I like to write about how law-abiding Americans use their legal firearms to prevent crimes. The best crime preventing is done when you don’t even fire your weapon, but sometimes you have to go all the way. That’s what happened recently at a mall in Indiana. I thought it might be good to talk about the Good Samaritan hero who used his legal firearm to stop a horrific crime.

Here’s the story from WTHR local news:

An autopsy found the shooter was shot eight times and none were self-inflicted.

What’s interesting about this to me is that it’s usually young, unmarried women who don’t like the idea of men owning firearms, and vote against gun rights. But honestly, this is the kind of young man they should be interested in dating and marrying. He was armed, he had practiced enough to be accurate, and he protected his loved ones from evil. When you take away the guns from the good guys, you can’t expect to find men who can protect you from threats. You can’t expect to call the police and have them show up in time to save you – look at what happened in Uvalde, TX.

Defensive gun usages

Amy Swearer, a writer at Daily Signal, puts out a list of heroic gun usage to prevent crimes, and I link to them occasionally. The last one I linked to was from May 2022. She hasn’t done one for July yet, but here is the one for June.

Here’s one of 12 defensive gun usages she lists in that article:

• May 30, Fredericksburg, Virginia: A woman was making a bank deposit when she saw a man get into the driver’s seat of her nearby car, police said. The woman confronted the man, who got physical with her.  She drew a gun and pointed it at him, prompting him to walk away as she called 911. Police arrested the man a short time later and charged him with carjacking.

This is the best kind of defensive gun usage – no shots fired, but crime prevented.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

• The Lott book was published by the University of Chicago Press (now in its 3rd edition)
• The Malcolm book was published by Harvard University Press

The book by economist John Lott, linked above, compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, which shows that the 1997 UK gun ban caused violent crime rates to MORE THAN DOUBLE in the four years following the ban. But both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hand gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority (about two thirds) of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem caused by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.

For a couple of useful graphs related to this point, check out this post over at the American Enterprise Institute.

We have an election this year. If you like this article, why not use it to persuade your undecided friends to support gun rights for law-abiding Americans? The life you save may be your own.

My favorite policy-oriented web site is the Daily Signal. I saw a couple of related posts about the Democrat party and their green energy plan. Right now, everyone knows that the Democrats flubbed handling rising inflation. They were taken by surprise. Will they also be surprised by the failure of their green energy policies?

Here’s the first article from Daily Signal, which provides helpful historical context for the second article:

America became energy-independent during the Trump years. This energy independence brought huge advantages. First, America’s fracking boom and the massive expansion of natural gas production that came with it lowered carbon emissions more than any regulation.

Second, American energy independence changed the national security dynamic with respect to huge energy-export countries in the Middle East and Russia. Finally, the lower energy prices that followed led to massive economic and manufacturing growth. Many dormant small towns in America literally came alive as a result.

Throwing all this away without an adequate and, importantly, cheaper alternative in place is almost unimaginable from a policy perspective, but that’s exactly what happened. By promoting so-called environmental, social, and governance investment standards to choke off fossil fuel investments, by canceling pipelines, and by limiting federal oil and gas leasing, the left has reduced American energy production and left America vulnerable to the rest of the world.

All this has come with very little emissions benefit to boot. It has just enabled Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others to displace American fossil fuel production with their own foreign fossil fuel production.

The result? From Biden’s inauguration to the onset of the war in Ukraine—before the much-discussed “Putin price spike,” in other words—American gas prices went up nearly 50%. Those prices are up another 15% on top of that since the war began.

The Biden administration was surprised because they didn’t know how rising energy prices and massive government spending would cause inflation. Since 2021, they said that inflation would be manageable, and no interest rate hikes were needed. Needless to say, if your chief economist is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, then you get surprised a lot.

Similarly with green energy, the Democrats are living in a fantasy land where switching to wind and solar (but not fracking and nuclear, which are just as clean) can be done with a wave of a Green New Deal magic wand.

Here’s what we can expect going forward, according to the Daily Signal:

Texans were advised last Monday and Wednesday to conserve energy as summer temperatures peaked.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the grid manager for most of Texas, issued a conservation appeal to Texans and Texas businesses as last week’s temperatures were expected to top 105 degrees.

[…][T]he primary reason for the call for conservation was “wind generation [that] is currently generating significantly less than what it historically generated in this time period.” On Wednesday, some forced traditional outages and lower solar output (due to West Texas cloud cover) also contributed.

[…][A]s temperatures and Texans’ need for electricity were soaring, wind turbines across the state were still; and last Monday, they were producing about only 8% of their installed capacity. Operating reserves—the backup generation needed to keep air conditioners blowing and factories working—were shrinking.

Something very similar happened last year during the unprecedented 2021 blackouts when 10 million Texans went without power and 12 million without water, many for several days, during freezing temperatures. Energy analyst Robert Bryce noted at the time, “Roughly 17% of [wind’s installed] capacity was available when the grid operator was shedding load to prevent the state’s grid from going dark.”

It should also be pointed out that solar’s contribution to the grid during those pre-dawn hours was zero.

Is this going to happen in your state this winter? It depends on how much power the secular left has to determine your state’s energy policy. Many voters have this view of America as a magical place, where global warming socialism will really work. But global warming socialism doesn’t work here, either. We know it’s not working in socialist Europe. It’s been tried in big, rich states like Texas and California, and it hasn’t worked. Blackouts are serious – people die from losing power during hot and cold times of the year. I hope people will turn off the TV and think about whether they want to live or die before they vote in November.

I sometimes get into discussions with social conservatives about why I am not at least trying to get married. I have a lot of reasons for not trying to get married. For one, I don’t want to fall under the authority of hierarchies (school, work or church) who do not think that women should be held responsible for their own bad decisions. Let’s take a look at a news story that illustrates the problem.

Once upon a time, men would meet their wives in school, workplaces or churches. As long as the man was not in the reporting hierarchy of the woman, (i.e. – as long as he was not her manager or her director, etc.), then it was fine for people to meet up, date, get engaged, and get married. But that’s all changed now.

Consider this story from the New York Post:

A renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist who was axed after having what he said was a consensual fling with a much younger colleague, said the mushrooming scandal forced him on the unemployment line.

David Sabatini, 54, whose research involved unraveling how tumors develop, resigned from MIT last month and has been surviving on employment after fellow scientist Kristin Knouse claimed he “groomed” and “coerced” her into a sexual relationship, according to a report and court papers.

A longtime friend and dean at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine tried to offer him a job, but after an uproar, the school announced on May 3 that it would not hire him despite the fact that colleagues described him in a recent article as one of the world’s greatest scientists — a “genius” in line for the Nobel Prize.

“What wormhole did my life take, to … protests and being called a sexual predator? What quirk in the universe allowed this to happen?” said Sabatini, who has denied wrongdoing and noted Knouse did not work in his lab or report to him.

In an October lawsuit against MIT, Sabatini said that his relationship with Knouse, who is 21 years his junior, was consensual — and told a reporter he was shocked to find himself the subject of protests at NYU when the school explored the possibility of hiring him.

Sabatini has contended he and Knouse began their fling during a 2018 conference, while he was in the midst of a divorce. By 2020, he thought the affair had cooled, though he claims Knouse wanted to continue. By October 2020, she complained she’d been harassed, and in a later lawsuit alleged Sabitini oversaw a “sexualized” environment in his lab.

What’s interesting about this story to me is that it’s been reported that this woman entered into this relationship with this man after he clearly communicated to her that he was only looking for something casual. I.e. – he was not trying to hide that he did not want to be tied down. He was telling her that up front.

There are more details about the story in Common Sense.

After their initial hook-up…

…they met up at Knouse’s condo near Boston Common where they discussed a few ground rules for their tryst. They agreed they could see other people. Knouse, Sabatini remembers, had ongoing flings with men who she referred to with nicknames like “anesthesiologist f*** buddy,” “finance bro,” and “physics professor,” and she wanted to keep it that way. Also, they wouldn’t tell anyone. Why complicate things at work? It was all supposed to be fun.

Why did this woman get the man fired? Well, there is an old saying about women that goes like this: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. Apparently, Sabatini was getting interested in another woman, and less interested in Knouse:

Things were fizzling… he was getting involved with another woman, a microbiologist in Germany.

Knouse didn’t want to let go. In January 2020 she texted, in part: “I get anxious when I don’t hear back from you and then I see you post stuff on Twitter and it provides an admittedly small and silly but still another bit of evidence to this growing feeling that you don’t care about me in the way that I care about you.” He wrote back: “I am sorry but you are being crazy.” In another text, Knouse admitted feeling “stung.” She added: “I think it’s worth thinking about whether you want someone who matches your passion, intellect, and ambition.”

Godless feminists think that people are faithful and committed because of self-interest, e.g. – “passion, intellect, and ambition”, i.e. – self-interest. But of course, it doesn’t. They think that they don’t need to study to develop a worldview that rationally grounds commitment intentions and commitment ability. And they think they don’t need to choose a man who has studied to develop a worldview that rationally grounds commitment intentions and commitment ability. They think that  it is totally feasible for people to stay together for 50 years because it is always fun, fun, fun. You can just like fun, and choose a man who likes fun, and have a permanent, exclusive relationship based on continuous fun.

So what happened to Sabatini next?

This:

In October 2020, Knouse texted her friends that she was “unpack[ing] a ton of suppressed abuse and trauma from an obvious local source”—an apparent reference to Sabatini. Knouse’s fellowship at the Whitehead was ending, and she didn’t apply for any faculty jobs there. When the new director, Ruth Lehmann, called Knouse to ask why, Knouse complained for the first time of being “harassed.”

In November, Knouse warned her friend—an incoming Whitehead fellow—to “squeeze out as much advice as possible before your mentor is Weinstein’ed out of science.”

In December, at Lehmann’s behest, the consulting firm Jones Diversity sent the Whitehead employees a survey “based in part on Dr. Knouse’s false complaint about Dr. Sabatini,” according to a complaint later brought by Sabatini. All participants were anonymous. Five or so of the nearly 40 employees in Sabatini’s lab took part.

The next month, two former Sabatini lab members lodged complaints to H.R.—the first complaints against him in his 24-year tenure—about “bro culture” in the lab.

This prompted the Whitehead to hire the law firm Hinckley, Allen & Snyder to conduct an investigation on “gender bias and/or inequities and a retaliatory leadership in the Sabatini lab.” The Whitehead never told Sabatini what he was accused of. Former lab members told me their co-workers were sobbing when they came out of meetings with the lawyers, saying that the lawyers had put words in their mouths. “They had a very strong agenda,” one of them told me.

Knouse was 29 years old. She was not a child. Sabatini never worked with her. He never supervised her. He never threatened her or pressured her. This was a relationship between two consenting adults. But that doesn’t matter, because in every school and workplace, women cannot be held responsible for their own bad choices. Women are always victims of men. It is always the man who must be punished. And men have to go to school and work in these environments for their entire lives – walking on thin ice, never knowing when the axe will fall.

Sabatini is ruined:

In the 24 hours after the report came out, Sabatini’s life fell apart. MIT put him on administrative leave. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, another prestigious non-profit that funds biomedical research and was paying Sabatini’s salary, fired him. He resigned from the Whitehead, and eventually MIT, at the advice of his lawyers who thought it would help him secure his next job. (“I one hundred percent regret that,” Sabatini told me).

Soon, the biotech startups he’d helped found— Navitor Pharmaceuticals, KSQ and Raze Therapeutics—started severing their relationships with him. Sabatini was axed from professorships, fellowships, and professional societies. Awards and grants were pulled. His income disappeared.

Knouse is still working. They decided that she didn’t violate the policy – only he violated it. She has no problem at all with this outcome – she really believes she is a victim, and shouldn’t have to take responsibility for her own choices. Can you imagine being married to a woman who does whatever she wants, then blames you when things go wrong? And worse – goes to the authorities to have them punish you, when she is the one who chose poorly?

The more that ordinary, non-Christian men see stories like this, the less they are likely to marry, date or even speak to ordinary, non-Christian women. My concern as a Christian man is how different society will be as marriage declines and even disappears.

UPDATE: I decided to add a little more, because almost no one is understanding the two points of this blog post.

The issue is not whether he is to blame, or whether she is to blame.

The issue is that this was a consensual relationship.
Expectations were set at the beginning – this was casual, no commitment.
She agreed to the casual nature, she was sleeping with several other men.
Suddenly, she reached age 29, and decided it was time to get serious.
He reminded her about their arrangement – nothing serious.

They were BOTH EQUALLY in violation of the company rule.
Abuse was alleged by her, but there was no police involvement to verify it.
He was punished, but there was no criminal trial where he could defend himself.
He was not given due process. No lawyer. No self-defense.

The point is that this is common on college campuses, workplaces, and even in religious organizations. Women who are jilted by men are able to make these allegations and get these men fired without any due process.

More importantly, 1) these accusations can also be made against innocent men who are just “guilty” of offending women in the school or workplace with their conservative or Christian views. This was already happening to people in companies like Mozilla and Google. It’s getting worse.

Not only that, but 2) this sends a message to normal men not to talk to women, date them, mentor them, or marry them, since any offense you cause a woman can be used to get you fired and blacklisted.

You cannot rejoice at the man getting what he deserved, and then ALSO complain about the decline of marriage. Men are learning NOT to talk to women, date them, mentor them, or marry them. So, if you think that the woman did nothing wrong, and should keep her job, while the man did everything wrong and should lose his job, then you are anti-marriage, and you should be delighted with the declining marriage rate. Men don’t sign up to be slaves. They just don’t. And shaming them for not getting married under these conditions isn’t going to work. IT ISN’T WORKING NOW.