Chronicling the depravities of the State.
When it rains it pours. Another shooting occurred only a day after the previous. This time in Orlando, Florida. Jason Rodriguez, 40, not a Muslim opened fire in the office building where it works killing one person. Police arrested him after he fled to his mother’s home (because gosh nobody will think to look there).
It’s interesting to note that neither of the two shooters offed themselves. That’s usually the first thing these psychos do when cornered by the police.
I mentioned a case of double standards yesterday. Well either there were no approved comments on that link or they weren’t showing up for me but either way I have a continuation of this article now. I just want to point out the slew of stupidity going on:
See Anne, the article author, apparently hates guns and no amount of logic will dissuade her from her apparent goal to ensure money is not given to organizations trying to fight breast cancer. Seriously she thinks the source of the money is important and gun manufacturers are bad. So user LC Scotty posts the following:
Woman shoots violent, home invading ex boyfriend.
http://blog.al.com/live/2009/10/burlgar_shot_and_killed_tuesda.html
I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, but these sorts of stories crop up all the time.
Seems legitimate enough. A story about a women defending herself with a gun. Here’s Anne’s reply:
Isolated, anecdotal cases can always be found to justify or defend most anything.
Anne Landman
She’s also right. That’s why I present and entire blog soley about people defending themselves with guns. Choke on it! Of course an anonymous poster makes the usual, although very accurate, car argument:
What if a car manufacturer donated money for breast cancer awareness? I bet cars are involved in the deaths of many women. Oh yeah, but you don’t have an irrational fear of cars.
But Anne shows us that she’s consistant:
There’s already a breast cancer awareness Ford Mustang!
Never mind how the pollutants from the exhaust contribute to disease!
Anne Landman
Oh wait never mind:
Guns are designed for that purpose. Vehicle manufacturers have been developing and incorporating features into cars for decades to make them safer: seat belts, air bags, back-up warning alarms, sensors to detect movement behind them, etc.
Anne Landman
Of course user commander makes a good point:
Smith and Wesson has been building pink-accented “Lady Smith” guns for years now. Why is it suddenly a bad thing that they’re donating some money from the sale of those guns to cancer research?
So this isn’t something new for them but Anne is all of the sudden offended because the M&P Smith and Wesson are auctioning off is for breast cancer awareness is all of the sudden bad. Of course Anne tries to shit all over commander’s argument:
… and in this case, about selling guns.
If S&W just wanted to benefit cancer victims, why not just make a donation to a cancer research organization without pinking the product?
Anne Landman
Because the ENTIRE point behind the pink campaign is to raise AWARENESS. It’s a marketing ploy (not all of them are evil) to raise money to help research breast cancer. Anonymous donations don’t raise awareness because nobody fucking hears about them. I’m only going to post one more nugget of stupidity here. User MarshallD makes a very astute point:
Smith and Wesson and Julie Goloski have their hearts in the right place and you all should be ashamed of doubting them.
A woman with a firearm, trained on how to use it, has a greater chance of defending herself against a violent opponent much larger than herself. I feel much better knowing that my wife carries a firearm to defend herself against a criminal.
Of course Anne doesn’t understand what self defense means:
If a woman needs training in self-defense, I suggest martial arts training. That way she has something that can’t be taken away and used against her, nor can it be stolen and used against someone else.
Anne Landman
I’m sorry but in a self defense situation I want every advantage. If my attacker has a gun and is standing any reasonable distance from me what good are martial arts going to do? What if you’re up against some crazy who’s been taking PCP and can’t feel pain? Sure he won’t feel bullets but he’ll eventually bleed out while breaking limbs probably isn’t going to accomplish much.
Anyways I just wanted to point out some of the stupidity being argued there. Anne who is claiming she’s made at Smith and Wesson because they create the best method one can own for self defense, is more or less advocating those women be disarmed.
And why did I make these remarks on my blog instead of posting them on her site? Well I did post on her site but I have more leeway with my blog and I can use whatever language I feel necessary. Also I realize no amount of logical argument is going to change her mind but I want to place a record of this somewhere since I’m worried she may decide to do some comment pruning in the future.
You know what the anti-gunners always say, comply with criminals and you’ll be better off than if you defended yourself. The phrase, “Just give them want they want” is often used by those against the right of self defense.
The problem is you’re making a contract with a person willing to cause you harm. I present and example showing why compliance isn’t a substitute for self defense.
Here is the story summed up. A many breaks into a family’s home and robs them of valuables. After the even the family report the incident to the police and then get a shotgun in case they experience anything like that again. Well the thug was so pissed off that the family reported him that he returned with intent to kill the family. He met the business end of a shotgun.
Remember when dealing with unscrupulous people there is no guarantee that they won’t decide to turn around and murder you after you’ve done everything they say. On the other hand dead criminals can’t harm anybody. And that is my thought of the day.
Because not all bad guys are two-legged. Folk singer Taylor Michell was attacked and died from wounds inflicted by coyotes. This was a rather surprising headline for me to read as it’s very rare for coyotes to actively interact with humans in general. It’s incredibly rare that they attack human, but it does happen.
When the anti-gunners ask why we want to carry our guns in national parks point to stories like this. Mother nature doesn’t fuck around, yelling at a bear to stop isn’t going to make them stop. Humans in general are pretty frail and we’re not built for killing like most predatory animals and hence we need tools to go up against those types of critters. Punching and biting a bear isn’t going to accomplish shit, putting a few rounds of .454 casull into it very much may stop it.
The headline of this story reads Number Of Women Buying Handguns Increasing. The story is on a Chicago area news site. It’s too bad the person interviewed in the story can only have her handgun if she lives in the Chicago area, not Chicago itself.
So recently an amendment to Amtrak’s appropriation bill states that they will lose a huge chunk of money unless they allow passengers to transport firearms on board in a manner similar to airliners. Great idea! Ever since 9/11 Amtrak has had a zero guns in any form policy on their trains. Well now Amtrak is crying that they can’t meet the deadline for this policy change:
Amtrak and its defenders in Congress have argued that the government-owned train company needs more time and resources before it could allow firearms onto trains.
“We don’t think we’ll be able to do that March 31 deadline, and, of course, finding the funding to make all of that happening,” said Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm. Failing to meet that deadline and missing out $1.5 billion in appropriated funds, its entire funding request for 2010, would bring a “cessation of train service nationwide,” Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper wrote to appropriators last month.
So they are saying they can’t meet the deadline to do something they used to do before 9/11? Really? It seems to me they just have to do the exact same thing they used to and nothing else will need to change.
Well Caleb over a Gun Nuts had an encounter with the knife wielding criminal kind. His method of self defense was quite good in that there was the use of a projectile weapon that persuaded the criminal to stop. The projectile weapon in this case was coffee followed by a Beretta aimed at the would be mugger now a coffee soaked running man.
This happened in broad daylight in a parking lot which goes to show bad guys can appear anywhere at any time. If you carry always carry (unless you legally can’t or will get fired for doing it).
Once again Says Uncle links to another interesting story. Apparently some whiny bitches concerned citizens are looking to change the law in Switzerland that requires males serving in the military to store a military rifle at home. Because of research what happens when you disarm a country I’m bias against laws restricting firearms. But I’m also willing to hear the debate so let’s take a look at both sides. First off the side of logical thought civilians owning guns:
But it wasn’t the militia that sparked Heim’s interest in guns as young man. It was an unassuming trip to a holocaust museum.
HEIM: I was going through all the exhibits and the soaps and the lampshades made of people’s skin, and while I was looking, I heard a funny noise, and there was an old woman, maybe two metres from me. She was trying not to cry. She was sort of sobbing very quietly. She was sort of holding it back. If she had been a few more meters away I wouldn’t have heard her. And that’s when it all hit me. I promised myself I will never be in her situation. I would want to be free and never in a situation where they could just march us off to ovens or prisons.or just take away our freedom.
Heim gets it. See Nazi Germany required civilians to register all guns with the government. Shortly afterwards the government confiscated all the registered guns. After the guns were confiscated and the civilian populace was defenseless the government started rounding up “undesirables” and sending them to death camps where they were gassed by the millions. Had the civilian populace been armed they could have fought back against the government.
OK let’s hear the other side of the argument:
However, not everyone sees guns the same way.
While gun crime is relatively low in Switzerland, more than 300 people a year are killed military rifles, the majority of them suicides. Recently efforts for more regulation have been picking up. And a certain faction of people want military rifles stored in army barracks, rather than peoples cellars.
So you’re saying that people taking their own lives with firearms is justification for disarming the populace? I have a newsflash for those who think this, people taking their own lives can do so without a gun. If a lack of guns had anything to do with suicide rates how to you explain Japan where guns are practically forbidden but the suicide rate is very high? This might come as a surprise but if I wanted to kill myself I could hang myself or slit my wrists with a knife. But the harsh truth of the matter is if somebody takes their own life that is their business and so long as they aren’t trying to take somebody else with them it’s their choice. Meanwhile if you disarm the populace you create a situation where people can not defend themselves against an outside force meaning to do harm.
Also the sheer idiocy of trying to compare 300 deaths by firearms to six MILLION deaths by government hands is ludicrous at best. Those deaths in Switzerland are .005% of the number of deaths caused by the Nazi government in Germany. How can people say the situation of a disarmed populace is better? How can people honestly be that stupid?
Taser just released an advisory stating police shouldn’t use Tasers on peoples’ chests. I guess what works for guns doesn’t work for Tasers.
I think this presents a issuea. When using a firearm most schools of thought say you should aim at center mass which normally is the chest. The chest is a large target full of all sorts of organs the human body need to survive. Shooting somebody in this area makes for an easier target that will potentially cause a lot of trauma.
It’s true given enough time anything can happen. For instance I swung over to The Firearm Blog and found out Hell will soon be importing heavy Russian winter coats. Apparently The Saudi market will have something new for sale, handguns! From the article:
Saudis will be able to buy handguns and other personal firearms openly for the first time, the country’s interior ministry has anounced.
Why? Well because:
The move is aimed at reining in the widespread illegal ownership of handguns and assault weapons, a Saudi official said.
Apparently making gun ownership illegal doesn’t stop people from getting guns. Who knew? We’ll have to see if this affects their crime rate and if blood will flow through the streets like the anti-gun crowd claim happens when you loosen gun control laws.