Climate Something or Other

If at first you don’t succeed change the name of your target and try again. Just as corn syrup is changing it’s name to corn sugar and Blackwater changed their name to Xe global warming climate change is getting a name change to climate disruption. As with most thing involving climate something or other Borepatch has a good writeup about how a certain staffer in the Obamessiah’s administration came up with the glorious idea of doing the name swap.

I’m not a rocket scientist but I believe if your crusade lacks so much popular support and scientific backing that you have to change the name twice to drum up fear you should find something else to make money on. It seems people don’t really want to jump on the carbon credit scheme and climate something or other isn’t scaring many people anymore. Just give up and find another scam already.

Canadian Will Keep Wasting Millions of Dollars

Every Day, No Days Off informs us that our friends up north have decided to keep wasting millions of dollars on a point long-gun registry. This is both a blow to the civil rights of Canadian as well as a boon from criminals whom ignore the registry anyways and know any slight inconvenience for citizens self-defense is a convenience for crime.

If It Doesn’t Work Just Do It Again Only Harder

Snowflakes in Hell has informed us gun ban activists are at it again in Germany. A German woman went on a shooting spree killing four and injuring another 18. When strict gun control laws aren’t preventing shootings what’s the best way to deal with it? According to gun ban activists ban guns entirely.

I’ll never be able to wrap my head around the idiocy of these people. It’s been shown time and time again that enacting draconian gun control laws doesn’t prevent gun violence. In the real world where I operate most of the time when something doesn’t work we stop doing it and try to solve our problem in a different manner. If you’re using a hammer to pound in a screw and getting sub par results the answer isn’t to get a larger hammer but to get a different tool all together.

Gun ban activists seem to be believe if something isn’t working you just need to do it harder. German already has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books and they still have to deal with shootings every now and then. Britain which almost has a complete ban on gun ownership also have to deal with shootings periodically. People are going to go crazy and kill others. If somebody is willing to commit murder they’re willing to break gun control laws. Knowing these two things maybe the best option is to loosen gun control laws and allow people to arm and defend themselves. Obviously gun control laws aren’t doing a damned thing.

Faster than a Speeding Bullet

What’s faster than a speeding bullet? Light. Well that is until some yahoo shoots down your fiber cable. Apparently Google is having trouble with a few bad hunters shooting down data center fiber cables.

I’m going to say Google’s response of burying their cable is good. After reading the headline I was assuming somebody was going to lobby to ban hunting within X miles of any telephone pole or some other such nonsense. Although everybody reading this understands these few hunters give the rest of us a bad name these are the kinds of actions anti-gunners cling to as reasons for stricter gun control laws. Let’s not give the antis what they want and ensure our rounds only go where they are supposed to.

Road Rage

I know being pissed off about traffic conditions and idiot drivers is JayG’s field of expertise but damn it sometimes you just have to vent.

Let us pretend of a second that you’re at an intersection. This intersection is an on and off ramp to a highway intersected with a city street. Let us say down the street the stop light has went from it’s normal red, yellow, green operation to the flashing red that notes stop sign functionality. Due to this traffic on said road is backed up to the intersection. Now let’s say you’re one of the people who took the off ramp and are turning onto the city road. If the cars are backed up all the way to the intersection do you (a) stay at the end of the off ramp and wait for the line of traffic to shorten or (b) drive into the intersection and prevent anybody going the opposite way from using the on ramp?

If you answered (b) you’re a majority of the fuckwits who drive through my on/off ramp intersection and cause me to wait for 20 minutes before being able to take said on ramp. So FUCK YOU and go die in a fire!

The Woman with No Name

So some dumb ass went and trademarked her own name and is actively protecting that trademark. This is an amusing block of text from her website:

[Name removed to avoid trademark violation] name is a Federally Registered Trademark. It is illegal to use the name ([Name removed to avoid trademark violation]) on any website or document without prior written permission.

See the problem there? If you trademark you name and don’t allow anybody to use it without written permission nobody is going to use your name and you won’t gain any recognition. This effectively means you become an anonymous entity on all websites who don’t see written permission to print you name. There is also another amusing piece:

Separately, I should note that Dr. Ann De Wees Allen’s website has an amusing bit of javascript that tries to prevent you from copying and pasting any text and on doing something so simple as right clicking and trying to open a link in a new window. The best part, though, is if you have javascript enabled, and do try to right click, a pop up windows shows up with the text saying “Copyright Protect!”

I didn’t notice that as I’m always running NoScript. It’s amazing how much stupid shit on the Internet you get to bypass and ignore with that little add-on.

Herp Derp

Seriously whenever I hear somebody go on an anti-gun rant anymore all I really hear coming out of their mouths is, “Herp, derp, duuuhhhrrrr, I… like… turtles.”

A college student tries to make an argument against campus carry and ends up sounding a little… special:

The students and faculty on any campus should strictly focus on academic pursuits. Security teams hired by the college should likewise focus on the constant protection of those students and faculty. We all have a role in the big picture.

Yes students and faculty should strictly focus on academic pursuits and not even venture into developing a social life, exercising, working a job to pay rent, etc. The remark about the security team is where I felt this student went a little retarded. By that very logic nobody would need to carry a gun because the police will protect you! Of course the police can’t be everywhere and neither can a campus security team which is why the phrase, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away” was coined. In a situation involving a crazy asshole shooting up a campus you don’t have time to wait for a security team if the crazy asshole happens to be in the same classroom as you.

It isn’t logical to deploy a security force on a college campus whose mission is to provide a safe environment only to minimize their ability by disarming them.

Who in the fuck said anything about disarming the security teams on campus? Allowing concealed carry on campus means students and faculty can carry firearms, it doesn’t require the on campus security teams be disarmed in the process.

There are college campuses of various sizes all across the country that have professionally-trained and properly armed officers on their security teams.

And there are campus in the country that allow students and faculty to carry their firearms on the premises. How many school shootings have you heard of occurring in Utah?

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a grass-roots organization that supports concealed carry. Their website lists a number of “common arguments” for allowing licensed adults to carry on campus. They attempt to answer each argument with a very rational explanation. It really is just rationalization. That’s what I mean when I say there are two sides to the issue.

Ah yes the argument of an anti-gunners, “The other side is just trying to rationalize their side of the argument by using stupid facts and logic and other stuff that hurts my brain. I, being anti-gun of course, don’t rationalize my beliefs and just tell you you’re wrong if you disagree with me because seeing guns makes me lose control of my bowels.” Let’s look up rationalize in the dictionary:

  • apologize: defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning; “rationalize the child’s seemingly crazy behavior”; “he rationalized his lack of success”
  • cut: weed out unwanted or unnecessary things; “We had to lose weight, so we cut the sugar from our diet”
  • structure and run according to rational or scientific principles in order to achieve desired results; “We rationalized the factory’s production and raised profits”
  • think rationally; employ logic or reason; “When one wonders why one is doing certain things, one should rationalize”</li
  • remove irrational quantities from; “This function can be rationalized”

Looking at the various definitions it seems rationalization is what you want to do. At least I prefer to remove irrational quantities and think rationally by employing logic and reason.

Regardless of any rationalization by the SCCC, allowing more guns on campus will logically result in a higher probability that a gun will be used against the campus population.

Utah… look it up. After you do tell me how many mass shootings have occurred on their campuses since they enacted their law allowing students and faculty to carry firearms on campus.

According to SCCC data, about 10 percent of adults are licensed and carry concealed guns nationwide. If I knew one out of every 10 people on campus was packing heat, I would be distracted—period.

That’s your problem—period. If you’re distracted by the thought of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms you should be distracted by the potential people currently carrying guns on campus illegally.

It’s one thing for someone to take the state’s course to become licensed. It is something else entirely to predict how a student with four hours of safety training will react under fire.

They’ll react a damned side better than a student under fire without any means of self-defense that’s for sure (and by that I mean they’ll have a chance at staying alive).

Students and faculty carrying concealed guns would be no less vulnerable to the crazy, armed madman who comes on campus bent on destruction than they are now. There would just be more guns involved, more bullets flying and a greater probability that someone is unintentionally injured or killed.

Actually they are less vulnerable because they have the means of stopping the crazy, armed madman. Having a concealed weapon doesn’t mean you are impervious to bullets, it means you have a chance to fight and win. That tipping of the scales further into your favor does make you less vulnerable.

Honestly, no one would expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando and make all the right decisions in a “kill or be killed” situation that could easily be over in less than a minute.

No one does expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando. You don’t need to be an elite commando to put two rounds into another man’s chest. I also love his optimism that the campus security teams will be able to end the situation easily in under a minute. Are they always geared up and do they have teleportation devices on their persons?

I can’t buy the concept that someone with no experience of defending himself against violent crime can suddenly protect himself and others, just because he is the one with the concealed gun.

Strangely enough many people with concealed carry permits also take additional training in self-defense. Even if they don’t having a firearm at least evens the odds of survival which is the whole fucking point.

I don’t want that pressure on me, and I don’t want to put it on my friends and professors.

Maybe you should stop to consider the fact that your friends and faculty may want that “pressure” (pressure to have a means of fighting back that is). If you don’t want that pressure that’s fine, nobody is making you carry a firearm. It’s not called mandatory carry, it’s a choice you can make and those who advocate for campus carry simply want that choice.

I am a big fan of the U.S. Constitution.

You can’t go on an anti-gun tear and then say you’re a fan of the United States Constitution. That’s an oxymoron if there ever was one.

There is not a more civilized place to be than on a college campus. That said—I like to think we have a better chance of remaining civilized and safe, if we don’t get used to the “wild west” approach to campus security.

Yeah, because we know gun-free zones have never been locations of shootings… oh wait.

Where Not to Eat

I do love convinced so when somebody offers a list of places to avoid I’m often quite grateful. If you live in Tennessee Uncle posted a site that lists restaurants that ban firearms.

Personally after looking at their site I believe they’re trying to get restaurants to ban guns but really I think the site will be used more by gunnies to find places to avoid. I find it strange that there are movements out there to to bar non-felons with no history of mental illnesses or domestic violence from frequenting establishments. Even strange in my opinion is the fact some establishments agree with these movements. If I ever own a business I’d prefer customers whom I knew to not be felons and have no prior history of mental illness or acts of domestic violence.

A Slight Bias

The Supreme Court is going to be hearing a case in November dealing with California’s ban of “violent” video games to minors. A story making the rounds today is that 72% of adults approve of such laws. Anybody who has been in the gun rights scene long enough recognizes a bias survey when they see it.

In this case an advocacy group called Common Sense Media (their name of course being doublespeak as they lack common sense) were the ones who commissioned the study. Taking a look at their web site I think their mission page says a lot:

We believe in media sanity, not censorship.

Please tell me the difference between sanity and censorship. Censorship is censorship regardless of how you look at it. Trying to rephrase it as “media sanity” is a lot like rephrasing war as a policing action.

We believe parents should have a choice and a voice about the media our kids consume and create. Every family is different but all need information.

They believe parents should have a choice but also believe California’s law banning the sale of “violent” video games to minors is hunky dory. What if a parent is OK with their children playing “violent” video games (my parents for instance had no problem with me playing Doom or Duke Nukem 3D and I didn’t turn into a blood thirsty killing machine).

We believe that the price for free and open media is a bit of extra homework for families. Parents need to know about the media their kids use and need to teach responsible, ethical behavior as well as manage overall media use.

The price of freedom is always personal responsibility. This statement is one of the few I can say is correct. Parents need to know what their kids are doing and determine if they feel it is appropriate. If my memory serves me I believe that’s actually a parents job. Providing a mechanism for parents to learn about different types of media is good. On the other hand:

We believe appropriate regulations about right time, right place, and right manner exist. They need to be upheld by our elected and appointed leaders.

Doublethink alert! How can an organization be for the right of parents to make informed decision and also in favor of government telling parents what is right? Making informed decisions is the exact opposite of something in authority telling you what you will do. This right here is the ultimate problem they want parents to make specific decisions, not informed ones. You no longer have choice once a law is enacted besides obey or break said law.

If there is a law banning children from playing “violent” video games (as there are laws against children smoking cigarettes) for instance a parent no long as the choice to determine whether or not their child can play “violent” video games.

This organization is biased. Cases are different on a child by child basis and parents have to know what their children are doing and if they find it appropriate. For instance Common Sense Media state:

Media violence is especially damaging to children under 8 because they cannot easily tell the difference between real life and fantasy, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology

I never had any such problem as a child. I knew that shooting Dr. Wily’s robots in MegaMan 2 was fantasy violence. When I watched Transformers I understood Optimus Prime sending a laser blast through Decepticon scum was fantasy. Other children may not be able to determine such things though and in that case the parents need to make a decision on whether to allow their kids to play or watch such things. Making a law just fucks everybody over and gives the government more power to determine how you will live you life.

Citing People for Being Self-Sufficient

How’s this for fucked up? A man was cited for growing too many vegetables on his own land:

The county says Miller grows more crops on his land than allowed under zoning regulations. Code enforcement officers began ticketing him in January for the zoning violation and for allegedly having unpermitted employees on the property.

Please try to remember that you may have paid for the land but the government actually owns it.