My take on Trump's meeting with congress on gun control...

President Donald Trump. The Guardian/EPA.

Today was fairly shocking for pro-gun supporters of Donald Trump to say the least. During his meeting with congress Trump said and did some things that will not make gun rights supporters happy. At all. The Guardian has a surprisingly fair summary here, but I will go through the main points:

-Asking Steve Scalise (R) to not include the CCW reciprocity to the proposed gun control bill saying it won't pass.

-Said Pat Toomy (R) was "afraid of the NRA" for not including a measure to raise the age of buying a rifle to 21. 

-Saying due process should happen after guns are taken in cases involving mentally ill people. 

-Saying he will ban bump stocks himself. 

-Saying Dianne Feinstein should put her "assault weapons" ban into the bill

On the face of it it looks horrible for gun rights supporters. But is it? I am not sure. I have a few theories that could explain this and not all of them are bad. Let's go through them.

1. Trump really has flipped on gun rights and we are all doomed. This is what Breitbart is going with and a decent faction of gun rights supporters agree with the rest fearing it could be true. If it is than it is a huge betrayal by President Trump and one that I doubt any of us will ever recover from. It would be the equivalent if Hillary Clinton had gotten elected and then suddenly decided that she was going to ban abortion. It would wreck the party and cost Trump a 2nd term and would likely end gun rights as a group that tries to solve their problems through elections.

And that's the best case scenario. I think if the assault weapons ban actually passes it will be civil war, or close to it. We did the same thing in the 90's and it led to Ruby Ridge, Waco and eventually the Oklahoma City Bombing. People forget how close we were to civil war in the 90's over gun control and it could very easily happen again. Actually trying to enforce a ban on the most popular guns in America would be a bloodbath and one that could destroy the entire country. 

Is there evidence that Trump is actually caving on gun rights? Not really. It does look like he is willing to compromise on some things and may take action on his own but I doubt he would actually sign an assault weapons ban. I am guessing that this option is unlikely. After all, Trump has concealed carry for years and his other solutions, including getting rid of gun free zones and arming teachers, will be popular among gun rights supporters. Unless we see a lot more evidence of Trump caving on guns we should at least give him some benefit of the doubt.

2. This is 3d chess and we are all getting played. We must remember that Trump has supposedly "betrayed" his base before and ended up not doing anything he was accused of. The first case was the Syrian airstrike that pissed off his anti-war/anti-interventionism supporters. That airstrike ended up being extremely limited and was more of an aberration than any real change in policy. Trump's Syria policy was not really effected at all and has remained at least acceptable to most of his supporters, if not everything they have wanted. 

DACA was an even better example. Trump's immigration base was furious when he appeared to be backing the Democrats on DACA but months later nothing has been done and DACA looks like it will expire on it's own. Trump was basically daring Democrats to own DACA as doing so would hurt their chances in November and in 2020. Afterwards, the Democrats abandoned DACA to its fate and Trump looks like the reasonable one while at the same time his supporters get what they want. 

The same thing could be happening here. Trump may be forcing the Democrats to run on gun control, knowing how unpopular it is. Doing so will galvanize the GOP base who will vote in the 2018 midterms while at the same time depressing turn out for blue dog Democrats who support gun rights. 

There is some evidence of Trump trying to sabotage the various Democratic supported bills which would support this theory. Certainly, taking out the CCW bill, which would be a huge concession from the Democrats, removes any carrot for congressional Republicans to support all but the most mild gun control bills, like the fix NICS bill which honestly isn't that bad. Telling Dianne Feinstein to add the AWB to the bill would kill it forever if it happened, no GOP member of congress or the Senate would ever support it, which is an obvious way to kill any new gun control. 

I think that this is a likely possibility as it seems extremely similar to what happened with DACA. I am guessing that Trump knows that gun control is a losing issue for Dems and wants them to try and fail to pass something huge so that they run on it in 2018 and 2020. 

3. It's a negotiation and Trump is just throwing out wild ideas out there. We have also seen this before. During the election, Trump would often test out new ideas to gauge the audience reactions to it. If they were popular he would keep them and if they weren't you wouldn't see him mention them again.  

If that is the case then we might be in trouble. Trump might be getting softer on guns and may be trying to see if gun control really has the wide support the media says it has. That would be extremely dangerous and could eventually lead to scenario one. 

The good news is that this problem is extremely easy to solve. Just tell Trump that he is off base here. Gun rights supporters are no strangers to contacting our lawmakers and there is no reason to not do so here. Just give him a call or contact him via e-mail. And don't forget to do the same with your congressional lawmakers as well as that can't hurt. If Trump really is willing to negotiate here we need to remind him why that's a bad idea and why his most dedicated supporters won't go along with it. 

4. Trump's just being Trump and we shouldn't worry too much about it. Trump often says one thing and then does another, just like all politicians. Trump is also prone to thinking things out loud that are, on reflection, things he doesn't mean. That isn't one of his best qualities but it could explain what is going on here. 

Trump probably does want a deal on gun control and probably does want a bump stock ban, but everything else could have just been him thinking out loud or just telling people what they want to hear. Time will tell if this is true or not. 

And some of this has been overblown a bit in the media. Trump also spent some time during the meeting defending gun rights and praising the NRA. He may not have had an actual shift in beliefs, and may have just been having a bad day.

As time goes on we will see which of these options are true. I really don't think option one is real. I can't imagine that Trump would betray his base so much as to support an assault weapons ban and we should give him some benefit of the doubt. And if I'm wrong about it than it's already too late to do much about it short of desperately contacting Trump to hopefully get him to change his mind and stockpiling weapons for Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo. I think both options two and four are much more likely explanations with perhaps a bit of both. 

That doesn't mean that the gun rights community should sit on its hands. There is a chance that number three is correct as well and if it is we need to make sure that we don't support gun control no matter what the media says. That is why it is so important to contact him and other politicians to make sure out positions are known. As supporters of gun rights we should be doing this whenever the issue comes up! 

11 people have been sickened at Fort Myer after Marines opened a letter with an unidentified substance.

Eleven people have been sickened at Fort Myer Virginia after Marines opened a letter that had an unidentified substance in it. Washington Post. Three people were sent to the hospital and several others were given treatment. The letter was not addressed to any specific Marine but was instead addressed to the unit. The FBI is working closely with local authorities and have not determined what the substance was. 

UPDATE FROM JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL:

An envelope was received, today, aboard Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall around 3:30 p.m., on the Marine Corps side of the base. Shortly after receiving the letter, 11 people started to feel ill and caused the evacuation of the building.

— U.S. Marines (@USMC) February 28, 2018

My Comment:

Scary situation in Virginia. It of course reminds us of the 2001 Anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened many more. I think that kind of biological attack is unlikely in this case. Anthrax is very hard to get a hold of and takes quite a bit of skill to use effectively. A well organized terror cell could probably pull it off but I doubt that is the case here. The 2001 Antrhax attack was an outlier in terms of what can be accomplished by a non-state actor when it comes to biological terrorism and would not be easily repeated. I would be shocked if this was Anthrax or some other kind of other virus or bacteria.

There are other things they can use as well. The current lead suspect, in my mind at least, is ricin. Ricin is easy to make and the plant that it comes from, the castor oil plant, grows commonly. It has been used in several attacks on politicians and is a very common weapon for these kinds of attacks.

Another possibility is Fentanyl. The opioid is extremely dangerous when taken but mere exposure could cause an overdose. It's largely responsible for the massive increase in opioid deaths. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used for an attack, though I have no idea if it was in this case. Indeed, with so little information available all of this is speculation. We can't rule anything out at this point.

There is also no information about who did this and why. There isn't even much to speculate on with no info to go on. This could be almost anything at this point, from a foreign terrorist to just some lone nut. We don't have a lot of information either way, so everything is speculation.

I could see this as an ISIS or Islamic extremist attack. They have a beef with the Marines and any armed forces of the United States. And they have some experience with chemical weapons. ISIS was advanced enough that they were able to make Sarin and Chlorine bombs in Syria and Iraq. Though most of those experts died in the war it wouldn't be too surprising if they were able to preserve some of the knowledge to pull off an attack like this.

This could also be a domestic attack as well but I struggle what the motivation would be. Most people don't have strong opinions on the Marines other than a few far-left whackos. They seem like an unlikely target for anyone outside of ISIS. Most people that send letter attacks like this target politicians or celebrities, such as the recent attacks on Donald Trump's sons.

I guess it is even possible that this attack is related to those attacks. As far as I know those cases were not solved so it's possible that the same person was responsible, but it's probably unlikely. The Marines are fairly different than Trump's sons so the targets don't match. Plus this attack actually made some people sick.

Right now it is a big mystery. I am hoping that this attack remains non-lethal and that whoever did it is brought to justice as soon as possible. The last thing we need is someone mailing poison to our troops. Even though nobody has died so far in this attack it is still a very serious situation. 

Trump again calls for CCW on military bases.

A soldier inspects a pistol at a PX at Fort Huachuca. Military.com/US Army.

While gun control in schools have taken up the headlines, President Trump has also called for ending gun free zones in military bases. Military.com Trump made the statement at the CPAC meeting and tied it into arming teachers and veterans to help prevent school shootings. Trump says that schools and military bases are easy targets because attackers know that there won't be armed. At most military bases troops are required to check in their firearms or leave them at home. Trump cited several attacks that have occurred at military bases. 

My Comment:

A quick correction for President Trump and the Military.com article. Both cited the Chattanooga shooting where an ISIS terrorist shot up a recruitment center and a Navy Reserve center. While the people at the recruitment center were unarmed, at least two men, a Marine and the commanding Naval officer of the reserve center were carrying pistols illegally. 

Obviously, nobody was charged in the Chattanooga shooting for illegally carrying a weapon. One of the men, the Marine, died at the scene while the other, Lt. Commander Timothy White, managed to hold off the attacker until cops arrived and shot him. It is unclear if either hit the attacker but both did fight back. 

The Chattanooga shooting told us several things. First of all it was that CCW works in these kinds of attacks. Though the two brave men that fought back against the ISIS terrorist failed to stop him, they bought time for the other people at the recruitment center who were unarmed to escape. Had they not done so, more people would have died. Had they had a little more luck they could have stopped the attack entirely. 

Secondly, it's very clear that a lot of people are ignoring the gun free zone signs in the first place. Lt. Commander White thought, correctly as it turned out, that nobody would care if he carrying a weapon in a gun free zone if he ended up using it to stop a mass shooting. Even a man as completely anti-gun as Barack Obama figured out that it would be insane to go with the letter of the law and charge a man carrying a gun in a gun free zone who used that gun to save lives. 

I think this policy repealing gun free zones on military bases would be a good one to put into place. I don't buy the counter arguments that soldiers aren't responsible enough to carry weapons. If that's the case, why are they even soldiers in the first place? All of them have been trained in gun safety and operation and a lot of them have been tested in combat. If we can trust anyone to use concealed weapons correctly, it's our nations soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors. I mean we could probably have an exception for recruits in basic training and those too young to own pistols anyways, but those would be the exceptions, not the rule. 

Will it happen though? I am not sure. I don't know if Trump can do this without Congress and Congress doesn't seem to do much of anything. I'm not expecting any new legislation from congress in either a pro-gun or anti-gun direction, with a possible exception for the NICS fix or banning bump stocks. I think the status quo where guns are officially banned on base but where people ignore the rule with the understanding that they won't be charged if they actually use them will remain in place. 

I do have to say that Trump is completely right about gun free zones though. I am guessing the attacker in the Chattanooga shooting would have targeted somewhere else if he knew that the Naval Reserve center would have armed people. Given he had an AK-47, a pistol and a Saiga shotgun, he could have killed way more than five people if he had chosen a different target. 

The same is true with the Florida shooting. We have heard tales of extreme bravery from teachers that tried to stop Cruz but were unable to do so because they were unarmed. Had they had a concealed firearm they likely could have stopped Cruz or at least slowed him down. 

And we also have to remember that Cruz was some stupid kid that was doing all this for attention. Unlike the Chattanooga attacker, who was a determined terrorist, he would have likely backed down or killed himself as soon as he was confronted. And even if he hadn't, the teacher could have either stopped or slowed down the attacker. 

As for gun control in general, I think that this news cycle is probably ending soon. The narrative has shifted from new gun control laws to how badly local and federal officials screwed up. Once it was revealed that at least four cops had responded to the attack but failed to even try and stop Cruz the narrative completely shifted. There won't be any new gun control laws, except maybe a ban on bump stocks. 

Russia has deployed their top of the line SU-57's to Syria

Satellite imagery showing two SU-57's. The Drive/The War Zone.

New satellite images show Russia has deployed their newest fifth generation SU-57 to Syria. The Drive/The War Zone. The SU-57, previously known as the T-50 is Russia's newest fighter. At least two of the fighters have been captured via satellite, with unconfirmed reports of a third. Russia usually deploys four fighters to Syria at a time so it is likely they have four fighters at Khmeimim Air Base. The deployment is seen as both as an advertising effort for foreign buyers for the SU-57's and as an effort to test the jets performance against US forces in Syria. 

#Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA shows off its latest paint scheme at Zhukovsky Airfield #Russia #avgeek pic.twitter.com/LtoS5Lu67K

— Ian Keddie (@IanJKeddie) February 19, 2016

My Comment:
An interesting deployment for the Russians. The SU-57's are brand new so it is somewhat surprising that they would risk deploying them. Losing one of them to mechanical failure or enemy action would be a huge embarrassment.

And it's not like there isn't a risk of a combat loss. Though I doubt one of these planes would be shot down due to Syrian rebels anti-air capabilities, they could still be brought down on the ground. Khmeimim Air Base has come under several major attacks including a massive drone attack. And even though the chances of a rebel shooting down a SU-57's with MANPADS is pretty unlikely, it could still happen. The risk of losing at least one of these jets due to enemy action is fairly high and is a major risk. .

That being said the Russians may feel it is worth the risk. They are trying to get a deal with India to sell the plane to them and now they can say the jet has been tested in combat. If the SU-57's perform well in combat then the Indians may decide to order them, or order more of them then they would have otherwise.

Of course that's not the only reason for the Russians to do this. It also has a lot to do with the United States. The obvious idea is to test the capabilities of these fighters. With America's newest fighters, the F-22 and F-35, deployed to Syria this deployment could be used to test how the SU-57's stack up. It would also work well as a real world test for the SU-57.

Indeed, Syria has been a great way for the Russians to test their weapons system. It was the first time they ever used an aircraft carrier in combat and they have used new bombs, missiles, planes and arms in general in the warzone. Doing so with the SU-57 isn't anything new.

However, I think this is also a message to the United States as well. They are telling us that they are committed to Syria and are as willing as we are to deploy their most advanced weapons there. They are saying to the United States that they are in it for the long haul.

As for the SU-57 themselves, they are a beautiful plane. Whatever you think of the Russians, their military tech can be very impressive when they actually put their back into it. It seems that they have done so with the SU57's. The rest of the world will now get a chance to see what it can do.

North Korea may be willing to talk to the United States.

Ivanka Trump in the stands at the Olympics. BBC/AFP.

North Korea has signaled willingness to talk with America though America warns that any talks must include a discussion on nuclear disarmament. BBC. North Korea passed this information on to the South Koreans on the last day of the Winter Olympics. North Korea has been giving mixed messages though as they have kept their dramatic rhetoric over new US sanctions. South Korea seems hopeful that a meeting could be possible, despite a similar effort falling apart when Vice President Mike Pence was in South Korea.

My Comment:

I will believe that bilateral talks between North Korea and the United States will happen when they actually happen. We have already been burned by the North Koreans during the Olympics already. They were supposed to meet with Vice President Pence but they canceled that at the last minute. 

I've said before that the concept of "face" is huge to understanding the North Koreans. They want to avoid being embarrassed and want to gain respect and prestige. That makes me think that any discussion on the nuclear program is a non-starter. They have invested a huge amount of money into the program but that doesn't matter. What matters is that they have invested a massive amount of prestige into it and won't give it up unless they can do so in a way that gains them respect domestically and internationally. 

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk with them. There is always a possibility that a diplomatic breakthrough could happen if we talk and almost zero chance of that happening if we don't. If we can keep the lines of communication open than perhaps a deal can be made. If so everyone involved ends up as a winner so it's not like there isn't incentives for everyone to participate. Avoiding a massive war on the Korean peninsula is in everyone's best interest. 

Time is a factor as well. The North Koreans are on the verge of having nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. That would be a huge threat to the west coast of the United States. Even though there is no guarantee that a nuclear attack would be successful or wouldn't be intercepted by our missile defenses the threat is still unacceptable and growing every day. 

Of course we also have to consider that this is just a ploy by the North Koreans. In the past North Korea has often tried to use diplomacy to try and get sanctions eased or get aid. These diplomatic efforts were not in good faith and were used only for the advantage of the North. This could very well be what is happening here as the sanctions seem to be having an effect on North Korea. 

That being said I do hope that these talks happen and that some kind of solution is made. War in the Korean Peninsula would be a huge mistake for everyone involved. Both Koreas would be devastated by that war and it would tank the world economy. Not to mention the fact that a lot of our troops would die in the war. We would still win the war but it would be at an unacceptable cost. 

Of course the main talk in Washington seems to be if diplomacy fails, there may be a limited strike on North Korea's nuclear program. This strike would be a "bloody nose" strike designed to humiliate North Korea and destroy their nuclear weapons program, which is similar to what we did to Syria after they were accused of using chemical weapons. Such an attack might accomplish those goals but I fear that a larger war might erupt if it happens. Unlike the Syrians, who meekly tolerated a strike on their airbase, I doubt the North Koreans would go along with it. I still think that continued diplomacy is the way to go. 

Democrats release their response to the FISA Memo. Read it here.

Adam Schiff

As you may know, The Democrats had their own version of the FISA memo and one that reported to debunk the one crafted by Devin Nunes. This memo was not released for some time because there were concerns about the memo revealing state secrets that could harm national security. Now they memo has been released with only a few redactions. I am not surprised at all that once the redactions were in place that the memo was released. The Trump administration has been fairly transparent and this is another example of that being true.

I don't have much to say about the memo. There aren't any real revelations in the memo, only accusations that the Nunes FISA memo was incorrect. With the underlying documents still classified, which version of events you believe is dependent on who you trust more. I have zero trust with Adam Schiff, who wrote the memo, and quite a bit for Nunes. For his part, Nunes has released a point by point rebuttal of the memo. I will be posting the Schiff Memo and Nunes' rebuttal to it below. You can make up your own minds.

Schiff Memo - House Intelligence Committee Minority Memo on DOJ/FBI FISA Abuse by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd

The Schiff Memo.

Schiff Minority Memo and Nunes Majority Response by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd

The Nunes response. 

School resource officer responded to mass shooting in Florida but did not confront the attacker.

Two women attending one of the funerals in Florida. BBC/Reuters. 

A school resource officer responded to the mass shooting in Florida but did not confront the attacker. BBC. The officer, Scot Peterson, was suspended for his actions and then resigned. Video footage showed Peterson  arriving 90 seconds after the shooting began. He waited outside for four minutes and did not confront the killer. The attack took around six minutes. The video of his response has not been released. Peterson was the only cop on duty at the 3000 student school. 

My Comment:

Just when you think the multitude of problems that led to this attack couldn't get worse, it does. There is no excuse for Officer Peterson's behavior here. He had one duty that day and that was to protect those kids. He didn't and 17 people died. 

I have very little doubt that had Peterson entered the building more people would have lived. First of all, he could have shot and killed/disabled Nikolas Cruz. Even if he failed and was killed himself he would have bought time for people to escape, fortify their locations or for help to arrive. Finally, there is a decent chance that Cruz would have backed down after facing resistance. Given the type of mass shooter he was, I am guessing he might have even killed himself. No matter how it went I can't imagine that at least a few people would have survived that didn't. 

No matter the outcome if Peterson had acted he would have been hailed as a hero. Instead he is rightly denounced as a coward. He had one purpose at that school and it was to protect those kids. And he failed. He wasn't a civilian with a CCW that had no duty to protect others, he was a cop who swore to protect and serve. Hell, a lot of unarmed students and teachers showed more bravery than Peterson did even though they were completely unarmed. 

I am struggling to think of any mitigating circumstances. I thought it was possible that there was a policy that he had to wait for backup but given the Sheriff, who is embattled for his own incompetence, was condemning Officer Peterson, I doubt that was the case here. Such a policy would be extremely stupid as it has been shown that response time was the most important thing in reducing casualties during these crimes.

I think this informs the debate we are having in this country about what to do about mass shootings. Generally speaking, everyone assumes that police will be willing to do their jobs, but that wasn't the case here. I think this supports having teachers having CCW. Having more than one option to fight back would have been good in this case and an armed teacher could have done what Peterson failed to do. 

I also think that it's foolish to have a single officer in places where they are assigned. If there had been another officer with Peterson that officer could have acted where he failed. Either that or he could have shamed or forced Peterson to act. We need more than one person to respond to these attacks in case one of them is unwilling or unable to act. 

I think it is very clear that people are righteously angry about this attack. Most of that anger has been directed at guns and gun rights supporters, but it seems very clear that anger is misdirected. There was a series of failures here that begins with the school board and ends with the FBI. Officer Peterson is not the first person in this case to let the general public down. 

First of all the local school board had a policy in place that did everything it could to avoid arresting kids. It was very clear that Cruz was a very dangerous person and someone that committed multiple crimes. But because the school wanted lower rates of student arrests they looked the other way and only expelled him instead of referring him for prosecution. 

Local police failed as well, and not just Officer Peterson. Supposedly Cruz's house had been visited 39 times by the local police but very few reports were actually filed, let alone charges. And they went along with the school board's scheme to not arrest students to reduce the reported crime rate. 

And the FBI had it's problems as well. They failed to follow up on two tips that were given. They might be forgiven for the YouTube comment that Cruz made where he wanted to be a school shooter since people make stupid comments all the time and are mostly not serious. But the second tip was much more detailed and involved and should not have been ignored. 

All in all it was a massive law enforcement failure that Cruz was on the streets to begin with, let alone able to purchase weapons. Had people been doing their jobs he never would have been able to start shooting kids. Had officer Peterson stepped up and did his job fewer people would have died. That's the real story here and it's one that needs to be addressed. Gun control won't fix the incompetence shown in this case. 

What I think can be done to stop mass shootings.

An AR-15 carbine. Wikipedia user M62. 

I have been fairly vocal the last few days about why I think gun control won't work to prevent mass shootings. Gun confiscation is politically impossible and any attempt will result in civil war. And less serious gun control efforts would do nothing to actually prevent mass shootings. 

I realized something though. The only option being discussed right now is gun control. Very few people are offering up other possible solutions. The gun control lobby has been very good at making sure no other solutions are considered or mentioned. I aim to change this. I'm going to go through several options I think might work for this problem. I apologize in advance for the listicale format but it's just easier this way. 

1. Get rid of "gun free zones" and allow CCW everywhere. Easy enough. It's very clear that mass shooters prefer to attack places where there won't be much resistance. In a place like a school where nobody is armed and most people aren't capable of fighting period it is very easy to kill a huge number of people in a short time even if you don't use a gun. 

I have also said for a long time there there appear to be three kinds of mass shooters. First there are those that are psychotic. They attack due to mental illness and they are very hard to predict behaviorally. These are the guys that are hearing voices. The 2nd group is terrorists, who are doing what they want for political reasons. 

But I think armed resistance is especially effective against the 3rd group. This group is motivated by nihilism and suicidal tendency. These folks want to go out in a blaze of glory and tend to either give up or kill themselves once the cops show up or someone fights back. This group makes up the majority of school shooters and a decent faction of other mass shooters and I think if people were armed the majority of these people would kill themselves or surrender. 

Of course having armed people in a mass shooting would help against the other types as well. It wouldn't be a panacea. There have been cases where people who tried to fight back in mass shootings have died. That being said even if someone doesn't stop a mass shooter with a concealed firearm even fighting back has advantages. Even if you die in the attempt you are still buying time for others to escape. In a mass shooting seconds are more valuable than anything else and one teacher taking 30 seconds of time to delay a mass shooting gives his or her students more time to escape. And, of course, there will be cases where the CCW holders will either kill, wound or scare off mass shooters as well. 

The only thing I would note about this is that the people that conceal carry shouldn't be identified to the students and shouldn't just be limited to teachers. Basically anyone that can pass the background check and is willing to be trained should be allowed to CCW. But if you identify who those people are they might be the first target in the shooting. If a mass attacker doesn't know who has a gun they won't be able to pick that person off first. 

2. More armed guards/cops in vulnerable places. One of the most frustrating parts of the Florida shooting was the fact that the campus was huge and there was only one cop in the entire place. 1 cop in a campus of 3000 students is ridiculous. Most schools have student resources officers but for whatever reason they never seem to come into play in these mass shootings. Part of it may be because theses cops tend to stay in high schools and not middle and elementary schools. 

Hiring more cops might be a decent idea. Instead of one cop in an entire school district, why not a team of two or three in each? In massive schools like the Marjory Stoneman school that Nikolas Cruz attacked, why not have a larger team? And when cops are on breaks or have down time, why not have them wait around at schools? 

Hiring armed security could help as well. Police have other duties as resource officers and could be called away for various legitimate reasons. For example if there is a kid bringing drugs to the school the cop could be busy taking that kid to the station for processing while the attacker strikes. A private security guard wouldn't have any other duties and would be there to respond to attacks. 

Much has been made of possibly hiring former soldiers to be security at schools. I don't have a problem with this other than the fact that I don't think we have enough to properly protect all of our schools. We would have to use non-veterans as well, which shouldn't be a problem. 

3. Understanding that mass shootings are memetic. Have you ever wondered why people use the AR-15? Sure it's a common and popular rifle but so is the Mini-14, which has similar capabilities only with a wood finish. Why don't people use the Mini-14 over the AR-15? Why don't they use pistols that are more concealable or battle rifles that have more power? 

I'll ask another question. Why did car ramming attacks become popular? Purposefully ramming people was never very common but now these kinds of attacks happen all the time. The first major attack was the Nice attack that killed 86 people and wounded dozens more. After that everyone imitated it because they saw how successful it could be and understood how much coverage it could get. ISIS made it a standard play in their book and even non-Islamists started to use the attack as well. 

It seems very clear that mass attackers get their ideas from the media coverage of previous attacks. After Columbine attackers used the weapons and style that those attackers used. Instead of rifles attackers used pistols. After a few high profile attacks using AR-15's and the massive media coverage of those cases, the attackers switched weapons. 

Though it bumps into 1st amendment rights I think that the techniques and efforts of mass shooters should be handled carefully. We don't need to explain to people how and why these attacks work. News media should be much more careful about what they choose to cover. This is why I am very careful not to discuss the other various methods of killing a large number of people unless those methods are already "out of the bag". 

4. Using memetics against mass shooters. Remember Elliot Rodger? The loser that shot up his roommates and then tried to attack a bunch of sorority sisters but failed so hard that he ended up killing random people instead? Remember his manifesto and his stupid YouTube videos where he complained about women not liking him? Remember when the internet collectively made fun of him? Because I do. 

I'm convinced that the massive mocking that Elliot Rodger helped reduce the number of mass shootings. After the Isla Vista shootings the prototypical attacker changed from a disgruntled young man who had problems with woman and switched to a terrorism model. I'm convinced it was due in part of how pathetic and useless Elliot Rodger was portrayed by everyone. 

In short, my theory is that nobody wanted to be seen as Elliot Rodger, the "Supreme Gentleman", the man who couldn't get laid and hated himself because he was biracial. Instead of being some badass fighting back about how unfair the world was everyone collectively agreed that he was a pathetic sad man that even screwed up his mass shooting. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to be seen as the next "Supreme Gentleman".

My question is why don't we do the same thing with all of these mass killers? Instead of building them up into mythic figures, why don't we mock and make fun of them as the pathetic failures they are? Nobody wants to be a mass shooter if mass shooters are made out to be losers who fail at everything they try. Nikolas Cruz seems ripe for mocking and so did Stephen Paddock, but we never mocked them in the same way we did Rodger. If we did perhaps the next attack wouldn't happen.

5. Enforce current laws. The most frustrating thing about the shooting in Florida is the fact that Nikolas Cruz was well known to everyone. Dozens of people knew what he was trying to do and reported him to the authorities. But the authorities didn't do a damn thing. The school board, the local cops, even the FBI enabled him by not taking him seriously and doing everything they could to keep him on the streets instead of in the justice system. 

Had Cruz been arrested for the various serious crimes and threats he made he would likely not have been on the streets. He's be in prison or jail and once he got out he would have failed his background checks. He might have been able to get a gun anyways, the background check system isn't perfect and it's easy to steal or buy an illegal gun, but it would have been more difficult. 

One of the easiest things we could do is to simply fix the background check system. We need to make sure that every felon who is not permitted to own a gun is in the system along with those that are mentally ill. We should also make it available for private sellers. I am sure most sellers would like to make sure that anyone they sell guns to is legally able to buy but right now you have to go through a dealer to do so. Why not open it up to everyone and anyone?

Cracking down on straw buyers would help in mass shootings and gun crime in general. Right now it's a very minor crime generally to buy a gun for someone you know can't have one and even where it is a felony, it is often not prosecuted. Focusing on straw buyers and throwing the book at them every time would make it MUCH more difficult for those that can't have guns to get them. 

6. Stop making mass shooting into a culture war issue. I said before that mass shootings are memetic in nature and that part of the motivation for these attackers is the attention they get. Right now we are having a "national conversation" about the Florida attack even though it happened a week ago. What are other mass shooters thinking about this?

My guess is that they are just getting additional motivation to attack. They understand that they can make a large part of the country lose their collective minds over gun control. As long as you aren't attacking conservative or doing it for Islamic Jihad, you can be guaranteed weeks of media coverage just by shooting up a school. Simply killing a large number of people can make you world famous but if you start a culture war? You are immortal. That seems like the exact opposite message we should send to potential mass shooters. 

Our culture seems to be obsessed with fame. You can argue about why this is but you must agree that in a fame obsessed culture it's a very bad idea give people fame for destructive actions. Instead we should focus on, well, almost anything else. Mocking the attackers, like I mentioned above, is only one option. We could focus on the heroism of the victims and the first responders, or the lives of the victims. We could about actual threats that are more likely to kill like car accidents and heart disease. Or we could just ignore them as statistically speaking they are complete outliers. 

So, are any of these solutions going to happen? Some of them are being discussed but I don't know how much attention these efforts will get and if there is any political will to do them. Certainly controls on media would have to be voluntary and given their recent behavior, I doubt we could get them to do anything. 

Still, it's not like gun control is going to happen and at least some of these actions are possible, even without the government. Certainly mocking these attackers is something anyone can do. But I think as long as the only thing anyone wants to talk about is gun control, nothing will change. 

North Korea canceled meeting with VP Mike Pence at the Olympics.

Mike and Karen Pence. AP. 

North Korea canceled a meeting with Vice President Mike Pence at the last minute at the Olympics. AP. Pence went to the Olympics and was anticipated to meet the North Koreans but the meeting did not happen. White House officials said that they did not request a meeting but were open to having one. Pence said his message to the North Koreans would have been that they need to give up their nuclear and ballistic missile programs. If the meeting had happened it would have been the highest level meeting between the two countries in years. North Korea has come under major pressure from the Trump administration and Pence went as far as to bring slain American tourist Otto Warmbier's father, Fred, to the Olympics. High ranking members of North Korea were in attendance as well, including Kim Yong Nam and Kim Yo Jong. 

My Comment:

Well, it's good to see that America hasn't completely given up on diplomacy. Any attempt at diplomacy is a good sign even if that failed. Even though our positions are in conflict there could be progress being made if we could talk things out. 

Unfortunately the North Koreans didn't want to play ball. They had a chance here to have their views heard and they let it go. Bad move on their part as it makes them look very unreasonable. Even though they were on a propaganda blitz with Kim Yo Jong becoming a western media darling, they are still losing out here. 

So why skip this meeting for the North Koreans? My guess is that it was a power play. They are sending a message to America. We won't compromise and we are in a position of power. The first thing is true but the second? Not so much. Still, appearances matter more than reality and in their minds this makes them look strong. 

They also might have felt that they didn't have much of a chance to change Pence's mind. It was very clear that Pence was going to use this as a chance to lecture the North Koreans and demand that they end their nuclear and ballistic weapons program. The presence of Fred Warmbier was also a major slap in the face as that situation was likely embarrassing for the North Koreans. The entire world knows that they killed Otto Warmbier and they were very loudly reminded of that fact when Fred Warmbier was in South Korea. 

The North Koreans obviously don't want to give up their weapons. Doing so would be a huge hit for them in terms of prestige and domestic power. Even taking the meeting would be a loss of face. If Kim Jong Un wants to stay in power he needs to project an image of power and strength and skipping this meeting supposedly helps that goal.  

With that being said though, Kim Jong Un made a mistake. A huge diplomatic offer like this shouldn't be ignored. Even if Pence spent the whole meeting berating the North Koreans and making fun of Kim Jong Un, it would help avoid a war. That's not a smart move as far as I am concerned. 

Plus, we don't know for sure that Pence didn't have something to offer in return. My guess is that even though our public position is that there isn't any compromise to be had, I am guessing that we could have offered concessions in return for giving up the nuclear and ballistic missile programs. But now, the North Koreans won't know what those offers are. 

As for the Olympics, I don't know how much the North Korean's accomplished. I think they got some propaganda value out of participating in the joint team, and the profile of Kim Jong Un's sister, Kim Yo Jong, went up massively, but other than that they haven't moved any closer to not being a pariah state. That's probably a failure on their part. 

Confusion reigns in Syria as conflicting reports say the Syrian military will join the Kurds in fighting Turkey.

A Turkish backed member of the Free Syrian Army carries binoculars. Reuters. 

Confusion reigns in Syria as reports indicate that Syria may deploy troops to fight the Turks invading Afrin. Reuters. Turkey has threatened violence if the Syrians join the Kurds in defending the Afrin region from the Turks, who are attempting to clear out the fighters in the region. The Turks say that the YPG is a splinter group of the PKK, who they consider terrorists. The Kurds have reported that the Syrians have agreed to deploy troops to Afrin, and Syrian state media also confirmed this, but as of this writing no units have been deployed. Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan has been contacting other countries, including Russia and Iran, to try and pressure the Syrians. 

My Comment:

There is a lot of confusion in Syria right now and I am not sure anyone knows for sure what is going to happen here. My guess is that the descion to deploy troops is not one that is going to be made solely by Syria. Despite their greatly improved position, Syria is still very dependent on their Russian and Iranian allies. If they pressure them enough I think they will back down against the Turks. 

On the other hand, I don't know how much pressure Putin and Iran will put on Assad. Russia seems to want better relations with Turkey and Iran doesn't want an independent Kurdistan either since they have their own population of Kurds that could be inspired. On the other hand they might not want to pressure Syria too much on this since they obviously want to protect their borders. 

Turkey doesn't seem to be doing too well in Afrin. The Kurds have proven fairly resilient and what should have been a quick operation hasn't turned out that way. Unlike ISIS, who melted under Turkish pressure, the Kurds have stuck in there. The Turks have a modern military but it is a testament to the Kurds that they still stand. 

Still, without help the Kurds in Afrin are probably doomed. Even though the Turks have stalled out they are still way more powerful than the Kurds. The Kurds don't have the anti-armor and anti-air weapons they need to stop the Turkish offensive. They can make the Turks pay a heavy price and that's their only hope besides outside intervention. 

Of course it's not like the Syrians are quite strong enough to defeat the Turks either. Their military, though stronger than it has been, is still bled dry through years of warfare. They still have heavy weapons but it's not like they have forces to spare. Their troops are bogged down fighting the rebels, al-Nusra and ISIS and could probably only deploy token forces to Afrin anyways. It would mostly be a symbolic gesture. 

Syria is an abosulte mess and it is disturbing how bad things are getting right now. The various proxy factions are all fighting each other and there is potential for war between regional factions. Russia, America, Turkey, Iran and Israel have all been involved in major skirmishes lately and it seems that Syria is turning into a free fire zone where everyone fights everyone. 

There is even major tension between NATO allies. Turkey and America had a major spat over the Afrin incursion and though diplomacy seems to be working there was a question if the two allies might be shooting at each other in Syria. That's just how horrible things are in Syria right now.

As for the Kurds, they have the misfortune of being between all these various factions and none of them have the Kurds as their first priority. The Kurds are a useful tool for the Americans and Russians, a rebellious faction for the Syrians, an existential threat for the Turks and the wrong religion for Iran. And they also have to deal with the ISIS holdouts that still exist. 

They deserve better than this. Though I have a problem with the Kurds leftist political beliefs, the fact of the matter is that they were crucial for destroying ISIS and a major US ally. We fought with them side by side by one of the evillest armies to ever exist and I think they deserve something for that service to the world. The fact that the rest of the world sees the Kurds as nothing more than a pawn is highly regrettable to say the least. 

Five killed and five wounded in ISIS terror attack in Russia.

Doctors visit one of the victims of the attack. BBC/EPA.

Five women were killed and five people were injured during an ISIS terror attack in Dagestan, Russia. BBC. The attack targeted people as they were leaving a church service and the attacker, a 22 year old named Khalil Khalilov was shot and killed. ISIS has taken credit for this attack. ISIS's Caucasus Province has conducted several major terrorist attacks. Though ISIS hasn't proven the attack was committed by one of their members, the suspect screamed "Allah Akbar" and targeted Christians. The attacker was armed with a rifle and knife. 

My Comment:

Horrible story out of Russia and one that isn't getting the attention it deserves. Too many narratives the media doesn't want out there. An Islamic attack on Christian worshipers. A mass shooting in a country with stricter gun control. A story that gives sympathy for Russian citizens. All of that means that this story is going to be a footnote for western media. 

Sadly though this kind of attack has been fairly common. ISIS has long targeted Christians for murder. They essentially eliminated the Christians communities in Iraq and Syria that existed in areas they took over. Christians were either made to flee, executed or made 2nd class citizens paying a harsh tax in areas ISIS controlled. 

ISIS has also targeted Christians in terror attacks. The most notable one that I remember is when they executed an 85 year old Catholic priest in France. Jacques Hamel ended up being a martyr for his religion and it looks like these five women in Russia have become martyrs as well. 

Why does ISIS target Christians? It's in the Koran. Though Islam considers Christians to be worshiping the same God they are, it is also said that Christians need to be subserviant to Muslims and have to be humbled by paying a tax. Those that don't are considered targets. Not all Muslims believe this or bother trying to enforce it, but ISIS does. 

This is one of the few major ISIS attacks we have had lately. We seem to have seen a major drop in the frequency and severity of attacks committed by ISIS. In the past it seemed like we were having weekly or even daily attacks at a pace that was horrifying. It got to the point where if we had a whole week without a terror attack it was somewhat surprising. 

That has obviously changed now. And it's pretty clear why as well. ISIS has lost their major bases in Iraq and Syria and are now down to a sliver of territory in both countries. They no longer have a major base to stage attacks out of and that has made a world of difference. 

But we also have to realize that even though ISIS has largely been defeated on the battlefield, this attack proves that they are still a threat. They have a lot of supporters left and several affiliated provinces that are still fighting. As long as those things are true we should expect further attacks... 

Polling indicates that 29% of people thought an armed revolution could be necessary to protect civil rights.

A picture of my handgun just because I needed a picture to go with this post.

In the aftermath of the Florida school shooting I have been involved in several discussions about what the political ramifications of gun control might be. People seemed shocked and confused when I said that gun confiscation would likely lead to civil war. I am honestly shocked and confused that people don't understand this to be true. 

This is an old link but the polling indicates that about 30% of people thought that an armed revolution might be necessary to prevent the loss of certain liberties (ie gun rights). Actual opinion is likely much higher due to the fact that people understand saying yes to that question could be risky.  Data was from 2013, right after Sandy Hook, but helps explain why gun control consistently fails.  I would be very interested in more recent polling on this but it seems the question doesn't get asked very often.

Anecdotally it always seemed universal that the gun owners I have spoken to about it would resist an Australia style gun confiscation with non-compliance and violence. This really isn't controversial in the gun rights community, everyone understands that if such a thing were to happen it would be a bloodbath for everyone involved. At the very least people would not comply to these gun laws and at worst it would be war.

Indeed, there are several jokes and sayings in the gun community that indicate that compliance is not something that will happen. Here's a few of them:

"From my cold dead hands"
"If it's time to bury your guns in the back yard so the government doesn't take them, it's actually time to dig them back up"
"If they ever come for my guns I will just tell them I lost them in a tragic 'boating accident'"

And so on and so forth.

We can also see that in states with restrictive gun control many thousands of people did not comply with restrictive gun laws. For the New York SAFE act, which required registration of "assault weapons" only about 25,000 guns were registered, a compliance rate of 4% if the estimate of 1 million of those rifles in New York is correct. And this was for a law that simply registered a gun, not one that turned them in.

As for violence, things seem a little less clear. Current gun laws haven't been opposed with violence, thankfully, but the newer laws have been mostly mild and the enforcement has been lax. The polling from 2013 indicated that about 1/3rd of people would go to war over civil rights, which include gun rights, but I don't have more recent data. I would assume that number would have gone up on both sides of the political spectrum due to the political climate. Certainly though I doubt the views of gun rights supporters have changed, though other groups have probably joined them for other reasons. Support and dislike of President Trump would, in my mind, make the number of people who answered the question in the affirmative go up.

All that being said I should point out that I personally don't want any of this to happen. A 2nd American Civil War would be horrible even though I think that the side I am de facto on would win. Generally speaking even if I didn't anything but sit in my apartment if a war broke out over gun rights I would be forced into it due to my outspoken support of gun rights, even if I didn't want the war to happen and didn't support it. Do I think it would be justified if it ever came to it? Almost certainly, but just because something is justified doesn't mean I want it to happen. Especially since I think my own chances of survival in such a war are low to say the least.

Such a war would be unlike any other in American history and would likely be more like the Syrian Civil War than the first American Civil War. Large bands of insurgents out in the countrysides, every other country in the world sending in supplies and possibly troops, grinding and destructive warfare, starvation and horrible treatment of civilians. All of that would likely happen here if a war were to break out. Which is a major reason why I would like to avoid it if all possible.

"But only 30% of people would support a revolution and only 44% of them are Republicans! Doesn't that mean that a lot of people wouldn't fight?". This may be true but probably irrelevant. If 15% of the population rises up in revolution, they will drag a lot of the rest with them. People will fight after being infuriated by the heavy handed tactics the government would have to use to suppress that 15%. Plus the demographics of that 15% would heavily skew towards former and current soldiers and police, who are the very people you would need in a civil war. In short, even if the polling is right, and I continue to think the numbers are too low, there would be enough people to cause a huge conflict that would kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Deep down I think that the Democratic Party understands that and this is a reason why despite having control over all three branches of government no serious push on gun confiscation has happened. Sure they are trying to do it on a state level and are having some success passing laws that aren't being followed or even enforced, but nationally gun control is dead and I am sure fear of armed revolution is a major reason why.

For this reason I think that no new major gun control laws are likely on the federal level for the foreseeable future. As long as millions of Americans are willing to go to war to support the cause of gun rights, an Australia-style gun confiscation will not happen.

Twin brothers arrested for terror plot and using children to help make the bombs.

Christian Toro (left) and his brother Tyler Toro were both arrested on terror charges. Facebook capture. 

Twin brothers have been arrested in New York on terror charges after they were discovered using children to help make bombs. Fox News/AP. Christian and Tyler Toro were arrested on terror plots and allegedly hired two children to dismantle fireworks at $50 an hour. Toro was a teacher and the children were students. The case grew out of a threat made to the school last December. 30 pounds of chemicals, bomb making instructions and a diary written by Tyler  threatening attacks were also found. Christian allegedly wrote a note that said “Under the full moon the small ones will know terror.” Christian Toro has also been arrested for statutory rape for having sex with a minor. 

Thanks to the brave men and women of the NYPD and FBI, we can report tonight that a possible terror attack has been foiled. They have done extraordinary work and, in this case, have likely saved many, many lives.

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) February 16, 2018

From what we know at this point, the individuals involved have all been apprehended. There is no additional threat to New York City at this time.

Once again, we are going to go forward tomorrow with that spirit of resiliency for which New Yorkers are famous.

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) February 16, 2018

My Comment:
Good on everyone involved for stopping this before it could happen. We have all seen what can happen when people don't speak up or when law enforcement lets someone slip through the cracks. Unlike what happened in Florida, this case was stopped before any lives were lost. We should all be thankful for that.

This plot was fairly disgusting. Not only would it have targeted children, it used children as bomb-makers. Plus Christian was a teacher who was apparently plotting to kill his charges. There isn't much lower than that. Using children as bomb makers puts them at risk and makes them unwitting accomplices in murder. Imagine how badly these kids would feel if they found out that their efforts were used to kill their classmates, assuming that they were going to be spared themselves. Of course since Christian was apparently the kind of guy that would have sex with a child, he probably didn't care at all. This kind of thing is certainly horrible but it is becoming even more common...

It seems likely that if the police and FBI hadn't disrupted this plot, it would have gone off. That doesn't necessarily mean people would have died, we have all seen idiot terrorists fail at plots, but there was a great risk of death and destruction. Getting the supplies is the most difficult part of building a bomb and they already had that part covered. Making a bomb that works is a bit harder but they could have done a few dry runs before they tried it so they could perfect their designs.

There hasn't been anything released about the motive of these men. They look to me that they could be middle eastern but even if that's true that doesn't necessarily mean that this was an ISIS or al-Qaeda inspired plot. It could very well be just a lone nut like the guy in Florida. It might have been a guy that just really hated the kids that he had to teach. Any of these are possible at this point.

I will say that the method of attack really resembles a plot inspired by Islamic terrorism, even if they aren't middle eastern. ISIS and other Islamic terrorists have long advocated using pressure cooker bombs using fireworks as the explosive and it seems like the Toro brothers had bomb making instructions, which are usually found on radical Islamic websites.

Generally speaking, bombings are a lot more likely to be politically motivated. I've mentioned before that these kinds of attacks are basically memes. The lone loser who's mad about not getting laid shoots up a school. A guy planting bombs is sending a different message and that one is "I'm an Islamic terrorist". That being said, without evidence that this is an Islamic terror plot, this is all speculation.

I will say that some of this story doesn't make sense. Why on earth would the Toro brothers threaten the very school they were plotting to attack? That just draws attention to their plot and could blow the whole thing, which it seems to have done so. If they did do this than they are very stupid terrorists and those are the best kind. It's also possible that someone else made the threat and the police just got lucky by discovering this plot.

It's not often that I agree with New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio but I do think he is right with his comments about doing something if you see someone acting strangely. We need to take threats seriously and report them when they come. Even if it means people call you a racist. Better to be called a racist than let a bombing or mass shooting happen. We can't afford political correctness when it comes to these kinds of thing. What color of skin someone has or what religion they follow shouldn't matter but what they are planning absolutely does.

Mass shooting targets school in Florida.

The suspect (red shirt) being led away by police. Reuters/WSVN.

A mass shooting at a school in Parkland Florida has left 17 dead and many wounded. Reuters. The attack began shortly before school released. The suspect, Nikolas Cruz, was allegedly armed with a rifle, gas mask and smoke grenades and pulled the fire alarm during the attack. Cruz was expelled from the school for unknown reasons and was a member of the ROTC. Cruz was unpopular at school and was supposedly obsessed with weapons. 

My Comment:

There is a lot of speculation about this man's motives. I won't go into too much but he has been accused of everything ranging from a member of antifa, an ISIS sympathizer or a alt-right supporter. So far none of those accusations have been backed by actual proof. There are social media accounts on there but none of them have anything like a manifesto so unless he tells the cops why he did this, we aren't going to know for awhile. Either way, I don't think anyone should be scoring political points off of this. As of this writing no motive has been released. 

I personally don't see this as being politically motivated. You don't attack your old school on Valentines Day because you want to make a political statement. You do it because you are pissed at your old school or your teachers or your former classmates. My guess is this guy was just pissed off, not a terrorist. Given the date chosen it's possible that this was due to woman problems but I doubt it was because it was Ash Wednesday though. 

Furthermore, this doesn't have the hallmarks of a terror attack. Most terror attacks come with a claim of responsibility or a release a manifesto or something. This guy did none of that. Indeed, it seems very unlikely that this was a terror attack at all and is likely just a run of the mill school shooting. 

It's been quite a while since we had a traditional school shooting. Sure there are occasional incidents where someone kills themselves at school or commits a typical murder for typical reasons and just happens to do it at school. Those incidents are often included by dishonest people to try and inflate the number of actual school shootings where someone shows up to kill as many people as possible. Since Newton there really hasn't been a shooting at a public school that has had more than 10 deaths and only a couple where a large number of people were shot. 

Why has this happened? My guess is that the rise of ISIS style terror attacks has had a memetic effect. People see mass shootings as a thing that Muslim terrorists do, or, at the very least, people do for political reasons. The disgruntled loner style shooter doesn't want to be associated with that, which makes me think that this guy may have been politically motivated after all, despite what I said above. People usually seem to have a reason for these kinds of attacks these days beyond typical "i hate everyone" angst. 

It seems like there were some pretty clear warning signs about Cruz. I saw a student saying that people said to him that he would shoot up the school someday. That seems like a pretty bad idea to say to somebody regardless, but you would think if Cruz was that well known and had been expelled, he would have been on law enforcement's radar. Everyone seemed to know Cruz was a threat but nothing was done about it. 

The question is if he did anything before hand that could have been actionable. Simply being weird isn't enough to throw someone in jail. If he did anything like threaten people or any criminal behavior than something should have been done. Given that he was expelled he may have done some criminal activity and if so, someone should have thrown the book at him. If not though, there is probably nothing that could have been done. 

Of course the usual suspects are already trying to push gun control. It looks very likely that expanded gun control wouldn't have done anything to prevent this. Either he didn't do anything wrong before he committed this attack and would have passed any background checks anyways or the checks failed and expanded gun control wouldn't have done anything anyways. Almost all of these mass shooters have passed background checks or stole their guns anyways. Gun control wouldn't have helped. 

What could have helped is a good guy with a gun. The children and adults killed in this attack were unable to defend themselves due to the law. Had a teacher been carrying a gun, he or she could have stopped the attack or, at the very least, bought time for people to escape. We have seen that happen several times before, including a case in Pakistan where a hero professor armed with a pistol held off a pair of rifle wielding terrorists long enough for his students to escape. That wasn't even an option in this case and is at least part of the reason why 17 people had to die. 

It is utterly disgusting to me that we allow our most vulnerable citizens to be completely undefended. Sure their are some cops that are at schools, but the teachers themselves are unarmed. I don't think all teachers should be required to own and carry firearms, but there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to carry if they choose to do so. 

As for this case, I expect it to fade away from the news soon. Cruz is Hispanic and doesn't fit the profile of a suspect that the media wants to focus on. If it comes out he is some kind of white supremacist or he did it because he is racist, then we will get 24/7 coverage. But that likely isn't going to happen so I expect the media to go back to complaining about Donald Trump. After all, it's not like there wasn't a huge mass shooting in Las Vegas a short time ago that has completely fallen off of the radar. Stephan Paddock wasn't a useful tool to attack Republicans so his actions can be safely ignored. I am guessing Nikolaus Cruz will end up being in the same category... 

Slow news day

I just could not think of anything to write about today. Nothing interesting is happening. Sure, there are stories out there but most of them are either stupid, like the Rob Porter story, or about things I don't care about at all, like the Olympics. The other options are international stories that I have already covered.

On the one hand it is nice not having to write about something horrible. It's been awhile since I have covered a horrible terror attack or major battle on this blog and I am thankful for that. On the other, good times make for boring blog output. I hope tomorrow there will be something worth writing about! Or some kind of inspiration hits me!

Vanessa Trump, Donald Trump Jr's wife, taken to hospital after opening a letter with a powder in it.

Donald Trump Jr. and Vanessa Trump. CBS/Getty. 

Vanessa Trump, Donald Trump Jr's wife, was briefly hospitalized after opening a letter containing a powder. CBS News. Vanessa Trump opened the letter which was addressed to Trump Jr. The powder has not yet been identified but it has not been identified as toxic. Vanessa Trump was sent to the hospital for testing and is believed to be safe. Vanessa Trump's mother, Bonnie Haydon, was also taken to the hospital along with a third unidentified person. This is no the first time a Trump family member has been targeted like this as in 2016 another letter with powder in it was sent to Eric Trump. 

Thankful that Vanessa & my children are safe and unharmed after the incredibly scary situation that occurred this morning. Truly disgusting that certain individuals choose to express their opposing views with such disturbing behavior.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 12, 2018

Thank you so much for all the help today in NYC! I appreciate all the quick response to make sure that I was safe ! Thank you @FDNY @SecretService @NYPDnews @NYPDCT @NewYorkFBI

— Vanessa Trump (@MrsVanessaTrump) February 13, 2018

My Comment:
Scary situation today with the Trump family. It appears that this was not an actual attack but that doesn't make it any less serious. Sending a letter with powder in it is always a crime and sending it to the son of the president is doubly so. Thankfully nobody was hurt. It seems that Vanessa Trump and the other people involved are fine and will continue to be so.

I think we all remember the anthrax attacks back in 2001. Those attacks killed quite a few people and if this had been the same thing it's very clear that Vanessa Trump, her mother and the third person exposed could been sickened or even killed. That had to be going through everyone's minds before the testing came back negative.

Thankfully, this wasn't anthrax. I am, however, comfortable calling this a terrorist attack. Sending a powder to someone, even if it isn't harmful, is still trying to terrorize them. Given the fact that Donald Trump Jr is the Presidents son it's pretty clear that this was politically motivated as well. The message seems to be that anyone associated with Donald Trump is at risk.

I do have to say that this kind of thing has happened before. I do remember that several people tried the same trick with the Obama administration as well. In a few of those cases actual poison was used. Nobody was hurt but it's clear that this isn't a new problem. There is always going to be people out there that will try to poison politicians.

That being said, I do think that this time around is different. With the media coverage reaching fever pitch and almost all coverage of Trump being negative, they seem to be encouraging this kind of behavior. It's a lot easier to justify attacking someone if the media paints that person as "literally Hitler".

This is another example of violence against Trump supporters and politicians. Thankfully this time nobody was hurt, but in other cases we weren't so lucky. People almost died in the Alexandria attack and Rand Paul was almost killed by his neighbor. Plus, there were so many attacks on Trump supporters during the election committed by Antifa and other far left groups. It is a disturbing trend and although there have always been lone nutjobs, the frequency of these kinds of things seems to be increasing...