Category: defense & war

Categories
crime and punishment defense & war general freedom Second Amendment rights

Spree Shooter Shot Dead

handgun, self defense, freedom, 2nd Amendment

We need to be reminded every now and then that shooting rampages can often be stopped as soon as they start — if only a good guy with a gun is on site and willing to use it. 

Or good gal.

Dennis Butler, a 37-​year-​old with an “extensive criminal history,” recently targeted the attendees of a party in Charleston, West Virginia.

Earlier, someone at an apartment complex had asked Butler to drive more slowly because there were children around. This made him feel explosive rage. So he fetched a semi-​automatic weapon that he owned illegally and started firing into a crowd of party-​goers at the complex.

A woman with a gun and presence of mind happened to be at the party.

“She’s just a member of the community who was carrying her weapon lawfully,” says police spokesman Tony Hazlett. “And instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives.”

No one in the crowd was reported to be injured.

I hope that if this heroic woman had been carrying her weapon unlawfully, relevant authorities would have cut her some slack. But it’s good that she didn’t have to deal with such a complication.

Butler is dead — shot multiple times by the woman with a gun. Police haven’t reported her name.

Just as well. We wouldn’t want her to become a target of gun-​control groups upset that she used a pistol rather than sharp words to dissuade Butler from killing everybody.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war international affairs

Priced to Purloin

Russian tank, Ukraine, war

We interrupt this regularly scheduled commentary to give you a tip about an opportunity you may want to exploit ASAP, especially if you live in the Ukraine area.

This offer may not last. 

But at least for the moment, the Ukraine government says it will pay cold hard cash for any functioning tanks, combat aircraft, reactive volley fire systems, ships, armored personnel carriers, etc. that you happen to have on hand.

It turns out that getting hold of these things is possible even if you are not a military procurement officer. Who knew?

For example, the Russian government lets their soldiers operate tanks and other equipment when they’re out and about invading neighboring countries. The soldiers are told not to lose the equipment. Even so, we’ve heard tell during the recent unpleasantness of Ukrainian farmers using tractors to haul away misplaced Soviet tanks to add to their personal collection and other such incidents.

The Ukrainian government figures that since tanks, ships, and helicopters are just lying around in backyards and muddy fields anyway, why not give people an extra incentive to deliver these things to the Ukraine military so that they can then be refurbished to smash Soviet invaders?

It’s $100,000 for a tank, $500,000 for a combat helicopter, $1 million for a first-​rank ship, $1 million for combat aircraft. Not exactly the retail prices. But if you’ve got something like this that you lugged from battle, well, why not?

Hurry. You must act now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war general freedom public opinion

Fight-​or-​Flight Fact Check

Democrats, war, invasion, defense

“Majority of Americans Would Stay and Fight if Russia Invaded U.S.,” read Newsweek’s headline for its report earlier this month about a Quinnipiac University poll.

Overall, “55 percent said they would stay and fight,” the article informed, “while 38 percent said they would flee the country, like the over 1.5 million people who have fled Ukraine as Russia continues its attack on Ukrainian cities and villages.”

The Quinnipiac survey asked, “If you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, do you think that you would stay and fight or leave the country?”

“Looking at political affiliation,” Newsweek noted, “Republicans were more likely to say they would stay and fight, with 68 percent saying they would do so, as opposed to 40 percent of Democrats.”

Yet, weeks later, Newsweek delivered a fact check to readers concerning a claim made in a social media post: “60% of Democrats say they wouldn’t fight if America was invaded.”

Their fact-​checker rated it false, because only 52 percent of Democrats said they would “leave,” with 8 percent not sure. Case-closed.

Yet, the fact-​checker kept the case open, suggesting that perhaps folks had also misunderstood the question. “Indirect evidence” of this “can be surmised” by the response to another question: “If Russian President Vladimir Putin goes beyond Ukraine and attacks a NATO country, would you support or oppose a military response from the United States?

“In this hypothetical, 88 percent of Democrats were supportive of a military response,” the fact-​checker noted, “more than both Independents (77 percent) and Republicans (82 percent).”

But hold on … supporting a military response by others, thousands of miles away, is not the same thing as deciding to personally fight an invading army.

It’s a fact. Check it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts