondi served as Florida's attorney general for eight years, and was in office when the legislature crafted its response to the 2018 shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

"In a time of crisis, it's about finding common ground, and that's what Gov. Scott has done," Bondi told Fox Business host Stuart Varney in March of that year, as the Florida legislature was in the midst of passing legislation that, among other things, raised the age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21 and established a "red flag" law in the state.

During that same interview, Bondi praised Trump's response to the Parkland shootings and expressed her hope that he could be a "mediator" with federal lawmakers.

"Hopefully Congress will follow Florida's lead and what Gov. Scott has been doing here in Florida and all of us working so well together," she told Varney as the interview concluded.

Edwards' conclusion, as I said, is mixed:

Bondi is not an out-and-proud gun grabber, but she does come with some gun control baggage that's likely to come up during her meet-and-greets with senators as well as her confirmation hearings. Would she, for instance, wholeheartedly defend the federal prohibition on handgun sales for adults younger than 21? Does she continue to believe that Congress should implement a federal gun violence restraining order like the one adopted in Florida six years ago? Would she side with the plaintiffs challenging semi-auto bans in Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, California, and a handful of other states? And where does Bondi come down on the issue of restoring Second Amendment rights to those convicted of non-violent felony offenses?

Gentle readers are asked to read the whole article, and consider letting their gun rights organizations how they feel. As I have noted, I view a federal involvement in gun rights somewhat askance. The less said by the fed, the better.

A Mandate to Support the Second Amendment?

At Townhall.com today Katie Pointer Baney has a piece entitled A Political Mandate in Support of Pro-Second Amendment Policy in which she makes the point that the new administration will have at least two years to put in place policies to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for generations to come.

When President-elect Trump takes office in January, his administration will inherit a powerful mandate to protect and expand Second Amendment rights. With unified control of Congress, this incoming administration has an unprecedented opportunity to enact meaningful regulatory and legislative changes that safeguards the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

The message from voters in the November election could not be clearer. Americans across the country have voiced their support for safer communities and the fundamental right to self-defense. The new administration must deliver on its campaign promises to defend these essential liberties.

Americans from all walks of life – including various racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and political backgrounds – are increasingly choosing to be their family’s first line of defense. The growing support for Second Amendment protections across the country, coupled with a unified Congress that supports pro-gun policies, creates a unique moment for lawmakers to work with the President-elect in advancing long-overdo measures such as national concealed carry reciprocity. The administration should also look to eliminate Biden-era regulatory changes, including reducing burdensome red tape on firearm ownership, as well as ensure that our fundamental rights continue to be upheld for future generations.

One thing Baney believes we can accomplish is the long desired National Concealed Carry legislation. I have to admit to trepidation about this legislation. If it is written correctly, it will just say that if a person is permitted to carry by his state of residence, it should be recognized by every other state. But the temptation will be to open up guns to federal regulation. Just what we don't need.

The solution is straightforward: establish a national framework that allows law-abiding gun owners to exercise their constitutional rights consistently throughout the country. This would not only strengthen individual liberties but also enhance personal safety and bring much-needed clarity to the legal landscape surrounding self-defense in America today.

The new administration should also roll back any Biden era executive orders and policies that hinder the right to bear arms and the demonization of legal gun sellers and manufacturers. Please read the whole article. It was not only gun owners who voted for Trump, but it is true that gun owners nearly universally voted for him. Don't we deserve to at least have gun ownership treated with the same drivers' licenses?

WEF Slapdown

 J. B Shurk has a post at the American Thinker today entitled A Trumpian Rebuke to the World Economic Forum. It is a must-read think piece on the nature and effects of human freedom in an age of impending totalitarianism. The WEF would have you believe that their totalitarian government is inevitable, but as Shurk points out, the individual lights of each of us will overwhelm their dark ambitions if we are brave enough.

In the background of everything I write is a recurring message: human freedom is invaluable, and we must fight for it daily. We are not “biological programs” or “redundant machines,” as the techno-fascists at the World Economic Forum would describe us. We are not “useless eaters” whose mere presence threatens the planet. We are unique individuals made in the image of God. We are meant to make choices, learn valuable lessons, struggle through hardship, overcome adversity, and persevere. We are meant to live, have children, protect our families, and pass what wisdom we gain to the next generation.

What I describe above is ancient knowledge. Yet many of today’s “leaders” would deny these essential truths. They speak of “saving the planet” with great fervor but are silent when it comes to saving human life. In fact, their message is just the opposite: don’t get married, don’t have kids, celebrate abortion, and embrace euthanasia. To most leaders in the West, life is a burden. Or rather, your life is a burden. While they enjoy the perks and privileges of wealth and power, they see everyone beneath their social stratum as just another mouth to feed. How lowly and unimportant are we in the minds of those who wish to rule over us? Men such as Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Al Gore, and John Kerry tell us bluntly that we should own nothing, obey our “betters,” and subsist on a diet of bugs. According to their dark worldview, this is the bleak future that we deserve.

...snip...

This is how the battle for human freedom goes. In every generation, new leaders rise whose dark ambition is to rob individuals of their liberty. In every generation, a gathering of people must see through the descending fog of fear and falsehood and draw those lost toward freedom’s light. Sometimes freedom wins, and the tyrants lose. Sometimes we humans find ourselves trapped in darkness for quite some time. This, however, remains true: no matter how bad things get, there are always those who refuse to bend. Perhaps their parents bestowed them with enough wisdom to see through the fog, perhaps their faith in God gives them uncommon courage for dangerous times, or perhaps their thirst for liberty is more intense than most. But wherever tyranny grows, those with rebellious spirit fight back. Moses freed his people. Spartacus led an army of former slaves. Abolitionists built an Underground Railroad. Freedom-minded Europeans toppled the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain. Liberty always finds a way.

Shurk points out that the WEF uses propaganda, put out by the mainstream media, to constantly make us feel isolated and helpless. If we fall for it, we are lost. But the truth, as portrayed in the recent election of President Trump, is that we are many, and if we ignore the propaganda, we can retain our freedom. The election of Trump proved what Glenn Beck has always said: "We surround them." But as has been said many times, freedom is only one generation away. We cannot let freedom die on our watch.

In these uncertain times, a person can be forgiven for assuming that the end of freedom is near. After all, the World Economic Forum has attracted some of the wealthiest and most powerful people alive to its techno-fascist cause. How can any one person fight totalitarianism when this ugly philosophy has so many influential adherents? I will suggest to you that there are many more of us than there are of them and that we are capable of squashing this century’s re-emergent strain of totalitarianism at any time. Consequently, WEF tyrants engage in a kind of mass hypnosis in which they convince the public that any resistance to the new world order’s suffocating globalism is futile. With a steady stream of propaganda coming from media companies that WEF supporters control, we are made to feel small, powerless, and alone.

When President Trump won re-election on November 5, his victory had the greater effect of shattering the illusion of globalist invincibility. For the first time in quite a while, we could see how many of us were actually holding up liberty’s light, and the light from all our flames was actually quite bright. President Trump’s victory was freedom’s triumph.

I urge gentle readers to read the whole article. It is worthwhile.