I show my concealed-carry permit to a cashier asking for a photo id to confirm my credit card.  She panics.  She assumes because I have the weapons permit, I must be armed.  I’m now labeled a terrorist.  I’m questioned by the authorities, as are my friends.  I’m unable to fly because I’m on the TSA watch list.  Every purchase is scrutinized.  My travels outside the US are suddenly suspicious, regardless of the data trail.  Why did I purchase diesel fuel in Canada?  Didn’t I buy fertilizer in the US once?  Am I making a bomb?  What are these pictures on my camera?

The definition of terrorism from Merriam-Webster:

“Main Entry:

ter·ror·ism

Pronunciation:

\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

Function:

noun

Date:

1795

Will the Bush administration lock you up in a pandemic?  I have a paper somewhere about the 1918 Flu pandemic and what the successful towns (where success is measured in least deaths) did in response to the pandemic.  I recall it didn’t involve martial law.  You either have to shoot all the sick, and potential sick, or let modern medicine take care of them the best they can to contain the infestation.

Paul Revere.  We all know the name from his now famous April midnight ride through the Massachusetts countryside as the British landed in Boston.  His silversmith skills are his other legacy.  I think that today he’d be labeled a terrorist, put before a mock trial, and slandered in the media as the American Taleban.

This is a great summary of the state of the USA.  One thing they left out at the end.  Rather than waiting for voters to change the regime, we may start shooting.  Many in the military feel the same way.

Looking at America

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write(); It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

The US is now amongst China, Russia, and the UK in regards to privacy protections and surveillance.  Six Hours A Week posts about the Privacy International report for 2007.  As a gun owner, I’ve already lost mine to many national ID databases, biometric databases, and who knows what else.  Unfortunately, you have too.

“In this NYT article, we are told that “the most likely result when a policeman discharges a gun is that he or she will miss the target completely.”  That’s a shocker for those of us conditioned by Hollywood movies to think anyone who picks up a gun for the first time hits the villain right on the temple. “  An analysis can be found at Junk Charts.

Dec 16, 2007

Hits and misses

In this NYT article, we are told that “the most likely result when a policeman discharges a gun is that he or she will miss the target completely.”  That’s a shocker for those of us conditioned by Hollywood movies to think anyone who picks up a gun for the first time hits the villain right on the temple.  The following graphic attempts to tell the story.

The one hit here is how the distances are visually presented.  The elliptical lines remind us of the neglected variable of direction; it also means the scale is correct only along one direction.

The dot matrix construct highlights the absolute numbers of shots, hits and misses but barely addresses the key issue of hit rates (accuracy). Specifically, this data set was presumably collected to explore the relationship between hit rates and distances from the target.  The use of different widths clouds our judgement of proportions.  To wit, it is not obvious that the 10-wide block and the 40-wide block shown left depict roughly equal hit rates (23%, 29%).

The junkart version adopts a different approach.  This is the Lorenz curve, often used to show income inequality (see also here and here).  Here, the shots were ordered from closest to furthest from target, then summed up by distance segments.  For example, shots from 0 to 6 feet accounted for 60% of all shots but 72% of all hits.

If distance does not affect hit rates, we’d expect 60% of all shots to result in 60% of all hits.  This data point would show up on the 45-degree diagonal on the chart, labelled “totally unpredictable”.  Any data appearing above the diagonal indicates that closer shots are more accurate, accounting for more than their fair share of hits.

Comparing the fitted blue line and the diagonal, one sees that distance is a weak predictor of hit rate.  The police commissioner explains this in the article; many other variables also affect accuracy, including “the adrenaline flow, the movement of the target, the movement of the shooter, the officer, the lighting conditions, the weather…”

Note that the shots with “unknown” distances were removed from the analysis.  Also, the categories of 21-45 and 45-above were combined: the rates were similar and with only three hits, it does not make sense to treat these as separate categories.

Of course, this version would not work well in the mass media.  For that, one can just plot hit rates against the distance categories.

Source: “A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty”, New York Times, Dec 9 2007; New York Firearms Discharge Report 2006.

I was reading an article by one person who’s apparently changed their mind on the 2nd amendment.  Glad to see some people think for themselves.

Time to admit the ‘gun nuts’ are right

By Keith C. Burris

08/03/2007

In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why?

There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.

Why not a more stringent “three strikes and you’re out” law in this state? Connecticut’s version is so weak that it’s more like “30 strikes and we’ll think about it while you strike again.”

Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It’s been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.

Can’t we better monitor the probation process?

Can’t we do a better job of predicting — figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?

Are home alarms really effective?

How about dogs?

But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.

That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?

Sam Ervin said, “The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey — undiluted and untaxed.” Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.

Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?

Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense — the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.

Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?

I think the answer is yes.

And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.

I don’t think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.

Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?

And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real “three strikes” law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.

I don’t say it would have.

I say it might have.

Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.

Moreover, the three victims here were women.

What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?

It’s worth thinking about.

Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.

And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way — with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come — it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.

A friend of mine said: “The gun nuts are back.”

They are.

And they are right.

Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.

No one should have a gun who has not been trained.

Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)

And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.

A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no “answer” to crimes like the Petit murders.

An “answer” does not exist.

But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.

All possible remedies should be on the table:

– Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.

– Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.

– Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.

– Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.

– More and better home alarm systems.

– More cops visible in more neighborhoods.

– Dobermans.

All of these approaches have merit.

So does self-defense.

None of these options “fix” a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.

No one step or program can plug every hole in America’s justice system, or its soul.

But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.

Let’s admit — since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns — that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.

——–

Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.

©Journal Inquirer 2007

I volunteer for a battered womens shelter.  These women come in scared, and generally leave empowered.  During their transformation, they invariably want two things; self-defense lessons and a handgun.  They all say they can be overpowered by their partners; the gun is the equalizer.  I’ve heard over and over again, “I had a restraining order against him, but it didn’t stop him.”  Of course not, it’s a piece of paper reliant on a timely response from an overworked police force.  The self-defense lessons and handgun will even the odds, and possibly hold the partner until the police do wind up arriving.

It’s not that these women want to kill.  They want to protect themselves and their kids.  They feel far safer knowing I have a concealed permit, although very, very few every ask if I’m actually carrying.  They don’t want pepper spray, they don’t want to continue to have the crap beat out of them waiting for the police, they want a hand gun.  In MA, they seriously consider if they want to get one legally or not.  Legally, means their records are public and given the invasive requirements for a concealed carry license, someone always knows exactly where they are living.  Abusive partners will find this info and use it to their advantage.  Some have gone ‘downtown’ and picked up a few handguns from the street corner.  Some have been concealed carry holders for over 20 years without a license.  The risks of going to jail are less than exposing themselves to the public records for their abusers to find.

It’s also funny that the local NRA membership grows from these shelters.  These women starting over with nothing, somehow find the money to become an NRA member.  It crosses all walks of life.

“Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms.The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.”

I don’t even know where to begin.  Initial thoughts are summed by “those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither”; in the words of Benjamin Franklin.   Full story at boston.com.

Police to search for guns in homes

City program depends on parental consent

By Maria Cramer Globe Staff / November 17, 2007

Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms.

The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.

In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager’s parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.

If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.

The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders.

“I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution,” said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. “The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don’t have that.”

Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search.

“Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent,” said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. “People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found.”

But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people.

“This isn’t evidence that we’re going to present in a criminal case,” said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. “This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .

“I understand people’s concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I’ve talked to are in a quandary,” he said. “They don’t know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We’re giving them an option in that case.”

But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street.

A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week.

“There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you’ve taken the gun from the household,” he said.

The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out.

Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute.

“In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable,” Davis said.

Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department’s anonymous hot line and investigators’ own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square.

If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers’ discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges.

“A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest,” said Elaine Driscoll, Davis’s spokeswoman. “The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion.”

The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks.

One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday’s meeting.

“What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent,” he said. “It’s a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, ‘I don’t want that in my house.’ “

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. “To me it’s a preventive tool,” he said.

Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program’s first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched.

St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program.

“We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted,” he said.

But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice.

Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said.

Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared.

“I became frustrated when I’d get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, ‘No one has come to talk to me,’ ” he said. Residents “lost faith in the program and that hurt us.”

Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did.

“We want the community to know what we’re doing,” Driscoll said.

Ronald Odom – whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice – was at yesterday’s meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. “Everyone talks about curbing violence,” he said, following the meeting. “. . . This is definitely a head start.”

Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

November 12, 2007 Bleed for Public Safety Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that police in the Dairy State may forcibly take roadside blood samples from suspected drunk drivers. And of course, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 15 years ago that the police can set up sobriety checkpoints to stop random drivers to see if they’re driving while intoxicated, even if they’ve otherwise done nothing wrong.

Now put those two rulings together, and you get the what-the-hell-country-are-we-living-in, but very real, possibility you may soon be driving on a public road, doing nothing out of the ordinary and breaking no laws, then be stopped, questioned, and if the police officer doesn’t like your answers, be forced to give him some of your blood. Ponder that for a sec.

Ponder that in many states, you’ve no right to ask that a physician or trained medical professional draw the blood, either. The cops get to jab you.

Ponder also how we’ve gotten to the point where many of people will read this, shrug, and feel it’s no big deal that we’re now required give some of our blood to agents of the government upon command.

It gets worse. Late last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that not only can police require that you give up your blood, if you refuse they may use “extreme force” to extract it. In this case, the officers inflicted permanent physical damage on the suspect. There’s also a case pending in Arizona where a forced blood draw done by a cop resulted in a persistent infection in the suspect’s arm.

Give MADD its due credit. They’ve managed to shred the Bill of Rights almost single-handedly, with little more than a brilliant, two-decade public relations campaign. Even the drug warriors have to be envious.
Posted by Radley Balko on November 12, 2007  from The Agitator.