CHICAGO (AP) — Violent crimes – from homicides and rapes to robberies – have been on the rise in many major U.S. cities, yet experts can’t point to a single reason why and the jump isn’t enough to suggest there’s a trend.Still, it is stumping law enforcement officials, who are seeking a way to combat the problem.”It’s being reported on at local levels, but in my view, it’s not getting the attention at the national level it deserves,” FBI Director James Comey said recently. “I don’t know what the answer is, but holy cow, do we have a problem.

Source: US CITIES SEE UNEXPLAINED RISE IN VIOLENT CRIMES THIS YEAR – News from The Associated Press

Really? They can’t figure it out? Heck, we were expecting a climb a while back and said so. Florida did show small increases in some violent crimes in 2015. Maybe the data got processed by certain politically correct filters and you missed it coming or willingly chose to ignore.

Some in law enforcement have speculated that a climate after the 2014 fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, has made officers reticent about taking the steps needed to stop crime, but Stephens says that tough scrutiny on policing has always been part of the job, even if it’s “more visible, more strident” now.

F.I.D.O. (Fuck It, Drive On) is the procedure some (more than some) LEOs from specific police departments are taking after Ferguson and Baltimore. And you cannot blame them when the political city masters are willing to sacrifice them for job security. And before you bitch about how it is their job and are getting paid for it, let’s remember that  police not only has no duty to protect you but even they have leeway on enforcing the laws.

I will also add that we are getting a huge influx of inmates released into society. Thanks to a policy of making every silly shit a felony, we are now invaded by people who may have committed non-violent offenses, but survived what is called the Gladiator School inside our prisons. These are people who may have not belonged to gangs outside, but the needed to do so in the inside to keep breathing. Do not imagine they will suddenly become deacons in their local churches just because they were released from prison.

I figure we have two things coming: More violent crime (which the media will cry and moan about) and more defensive uses of guns (which the media will not adapt to easily but may eventually come to “accept”.)

And with the volatility in political “expression” this year, you better be ready to see some serious crap coming your way.

Lock & Load.

PS: Pray for a calm hurricane season.

Justice in Latin America and other “advanced” countries like England.

A commenter on my last post, David Yamane, seemed unhappy about the content I chose to write about, and had some suggestions for me:

“Why don’t you post about how sick you are hearing about how gun culture hates women? I actually heard a talk at The Tactical Conference by Kathy (Cornered Cat) Jackson, in which she draws on research about women in STEM to give gun guys suggestions about how to get women involved in gun culture.https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-cornered-cat-kathy-jackson-on-what-women-want/

You should let her know how grateful she should be that male dominated gun culture allowed her the time and space to share her views!

…

I know that you are probably sick of hearing about Kathy Jackson already, but since you seem pressed for things to write about concerning guns, why don’t you read Kathy Jackson’s comments about women in the gun community since she draws on research about women in STEM fields to show that gun guys are NOT embracing women.”

I will take his advice and write about the issue of Gun Culture 2.0 and women.

I don’t know Kathy Jackson, The Cornered Cat, I have never met her, nor have I read her book.  Although, knowing that it is available as an audio-book, I’ll have to give it a try.  So for the purpose of this post, I’m going to have to rely on his assessment of Jackson’s book.  So please forgive any error as hearsay.

I can accept Jackson’s differentiating between being a guest in Gun Culture 2.0 and belonging in Gun Culture 2.0.  Now Social Justice has taught me that I should never question a person’s lived experience, and truth be told, I don’t know what she has experienced, but allow me to bring up a few things from my lived experience.

First, a quasi gripe about Gun Culture 2.0.  I fully consider myself to be Gun Culture 2.0.  I don’t hunt, and have no interest in it.  I like black rifles with 30 round mags.  My gun ownership is the product of an interest in self defense and political support of the 2A.  Much of Gun Culture 2.0 has been influence by military culture.  This is in part do the number of veterans of the War on Terror who have continued to shoot recreationally after their service is up.  There is also the feedback from the video game industry, where shooters want the real life version of their favorite gun from their favorite Call of Duty game.  The most popular firearms sold today are semi-automatic facsimiles of military arms.  Tacticool is a word that has entered the lexicon to describe a civilian rifle that has be accessorized to look like something carried in Black Hawk Down.  The word “operator” gets tossed around a lot.  One cannot go to a gun range, gun show, gun store, or anywhere else in the gun world without it being a 5.11 tactical pants and Blackhawk rigger belt convention.  A substantial portion of Gun Culture 2.0 has an aesthetic that could best be described as Blackwater chic.

Quite a number of new small gun companies have sprung up advertising their founding by ex-military.  The stamp of ex-military has become so important to Gun Culture 2.0 that some people are willing to lie to benefit from it.

No disrespect to our veterans, but this frustrates me.  I never served in combat.  I never cleared a house with my M4 pattern rifle.  I have no operational experience.  I am an engineers and a good one at that.  I know heat treating, GD&T, fluid dynamics, heat transfer, finishing, manufacturing, and everything else it takes to make a gun work.  I may not know how to stage an ambush but I do know how to take aluminum and steel and turn it into one of the finest firearms money can buy.  That took years of schooling and is not something taught in basic training or AIT.  The problem is, who in Gun Culture 2.0 wants to buy an AR or a 1911 from some fat engineer who sits behind a desk with gigabytes of test data to show how good his gun is?  Gun Culture 2.0 wants to buy an AR or 1911 from some ex Navy Ranger F16 door gunner who designed his weapon EXPLICITLY for killing Taliban.  It makes me understand (but not condone) faking military service to get your fledgling gun company off the ground.

All of this goes double when it comes to firearms training.  There are a lot more firearms trainers today than there were in the past.  That is a good thing, it means more training available for all.  But many of these trainers hype their ex-military status as a bona fide.  I am not a woman, and cannot claim to know how a woman may feel but I may have experienced similar feelings of not belonging when I am the guy who shows up at the training course in shorts, carrying a .38 snubbie and not in 5.11, drawing a Glock from the latest in kydex wonder-concealment.  I go to these courses to improve my ability to defend myself in a home invasion or if I am caught in the middle of a convenience store robbery.  However, some of them seem to be “let’s pretend you are Delta Force” weekend retreats.

I think one thing that would make Gun Culture 2.0 more welcoming, not just to women, is a demilitarization.  I am a shooter.  I love shooting.  I’ve been a gun nut since the first time my dad took me shooting when I was six.  Just because I never shot a Taliban in the face with it, doesn’t mean I don’t know how to use my rifle, or that I am a wannabe or armchair commando, or anything else you want to call me.

Second, guns have traditionally been a guy thing.  I believe that they will always be a guy thing.  No, I am not saying women are not welcome or that I think any less of them.  It’s just a matter of reality.  I doubt there will ever be equal parity of the sexes in gun culture.  I don’t believe that that is inherently wrong.  There are many things that are guy things: cigars, motorcycles, off-roading, car racing, etc.  Yes, of course we should be sensitive to women in our midst.  Overt sexism is ugly, I don’t like it when I see it.  But we are never going to completely purge the “guyness” from gun culture, and don’t ask us to.

Again,  I am not a woman, and cannot claim to know how a woman may feel but I may have experienced similar feelings of not belonging when I go into a yarn/bead/scrap book/fabric/craft store with my wife.  When I drop her off for a “stitch and bitch” night at the local knitting store, the other ladies welcome me, but I can tell they are all wondering if I’m going to sit and stay and pull out my own pair of needles.  They are happy to try to teach me to knit (there have been offers), but I know I will take a long time to really become one of them.  I am not offended.  I accept that I have wandered into a sphere of women’s culture and that’s OK.

I want more women to come into shooting.  I want more people in general to come into shooting.  We in the community are extending ourselves to women the best way we know how.  I have seen plenty of lady’s nights at the local indoor range or ladies only CCW classes.  I have also seen ladies only motorcycle training courses among other things.  I have never seen a “daddy and me” day at the local park or a guy’s night at the local craft store where I can have a beer and do a needlepoint of my favorite line from Conan the Barbarian.  One act of making someone feel like an outsider doesn’t justify another, and I’m not suggesting that it should.  I just want to give some perspective.

Third, of course I have seen gun shop employees who have been condescending to women when they (women) go into to guy a new CCE piece.  But nearly every time, those same jerks have been condescending to me and other guys when we want to look at something other than the latest in Teutonic plastic fantastic that “starts with 4 and ends with 5.”  I have griped about that before.  My first rule about gun stores is: If I say “I want to look at X” and the person behind the counter says “Why?  Let me show you a Glock/H&K/SIG.”  Just leave.

There is an aphorism known as Hanlon’s Razor, which states “never attribute to malice what can adequately be blamed on stupidity.”  There needs to be a corollary that states “never attribute to racism/sexism/discrimination what  can adequately be explained with by somebody being an asshole.”  This is something also seen in STEM, don’t take it personally.

Even if there are real individual causes of discrimination, don’t let that stop you.  I can’t stand the asshole at the gun show with the Nazi paraphernalia selling copies of the Turner Diaries.  I have been asked on more than one occasion at a gun show by a dealer “what can I Jew you out of?”  I don’t give those bastards my money.  I ignore them.  I didn’t let those people drive me out of shooting.  For women, if a guy at a gun range really is a sexist pig, find a different range or a different instructor.  Show your disapproval with your dollars.  For every one of them, there are dozens of us who are happy to count you as part of the group.

Fourth, Dana Loesch, who was the Beyonce of NRAAM 2015.

Fifth, Emily Miller, the smartest person on gun laws in America who is not a member of SCOTUS.

Sixth, Kirsten Joy Weiss, who can shoot better than you can.

Seventh, Lena Miculek, who can shoot WAY better than that.

Eight, Julie Golob, rock out with your Smith out.

Ninth, Jessie Duff.

Not just are these women shooters.  They are also celebrities in the culture.  They give talks and demonstrations and have hundreds of thousands of people read their blogs and watch their YouTube videos.

Tenth, the firearms industry itself actively reaching out to women.

Call me skeptical, but I really don’t see how gun culture hates women.  Every indication is the opposite.

Not to overly criticize Ms. Jackson, since I didn’t read her book, but the synopsis seems to indicate her complaints fall very close to the idea of Social Justice microagressions.

“Sure the industry is bending over backwards to develop new products for women.  Sure the industry is bringing very smart and experienced women on board as senior management.  Sure, shooting ranges and firearms instructors are hosting women’s only events to make women feel more comfortable.  But Dillon Precision’s calendar still features beautiful women with guns; and Billy Bob, the owner of Billy Bob’s Guns, Live Bait, and Overalls Emporium called me ‘sweetheart’ so gun culture hates me.”

I think no.

I’ll agree that we have a little bit more to go towards incisiveness, but give us credit were credit is due.

UPDATE

I read Miguel’s comment and it got me thinking.  There is something I didn’t take into consideration that may address our difference in opinion: age.

I don’t know how old Ms. Jackson or Dr. Yamane are, but I can postulate.  Ms. Jackson claims on her website that she’s been a shooter for 15 years and married for 25.  Well, this year is my 15 year high school reunion.  Ms. Jackson got married when I was middle school.  Assuming she got married after college, that would put her in her lat 40’s at a minimum.  Dr. Yamane got his B.S. in 1991, putting him in at about the same age.

I can appreciate how their views on this issue may be different.

I look around me at work, and it shocks me that I am one of the oldest people in my group, not in management, at the ripe old age of 32.  The people I work with, the people I shoot with, the people I hobnob with are in their late 20’s early 30’s.  We are as much raised in Gun Culture 2.0 as we were raised in Web 2.0 or with cellphones.  Women in shooting is nothing new to us, they have always been there.  Our sisters were taught to shoot along side us.   There have always been camo clothes for women and girls available at the local sporting goods store to us.

When some old gray beard Gun Culture 1.0 says something dismissive of women, the response of us is “yeah, sure, whatever gramps” and then our wives and girlfriends out shoot him on the range.

This is the same issue I have with criticism of STEM by the way.

“Blah, blah, blah, women aren’t in enough faculty positions of management, STEM is sexist blah, blah, blah.”

Whatever you say bucko.  Being management or faculty is what happens late in your career, not the beginning.  Those women entered the workforce when the math I was learning was One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish and VCR’s still roamed the earth.  The girls I know and went to school with are just as competent as the boys in engineering.  They were recruited into the same programs.  They grew up in a climate were there were outreach programs dedicated to bringing women and girls into STEM.  When you look at how THESE girls are doing in their careers, they are on par with the boys in most fields and doing better in others.

There is a generation of difference between our experiences, literally.  The trials and tribulations of the first wave of women in mainstream shooting won.  So when I hear “Gun Culture 2.0 hates women” it just rankles me.

I am getting a little sick of hearing how STEM hates women.  I have heard all the tradition responses to that statement.  Perhaps women have different abilities and interests that make them less likely to go into STEM.  Maybe women choose different career paths for personal reasons.

But I’m not posting to rehash those arguments over again.  Instead, I am going to prove that STEM, and engineering in particular, has done more for women’s liberation than all the hairy leg, bra burning, feminist protesters in history.

First, what needs to be understood is what life was like in the 19th and early parts of the 20th century.

Housework consumed an enormous amount of time.  Heat was provided by wood or coal burning fireplaces and stoves.  Those required constant maintenance.  They had to me cleaned and the ashed shoveled out.  Cleaning was done by hand.  Not just sweeping the floors, but rugs had to be hauled outside and beaten.  Laundry was washed by hand and hung to dry in a grueling, day long chore.

Common foods like bread were regularly made at home rather than bought.  The lack of cold storage meant that meat either had to be purchased fresh or, in rural locations, was killed fresh.  Butchering the family hog was another day long event as much of the meat had to be cured or preserved to make it last as long as possible.  Cooking was done on a wood burning stove or in a wood burning oven which required near constant tending, as temperature control was limited and could start fires.

Clothes for children were not commonly purchased and were often made by hand stitching, which again, would take a whole work day worth of time.  In rural areas or in poorer households, even adult clothing was made by hand.  In (one of my favorite books) Where the Red Fern Grows, which takes place in the Ozarks of Oklahoma in the early 20th century, a pair of store bought dungarees were a luxury good.

The lives of wives in rural and middle America was backbreaking working, described as  drudgery and toil.

All of this was just regular housework, and doesn’t include other chores, repairs, and tasks that might crop up day to day.

In poor areas, housework was still done by hand by women after WWII.  The BBC show Call the Midwife shows – quite accurately – what women’s work was like in the working class docklands of London in the 1950’s.

So what changed?  What liberated millions of women from slaving in front of stoves and washing tubs?

STEM!

The electrification of America round about WWII and part of the New Deal paved way for every home to have electric appliances.  Electric stoves brought about the age of “set it and forget it” cooking, freeing up time.  Laundry now takes an hour or two per load, and only about 5 minutes of actual work (loading and unloading machines) because of washing machines and dryers.  Dishwashers and vacuums freed up much time needed for cleaning.  Refrigerators allowed longer food storage before spoiling, making the need t0 purchase of groceries a less frequent event, and allowed for the preservation of leftovers.  The microwave allowed for meals to be made ready to eat in minutes.

And that is only on the domestic front.

Industrial changes in manufacturing meant that clothing for all ages could be bought cheaply, and it was easier to throw out worn items than patch and repair them.  The grocery store made the purchase of household items a one-stop trip, rather than having to go to the butcher, baker, green grocer, dry goods, etc.  Mass manufacturing has reduces the cost of domestic goods to the point where they are available to even the poorest homes.

The result is that the average woman only has 11.5 hours of housework per week, which isn’t particularity strenuous, down from the dawn-to-dusk backbreaking labor their grandmothers and great grandmothers did a century ago.

Notice that the rate of women’s participation in the workforce shot up as time saving domestic devices became more widely available.  When daily housework requirement go from 12 hours a day to 2 (or less) what did women do all day?  They went and got jobs.

Mechanical engineering, electrical engineers, industrial and manufacturing engineers, machinists, linemen, welders, miners, and all the other people in power production and distribution, manufacturing and assembly, and all forms of heavy industry, created the goods that freed women from the home.  The wall outlet, washing machine, and microwave did more to liberate women than all the campus marches of the 60’s and 70’s combined.

The next time a feminist gripes about how women are oppressed by engineering, politely reminder her that the reason she has time to complain about female oppression on Tumblr, is that she is not having to spend all day washing the panties she currently has in a knot, by hand in a wash tub with water boiled on an open fire, because some team of engineers at Whirlpool and GE designed her a washing machine and water heater to do that for her.

After a town hall meeting for PBS NewsHour in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama took questions from the audience.

A gun store owner, Doug Rhude, mentioned how people that drive drunk are held responsible for their actions without affecting good drivers. He did this to relate to his next point, “why then do you and Hillary want to control and restrict and limit gun manufacturers, gun owners and responsible use of guns and ammunition to the rest of us, the good guys, instead of holding the bad guys accountable for their actions?”

Obama’s first reply, “First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true.”

He goes on to say that he has never proposed a confiscation from responsible gun owners. He also talks about how driving accidents used to be much worse until studies were done and laws were put in place for better roads, seat belt restrictions, and air bag requirements. Obama then says that any attempt to do the same for guns is immediately seen as destruction of the second amendment.

So, what immediately caught my eye was Obama’s first reaction was to focus on confiscation when Rhude asked about why gun rights are being restricted. He did it to make a point. He compared cars to guns, which is a slippery slope. “When we talked about background checks: if you buy a car, if you want to get a license- first of all you have to license, you have to take a test. People have to know that you know how to drive. You don’t have to do any of that with respect to having a gun.” Comparing licensing with background checks, sure, I can hang with that for a moments discussion. But to say that background checks aren’t done is terribly false. NICS reports that 11,698,006 checks have been done this year. So maybe I misunderstood what he said, but I don’t see what else he could be saying.

Obama’s next talking point is the no-fly list. He claims the government has found people who often visits ISIL/ISIS sites and is a sympathizer. These people is on the no fly list but is allowed to buy a gun, ” ’cause the NRA won’t let me.” Now, most of us here know why this is a weak argument (lack of due process, no official list of people, many people on the list don’t actually belong on the list, etc.). I’m sure he does it to make it seem outrageous to people not familiar with how messed up the system is.

He ends the talk with saying that there is way for common sense gun laws that will not restrict lawful citizens from having guns to use for hunting, sporting, and protection.

Personally, it feels like an empty speech to me. I’ve heard these same things over and over. Obama even called gun violence a public health issue, even though gun homicides are around .4% of U.S.A. deaths each year. I would be open to hear about “common sense” ways to lessen deaths by guns. However, many proposed gun laws just restrict law abiding citizens. Magazine restrictions, gun free zones, and banning certain firearms does not stop a shooting or robbery from happening. Those do negatively affect citizens that wish to have better protection. Even demanding individual sales to have background checks won’t stop strawman purchases. It just places a burden on lawful people wishing to sell a firearm.

That’s about all I have to say about that. The topic was highlighted since the president spoke about it, and I don’t believe much will come from his speech other than more misinformation about the no-fly list.

One of the photos was taken in Paris, the other in San Jose, California.

I am just gonna leave this there and go get some coffee.