Kelly (deliberately) confuses the right to own a gun and the right to self-defense.
Some of your studies' dates seem off--Greenwood refers to six years pre- and post-1997, suggesting that he's looking at data from at least 2003, not 1971.
Go back and read more carefully. There are two links to Colin Greenwood pieces, one a post-Dunblane report, and the other his 1972 book Firearms Control.
"Here in the US, I would suggest, such a case would never go to trial."
Here in Oklahoma, it would not go to trial.
I am outraged by this excerpt from British law that you cited:
"Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 ... if a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
And so the British trial jury has the task of divining what the accused thought when he acted. To obligate the members of the jury to read minds is to force them to use a tool that no one has.
Even if the jury could read minds, the law holds the defender to an impossible standard. Proportionate response is an oxymoron. The defender cannot divine the intent of his attacker any more than the jury can divine his intent in defense, thus he has no possible method of determining, a priori, what a proportionate response is so as to not exceed it.
Here, in the civilized state of Oklahoma, the question centers on what were the rights of the defender. The intent of the occupant (yes, even a visitor) is irrelevant, as is the intent of the invader. Here, the occupant has the unfettered right to defend himself from any and all intruders in any manner and to any degree he sees fit. He does not have to justify defending himself to anyone.
And it is a matter of rights. Logically, because the attacker treats his victim as if his victim has no rights, then the attacker has no argument that he has any rights which his victim must respect. The attacker gives up all his rights by attacking. The defender gives up no rights by defending. Thus the only question of fact for a jury to decide is: "Who was the attacker and who was the defender?" The acts of the attacker deserve censure, but the acts of the defender do not.
"Proportional response" is B.S. In WA state (and most others) if you are in reasonable fear of permanent injury or death then deadly force (of whatever type!) is justified to defend yourself or other innocent life.
There's one other method used by those opposed to gun-rights that James uses frequently that you didn't really touch on.
"because it leads to a point where the threat from gun violence is no longer acceptably small."
Over and over, in MSM articles and in Brady Campaign press releases, they wail and moan about gun violence and gun deaths. They jump for joy when they have examples of "gun deaths" dropping after bans are passed.
They have to specify "gun deaths" and "gun violence", because they want to ignore the fact that overall murder and violence has increased.
That one frequent twisting of the truth has been my best weapon to sway people on the fence. I just ask them to pay attention to all the things they hear in the media, and notice that they only seem to care about gun related murders. They don't give a fuck if three times as many people are murdered in a year, as long as it isn't done by those awful guns......until they get their complete gun ban. Then come the knives, and baseball bats, and whatever other tools the criminals use next.
(*sigh* - Yes, I know, but this piece ran 10,033 words already. You have to draw a line somewhere. - Ed.)
I suspect that pants-wetters like James fear guns for much the same reason that other people fear 'teh gay'. There's some serious Jungian issues floating 'round in those heads.
After reading the incident with the golfers, I was reminded of what a friend of mine told me after he returned from a missionary trip to Kenya. He said that whenever there are traffic accidents, both parties just get away as quickly as possible, because the experience is that the police will arrest everyone and confiscate all vehicles involved regardless of who is at fault. I wonder if that sort of logic is soon to follow in the UK...
Should I take it as some kind of back-handed compliment that you can't leave this alone even after a whole month, Kevin? If you're interested, you've tempted me into a 'sort of' response. However I'm still busy playing my fab new album 'Now That's What I Call Reasoned Discourse, volume 43', so I'm afraid there'll be no repetition of your idea of a 'debate' (at least not on my blog).
(No, James, you shouldn't. I promised a response a month ago, and I just finally got around to finishing it. This is what I do. This is the purpose of this blog. These things take time and desire, and I've been short on both. Nor did I expect a reply of any kind from you. I thought you were finished with it. And I see you're still practising "Reasoned Discourse™" I told you, it's not about you, it's about the philosophy. I know you're sure you're right. I'm sure I am. The question is, what do other people think when they see your arguments and mine side by side? - Ed.)
I was interested in the right of people to be free from fear, and know that I don't fear millions of well armed people of any persuasion, really. But then I have always feared Government in its Goodness, because that institution hasn't a moral bone in its body nor has it ever counted me as important as my parents did.
Kevin, I appreciate all the work that goes into a heavy lift post like this, and I *thank* you for doing it.
To people well studied in this issue, it's a painful act of enumerating and belaboring the obvious, but sometimes, for the record, you simply have to execute the careful construction of one of the many well founded arguments that support our side in the matter, rather than take it for granted. Your service to us all in the matter is longstanding and notable.
As for the likes of Mr. Kelly, who I indicate as a representative of type rather than as a specific individual, I advise my brethren to study them, their works, and their methods well. Such people are an unavoidable part of our world, and there are times when their pernicious influence causes great havoc for free men of reason. It is in this study that you will come to understand those who carry the torch of the endarkenment.
There you go again, using reasonable discourse, facts and history to back up your claims. Your never gon win that way. Sadly some days I feel we need to find some kneejerk reaction, canned response to offer back. They seem to get a little wobbly when we throw the founders top quotes. Great job on keeping your head and argument(s) above par.
"Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 ... if a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
I think this, beyond being a cultural difference regarding guns, is why so many Europeans are against the wars we have had recently waged and are still engaged in. They do not believe we should defend ourselves, even at the state level. They are used to being beaten, broken, raped, robbed, and murdered, so they do not understand how us barbarians cannot just abide such as well, even on a grand scale.
If it was not for their handlers, who see it as their role to defend their people, as weakly as they do it on the home front, we would have had no allies. And, to some degree, we really don't. A handful of soldiers and some encouraging words is about it, so much for recompense.
About knowing, needing proof, and such. Some of us do not need proof (though it is good to see it) to know right from wrong, good from bad, and such. We just sense it. To others, like the antagonist, they neither know right and wrong, and proof will not help. To not understand that defending your rights begins with defending yourself is to not know anything about reality, truth, or even having the basic survival kit God gave you. It is, in a word, insane.
Oh, and thanks. Your work was well put together, meaningful, and powerful. I have to guess you had to crawl around in the guts of the enemy beast to find it's vital organs, dislodging the truth from the rotten entrails (like the hidden truth about Lott's work). The evil know the truth, they just cannot abide. They hide it in their offal. Good surgical work!
Unfortunately, some people will just never let a few facts get in the way of their ideals. Kelly is a nice enough guy, he really is, but I notice he completely ignores all of the statistical data and the conclusions of the studies. I marvel at that. I truly would change my mind about this issue if he or anyone else could provide me with solid research analysis on why I should. I don't understand why the "other side" won't do the same.
I'm really glad you pulled all this research together; I'm trying to build up a virtual library of research about this issue and this post has much material for that.
"I don't understand why the "other side" won't do the same."
Because they cannot. It's like asking why those who don't believe we went to the moon can't provide a long list of factual evidence to support their position.
Something just struck me concerning the whole premise of their application of Section 3 of the Criminal Law act of 1967.
The first is that their current twisted application is not the only application possible. I could see other, more reasonable and civilized interpretations holding sway, and that this is not the case is the fruit of the labor of scoundrels.
The second is that it appears that blind and unprepared spastic actions that happen to work out for the defender are sanctioned, but any prepared, deliberate act cooly calculated to provide for defense are not.
Where *else* have we seen this?
Ah...here it is: the long discredited "Madonna/Whore Syndrome", which is tangentially used to justify many a teen pregnancy. You see, "good girls don't unless swept up in a fit of uncontrollable passion". Taking the steps necessary to prevent pregnancy or STDs of course is mutually exclusive with being swept up in the moment, and therefore prima facie evidence of the worst sort of harlotry. You see this ugly bit of irrationality crop up in times and places where the perceived social cost of the high probability of being branded a slut exceeds the social cost of the lower probability of having a diseased child out of wedlock.
It's the same damned mindset that values being "virtuously" raped/killed/grievously injured above being formidably able to prevent that outcome.
Great work! I would argue, however, that the reason the 2nd Amendment made it into the Bill of Rights was not so citizens can defend themselves against criminals. That is just a nice side benefit.
The Constitution was written by Revolutionaries. The 2nd Amendment exists so citizens can defend themselves against tyrannical government, and if necessary, overthrow it. I don’t have time to pull in sufficient Founding Fathers’ quotes but they are out there.
The US and Great Britain have common ancestors, but then so do cardinals and brontosaurs.
Britain is not the US and there are tens of millions in each country that are glad that this is so. There are also tens of millions in each country who wish it were otherwise.
Britain was overrun for a thousand years by different conquering tribes. Then, for five hundred years she stabilized internally and built an empire of subjugated coloured peoples around the globe. The people on the home island seldom had to get their hands dirty. Then came WWI where she lost a whole generation of her finest men. Britain has been trading liberty for security ever since. The last vestiges of the empire were successfully bargained away in a effort to get the Soviet Union and the US to save her from Nazi Germany.
Domestically, they continue to trade liberty for security and it is in their best interest to convince others to do the same. It is a cultural imperative.
The Scots and the English in the US stole land from the Indians and the Spanish and subjugated generations of coloured people, but they certainly got their hands dirty in the process.
Since 1850, however, the influence of Irish, German, Eastern and Southern Europeans, Asians and Latins has deeply altered the cultural make-up of the US. One element common in all of these groups is general disdain for the British. Another common element is their willingness to leave the security of their home land for economic, political or religious liberty in a far away country with a markedly foreign and often hostile culture.
Yanks and Brits arguing over gun rights is like Christians and Muslims arguing over which brand of bacon tastes best.
Let's argue gun rights with the Swiss, instead.
And lets write 10,000 word essays if they can keep three people on a city council from passing an unconstitutional law that takes 30 years to get overturned.
Kelly is a nice enough guy, he really is, but I notice he completely ignores all of the statistical data and the conclusions of the studies.
But that makes him not a "nice enough guy". Other than the usual interviews with Dahlmers and Bundy neighbors "he was sooo nice..."
By his intentional ignorance - not knowing what "reasoned discourse" meant, despite it being linked several times, and refusing to read Joe Huffman's comment because of "the language" - he puts all the rest of us at risk. He willfully and gleefully is willing to risk you, me, and everybody else so he can stay in his bubble of non-reality.
That's not "nice enough". That's "sociopathic" and perhaps even "psychotic". Many sociopaths have the trick down to seeming "nice enough".
James said: "All these common sense propositions are easy to explain."
But he hasn't yet explained one. He's lost on history, he's lost on statistics, he's lost on logic, he's lost on everything - and yet he's unwavering in his determination.
That's not nice, that's not good, that's willing to sacrifice anybody else for his delusions.
This started when he posted a story with a slant that's been macerated, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
And after all of that, he still insists he was "honest" in calling De Vries - who by all accounts was acting deranged and violent - a "innocent victim" as he attempted to break into a house in Texas.
No, that's not "nice enough". That's just covering sociopathy with a sneering veneer of civilized behavor.
I read (and posted about) Kelly's latest response.
I think the only thing that has even a glimmer of hope to penetrate his bubble is an exceedingly stout and sharp stick of reality. And even then I have my doubts. I would not be the least bit surprised that he could watch his entire family beaten to death with a teaspoon and be grateful throughout the ordeal that no one in room had access to a knife or gun.
this whole "freedom from fear" idea is an interesting concept. i am free of fear when i have the means to defend myself. folks like kelly are only free from fear when everyone else is as defenseless as they are. one of those viewpoints sounds like a serious psychological problem.
And unix-jedi brings us neatly to the crux of the matter: what is the proper and just relationship we should strike with those who bear the torches of the endarkenment?
Aren't we being injust in automatically granting them absolution for their part?
They're never be the ones bashing down the door. Rather, they're the ones who will stand either in silent approval or outright applause, and without them, such door bashing could never take place.
If anyone's interested in seeing just how tolerant I've been in the past of borderline abusive comments, take a look at some of Unix-Jedi's behaviour on the threads where this debate took place - I think a great many bloggers wouldn't have put up with that, but I haven't deleted those comments and don't intend to.
And again we get to the veneer over his sociopathy. I demonstrated that he was (at least arguably) lying because he was either omitting facts, or changing them. I allowed that the first time it might be accidental (It was 15 years ago, maybe the account he read was slanted, hey, it happens.) But after the all the other facts emerged, insisting that the first view, contrary to all the reports was correct is dishonest.
So he can either deal with the his divorce from reality, or demonize me.
Small wonder what he decided.
(On Kevin): a wonderful example of what it is about right-wing zealots that is quite so objectionable.
...
I'll just make this observation - the day of the gun is drawing to a close. It may not happen in your lifetime, but I think in your heart of hearts you know which way the wind is blowing - hence all the endless sound and fury. And when it does happen, your descendants (if you have descendants) will look back and wonder what on earth all the fuss was about.
So note the first part - and that he didn't bother reading Kevin's essay. He's not honest enough to say "TL;DR", instead he calls it uncomprehensible, logic-bending, pseudo-scientific 'analysis'.
But he won't refute any of that. Nope, not worth his time, we're nuts. We're "incomprehensible" (and uncomphrending), bending logic - because it disagrees with him, and "psuedo-scientific".
As I've said repeatedly, that's the kind of 'statistical proof' that would impress me, and it's distinct absence is one of the reasons why most people in this country are secure in the knowledge that, at least on this one issue, we've got it right and countries like the US have got it disastrously wrong.
I think he doesn't have as much support as he thinks he does. Or perhaps he does - most common-sensed Britons have been fleeing to the "violent, dangerous" US for some strange reason. But that's logic bending again, sorry guys.
But what James does demonstrate is that that sociopathy (Which I'd really call a psychosis) is exhibited by the highest levels of UK government. And the policies that result are incredibly obvious - failure to punish criminals early, allowing them to lead a life of crime supplementally financed by public monies - but going all out over the wealth-building poor saps who are their victims if they should be thought to have stepped over the line.
He does illustrate that very, very well, and that's why it looks more and more like the UK is doomed. When you protect criminals more than honest citizens, you've failed as a government.
A. Nonymous - Our common ancestry of values didn't seperate very long ago. Until WWI Brits and Americans both enjoyed freedom to arm themselves without any real restrictions. Read Sherlock Holmes, etc...
Kevin: Thank you. A thousand times over, thank you.
U-J: "When you protect criminals more than honest citizens, you've failed as a government."
When the gov't is staffed by criminals, that's what you get.
geek.45 : "what is the proper and just relationship we should strike with those who bear the torches of the endarkenment?"
Be polite. And keep them away from the levers of power. The good news is that this sort of behavior leads a dead end. The bad news is it takes away for to play out and usually is very messy.
I've chewed on this for awhile. The endarkenment is coming and we are fighting now to retreat slowly. Only thing I can see is to keep fighting, and keep teaching friends and family whenever and wherever possible. No form of human slavery is inherently stable, reality, truth and knowledge has a way of knocking down any regime at some point. It's just the pain and suffering that is the hard part to endure until that happens.
Does the argument that states "this post is long and several weeks behind what it is responding to, and is therefore totally wrong" even have a name? Appeal to illiteracy? Appeal to laziness? No True Scotsman cares for any argument too long to be displayed on a coat of arms?
When you start inventing brand new logical fallicies it's time to reevaluate who's doing the obfuscating.
I think the endarkenment is now inevitable. The best we can hope for is having enough resources to rebuild from the ashes.
I used to think the massive, world-wide, catastrophic failure of socialism would lead to an enlightenment. But I now know that hope was wistful thinking. When socialism and the nanny state fail to deliver the expected results the normal human mind will not recognize it was a failure and abandon the philosophy. Instead they will proselytize even more.
In order to break out of the coming dark age we will have to invalidation one or more of the five conditions or we will have to eliminate their source of power--which may require bloodshed.
I'm not in a good mood today. That people like Kelly exist is extremely soboring.
Thank you Kevin. Very enlightening, very well-presented, very convincing.
I freely admit that I did not read Kelly's opposing posts, except for the last one (which you described as "I know you are but what am I?"). I doubt I will find them convincing, but I do intend to line them up side-by-side to compare.
As for that last post -- I found it more condescending and obnoxious than snarky and mocking. I'm rather fond of the latter, but the former does not interest me. Perhaps the first two were better done?
I also think that we really need to sharpen the term for just what really is going on around us.
Socialism? Maybe....arguably a descendant/variant, but the arguability leaves lots of wriggle room. (ie: "It's not socialism because no one is advocating state ownership of the means of production"...even though putative ownership is rendered fairly moot when the control resides outside the owner's grasp... and also that state ownership isn't a key defining factor in socialism anyway...)
Nanny statism? K...but kinda vague, and fails to convey the objectionable nature of the beast.
It's more like tyranny of the masses exploiting the force of government to regulate and orchestrate the power of private business towards collectivist ends...which is a good match for Goldberg's description of the thing as smiley faced fascism. The thing is, though, the "fascist" label, no matter how appropriate, will not ever be widely accepted as a valid descriptor of the phenomena.
Nonetheless, there is the same spirit of "maybe this really is the way you run a society" that permeated the 30's.
As I was walking to/from lunch today I realized Kelly said something else of note that we haven't touched on yet.
This same pattern can be seen played out time and time again - and people will construct the most astonishingly complex defensive arguments just to avoid having to let go of their familiar certainties, whether those certainties be that cruelty to animals can always be justified because life wouldn't be so easy without it, or that wealth inequality is justified by differential intelligence, or that there was no immorality in the mass slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (because it was the US that dropped the bombs, and the US doesn't do genocide). The more well-rehearsed these complex arguments become (and the defense of the Hiroshima atrocity is a good example of one that has become extraordinarily well-drilled), the more you can see the signs of insecurity in the individuals putting them forward.
Emphasis added.
He is of the opinion that "wealth inequality" is in need of justification. And that "differential intelligence" is insufficient as an explanation.
I am at a loss as to what to say to this. Perhaps "100 million people were killed last century from this meme--are you volunteering your body to throw on the pile this century?" would give him a clue but I don't think so. I tried that with my communist brother-in-law (professor of business in Chicago). His response was, "It's never really been tried, we just need good people in government."
I just can't imagine the profound disconnect from reality that would result in this sort of belief system or anything short of a bullet to the brain from a government thug that can reconnect someone like that with reality.
I'm reminded that many of Stalin's victims that wrote directly to Stalin telling him of the terrible atrocities being committed to neighbors and friends. They were certain he did not know what was going on and that he would stop the killings if he knew. Yet Stalin had personally approved the lists of people to be executed.
Actually, Joe, I think you've caught something that I missed on first blush - but it's not quite what you're isolating.
Instead, look at this: the more you can see the signs of insecurity in the individuals putting them forward.
You and I and Kevin and all the others are "insecure". Those who would point out that WWII was a total war, that there were very good reasons for dropping the atomic bombs at the time, and hindsight has backed the atomic bombings in totality, they're "insecure".
He projects mental frailties onto others who fail to agree with his emotional assertions because they're mentally defective. Not him!
Also note how he has to describe things with loaded (and almost always demonstrably incorrect) words. De Vries is an "innocent businessman". Targeted bombings, one of which despite it's power barely edges into the top 10 list of fatalities from aerial missions are genocide. (And that also ignores the fact that the Japanese were working on real genocide.) That the atomic bombs ended up saving the Japanese people by giving Hirohito and the IJA and IJN a face-saving reason to surrender. Before the Allied invasion that would have been against a scorched earth, kamikaze defense.
Everything must protect his fragile worldview, and you make him fearful (and thus are bad, and evil, and hateful) if you dare to introduce reality that chips at his worldview.
I think that's the more telling symptom of his illness, and the blather about "wealth inequality" (while he reaps the rewards of a 1st world lifestyle) is a result of his dysfunction and why he's got to project onto others as being fearful, dishonest, unhappy... Why we're denying reality, and fighting desperately for a fantasy.
It's really classic projection. (and it also sounds really familiar for some reason.)
And since his own personal insecurities and Reasoned Discourse (TM) would not permit him to allow my comment through on his site, I will repost it here:
James, allow me to say this much, assuming it will not violate your whimsical and ... flexible ... commenting policy. When it comes to examples of what each side of this debate brings to the party, Kevin pretty well solidly beat you on just about every count. When he argued from statistics, you argued from emotions. When he provided facts, you either ignored them, or lied about them. When he substantiated his points using references and historical precedents, you simply repeated your points again and again, as if the repetition somehow buttressed them. When he provided even-handed debate (with the occasional snark, granted), you responded with holier-than-thou condescension and superciliousness.
And you did it all with a smile on your face and a song in your heart.
Unless your casual readers are as irrational and emotional as you are, your desire to frame "right-wing zealots" in something approximating a negative light might have backfired more than you realize.
It honestly comes as no great surprise to me that you are unwilling to read Kevin's latest post, and find what you did read to be incomprehensible... Your viewpoints have to be right, so anything else must be nonsense, right? And anything, no matter how factual or provable, that threatens your particular opinions must be wrong simply because it contradicts what you believe to be true, right?
*shrug* Yours is hardly a new perspective on the debate, but every time I see it, I cannot help but to be amazed and its unflagging appeal to emotion in light of facts, statistics, and history that disprove it at every turn. I congratulate you on your dedication, but you have most assuredly failed at demonizing "right-wing zealots", and most likely have, in the process, hoist yourself upon your own petard.
I will further add that I am amazed that a man with such strong and strident personal believes can be such a coward that he is unwilling to not only defend those beliefs, but also unwilling to allow any form of dissenting opinion be published on his webpage. It is, most assuredly, his choice and his right to do so, but the fact that he does so speaks volumes as to his character (or lack thereof).
If England is made up, even partially, of supposed "men" like him, it is small wonder that the country finds itself in its current, pathetic predicament. I guess I should thank my ancestors, when I get the chance, for evacuating when they did...
"Targeted bombings, one of which despite it's power barely edges into the top 10 list of fatalities from aerial missions are genocide."
Not to mention that the civilians in all the cities on the target list were warned of the impending bombing via a leaflet drop 5 days before the first bomb was dropped.
Kevin, I thought you had linked to Bill Whittle's explanation of the atomic bombings, but I didn't see it among your posts. How much do you wanna bet that "Mr." Kelly would deny nearly every single fact which he describes?
While that's true, it really didn't affect anything - we dropped leaflets like that all the time, there was nothing really distinguishing about those.
Which made sense, for much of the reason Whittle hits upon, but even more importantly - what if the "device" had failed? The day before the Hiroshima mission, an identical in all respects but the uranium bomb was test-dropped, and the radar altimeter failed to set off the explosive charges. If we'd made a really big deal, it would have embolded the militarists, and reduced our credability.
But even all that aside, the "genocide" tag is more illustrative. The bombs weren't genocidal, he doesn't know what the word means. (Much like someone else we know.) But you'll never confence that the bombs were even less genocidal than their alternatives.
Wow....amazing post, and amazing comments. I am constantly amazed that the other side (be they liberals, abortion rights supporters, or gun control advocates) will never stand and defend their point of view from a logical perspective..instead they usually resort to "Because!" and let it go at that.
Maybe my parents were liberals, I got that from them a lot.
For those with the mental energy, how about this one: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_gun_control_in_australia_lead_to.html
Nearly half of all britons have been a victim of crime.
67 per cent support the death penalty.
Nearly a quarter of us would be tempted to carry a gun if the law allowed it.
55 per cent believe certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime.
This special Observer poll reveals a nation eager to get tough"
(April 2003)
Wonderful post Brother Kevin! As I have said here and eslewhere, the problem is a lack of critical thinking and logic. Anyone capable of seeing reality can look at this post and see the truth of it. We can either fix this lack, or we can disenfranchise these people. There exists no other long term solution.
I object to the Utilitiarian Premise, in all its forms.
It's not just wrong, it's simply evil, to restrict the behavior of an individual because of fears of what someone else might do.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/05/cultures-compare-and-contrast.html (54 comments)
Kelly (deliberately) confuses the right to own a gun and the right to self-defense.
Some of your studies' dates seem off--Greenwood refers to six years pre- and post-1997, suggesting that he's looking at data from at least 2003, not 1971.
Dunblane was 1996.
Go back and read more carefully. There are two links to Colin Greenwood pieces, one a post-Dunblane report, and the other his 1972 book Firearms Control.
"Here in the US, I would suggest, such a case would never go to trial."
Here in Oklahoma, it would not go to trial.
I am outraged by this excerpt from British law that you cited:
"Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 ... if a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
And so the British trial jury has the task of divining what the accused thought when he acted. To obligate the members of the jury to read minds is to force them to use a tool that no one has.
Even if the jury could read minds, the law holds the defender to an impossible standard. Proportionate response is an oxymoron. The defender cannot divine the intent of his attacker any more than the jury can divine his intent in defense, thus he has no possible method of determining, a priori, what a proportionate response is so as to not exceed it.
Here, in the civilized state of Oklahoma, the question centers on what were the rights of the defender. The intent of the occupant (yes, even a visitor) is irrelevant, as is the intent of the invader. Here, the occupant has the unfettered right to defend himself from any and all intruders in any manner and to any degree he sees fit. He does not have to justify defending himself to anyone.
And it is a matter of rights. Logically, because the attacker treats his victim as if his victim has no rights, then the attacker has no argument that he has any rights which his victim must respect. The attacker gives up all his rights by attacking. The defender gives up no rights by defending. Thus the only question of fact for a jury to decide is: "Who was the attacker and who was the defender?" The acts of the attacker deserve censure, but the acts of the defender do not.
Good job!
"Proportional response" is B.S. In WA state (and most others) if you are in reasonable fear of permanent injury or death then deadly force (of whatever type!) is justified to defend yourself or other innocent life.
Bravo sir.
I would have resorted to snark and name calling by paragraph 18...
(You've written a post with 18 paragraphs? - Ed.)
Speaking of snark and name-calling, I couldn't help smiling when I read this quote from your interlocutor:
"...the cultural differences on the gun issue are massive and probably unbridgeable."
Of course, I've built that bridge, crossed it and burnt it behind me, but that probably doesn't count.
He invokes "freedom from fear?" Is that like freedom from the Bogeyman?
Kevin,
There's one other method used by those opposed to gun-rights that James uses frequently that you didn't really touch on.
"because it leads to a point where the threat from gun violence is no longer acceptably small."
Over and over, in MSM articles and in Brady Campaign press releases, they wail and moan about gun violence and gun deaths. They jump for joy when they have examples of "gun deaths" dropping after bans are passed.
They have to specify "gun deaths" and "gun violence", because they want to ignore the fact that overall murder and violence has increased.
That one frequent twisting of the truth has been my best weapon to sway people on the fence. I just ask them to pay attention to all the things they hear in the media, and notice that they only seem to care about gun related murders. They don't give a fuck if three times as many people are murdered in a year, as long as it isn't done by those awful guns......until they get their complete gun ban. Then come the knives, and baseball bats, and whatever other tools the criminals use next.
(*sigh* - Yes, I know, but this piece ran 10,033 words already. You have to draw a line somewhere. - Ed.)
Another excellent piece Kevin.
I suspect that pants-wetters like James fear guns for much the same reason that other people fear 'teh gay'. There's some serious Jungian issues floating 'round in those heads.
After reading the incident with the golfers, I was reminded of what a friend of mine told me after he returned from a missionary trip to Kenya. He said that whenever there are traffic accidents, both parties just get away as quickly as possible, because the experience is that the police will arrest everyone and confiscate all vehicles involved regardless of who is at fault. I wonder if that sort of logic is soon to follow in the UK...
"(*sigh* - Yes, I know, but this piece ran 10,033 words already. You have to draw a line somewhere. - Ed.)"
So, there's another idea for another grand-slam post, right?
Not for a while, DJ. Not for a while.
So basically the predators have free reign over in the UK, with the complicity of the law enforcement.
The police who persecute the poor people defending themselves are enemies of civil society, and need to be treated as such.
Regards,
Should I take it as some kind of back-handed compliment that you can't leave this alone even after a whole month, Kevin? If you're interested, you've tempted me into a 'sort of' response. However I'm still busy playing my fab new album 'Now That's What I Call Reasoned Discourse, volume 43', so I'm afraid there'll be no repetition of your idea of a 'debate' (at least not on my blog).
(No, James, you shouldn't. I promised a response a month ago, and I just finally got around to finishing it. This is what I do. This is the purpose of this blog. These things take time and desire, and I've been short on both. Nor did I expect a reply of any kind from you. I thought you were finished with it. And I see you're still practising "Reasoned Discourse™" I told you, it's not about you, it's about the philosophy. I know you're sure you're right. I'm sure I am. The question is, what do other people think when they see your arguments and mine side by side? - Ed.)
That was kind of long. Can I get a shorter summary, in plain English?
I'M KIDDING, I'm kidding. I kid. I'm a kidder.
I was interested in the right of people to be free from fear, and know that I don't fear millions of well armed people of any persuasion, really. But then I have always feared Government in its Goodness, because that institution hasn't a moral bone in its body nor has it ever counted me as important as my parents did.
Kevin, I appreciate all the work that goes into a heavy lift post like this, and I *thank* you for doing it.
To people well studied in this issue, it's a painful act of enumerating and belaboring the obvious, but sometimes, for the record, you simply have to execute the careful construction of one of the many well founded arguments that support our side in the matter, rather than take it for granted. Your service to us all in the matter is longstanding and notable.
As for the likes of Mr. Kelly, who I indicate as a representative of type rather than as a specific individual, I advise my brethren to study them, their works, and their methods well. Such people are an unavoidable part of our world, and there are times when their pernicious influence causes great havoc for free men of reason. It is in this study that you will come to understand those who carry the torch of the endarkenment.
There you go again, using reasonable discourse, facts and history to back up your claims. Your never gon win that way. Sadly some days I feel we need to find some kneejerk reaction, canned response to offer back. They seem to get a little wobbly when we throw the founders top quotes. Great job on keeping your head and argument(s) above par.
Jason
III
"Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 ... if a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
I think this, beyond being a cultural difference regarding guns, is why so many Europeans are against the wars we have had recently waged and are still engaged in. They do not believe we should defend ourselves, even at the state level. They are used to being beaten, broken, raped, robbed, and murdered, so they do not understand how us barbarians cannot just abide such as well, even on a grand scale.
If it was not for their handlers, who see it as their role to defend their people, as weakly as they do it on the home front, we would have had no allies. And, to some degree, we really don't. A handful of soldiers and some encouraging words is about it, so much for recompense.
About knowing, needing proof, and such. Some of us do not need proof (though it is good to see it) to know right from wrong, good from bad, and such. We just sense it. To others, like the antagonist, they neither know right and wrong, and proof will not help. To not understand that defending your rights begins with defending yourself is to not know anything about reality, truth, or even having the basic survival kit God gave you. It is, in a word, insane.
Oh, and thanks. Your work was well put together, meaningful, and powerful. I have to guess you had to crawl around in the guts of the enemy beast to find it's vital organs, dislodging the truth from the rotten entrails (like the hidden truth about Lott's work). The evil know the truth, they just cannot abide. They hide it in their offal. Good surgical work!
Unfortunately, some people will just never let a few facts get in the way of their ideals. Kelly is a nice enough guy, he really is, but I notice he completely ignores all of the statistical data and the conclusions of the studies. I marvel at that. I truly would change my mind about this issue if he or anyone else could provide me with solid research analysis on why I should. I don't understand why the "other side" won't do the same.
I'm really glad you pulled all this research together; I'm trying to build up a virtual library of research about this issue and this post has much material for that.
"I don't understand why the "other side" won't do the same."
Because they cannot. It's like asking why those who don't believe we went to the moon can't provide a long list of factual evidence to support their position.
Something just struck me concerning the whole premise of their application of Section 3 of the Criminal Law act of 1967.
The first is that their current twisted application is not the only application possible. I could see other, more reasonable and civilized interpretations holding sway, and that this is not the case is the fruit of the labor of scoundrels.
The second is that it appears that blind and unprepared spastic actions that happen to work out for the defender are sanctioned, but any prepared, deliberate act cooly calculated to provide for defense are not.
Where *else* have we seen this?
Ah...here it is: the long discredited "Madonna/Whore Syndrome", which is tangentially used to justify many a teen pregnancy. You see, "good girls don't unless swept up in a fit of uncontrollable passion". Taking the steps necessary to prevent pregnancy or STDs of course is mutually exclusive with being swept up in the moment, and therefore prima facie evidence of the worst sort of harlotry. You see this ugly bit of irrationality crop up in times and places where the perceived social cost of the high probability of being branded a slut exceeds the social cost of the lower probability of having a diseased child out of wedlock.
It's the same damned mindset that values being "virtuously" raped/killed/grievously injured above being formidably able to prevent that outcome.
Great work! I would argue, however, that the reason the 2nd Amendment made it into the Bill of Rights was not so citizens can defend themselves against criminals. That is just a nice side benefit.
The Constitution was written by Revolutionaries. The 2nd Amendment exists so citizens can defend themselves against tyrannical government, and if necessary, overthrow it. I don’t have time to pull in sufficient Founding Fathers’ quotes but they are out there.
Bram:
You need to read the blog more. This post, however long, was directed at making one specific point. I've written many others that cover yours.
Check the left sidebar under "Best Posts".
Ah, yes, gun control: the debate where reciting facts and analysis actually counts against you since it proves you are a rabid fanatic.
Reasonable people just know that guns are bad, and gun owners are dangerous lunatics.
Cultures, Compare and contrast
The US and Great Britain have common ancestors, but then so do cardinals and brontosaurs.
Britain is not the US and there are tens of millions in each country that are glad that this is so. There are also tens of millions in each country who wish it were otherwise.
Britain was overrun for a thousand years by different conquering tribes. Then, for five hundred years she stabilized internally and built an empire of subjugated coloured peoples around the globe. The people on the home island seldom had to get their hands dirty. Then came WWI where she lost a whole generation of her finest men. Britain has been trading liberty for security ever since. The last vestiges of the empire were successfully bargained away in a effort to get the Soviet Union and the US to save her from Nazi Germany.
Domestically, they continue to trade liberty for security and it is in their best interest to convince others to do the same. It is a cultural imperative.
The Scots and the English in the US stole land from the Indians and the Spanish and subjugated generations of coloured people, but they certainly got their hands dirty in the process.
Since 1850, however, the influence of Irish, German, Eastern and Southern Europeans, Asians and Latins has deeply altered the cultural make-up of the US. One element common in all of these groups is general disdain for the British. Another common element is their willingness to leave the security of their home land for economic, political or religious liberty in a far away country with a markedly foreign and often hostile culture.
Yanks and Brits arguing over gun rights is like Christians and Muslims arguing over which brand of bacon tastes best.
Let's argue gun rights with the Swiss, instead.
And lets write 10,000 word essays if they can keep three people on a city council from passing an unconstitutional law that takes 30 years to get overturned.
Rachel:
Kelly is a nice enough guy, he really is, but I notice he completely ignores all of the statistical data and the conclusions of the studies.
But that makes him not a "nice enough guy". Other than the usual interviews with Dahlmers and Bundy neighbors "he was sooo nice..."
By his intentional ignorance - not knowing what "reasoned discourse" meant, despite it being linked several times, and refusing to read Joe Huffman's comment because of "the language" - he puts all the rest of us at risk. He willfully and gleefully is willing to risk you, me, and everybody else so he can stay in his bubble of non-reality.
That's not "nice enough". That's "sociopathic" and perhaps even "psychotic". Many sociopaths have the trick down to seeming "nice enough".
James said: "All these common sense propositions are easy to explain."
But he hasn't yet explained one. He's lost on history, he's lost on statistics, he's lost on logic, he's lost on everything - and yet he's unwavering in his determination.
That's not nice, that's not good, that's willing to sacrifice anybody else for his delusions.
This started when he posted a story with a slant that's been macerated, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
And after all of that, he still insists he was "honest" in calling De Vries - who by all accounts was acting deranged and violent - a "innocent victim" as he attempted to break into a house in Texas.
No, that's not "nice enough". That's just covering sociopathy with a sneering veneer of civilized behavor.
I read (and posted about) Kelly's latest response.
I think the only thing that has even a glimmer of hope to penetrate his bubble is an exceedingly stout and sharp stick of reality. And even then I have my doubts. I would not be the least bit surprised that he could watch his entire family beaten to death with a teaspoon and be grateful throughout the ordeal that no one in room had access to a knife or gun.
this whole "freedom from fear" idea is an interesting concept. i am free of fear when i have the means to defend myself. folks like kelly are only free from fear when everyone else is as defenseless as they are. one of those viewpoints sounds like a serious psychological problem.
And unix-jedi brings us neatly to the crux of the matter: what is the proper and just relationship we should strike with those who bear the torches of the endarkenment?
Aren't we being injust in automatically granting them absolution for their part?
They're never be the ones bashing down the door. Rather, they're the ones who will stand either in silent approval or outright applause, and without them, such door bashing could never take place.
Oh, AHA.
I hadn't seen your comment or James' reply.
If anyone's interested in seeing just how tolerant I've been in the past of borderline abusive comments, take a look at some of Unix-Jedi's behaviour on the threads where this debate took place - I think a great many bloggers wouldn't have put up with that, but I haven't deleted those comments and don't intend to.
And again we get to the veneer over his sociopathy. I demonstrated that he was (at least arguably) lying because he was either omitting facts, or changing them. I allowed that the first time it might be accidental (It was 15 years ago, maybe the account he read was slanted, hey, it happens.) But after the all the other facts emerged, insisting that the first view, contrary to all the reports was correct is dishonest.
So he can either deal with the his divorce from reality, or demonize me.
Small wonder what he decided.
(On Kevin): a wonderful example of what it is about right-wing zealots that is quite so objectionable.
...
I'll just make this observation - the day of the gun is drawing to a close. It may not happen in your lifetime, but I think in your heart of hearts you know which way the wind is blowing - hence all the endless sound and fury. And when it does happen, your descendants (if you have descendants) will look back and wonder what on earth all the fuss was about.
So note the first part - and that he didn't bother reading Kevin's essay. He's not honest enough to say "TL;DR", instead he calls it uncomprehensible, logic-bending, pseudo-scientific 'analysis'.
But he won't refute any of that. Nope, not worth his time, we're nuts. We're "incomprehensible" (and uncomphrending), bending logic - because it disagrees with him, and "psuedo-scientific".
As I've said repeatedly, that's the kind of 'statistical proof' that would impress me, and it's distinct absence is one of the reasons why most people in this country are secure in the knowledge that, at least on this one issue, we've got it right and countries like the US have got it disastrously wrong.
I think he doesn't have as much support as he thinks he does. Or perhaps he does - most common-sensed Britons have been fleeing to the "violent, dangerous" US for some strange reason. But that's logic bending again, sorry guys.
But what James does demonstrate is that that sociopathy (Which I'd really call a psychosis) is exhibited by the highest levels of UK government. And the policies that result are incredibly obvious - failure to punish criminals early, allowing them to lead a life of crime supplementally financed by public monies - but going all out over the wealth-building poor saps who are their victims if they should be thought to have stepped over the line.
He does illustrate that very, very well, and that's why it looks more and more like the UK is doomed. When you protect criminals more than honest citizens, you've failed as a government.
Kevin - Now that I've found your blog, I'm a regular.
A. Nonymous - Our common ancestry of values didn't seperate very long ago. Until WWI Brits and Americans both enjoyed freedom to arm themselves without any real restrictions. Read Sherlock Holmes, etc...
Kevin: Thank you. A thousand times over, thank you.
U-J: "When you protect criminals more than honest citizens, you've failed as a government."
When the gov't is staffed by criminals, that's what you get.
geek.45 : "what is the proper and just relationship we should strike with those who bear the torches of the endarkenment?"
Be polite. And keep them away from the levers of power. The good news is that this sort of behavior leads a dead end. The bad news is it takes away for to play out and usually is very messy.
I've chewed on this for awhile. The endarkenment is coming and we are fighting now to retreat slowly. Only thing I can see is to keep fighting, and keep teaching friends and family whenever and wherever possible. No form of human slavery is inherently stable, reality, truth and knowledge has a way of knocking down any regime at some point. It's just the pain and suffering that is the hard part to endure until that happens.
Does the argument that states "this post is long and several weeks behind what it is responding to, and is therefore totally wrong" even have a name? Appeal to illiteracy? Appeal to laziness? No True Scotsman cares for any argument too long to be displayed on a coat of arms?
When you start inventing brand new logical fallicies it's time to reevaluate who's doing the obfuscating.
I think the endarkenment is now inevitable. The best we can hope for is having enough resources to rebuild from the ashes.
I used to think the massive, world-wide, catastrophic failure of socialism would lead to an enlightenment. But I now know that hope was wistful thinking. When socialism and the nanny state fail to deliver the expected results the normal human mind will not recognize it was a failure and abandon the philosophy. Instead they will proselytize even more.
In order to break out of the coming dark age we will have to invalidation one or more of the five conditions or we will have to eliminate their source of power--which may require bloodshed.
I'm not in a good mood today. That people like Kelly exist is extremely soboring.
Thank you Kevin. Very enlightening, very well-presented, very convincing.
I freely admit that I did not read Kelly's opposing posts, except for the last one (which you described as "I know you are but what am I?"). I doubt I will find them convincing, but I do intend to line them up side-by-side to compare.
As for that last post -- I found it more condescending and obnoxious than snarky and mocking. I'm rather fond of the latter, but the former does not interest me. Perhaps the first two were better done?
I think the endarkenment is now inevitable.
This subject will be, I think, the topic of my next Überpost.
In a month or so.
In the mean time, I need to load ammo until I run out of primers.
>>Be polite.
Check.
>>And keep them away from the levers of power.
D'oh!
--==|==--
I also think that we really need to sharpen the term for just what really is going on around us.
Socialism? Maybe....arguably a descendant/variant, but the arguability leaves lots of wriggle room. (ie: "It's not socialism because no one is advocating state ownership of the means of production"...even though putative ownership is rendered fairly moot when the control resides outside the owner's grasp... and also that state ownership isn't a key defining factor in socialism anyway...)
Nanny statism? K...but kinda vague, and fails to convey the objectionable nature of the beast.
It's more like tyranny of the masses exploiting the force of government to regulate and orchestrate the power of private business towards collectivist ends...which is a good match for Goldberg's description of the thing as smiley faced fascism. The thing is, though, the "fascist" label, no matter how appropriate, will not ever be widely accepted as a valid descriptor of the phenomena.
Nonetheless, there is the same spirit of "maybe this really is the way you run a society" that permeated the 30's.
It's "third way" politics warmed over.
I've gotta it!
OBAMISM
In the mean time, I need to load ammo until I run out of primers.
That shouldn't take too long.
geek: You did say what we "should" do, not where have we failed :)
As I was walking to/from lunch today I realized Kelly said something else of note that we haven't touched on yet.
Emphasis added.
He is of the opinion that "wealth inequality" is in need of justification. And that "differential intelligence" is insufficient as an explanation.
I am at a loss as to what to say to this. Perhaps "100 million people were killed last century from this meme--are you volunteering your body to throw on the pile this century?" would give him a clue but I don't think so. I tried that with my communist brother-in-law (professor of business in Chicago). His response was, "It's never really been tried, we just need good people in government."
I just can't imagine the profound disconnect from reality that would result in this sort of belief system or anything short of a bullet to the brain from a government thug that can reconnect someone like that with reality.
I'm reminded that many of Stalin's victims that wrote directly to Stalin telling him of the terrible atrocities being committed to neighbors and friends. They were certain he did not know what was going on and that he would stop the killings if he knew. Yet Stalin had personally approved the lists of people to be executed.
Actually, Joe, I think you've caught something that I missed on first blush - but it's not quite what you're isolating.
Instead, look at this:
the more you can see the signs of insecurity in the individuals putting them forward.
You and I and Kevin and all the others are "insecure". Those who would point out that WWII was a total war, that there were very good reasons for dropping the atomic bombs at the time, and hindsight has backed the atomic bombings in totality, they're "insecure".
He projects mental frailties onto others who fail to agree with his emotional assertions because they're mentally defective. Not him!
Also note how he has to describe things with loaded (and almost always demonstrably incorrect) words. De Vries is an "innocent businessman". Targeted bombings, one of which despite it's power barely edges into the top 10 list of fatalities from aerial missions are genocide. (And that also ignores the fact that the Japanese were working on real genocide.) That the atomic bombs ended up saving the Japanese people by giving Hirohito and the IJA and IJN a face-saving reason to surrender. Before the Allied invasion that would have been against a scorched earth, kamikaze defense.
Everything must protect his fragile worldview, and you make him fearful (and thus are bad, and evil, and hateful) if you dare to introduce reality that chips at his worldview.
I think that's the more telling symptom of his illness, and the blather about "wealth inequality" (while he reaps the rewards of a 1st world lifestyle) is a result of his dysfunction and why he's got to project onto others as being fearful, dishonest, unhappy... Why we're denying reality, and fighting desperately for a fantasy.
It's really classic projection. (and it also sounds really familiar for some reason.)
See what I mean about "very, very bright people out there who are willing to slog through it, discuss it, and add information and insight to it"?
Good points U-J. I had noticed his "insecurity" conclusion but hadn't really analyzed what it meant.
His assumption of wealth differential being of obvious need of correction was extremely distracting to me.
Thanks.
And since his own personal insecurities and Reasoned Discourse (TM) would not permit him to allow my comment through on his site, I will repost it here:
I will further add that I am amazed that a man with such strong and strident personal believes can be such a coward that he is unwilling to not only defend those beliefs, but also unwilling to allow any form of dissenting opinion be published on his webpage. It is, most assuredly, his choice and his right to do so, but the fact that he does so speaks volumes as to his character (or lack thereof).
If England is made up, even partially, of supposed "men" like him, it is small wonder that the country finds itself in its current, pathetic predicament. I guess I should thank my ancestors, when I get the chance, for evacuating when they did...
"Targeted bombings, one of which despite it's power barely edges into the top 10 list of fatalities from aerial missions are genocide."
Not to mention that the civilians in all the cities on the target list were warned of the impending bombing via a leaflet drop 5 days before the first bomb was dropped.
Kevin, I thought you had linked to Bill Whittle's explanation of the atomic bombings, but I didn't see it among your posts. How much do you wanna bet that "Mr." Kelly would deny nearly every single fact which he describes?
Ed:
While that's true, it really didn't affect anything - we dropped leaflets like that all the time, there was nothing really distinguishing about those.
Which made sense, for much of the reason Whittle hits upon, but even more importantly - what if the "device" had failed? The day before the Hiroshima mission, an identical in all respects but the uranium bomb was test-dropped, and the radar altimeter failed to set off the explosive charges. If we'd made a really big deal, it would have embolded the militarists, and reduced our credability.
But even all that aside, the "genocide" tag is more illustrative. The bombs weren't genocidal, he doesn't know what the word means. (Much like someone else we know.) But you'll never confence that the bombs were even less genocidal than their alternatives.
But you'll never confence that the bombs were even less genocidal than their alternatives.
Uh. I dunno what happened there.
The +5 Staph of Infection I got hit with must have affected my spellchecker as well.
Anyway, he'll never admit that the bombs were far less genocidal than the alternative.
Wow....amazing post, and amazing comments. I am constantly amazed that the other side (be they liberals, abortion rights supporters, or gun control advocates) will never stand and defend their point of view from a logical perspective..instead they usually resort to "Because!" and let it go at that.
Maybe my parents were liberals, I got that from them a lot.
For those with the mental energy, how about this one: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_gun_control_in_australia_lead_to.html
FYI,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
"The uncovered poll
Nearly half of all britons have been a victim of crime.
67 per cent support the death penalty.
Nearly a quarter of us would be tempted to carry a gun if the law allowed it.
55 per cent believe certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime.
This special Observer poll reveals a nation eager to get tough"
(April 2003)
Wonderful post Brother Kevin! As I have said here and eslewhere, the problem is a lack of critical thinking and logic. Anyone capable of seeing reality can look at this post and see the truth of it. We can either fix this lack, or we can disenfranchise these people. There exists no other long term solution.
I object to the Utilitiarian Premise, in all its forms.
It's not just wrong, it's simply evil, to restrict the behavior of an individual because of fears of what someone else might do.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>