Flabergasted

...that's me.

After reading this editorial that popped up in my Google News alerts this am.

The whole thing made sense, until the last paragraph, where Ms. Lu Ann Maciulla McNabb decides to pose her question. The bills all look good, look like they will extend gun rights, and treat gun owners the way they should be treated. What makes a church so special that someone with a valid permit to carry shouldn't be allowed to do so? I know of several instances right here in IN where guns were carried to church and no mass shootings happened.

There are also cases of legally carried weapons in churches STOPPING a mass shooting.

But that's not what I want to talk about is right here:

My question has been and continues to be, how can Virginia, the place where the worst mass tragedy in American history occurred, and which loses over 800 people every year to gun violence, continue to ignore the loss of life and create policies that leave families and communities devastated.

I'm going to assume she means the attack at Virginia Tech, where 32 people lost their lives, and I'll grant that VT was a tragedy (a tragedy that some of the laws now being proposed might have prevented...entirely possibly). However, there is no way in HELL that the massacre at VT was the worst mass tragedy in American history.

• September 11th, 2001 ring a bell. The city of New York lost more EMTs / Paramedics in one day then VT lost in students. FDNY lost 10 times as many firefighters at Ground Zero as students were lost at VT. Nearly 100 times as many innocent civilians died at Ground Zero alone.
• December 7th, 1941, a day which will live in infamy. Japanese warplanes bomb and torpedo the ships at anchor at Pearl Harbor, leading the US into WWII. 2400 citizens of this county were killed.
• July 1-3, 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg, 46,000 Service men of this country, fighting one another lost their lives over a three day period.

In the face of these things, the attack at VT pales in comparison based on pure carnage. Don't try and use emotion, especially fake emotion to get your feel good nanny state laws passed!

--Jim

Stupid People...

Keep EMS in business.

I hope she recovers successfully, and doesn't have too much permanent disfigurement, but I wouldn't bet on it in this case.

How dumb do you have to be to soak your hair in gasoline, indoors, in the middle of winter?

That's just ASKING for trouble.

Feelings instead of Facts... Again...

Dana Parsons, a columnist at the LA times wrote an editorial a couple of weeks ago in support of Sandra Hutchens, the new Sheriff of Orange County. Sheriff Hutchens has changed the requirements in regards to getting a concealed carry permit in Orange County. Many of the people who currently have a valid permit will not be able to renew their permits, becuase they do not have "suffecient need."

Forget for a second that Sandra Hutchens doesn't know jack shit about any particular individuals "need" to carry a firearm (open or conealed.) Forget for a second that she is infringing on that right which "shall not be infringed." Forget for a second that she's out of lockstep with what the county commisioners (or whatever the governing body is) want, and is out of step with what her employees (at least some of them) want.

Dana admits, in an editorial this week, that when he opened his mouth in support of Sandra Hutches, he "knew there'd be hell to pay." Only the reaction wasn't what he thought it was. Apparently not everyone who chooses to carry a firearm for self defense is a cousin humping redneck who spits 'bacco. Dana goes on to say that he got dozens of emails, and the vast majority of them did not fit into the stereotype of "gun nuts." They zeroed in on the points that Dana had made, and argued their cases on merits.

So the Pro Rights crowd argued their case on the merits, but then Dana falls back on feelings, sharing the following:

As I suggested in the last column, I get the argument. I really do.

How can anyone dispute that if confronted on the street by a criminal intent on mayhem, it's much preferable to have a way to defend yourself?

But I and other pointy-headed people just can't extend that argument as far as the other side does. Bottom line: I wouldn't feel safer knowing that untold numbers of private citizens that I pass on the street -- yes, even salt-of-the-earth types who have been trained -- are packing guns.

Dana, I'm truly sorry that you feel less safe walking down the street knowing that good people might have guns. Now I have some bad news for you, the criminals that would prey upon the good people of this country, they don't go through the trouble of getting carry permits, and they're going to carry their firearms anyway. That means that by tightening the requirements on issuance of CCW permits, you're guaranteeing that the only guns around are the ones in the hands of the bad guys. That makes no sense at all dude.

Less gun control, more criminal control.

We are all socialists now...

or... not so much... we're just fucked.

(H/T to SayUncle)

Insufficient Evidence Could Force U.S. Navy to Return Suspected Pirates to Somalia

As seen at Fox News.

Pardon me while my head explodes.

I'm sorry, but if these guys were caught by the US Navy and were in the act of committing, or attempting to commit piracy, this should be a simple matter.

Try them aboard ship, and when they are found guilty, shoot each of them and throw em overboard.

How often does the US end up doing this?  Taking a passive stance instead of an aggressive one.  If these pirates are returned to Somalia, I'd b e willing to be a weeks pay (that's actually a good chunk of change) that the prisoners will be actively pirating again within a week.

Let's not get me started on illegal aliens...

--Jim

My Everlasting Shame

Via SayUncle, I stumbled across Gun Free Kids, a group opposed to allowing valid concealed carry permit holders to carry onto a college campus.

To my eternal shame, I clicked over to their list of schools that support the measure, and found that my alma mater* is the ONLY school in the communist state of NJ that has signed up.

A letter will be sent to the President of the University before this day is out.

--Jim

*There was a murder on campus since I left in May 2006, so it's not that safe of an area.

More Stupidity from the Courts...

Let me start by saying that I don't smoke, never have, and have no real desire to start.  Maybe when I'm a grandfather, I'll take up smoking pipe (I actually like that smell....).  That being said:

I'm sorry, but if you choose to smoke, you're stupid.  In this day and age, the disadvantages of smoking far outweigh the advantages of doing so, in the same way that the disadvantages of heroine or crack far outweigh the advantages.  I personally believe that as an adult, you should have the right to make all of those choices for yourself.

I'm honestly completely in favor of legalizing marijuana, heroine, cocaine, LSD, all of it.  Provided that it is something you are doing to yourself, or it is happening between 2 consenting adults, the government should keep its nose out of it.  The government (at any level) should not be passing legislation telling citizens how to treat their own bodies.  The government should not be forcing a ban on smoking in all restaurants, and all bars. 

That all being said, if the effects of your choices come back to haunt you some day, well, they're also your responsibility.  Suing the tobacco industry because your husband died is just plain wrong, and the lady should have been laughed out of court.  It is extremely tragic that Stuart Hess died at the age of 55, from lung cancer, it truly is.  But the man had smoked for 40 years, even after knowing the risks, and quitting several times before making the decision to go back to it.  The tobacco industry did not stick the cigarettes in the mans mouth and light them up for him.

Hopefully the decision is overturned on appeal, but somehow I'm not sure that it will be.

And to Elaine Hess for trying to hold the tobacco industries responsible because your husband made piss poor choices: EPIC FAIL!

And to the jury that found in favor of Mrs. Hess, kindly do the world a favor, and take a long walk off a short pier.

--Jim

Schoolteacher Suspended for Facebook Gun Photo

Gotta love this story on Fox News out of Wisconsin, although as one of only two states that does not allow any form of concealed carry, maybe it isn't so surprising. Sad yes, but definitely not surprising.

BEAVER DAM, Wis. —
A Beaver Dam Middle School teacher is on administrative leave after
school officials discovered a photo of her with a gun on Facebook.

In the photo, Betsy Ramsdale was training a rifle at the camera.

In an e-mail to WKOW-TV in Madison, Ramsdale said she removed the photo
immediately and that she is not "interested in any controversy.

Schools superintendent Donald Childs says a concerned staff member brought the photo to the district's attention.

Childs says the use of the photo "appears to be poor judgment" and is unaware of any sinister intent.

Ramsdale's biography on the district Web site states she is in her first year at
the school. Department of Public Instruction records show Ramsdale has
been licensed to teach since 1996.

Glad I didn't decide to become a school teacher, because I'd be fired over the number of gun pictures that I post. And to her co-worker, get over you Hoplophobia, and hurry, you look like an IDIOT.

Good Samaritan Laws....

This news article that came out of California is extremely troubling.

Without knowing all the details, and without having researched the actual code in California (hey man, I have a hard time understanding the legal language... I'll happily follow most any law, just present it in a way that everyone can understand!) the story scares me.

While I was going through my EMT-B training in New Jersey, it was explained to me that although there was not a legal requirement to come give aid as a Good Samaritan, you might personally feel that you had a moral obligation to do so. If you chose to act (at least as it was explained to me), and provided care up to your level of training, and were not negligent in your care, thenyou were covered under the Good Sam laws.

That is, as an EMT-B, if I'm driving down the road and witness a car accident, outside of my jurisdiction, or when off duty, I have no obligation to stop, regardless of what kind of vehicle I'm in (ambulance included, although it looks bad for the agency you're representing). If I chose to stop, as long as I provided care up to the level of an EMT-B, was not negligent, and didn't exceed my standard of care, I would be covered. I wasn't allowed to act as an ALS provider, and start and IV, or tube somebody, but I could take C-Spine precautions, and if the equipment was available, start to package the patient.

If my brother was driving down the same road, and stopped to help, as long as he did what he felt was necessary, then he should have been covered (my brother doesn't have any sort of emergency training). Apparently, the woman in California fit into this mold, and is now being sued by her "friend." And the California Supreme Court said it can go forward.

Disgusting... just disgusting.

Humans and Wildlife and "we know better than you" attitudes

Now, before anyone starts shouting otherwise, I have no issue with wildlife, and enjoy many of the scenes of nature. But when something like this happens, I get royally pissed off.

Now, for those of you who don't realize it, I lived the first couple of years of my life in Jefferson Twp. NJ, and then moved even further out in the country with my parents and brother. Although us seeing bear at home was a relatively rare event, it did happen, and it happened far more frequently around the county and area that I was really comfortable with.

Whenever the hunting community in the state would manage to get the state government to approve the bear hunt for the year, it would get canceled at the last minute, because hunting was cruel and inhumane.

It was so bad that you actually had to worry about protection yourself, and your loved ones if a bear invaded your yard, or even worse, your house.

The fact that the NJSPCA feels the need to charge the owner of the dog with a crime is ludicrous, and shows just how far over the edge NJ has finally fallen.

I'm glad I moved to the land of the free over a year ago...I'm not sure I could ever live as a subject again.

--Jim