Friday, March 08, 2002

Go read this excellent piece by Julia Gorin.

They say that you never know another man until you look at the world through his eyes. Thanks to Ms. Gorin I can now see the world the same way the enemy sees it. And I want to go take a shower.
There was a recent study that stated that children were killed violently more often in states with high gun ownership. Fine and dandy if true, but the senior author of the study had revealed an alarming bias against gun ownership through previous studies.

A critique of the anti-gun study supposedly shows that the researchers manipulated the data to prove their point.

If true it hardly surprises me. The anti-gunners want to reduce violence, a noble and worthwhile goal. The general idea seems to be that anything they do or say to achieve that goal is justified. After all, their most repeated slogan is "If it saves just one life it's worth it."

I want to save lives as well. That's why I think banning firearms or placing too many restrictions on access/ownership is a bad idea.

Thursday, March 07, 2002

The most succesful military in the world is the Israelis. Since the formation of the nation they've never lost.

They also have to live under constant threat of terrorist attack. So they know what it takes to survive in the most violent of worlds.

It seems that requests for gun permits in Israel are up. The cops that are in charge of the citizen's safety admit that a gun toting populace stops terrorist violence.

It would be nice if politicians in this country would come to the same conclusion. But I'm not holding my breath.

Wednesday, March 06, 2002

I just read a buddy's Esperanto-language blog about the Navy SEAL that was captured in Afghanistan. Seems that the Taliban killed him out of hand.

Looks like the "torture" that the detainees at Camp X-Ray are going through is small potatoes compared to what our guys have to look forward to.
I just read an article in the Guardian that blames all of the problems between Isreal and the Palestinians on the Israelis. But I could have sworn that Britain is to blame.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Balfour Decleration show British support for a Jewish state? And I've could have sworn that it was the Peel Commission that first suggested that Palestine should be partitioned between Arab and Jewish populations. Am I wrong about that?

British troops were in control of the region when the United Nations declared that Palestine was to be divided up. It was Britain, not the U.S., that forced the Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint.

The second Arab-Israeli War, called the Suez War, was started when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Troops from France, Israel and Britain invaded Egypt. In fact, it was the U.S.S.R. and the United States that brokered a peace deal to end the fighting. Why doesn't anyone seem to remember this?

But it didn't stop there. The U.S. has always been behind every peace deal or cease fire between Israel and the Arabs. (Anyone remember the Camp David Accords?) It's always been the policy of the U.S. to stand against genocide, which would surely happen if we withdrew our support of Israel. How come I don't see any of these other Western democracies stepping up to help out?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. The Europeans seem to think that genocide is okay as long as it's the Jews that get wiped out.

Hey, didn't we fight a war in Europe to stop this sort of thing from happening? Looks like some people have forgotten about that.

Monday, March 04, 2002

It seems that a UPI story reports that the European Rapid Reation Force (RRF) isn't generating much confidence (scroll down to the bottom).

Seems that the RRF was first proposed in 1991. It's supposed to be a 60,000 man fighting unit drawn from NATO countries. Highly mobile with plenty of transport aircraft, armor and air support, it's supposed to be deployed anywhere in the world with 60 days warning and stay where it's needed for up to a year.

Good idea. So what's the problem?

It seems that the RRF doesn't have enough airlift, for one thing. The European designed and built A400M Transport Aircraft has yet to be built. The contributing countries keep cutting back on their defense budgets, which means that Airbus doesn't have enough orders to build the aircraft and still keep costs down to something realistic. The fact that America has cheaper transport aircraft ready to go for less money is a thorn in the Euro's side, but it would be political suicide to buy American after the hype.

60,000 men with transport and support vehicles is nothing to sneeze at. But it's only 60,000 men! Heck, Napolean had bigger armies!
Came across this picture. Looks like it could stand for the worst nightmare of an Islamic terrorist and a gun-grabbing British politician.

Now I just have to ask why I don't see a sight like this when I go to my local gun range twice a month. Guess I have to move to someplace warmer than Ohio.
There has been some discussion here (please scroll down some) concerning Sherlock Holmes and gun control. While it has been true that England was free from almost all gun restriction until early in the 20th Century, it seems that the Charter City of London has had a very strict gun ban for centuries. I was wondering how Sherlock (we're buds, so I can call him Sherl if'n I wanta) got away with hauling a Webley around with him in London.

Email has arrived from a very astute reader named Andy Freeman (I don't know if he has a blog or else I'd link to it). Mr. Freeman points out that the Charter City in question was only a few blocks on a side, and that Holmes might very well have avoided stepping on any of the streets where guns were banned.

Blog goddess Natalie Solent (please scroll down a bit) has also arrived at this same conclusion on her own.

This is a point I never considered, that the original London was just too small to play a part in Sherl's adventures. Looks like he's not a criminal after all.