Monthly Archives: March 2011

I came across something earlier in the week that was hilarious.

Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years

The solution to global warming is nuclear winter.  It just reminds me of that classic saying, “There are very few problems that cannot be solved by the suitable application of high-explosives.”  It just requires that they be applied correctly.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the war on drugs is a losing battle.

The Midgett crew flew into action. The crews of self-propelled semi-submersible vessels are known to scuttle their vessels upon detection, so the Midgett ordered the sub’s crew to the deck of the ship – and prepared to rescue the sub crew from the ocean in the event they sank the boat.

This is not the first submarine to be discovered recently.  Prohibition doesn’t work, it makes considerably money for criminals, because this is how prohibition works.

So the WSU Daily Evergreen ran a horrible opinion piece today regarding carrying concealed weapons on campus.  The piece was so full of inaccuracies, it just couldn’t be ignored, especially since many will take it as fact.

She starts by listing off Texas and Arizona which are currently looking at legalizing concealed carry on campus as Utah has done.  She then follows this up with this baffling quote of contradiction. 

I believe people should exercise their right to bear arms. Though I believe the right to bear arms should not be negated under any circumstance and strongly agree with the National Rifle Association slogan which states, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” I have to question the expected benefits that come from passing these laws. Texas and Arizona are known for their gun friendly customs, but most students and faculty do not want this legislation passed. If the state’s efforts are to create a safer environment for the campus, they should pay more attention to the desires of the student body.

There is a common theme throughout that entire comment, feelings.  There are no facts presented, she attempts to justify the position by how most students and faculty feel.  Her arguments then continue on to what is called projection.  She uses many of the classic examples that we often hear the VPC or Brady Campaign use.

• The problem is actually quite rare and carrying is unnecessary.

Most people have a fire extinguisher in their kitchen, not because there is a high likelihood of fire, but because it’s a tool that can stop the problem before it becomes severe.  People have disaster preparedness kits in their garages for rare and statistically unlikely events.  Many have training in CPR and First Aid, I also am a Certified Rescue Diver, not because I expect to use any of them, but they are tools and training to help in an emergency.

Firearms are tools, they are carried not in the hope that something will occur, but to be used in the event of the unexpected.  Hope is not a plan, and wait is not a verb.  People who can defend themselves as well as others are disarmed and forced to be victims by the ban of weapons on campus.

People carry all the time, more than you probably even realize.  How is there a magical line that makes the campus any more safe than any other place?  Also, firearms are not used only in the incident of a mass shooting, but are used in other forms of self-defense against violent crime.

• Police won’t be able to differentiate between the good guys and bad guys.

This is a classic argument used by gun grabbers.  It has been proven false numerous times, including at Appalachian School of Law,  New Life Church Shootings, and even in Tucson a carrier not only wasn’t shot, but didn’t shoot the person who disarmed the shooter.  Searching through Google, I was not able to find any news article, or standard post indicating this has ever actually happened.  All I was able to find was stuff from the VPC and Brady Campaign spreading their lies.

• Someone else may obtain the weapon and use it.

Not everyone attending the university lives in the dorms or in Greek housing.  Why should they be punished and prevented from defending themselves because others do?  That aside, there are methods that can easily be employed to secure a weapon, even in dorms or Greek houses. 

• Carriers could go and get drunk while carrying.

This shows a complete ignorance of the law.  It is illegal to be drunk and carry.  Not only is it illegal, but it can result in your permit being suspended, weapon confiscated, and a mess of legal bills.  This whole assumption centers around projection.  The author sees herself doing it and assumes that everyone else would.  The bigger problem with that though is permit holders are some of the most law abiding people in the country.

These points also ignore the fact that 26 different colleges in three states have legalized carry on their campuses for permit holders and none of these points has been a problem. 

At the end, she closes that the school should fund alternative methods of security.  This action is nothing more than a security theater.  The fact is you are responsible for your own safety and security.  No matter how much money you throw at the problem, you will not be able to solve it by alternative methods.  Preventing people from effectively defending themselves serves no other purpose than to ensure that they are nothing more than defenseless victims should the unlikely actually happen.  This whole argument is about being prepared for the unexpected.  Just because it is unexpected doesn’t mean it can’t happen here.

The house already passed HB 1016, SB 5112 is the Senate Companion Bill.  It was scheduled for a second reading today.  A public hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee has been scheduled for March 9th, at 1:30 PM.

If the date or time change I will update it here.  If you can make it, please go and show your support.

My original letter can be seen here.

Yet again the A Security Theater failed to prevent someone from carrying a weapon onboard an airplane.  It wasn’t just any  weapon though, it was the same principal weapon used in the September 11th hijackings. 

A passenger managed to waltz past JFK’s ramped-up security gantlet with three boxcutters in his carry-on luggage — easily boarding an international flight while carrying the weapon of choice of the 9/11 hijackers, sources told The Post yesterday.

This is by no means a surprise to those of us who actually have bothered to pay attention to the TSA scorecard.  Here’s the other recent failures that come to mind.

• A man carried a firearm aboard in his laptop bag.
• Adam Savage carried two 12 inch steel razor blades.
• Missed a Knife.
• Teen sneaks onto a commercial jet.
• Another Missed Knife.

The TSA during red team tests has an abysmal failure rate.  Not only is it abysmal, Joe actually spent some time testing an X-Ray machine and found it is extremely easy to conceal a weapon.  Continuing on in the same article we see the following from the TSA:

"There have been a number of additional security layers that have been implemented on aircraft that would prevent someone from causing harm with boxcutters," she insisted.

"They include the possible presence of armed federal air marshals, hardened cockpit doors, flight crews trained in self-defense and a more vigilant traveling public who have demonstrated a willingness to intervene."

Which seriously begs the question, why do we need the TSA?  They do nothing but demean and humiliate the public.

As I said previously when carrying you’re a diplomat, and Robb Allen does a fantastic job in his interview.

I think Caleb from Gun Nuts Media said it better than I can.

I want everyone who advocates for open carry to go to Robb’s blog and watch the video he did with the local ABC affiliate.  That is how you advocate for open carry.  He looks like a normal dude, doesn’t shout about A RIGHT UNEXERCISED IS LOST, and he certainly didn’t wave a shotgun around.  Instead, he acted like a rational dude and made his points succinctly and intelligently.  And he even wore pants.

Whether or not you like it, while carrying you are having to break down the negative stereotypes associated with carrying from the media.  This is much more easily done by acting and behaving exactly like Robb did.  Serious kudos to you Robb, that’s the way to win hearts and minds!

Caused by another person from my graduating class.  This whole incident was one big gigantic bag of fail from bad decisions that was just waiting to happen.

Michael R. Fiorini , 26, was charged with fatally shooting Christopher D. Johnson , 27, around 3:15 a.m. Thursday.

Fiorini and his ex-girlfriend broke up in 2004 after dating for five years, according to court documents. He had been physically abusive, she told detectives.

The woman said she and Johnson had been dating about a month.

Ok this is the first sign that you had a very poor choice in a relationship at least you were smart enough to finally see it and get out.

Court documents give the following account:

After seeing Fiorini recently at a bar, the woman had started texting and talking on the phone with him. They were talking and texting the night of the shooting when Fiorini text-messaged her that Johnson wasn’t good for her.

You run into your physically abusive ex in a bar and decide it’s a good idea to start chatting again?  Then he finds out you have a new boyfriend, who thinks this could possibly end well?  Most certainly one should at least arm themselves when dealing with an abusive ex.

Fiorini said he was going to come over and kill Johnson.

The woman, 27, replied she would call police if he came over. He called 12 more times but she didn’t answer.

So yeah, how did that relying on the police work out for you.  The woman was lucky to get out of this incident alive, however her new boyfriend Chris was not.  The second the threat was issued given his previous history it should have been considered very real.  Numerous poor choices contributed to this event.  I really wish this would have ended better, if Fiorini ended up an addition to the Dead Goblin Count I wouldn’t be upset, but sadly in this case it was the innocent man caught in the middle.  Also if you hear your wife or girlfriend scream in the middle of the night, who comes out unarmed?

This is by no means the first time a horrible idea like this has come up, but this is just unbelievable. 

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has issued a letter instructing state police to release the names of authorized gun owners in Illinois to the press, the Associated Press is reporting.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea?  Whose business is it who owns a firearm.  All this serves to do is provide a shopping list for criminals.  They know which houses are armed and which houses are not.  They know which houses to wait until the owner leaves which will have another weapon for them, and which houses are unarmed to invade after stealing the weapon.  It’s a shopping list for criminals.    Not only that though, it provides a starting place for bigots to find and harass gun owners.