Month: November 2011

The Numbers Game

One advantage to running a blog is that you have a public platform available for ranting. If something pisses you off you can tell the world (or at least a very tiny percentage of the world that reads your blog). This post is another one of my rants and it has to deal with numbers.

Everywhere you look today we see people throwing around numbers. Some will say politicians shouldn’t be allowed to accept gifts over $10,000, others say we need to pump $1 trillion into building infrastructure, and others claim no person should be allowed to own more than two homes. What irritates me about these statements is that the numbers are apparently selected arbitrarily. Whenever somebody makes a statement involving a number I always ask them how they come to the conclusion that number was valid. How comes a person making $1 million or more qualifies as “rich” and thus has to pay a 90% incomes tax? What criteria lead to the selection of $1 million and 90% tax rate? Demanding justification for the selected numbers seldom nets you any logical justification. After asking one person the logical reason for selecting $1 million as the threshold that defines “rich” and “poor” the answer I received was, “Uh, err, it’s just common sense! How do you not understand it?”

It’s not common sense though. Common sense involves culturally accepted norms and as humans are not good at dealing with large numbers there can be no cultural norm revolving around large numbers. Those who wish to restrict the number of homes a person can own also fail to provide any real justification. They will often say something along the lines of, “Nobody needs more than two homes!” Such statements are correct in a technical sense since one could always rent an apartment but from a logical sense the statements hold no water. What if a businessman periodically travels between four different company sites? Let’s say he spends an average of three months a year at each location. Why shouldn’t the businessman be allowed to own a home in each of the four locations? Allowing him to own multiple homes doesn’t hurt you in any way and does benefit the economy since it requires each home be built, maintained, and provided with utilities.

Speed limits are another arbitrarily selected number with piss poor justification. While the government claims speed limits serve as a mechanism of increasing road safety this is easily proven false by the fact that the German Autobahn has not speed limits in many locations and has a low fatality rate. Likewise if the speed limit was really a limit people should be getting into more accidents when they exceed the speed. Everyday my trip to work involves traveling on two highways where the posted speed limit is 55 mph but everybody drives around 70 mph. The number of accidents isn’t obscenely high meaning 55 mph must not be the threshold of safety where exceeding it will cause an increase in accidents. Speed limits are just another arbitrarily selected number with weak justifications.

Any desired policy must be completely justifiable. Selecting an arbitrary number and claiming it is a threshold of some sort is not justifiable. I can say my Magpul SR-25 magazines have a maximum capacity of 20 rounds of 7.62x51mm because 21 rounds will not fit. That’s a hard fact and thus using the number 20 makes sense. Saying somebody who makes $1 million should pay 90% income tax makes little sense because there are no solid facts for defining the thresholds of $1 million and 90% other than saying they “feel” right. Feelings have nothing to do with policies and should be completely ignored in that regard.

The next time somebody tells you a policy should be enacted that involves any number whatsoever demand they explain how that number was chosen. You’ll be amazed at how quickly demanding justification for the selection of a number can shutdown a debate.

Stop Me if You’ve Heard This Before

If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard somebody start a statement with, “I’m a gun owner but…” I’d probably be very wealthy. I’ve never actually heard anything intelligent comes after that well-known opener either and this is no exception:

I am about as pro-firearms as they come; I am an NRA member, target shooter and hunter, and speaking as a student with a concealed firearm permit, I still believe this campus is not the place to be carrying. There is absolutely no reason to carry a concealed firearm

on-campus.

His argument? Well… it’s downright idiotic:

The one thing no one should ever sacrifice is safety. Events such as the shootings at Virginia Tech and Penn State are very rare. But they arose, because people did not follow university rules and precautions.

That’s right, Virginia Tech and Penn State were results of people not following university rules and precautions. If only the murdering sons of bitches would have obeyed the rules and not brought guns onto campus everything would have been swell those days. Maybe the murderers didn’t know they weren’t supposed to bring guns on campus; I’m sure they would have returned home upon seeing a sign informing them that the campuses were gun-free zones.

Idiot, dumb ass, retard, moron, and fucking dip ship all seem inadequate to explain the level of stupidity this person’s statement emanates. Were that the only statement he made it wouldn’t be so bad but he keeps piling on the stupid:

One point to think about is if, and a very big if at that, permits were to be issued specific to University Park grounds and a situation occurred in which there was a shooting on campus the campus would turn into the Wild West. Practice is one thing that many amateur shooters lack and a crowded campus where all hell breaks loose would be a time when every inch of accuracy matters.

The problem with the “Wild” West is that it wasn’t very wild. I would also submit the fact that no shootout would likely occur for two reasons: dead people don’t shoot and most of the bastards who’ve shot up schools ended up offing themselves the second resistance arrived. Were a person with a carry permit able to shoot the murderous gunman the situation would be concluded in short order and if the permit holder was unable to get a clean shot the situation would likely be concluded shortly anyways as the murderous gunman took his own life in an act of sheer cowardice. Obviously logic wasn’t the strong suit of the person who wrote this article though.

But to ensure further protection. I think anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm should be required to pass a vision and shooting test. The shooting test should include both moving and stationary targets. Through these added precautions, we could be assured that we are placing firearms in skilled hands.

What the author is really saying is that those with poor vision should be prohibited from defending themselves. It seems the author believes people with poor vision should be removed from the gene pool less they breed and are able to pass their genetics of poor vision onto their offspring. Maybe the author was a fan of eugenics. Furthermore he believes everybody should be required to receive training for unlikely scenarios before they are granted the privilege of exercising one of their supposedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Why do I say training for situations involved stationary and moving targets is an unlikely scenario? Because a large majority (83.5%) of self-defense situations involving a firearm require only the presentation of the weapon [PDF]. It’s good to be training in handling a vast number of potential scenarios but such training should not be mandatory.

If a situation would arise on campus when students had the right to hold concealed weapon it would be absolute nightmare. But the people to bring calm to a situation like this shouldn’t be students or staff members — the people to calm the situation would be the emergency responders.

Yes the emergency responders should be the ones to bring calm to the situation, you know when they get there anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes after somebody makes the initial call to 911. The reason body counts get so high at many of these shootings is due to the amount of time it takes emergency responders to actually respond. What the author doesn’t realize is that instant teleportation technology is not something we have access to yet so anybody wanting to get from one point to another (let’s say from a police station to a college campus) have to physically make the trip. Usually this involves hopping into a car and driving there but one could also walk if they so chose.

We have emergency responders for a reason: protection and safety. It is their job and we have to stand behind them. At any point a responder could lose their life. Each one knows the risk, but they accept it because they have taken an oath to protect the citizens.

Emphasis mine. It seems that while the author realizes emergency responders may lose their life at any point college students and faculty members will remain entirely unharmed.

No matter what form of emergency the first step is to size up the problem; the better the size up of the problem faster the emergency will get solved. If the responders can not figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of Penn Stater might be lost.

If the responder can figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of a student or faculty member might be lost. Emergency responders usually don’t respond until there has been an emergency meaning it’s likely somebody has already been shot before 911 is even called. The sooner the situation is dealt with the smaller the window of opportunity for the murder. Allowing faculty members and students to legally carry firearms can drop the response time of mass shootings dramatically as there are personell on campus capable of ending the situation.

Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in agricultural systems management. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician. Email him at sfm5089@psu.edu.

What that footnote should have said is, “Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in a career track that doesn’t study self-defense situations in any sense. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer in two types of emergency response that don’t directly deal with ending mass shooting scenarios. Basically he may be very intelligent in agriculture systems management, firefighting, and emergency medical fields but he knows little, if anything, about self-defense scenarios. Email him at sfm5089@psu.edu.”

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject but there is much wrong with being ignorant on a subject and having a strong opinion regarding it.

Good to Know

It’s good to see the important issues are being covered by the We the People petitions:

Thank you for signing the petition asking the Obama Administration to acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence here on Earth.

The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye.

That’s a relief, I was worried a Wraith disguised as a punk was roaming around Las Vegas and feeding off of the life force of my fellow humans. Now I can rest assured that I won’t be dealing with a creature that can heal itself almost instantly from bullet wounds.

Veteran’s Day

Today is Veteran’s Day which is a day when many make quick quips thanking our veterans for their service. I’m going to do something slightly different. Let me take a second to ask others to consider truly supporting out troops by removing them from harm and brining them home.

We currently have permanent military bases in at least 148 countries. Those bases not only harbor ill-will against the United States by many countries where those bases lie but also put the lives of our military personnel in jeopardy. Instead of sticking our noses into every other country’s business we should be minding our own. Thus this Veteran’s Day I’m advocating everybody show the greatest support for our troops that you can by demanding they be brought home so their lives aren’t put at risk to fulfill the desires of the tyrannical politicians.

Wisconsin’s Training Requirement Thrown Out

In a rare act of political common sense the lawmakers in Wisconsin have tossed out the mandatory four hours of training to obtain a carry permit:

Applicants to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin will no longer have to complete four hours of training, after a Republican-controlled legislative committee voted Monday to do away with the requirement that had been assailed by the National Rifle Association as being too strict.

The rule mandating the successful completion of at least four hours of training was put in place by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s Department of Justice in advance of the law taking effect last week.

[…]

“There’s no reason why we have to micromanage how people obtain their concealed carry permit,” said Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend. Other states with no minimum training requirements haven’t had any problems and “there’s going to be no problem in the state of Wisconsin either,” Grothman said.

Senator Grothman states is beautifully, states lacking training requirements haven’t had any issues with the issuance of carry permits. The idea that training be required to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right is absurd. Has anybody ever advocated a requirement of training be completed before exercising the right of free speech? I’ve never heard anybody claim those wishing to protect themselves against self-persecution only be allowed to remain silent if they’ve passed a training program.

Why should those eligible to own firearms be restricted from carrying them?

Another State Votes Against Mandatory Health Insurance

It appears the tradition of nullification is alive and well in regards to the federal Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act. Ohio joins the rapidly growing number of states that have voted against allowing the government to dictate what you buy:

On the eve of the 213th anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, laying the intellectual groundwork of nullification, the people of Ohio exercised their power and nullified the insurance mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Ohioans passed Issue Three, a constitutional amendment to preserve their right to choose their own health care and health care coverage. Preliminary returns indicated a wide margin of victory, with more than 60 percent approving the amendment. The amendment makes it illegal for any local, state or federal law to require Ohio residents to purchase health insurance, effectively nullifying a key component of the PPACA.

“This signifies that state level resistance to federal power is not just an old idea relegated to history books,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said, “It’s something that’s alive and well right now.”

Ohio became the tenth state to reject the insurance mandates in the PPACA.

Good on you Ohio. There is no justification that allows the federal government to determine what you will and will not buy. While the lack of justification hasn’t stopped the federal government from dictating that all Americans buy into Social Security it’s still nice to see a line in the sand drawn somewhere.

The idea that you have to buy health insurance under threat of punishment is disgusting and I’m not sure how the American public put up with the passage of such legislation. While those who support the legislation say it’s important to ensure all Americans receive quality healthcare they are mistaken in what this bill really enacts. It doesn’t enact quality healthcare, it enacts violence by putting a gun to the head of every American and demanding they buy health insurance.

Mixed Signals Regarding Gaddafi

I’m very confused right now. On one hand we’ve been told that Gaddafi was an evil tyrant who butchered his people and suppressed human rights while on the other hand the United Nations was preparing to award Gaddafi for his respect of human rights in Libya:

Before NATO and the U.S. started bombing Libya, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights. That’s right–the same man, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, that NATO and the United States have been telling us for months is a “brutal dictator,” was set to be given an award for his human rights record in Libya. How strange it is that the United Nations was set to bestow a human rights award on a “brutal dictator,” at the end of March.

A copy of the United Nations report can be found here [PDF]. What’s even more interesting is the list of nations that praised Gaddafi includes those who were calling for the bombing of Libya including Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Germany, and Australia.

This raises further red flags about the reason Libya was bombed. It’s not like any ulterior motives exist or anything. No matter how you look at it mixed signals were certainly sent by the countries that commended Gaddafi for advancing human rights while also advocating the bombing of his regime because of human rights violations supposedly performed.

Sheriff Chuck Wright Seems Like a Smart Man

Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright seems like a pretty levelheaded man and honestly I wish more police officers adopted his way of thinking. Instead of being a self-righteous authoritarian who believes only himself and his selected employees are competent enough to protect the populace Sheriff Write is discussing self-defense with those who don’t carry badges:

Hundreds of people packed a meeting room Monday night to listen to Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright, teachers and officials discuss protection tips, including everything from cutting back bushes around homes to carrying guns.

When Brenda Thornton walked up to a meeting room at the Spartanburg County government office building Monday night, she had to stand outside of the door.

“When I got in here, we couldn’t get in,” she said.

She and others stood outside, but they listened closely to tips about protecting themselves.

“I have always really wanted to have a gun in my car because I travel a lot by myself,” she said.

And when Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright walked in, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

“I still believe women get your CWP, if that’s what you choose to do, but train yourselves with it,” Wright said.

I’m giving him points not just for recommending people get carry permits but also emphasizing the necessity to train with a the firearm you plan to carry. While carrying a firearm is smart it won’t serve much use if you don’t know how to properly utilize the weapon. Propert utilization requires a great deal of training so that all operations with the firearm are muscle memory. Being in a high-stress situation where your life is on the line is not the time to wonder how to reload the firearm or disengage the manual safety.

More police officers need to follow Sheriff Wright’s lead and properly education people on self-defense. Too many officers seem to believe only trained cops have the ability to defend a life and that attitude needs to be extinguished.

Psychological Reactance

One reason I get along much better with the gun community (besides the fact I love guns) than, say, the liberal arts community is because few people in the gun community demand I change my behavior to suit their needs. I don’t have to listen to members of the gun community telling me how driving a Ford Ranger is evil and that I should switch to a battery-filled Prius or how upgrading computers periodically is killing the planet. Instead when I pull up with my Ford Ranger I’m asked why I drive such a small truck and am urged to man up and get a Ford Earthfucker.

Like myself the majority of the gun community is afflicted by a psychological phenomenon known as reactance:

Reactance is an emotional reaction in direct contradiction to rules or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms.

Basically when somebody tells those afflicted with psychological reactance to do something we do the opposite because we fucking can. No better (and hilarious) demonstration of this can be found than Jay’s response to some stupid fat sow telling people what they should be driving:

The guy handled it a lot better than I would have – about 10 seconds in I’d have started the truck up and revved it to redline a dozen times just to piss her off more. Then I’d have put it in 4WD and driven around with the A/C on – just to burn more gas. Hell, the way she was running her mouth, I’d have set fire to some plastic and then sprayed some 1980s hair spray just to widen the hole in the ozone to match her gaping maw.

I think I might look into a Hemi Challenger to complement the Earthf**ker just to piss bints like her off…

Just a future note for those who wish to control what others do: many people do not response well to such attempted authority. I personally respond poorly to people telling me what to do and instead will go out of my way to do the opposite just to piss a controlling asshole off. For example when a couple of Occupy Minneapolis members were talking about blocking off the entrance to U.S. Bank I instantly reacted by noting such action would be met with me breaking their line. I don’t hold an account with U.S. Bank nor do I like them so why would I purposely go out of my way to break through their line? Because that’s how I respond to attempts to control my behavior. Trying to tell me what I can and can’t do, even if I never had a desire to do that, is going to result in me giving you the finger and going out of my way to do the activity that you’re are trying to prohibit.

Personally I have nothing against environmentalism until its advocates attempt to control what I eat, drive, and enjoy as hobbies. Every time somebody tells me that I need to stop eating meat to save the planet I’m going to head to Fogo de Chao and eat a metric fuck ton of beef. When somebody says I shouldn’t drive a truck because it’s polluting the environment I’m going to start my truck and make some needless one mile trips just to burn gas. My message to all of you who try to control the behavior of others is this: fuck you! I am a free individual and will live my life as I damn well please.

Another Application for Shotguns

I feel bad for business owners near Zuccotti Park as there seems to be an increase in the number of harassement incidents initiated by occupiers. While I gave the occupiers the benefit of the doubt at first I’m starting to like less and less of what I hear coming out of New York and this incident makes me glad the Minnesota occupiers have remained peaceful and civil:

A business owner near the Occupy Wall Street encampment claims she has been repeatedly harassed and threatened with bodily harm by protesters after she and her employees refused to give in to their outlandish demands.

“I’ve been told, ‘Watch your back!’ 10 times,” Stacey Tzortzatos, owner of Panini & Co. Breads, located across from Zuccotti Park, told The Post yesterday.

She and her employees are terrified by the constant threats, which she said began after she demanded the protesters stop using her shop’s restroom as a place to bathe every day.

The final straw came about two weeks ago, when the demonstrators broke a bathroom sink, flooding the shop, and clogged the toilet — setting her back $3,000 in damages.

[…]

And on Friday, she said, a crazed squatter burst into the shop and demanded that workers fill a 10-gallon container of water.

When they refused, “he banged it on the ground and started yelling” and threatened the staff, she said.

“He said he was entitled to have it for free.”

As I’ve said before rioters are severely allergic to shotgun pellets. Although I realize getting a shotgun in New York is likely difficult I would urge Ms. Tzortzatos to arm herself. She will be amazed how quickly a violent thugs turns into a fleeing coward at the sight of a shotgun. And if the sight of the shotgun isn’t enough to scare them away the bark will certainly take care of the violent offender before the offender has a chance to harm or kill store employees or patrons.