The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Things get more curious by the day...

First, there has been floating around for the last few days a report that the shooter in Oregon was on a Russian Terror Watchlist -- one that that Obama administration refused to consider.  All the sources on this point to a somewhat-sketchy European point of origin, but it definitely bears watching.

Then there is the "curious" whitewash of the shooter's face.  The shooter was clearly a black man and yet it was reported widely in the blogosphere that CNN did severe violence to his complexion, whitening it to look like a white guy who had never seen the outdoors!  In the process, however, the managed to delete the moles on his face, which gave away their deception since the image that they used as a source with the background intact (and thus easily compared) is still around.  Why, would anyone attempt to change the apparent race of the shooter?  (Ed: CNN has denied they ran any image of the shooter, and virtually everything has been scrubbed from the Internet at this point.)

Third, if this man was indeed not crazy but instead an ISIS/ISIL/MuzzieNutjob or both then that destroys the narrative being pressed by Obama (and now Hitlery too) on gun control, doesn't it?  Never mind that Hitlery's "forefront charge", she claims, is facially bankrupt.  She has said she wants "100% background checks at gun shows" and has promised to do so via "executive action" should she be elected.  Well, Oregon already has that via state law.  It did nothing to change outcomes, did it?

I remind everyone that virtually every mass-shooting, with a couple of exceptions over the last two decades, has taken place in a so-called "gun free" zone.

Obviously criminals prefer to shoot at unarmed peasants (and, possibly, other criminals) rather than face the possibility that an armed, peaceful citizen might be present.  If we really wanted to do something about these sorts of situations we'd encourage people to be armed since the clear history shows that criminals prefer places where the absence of defensive armament has been declared.  Remove that and they'll have to face the odds of someone prepared and able to offer effective resistance.

There are also those who claim that "nobody" (as in "civilian") has ever stopped a mass murder incident.  False.  I have a few examples that required no research whatsoever; they are entirely from memory.  The first was the Clackamas mall shooter that a concealed-carrying citizen confronted; the shooter, who was armed with a rifle killed himself upon being confronted -- the concealed carry holder was almost-certainly seen targeting him after he drew as he was forced to seek cover by the gunman; his line of fire was obstructed by innocents who might have otherwise been hit.  The second was very recent; an armed Uber driver this spring shot and stopped a gunman who opened fire into a crowd of people at Logan Square Mall.  The third was the nutjob in the food plant in Oklahoma a year or so ago; he was shot and killed by the COO who grabbed a firearm and ended the assault.

Then there is the case of a civilian that ignored the rules and had a gun anyway, even though he wasn't supposed to.  That would be the doctor in the psychiatric clinic in Pennsylvania, where an enraged man shot and killed a caseworker and then shot the doctor, wounding him.  Despite the office being a posted "murder here all you want" (that is, "Gun Free") zone the doctor had a gun, drew it and shot the perpetrator, ending the assault.

Why is it that Rolling Stone intentionally lies about this, along with the rest of the media and politicians?  It's because they know good and damn well that if you face the facts head-on you cannot prevent someone hellbent on murder from acquiring whatever they wish to use.  You can try, but you will fail, and when (not if) you fail you then have simply turned the populace into targets on a shooting range.  This is unacceptable and that the politicians know this is true is evidenced by the fact that Hillary, as a former Secretary of State and First Lady, and President Obama along with the "important" people in both major political parties have gun-toting guards around and with them 24 hours a day.

The first thing we must do as a society is take down the "Unarmed Citizen Shooting Range" signs from our schools and other venues around the country.  It is utterly outrageous that we advertise to crazed felons-to-be that they have the best odds of completing their crimes unopposed in places where our children are present, among others -- but the worst part of this outrage is when we consign our children to such a place and they are both forced to be there and incapable mentally of consenting on their own.  If you wish to walk into such a place voluntarily (e.g. a shopping mall) that's your call but you have no right to force others, especially young people without the ability to give or decline consent under our legal system, do so.

Second, we must recognize that once any person is willing to commit murder all the other crimes you can concoct for him or her to be convicted of up to and beyond that point are immaterial.  This is basic logic; you cannot execute a man nor imprison him for life more than once.  Since a nutjob needs only one firearm or, for that matter, any other implement of destruction to commit his act you would need to get rid of all of said implements, or substantially all of them, to make them inaccessible.  Unless you intend to start by disarming the police, Secret Service and similar (and we know you're not) you're wasting your time.

Third, we place AEDs in public places and encourage private businesses to have them because if you're having a heart attack the 3 minutes it takes for the ALS folks to get there is 3 more minutes than you have and the presence of that AED might save your life.  The same 3 minutes is required for the cops to get there when a bad guy shows up and starts shooting; the presence of armed civilians might save your life.  There are no guarantees in either circumstance but I will take all the odds-shifting I can get in my favor should something ugly of that nature occur, whether it be a heart attack of a nutjob with a gun.  For this reason I want to encourage people to be armed and, in my opinion, so should you.

Finally, we as citizens have a duty to call out all of the politicians and media who intentionally lie about these matters.  These are not mistakes, they are intentional acts.

Blatant falsehoods are unacceptable and when it comes to media outlets they exist on advertising dollars.  It is your duty as a citizen who has an interest in the truth to boycott every single advertiser associated with or running ads on any media outlet that intentionally runs a false narrative when it comes to matters of life and death.

The reason for this is simple: The life or death involved next time may well yours or that of someone you love.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2015-10-04 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1066 references

There are some very disturbing reports coming in about the Oregon shooting.

First off, it was clear within minutes that the shooter targeted Christians.  How many people in our political system have been outraged that Christians were targeted for execution while others were either shot in the leg or not shot at all?  I have heard exactly nothing from Obama or anyone else in political power in that regard.  Why not?

Second, you've heard my screeds over the years about The Second Amendment.  If you cannot argue facts and logic then get the hell off my lawn -- you're unwelcome around me.  In matters of life and death there is exactly zero room for any sort of "squishy", "touchy-feely" or "feel good emotionalism."

Let me be clear: If you resort to emotion when life or death are on the line you are going to die.

If you wish to entertain the debate here on firearms, gun control or anything of the sort then you are going to argue logic and facts.  Here they are:

  • The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  You call the police when there is an active shooter and they show up with guns.  They don't willy-wally around; they look for a tactical solution and if they get one that works they shoot at the bad guy.  That's exactly what happened here.

  • We cannot have cops everywhere, all the time.  We are not only incapable of paying for it nobody would want to live in such a world.  Even if a cop is just one minute away from anywhere in the United States (an utterly fanciful expectation even in a big city) a person with a bolt action rifle or single-shot pistol can shoot a dozen people (or more!) in that one minute.  As a result the faster any good guy with a gun can engage the bad guy with a gun the lower the risk is of everyone in the vicinity winding up dead -- and the more good guys with guns and the closer they are to the situation the better the odds are for you and everyone else.

  • Virtually all (something like all but three) mass-shootings in the last couple of decades have taken place in "gun-free zones."  To those who want to further restrict firearms -- since there are literally over 100 million peaceful Americans that never have and never will commit a crime with a firearm, and that is an overwhelming majority of the population that owns guns, why don't we ban gun-free zones since virtually every single mass-shooting has taken place in one?  There's an obvious reason that these homicidal maniacs don't shoot up a cop shop -- everyone there is armed and will shoot back!  If our President -- or anyone on the left -- gave a good damn about human life they would both take down the "Nobody here that obeys the law is able to defend themselves, commit mass-murder here" signs.

  • You have an unalienable right to life.  The Constitution does not grant you that right because the government never possessed it in the first place and you cannot grant that which you do not first possess. The Founders understood this and we know that because they declared it to be so in the Declaration of Independence; that's why such a right is not in the Constitution, but the recognition of same, in the gravest extreme, is found in the Second Amendment.

  • You are free to decide at any time to give up.  You are not free to demand that others give up, including giving up their right to protect their own lives.  Any infringement on the Second Amendment is a declaration of your disrespect for someone else's life and an indirect assault upon same.  The only means by which that is legitimate is if and when you are willing to die in the place of those who you demand be disarmed.  If you are not willing to take a bullet intended for me then you have no right to demand that I, in any situation that I find myself, be debarred the ability to effectively fight back against such an assault.

  • right cannot be conditioned upon a permit.  By definition a permit or license gives you the ability to do something otherwise prohibited.  If I have a right to defend my own life I need no permit to do so. 

  • For the above reasons people at large have the right to own, possess and carry upon their person arms suitable for defensive use without any damn permits.  Period.

If you cannot argue these points from a perspective of logic then you have no basis to be here as a member with the privilege of commenting and having your state (e.g. what you've read, etc) between sessions.  In point of fact this is a perfect illustration of the difference between rights and privileges -- you have no right to be on this site on the Internet at all as it is private property, and therefore I may deny you entry as I wish.

Now let me leave you with one more thing to contemplate.

There are reports that the shooter reloaded during his rampage.  If these reports are true and he was in the room with a bunch of people who were about to become deceased then you need to hear this very clearly and must read this next sentence over and over until it sinks in:

Stop watching the damn movies and become educated now about firearms.

The instant that jackass dropped his magazine and thus announced he was out at the close range that exists in a classroom (30-50' or so maximum, right?) there was absolutely no reason on God's Green Earth why the persons there should not have immediately grabbed something (e.g. a chair!) and threw it at him and/or bum-rushed the shooter.

He was empty and thus at that point he was a thug with a club until he could reload.

Everyone reading this needs to spend some time in the deep, dark recesses of their mind and drill this singular fact far, far into your consciousness:

If you find yourself in a situation like this you must assume you are dead.  

Therefore, logic says that anything you do from that instant forward can only change things for the better.  Yes, you may fail.  One ex-military member reportedly did try to rush the shooter and was shot several times.  It is reported he is expected to survive.  His doing so likely prevented some number of other people from being shot as the shooter was occupied with shooting at him.  He is a hero but the point here is not to urge people to be heros -- it is to point out that once your life is under assault in this sort of fashion nothing you can do will make the situation worse; you can only improve your odds.

You won't hear this from the mainslime media nor from the so-called "pundits" and "experts" but it is true.  You do not know how many rounds or what other weapons the person threatening you has.  You only know that that person's very presence and presentation means that from an objective point of view you must assume you are dead and thus if you get any tactical advantage, no matter how small, you must take advantage of it immediately and without a second thought.

On United Flight 93 the passengers did exactly this, collectively.  They saved a tremendous number of lives by doing so.  They correctly surmised that they were all dead at the moment they learned the plane had been hijacked and was intended to be used as a bomb.  There was, for this reason, no downside to any action they might take -- they could only improve their odds and those of others, and decided to do so.

This was the correct decision.  It is the only logical decision and the only logical set of actions in a circumstance such as this.

Folks, firearms do not shoot themselves.  They do run out of ammunition. If they are not aimed, but rather wildly fired, they either miss or if they hit someone it is much less likely to cause serious injury or death than if they are deliberately aimed.  Bullets do not have a GPS embedded in them as you see in the movies and without deliberate, concentrated action most of the time they will miss. There is an infamous Youtube video of a bar fight in Toledo a number of years back in which many shots were fired at close range typical of the distance you'd find in a classroom.  Watch the video folks, and then realize this: Not one of those rounds hit anyone.

Therefore anything you can do that detracts from an active shooter's concentration and deliberation who is targeting you increases your odds of survival and that of everyone in the area with you.

If you are scared of firearms then do something about that.  Take a shooting lesson from an instructor or someone you trust that owns firearms.  Learn how they work and how to handle them safely without quivering in fear.  A gun is just a mechanical device and simpler than most that you use every day; it is vastly less-complex than a bicycle, lawn-mower or car.  Safe use and handling of firearms is not difficult to learn at all and every gun works essentially the same way.  Understanding this and having at least a passing level of comfort with it means that if you find yourself in a situation such as what occurred the other day and you are given a tactical break no matter how small you will have a clean opportunity to save not only your own life but that of everyone in the vicinity.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

What sort of nonsense drove this so-called "research", eh?

If you work for this clown-car brigade you ought to be ashamed of yourself -- and be shunned by anyone who knows you.  If you actually transact business with these people, well, just remember PT Barnum's saying....

There has been speculation that the ongoing Volkswagen emissions scandal could spell out the end of the diesel car. But Morgan Stanley thinks the consequences are far greater — that it could help kill off the internal combustion engine altogether.

In a research note published Tuesday, the investment firm makes the case that the news "could raise the cost of doing business for all participants in the internal combustion engine business, accelerating a potential move to EVs," or electric vehicles, "that is just taking root."

Uh huh.

Let's first dispense with the obvious hyperbole.

The VW debacle relates to diesel emissions.  And yes, it's serious.  It may destroy the diesel engine in America on a permanent basis, far worse than the damage done by GM to diesels with their infamous game-playing decades earlier when they tried to build a diesel out of a gas engine block and discovered that the internal stresses were far too high for that design.  The result was an utter disaster with too many on-road failures to count.

But -- there is utterly no reason to believe that this will filter down to gas powered vehicles which are much cleaner over the last decades and do not suffer from the same NOx problems, mostly because unlike a diesel gas engines are run as close to the optimum 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio as possible all the time where a diesel runs there only under full power -- at light load it runs extremely lean, which means there is excess oxygen available.

So why is Morgan Stanley putting out such a load of speculative nonsense?

Maybe it's because they're an underwriter for Tesla's bond offerings.... you know, the electric car company that just moves your vehicle pollution from your tailpipe to a nice big fat power plant and, if you use one of their "gigachargers", it might actually just have moved it to the diesel genset sitting in the back of the building where the Gigacharger is located!  In other words, in that case the pollution got moved from your tailpipe 20 feet away and even better, it was "upgraded" from what would (presumably) be a gas engine to a diesel one!

Naw, that sort of nonsense would never, ever happen..... right?  There's a "Chinese wall" that prevents any sort of cross-pollination or any sort of pollution of opinion from one side to the other...... yes?

Go ahead and believe if you'd like.

I, for one, do not.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.