**UPDATE** Seems the video auto-plays, so I’m putting in a fold to keep that from happening. Click to see the rest of the post:
**UPDATE** Seems the video auto-plays, so I’m putting in a fold to keep that from happening. Click to see the rest of the post:
Where guns are banned, the Limeys kill with Lorries!
**REDACTED**, 47, from Oldham, deliberately drove over the head of grandfather Trevor Allen, 56, from Salford, in a road rage attack.
…**REDACTED** made no reaction when he was found guilty. He was remanded in custody and now faces an automatic life sentence.
Odd, they banned the guns, but still allow the monsters. How’s that working out?
This is something I talk about frequently. There are some jobs where a carried firearm should the strongest consideration. Of course we have cops and soldiers, duh, but what I’m talking about is jobs where performing your daily duties could get you targeted for violent crime.
Some that I’ve talked about before are professions like real estate agents. Criminals can pick out the agent they like, and pick an empty home and a time for them to “Show” the house or unit. Then they have great opportunity for mayhem, be it robbery or sexual assault.
Another is food delivery drivers. These people are summoned to a location known to the predator, with knowledge that they will bring cash and a working automobile. The food is an added bonus.
One that I hadn’t thought of today is in-home service techs.
Given that it is fall I was having my furnace serviced. Given that the furnace is in my armory, it’s hard to hide I’m a gun nut. Little surprise this is always seen as a positive thing and leads to fun conversation as they work.
Still today I heard a story that really made me concerned. My plumber talked about going to a house to clean a furnace and the house was filled with cooking supplies. No, not the latest from Williams and Sonoma, but signs that this was a house for illegally making drugs.
As he was finishing he noted that he would need to come back to do a few last touches on the job. His tweaking client simply brushed back his shirt revealing the gun in his waistband and said “You don’t need to come back.” After this he was accused of being a cop.
Doesn’t make sense, but I suspect this dude was a tweaker, so any number of scenarios might have seemed plausible to him at the time. He luckily got away safe, and the house was blacklisted by the company.
Still you can easily see how things could have gone REALLY bad. Needless to say this guy is currently getting his Mass LTC, and I can’t blame him.
Any other professions I’m missing?
I’ve seen a few images from Anti-Gun Zealots in particular, and “Progressives” in general:
OK they’re right, we have only had one death from Ebola currently. Sadly I highly doubt it will stand at one. I also highly doubt it will ever get to the roughly 30,000 “Gun Deaths” we have per year in this nation. Now first up, I will NEVER trivialize that number. I may downplay it to roughly 13,000 deaths, as approximately 17,000 of those “Gun Deaths” are suicides. I won’t downplay suicide either, but like I don’t care what tool is used for violent crime, I don’t care what tool is used to end a person’s life. Further I will never equate the personal decision for a person to end their life with the antisocial decision for another person to harm another.
Still getting to Ebola, I can’t talk about Ebola and guns without talking about this story:
Every day brings more details about the first case of the Ebola virus to be diagnosed in the U.S. And while experts say there is essentially no risk of a significant outbreak here in the states, much of the public remains worried. A poll by Harvard found that 39% of U.S. adults are concerned about a large outbreak here, and more than a quarter fear someone in their immediate family could get sick with Ebola.
If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.
Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.
The lack of a surgeon general is now becoming more than just one more abstract example of government gridlock.
Well first up, Government has been horribly wasting money that COULD have been used to combat an Ebola outbreak both here and abroad. Second this isn’t Gridlock, Obama presented a poor candidate, the candidate was blocked, and he took his ball and went home. This is the natural checks and balances of government, not gridlock. Gridlock would be if Obama has presented several candidates (hopefully at least ONE with qualifications for the position) and THEN getting stonewalled.
And about that Candidate. First up, he’s young and inexperienced, and has little experience with public health. What he DOES have experience with is running a PAC for President Obama campaigning for Obamacare. This was not a serious nomination, this was a political favor.
Last up, we don’t have a Surgeon general, but we DO have an ACTING Surgeon General.
RADM Lushniak was introduced to the USPHS in 1983 as a senior medical student when he completed an elective with the Indian Health Service in Winslow, Arizona. He began his USPHS career in 1988 as a Lieutenant, entering the service as part of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and initially was stationed with the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in Cincinnati, Ohio where he conducted epidemiological investigations of workplace hazards. In 1990, he was accepted for the CDC’s long-term training program and completed a three-year residency in dermatology at the University of Cincinnati after which he established an occupational skin disease program at NIOSH. During his time at the CDC, he also served on special assignments and disaster response activities in Bangladesh, St. Croix, Russia, and Kosovo, was part of the CDC/NIOSH team at Ground Zero (World Trade Center) and the CDC team investigating the anthrax attacks in Washington, DC. In 2004, he transitioned from the CDC to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the Chief Medical Officer of the Office of Counterterrorism, and in 2005 was appointed FDA Assistant Commissioner, Counterterrorism Policy and Director of the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats within the Office of the Commissioner. While at the FDA, he was deployed after Hurricane Katrina to serve as the Department of Health and Human Services representative in San Antonio and served as the FDA Deputy Incident Commander for the 2009 pandemic response. He was promoted to Rear Admiral, Lower Half in 2006 and attained the rank of Rear Admiral, Upper Half in 2010.
Holy shit! Now that’s a fucking RESUME! He’s worked with infection Disease control with the CDC and he attained the rank of Rear Admiral in the
Navy United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (Thanks Jake -ed) as well as being a Medical Doctor. He was even Appointed by President Obama so there’s no partisan sour grapes there. Give the dude another term, he’s PERFECT!
Of course nobody mentions him and what HIS resume looks like compared to Dr. Murthy. Why, because they really don’t care, this is all political posturing.
Now onto the whole gun thing. What do the “Progressives” who love this kind of cartoon want done about guns. Gun bans, magazine bans, background checks, restrictions on carry, restrictions on ownership.
How has that worked for public health? Look at those numbers, and the great amount of work Linoge has put into this perennial graphic. It’s pretty obvious as he says ” the hypothesis of “more guns = more ‘gun violence’” cannot be true in the frame of reference of America over the past 18 years.” and in a slightly different graphic. “the hypothesis of “more guns = more deaths” cannot be true* in the frame of reference of American society over the past 31 years.”
Also note the time frame, currently in America gun ownership is becoming more wide spread. Carry is becoming liberal and permissive. The federal Assault Weapons ban has expired and more companies than ever are making guns that used to be restricted. And America is a safer country, both from being killed and from being the victim of violent crime.
As in EVERYTHING that the “Progressives” hate. As I said before, I don’t like the amount of death and violent crime in this nation and will do nothing to belittle it. And frankly by my support of the 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense I’m helping make is a SAFER place.
Four people, two of them juveniles, have been arrested in the robbery and beating death last week of a Chinese graduate student near his off-campus apartment, Los Angeles Police officials said on Monday.
…Ji was walking to his home near the campus around 12.45 a.m. when five people beat him in what Smith said might have been an attempted robbery. Ji eventually arrived home, where he died of his wounds in the early morning hours.
…”I don’t know why a group of young people would go on a crime spree as terrible as this, as horrible as this, and do these kinds of unspeakable things to someone who’s just walking home at night,” Smith said.
Maybe because the cost-benefits was they would get money, and a dead man can’t identify them in a police lineup. Or maybe killing a dude would get them entrance into the gang of their choice.
Either way California, and University areas are essentially “Gun Free Zones”, and in this case the murderers obeyed those rules. Makes you feel safer, doesn’t it?
And for laughs:
Special circumstances could make the defendants subject to the death penalty, Smith said. The four suspects are also accused of taking part in a separate robbery later that morning.
So they were on a crime spree, nice! Oh and those “Special Circumstances” would have to be “they killed the dude in Texas at the time”. Cali may have the death penalty, but really they’ll give them life in prison, and if they play their cards right they’ll be scoring more kills on the street in a few years.
This is the Utopia the “Gun Death” crowd wants us all to live in!
Some great points here.
First up, let’s get down to the nuts and bolts. Either you are an adult under the law. Now the age of majority is a variation of the Numbers Game, but honestly unlike magazine capacity or barrel length there are obvious limits. A grade-school child OBVIOUSLY is not capable of entering binding contracts, the military doesn’t want them, and should not be consenting to sexual contact. Also if a person in their thirties who isn’t capable of making such decisions for themselves are likely deeply mentally ill, or mentally retarded.
The Numbers Game is that ugly little line in the sand that is set up for legal reasons to encompass most of the population. Sure I’ve known some 16-year-olds that were vastly more mature than some seriously immature 20 year olds, but 18 is a pretty good line in the sand. Most 18 year olds are finished or finishing High School and now under law get to choose what they do with the rest of their lives.
Still at this age of majority you still aren’t a FULL adult. You can join the military, you can enter binding contracts, you can get married without parental permission, ect. Still you can’t buy a handgun or buy alcohol. I’m sure there are a few others I’m missing but those are the big ones that are a part of my daily life.
So when you are 18, 19, or 20, what are you? You’re grown up by the law and can go off to college, or get a job and/or get married and move out on your own without parental concern, but still there are big parts of American life you can not do. Makes no sense to me.
Also while all of Julie’s points are good ones, one other factor I think one more to point out is just plain old experience.
Now I’m a bit odd as I elected not to drink until I was 21. Now note that with what Julie says. It was a CHOICE for me not to drink before I was 21, I had AMPLE opportunities to consume large quantities of alcohol before I was 21. Now this is without ANY interest in doing so. I had to actually TURN DOWN drinks on countless occasions. Compared to illegal drugs which were just as prevalent, I would have had to actively seek those out.
Still when I DID first become legal to drink, and released my own personal restrictions I got drunk. OH SO DRUNK! The first few months of my 21st year were filled with experimentation. I drank low-proof spirits like beer, cider, wine, and clarified malt beverages, and I drank hard liquor. I had to LEARN my limits, and learn the differences between different drinks and how they effected me. (Like you can drink down beers and by the time your tossing the empty bottle much of the alcohol in your system has entered your blood…but if you’re doing shots of booze you can finish drinking…and find yourself getting more and more drunk! THE HORROR!) But after a few months of this I generally knew what I was doing. Granted the learning continued, ie how to get messed-up drunk, but not uncomfortably sick was a tougher line to toe, and one these days I don’t bother trying to reach.
Still this makes me wonder, and maybe you in the comments can share your experiences. A lower drinking age means that that learning curve gets moved back a few years. So let me know in the comments, when did you start drinking (I assume the statute of limitations has expired if you, like most people started drinking before 21…and of course you can be as vague as you want) and how long were you a babe in the woods with the booze before you generally knew what you were getting into when bending your elbows.
Jefferson County sheriff’s officials say a man accused of dousing his ex-girlfriend in gasoline and lighting her on fire has been arrested.
…Authorities have said the woman suffered burns to her head, arms, upper body and legs, and she’s hospitalized in serious condition.
Now here in Massachusetts I have an interesting story to tell about a trip to a gun shop. I went to a local shop and bought a 5lb keg of pistol powder. That’s all I bought, and by Massachusetts law I needed to show my gun permit. When I tell people friendly to gun control about this they say “Yeah, well gun powder is DANGEROUS!” Then their faces change when I mention after this particular trip I drove RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the shop, pulled up to a gas pump and filled up my car with several gallons of gasoline, paid at the pump, and never saw a living soul the whole time.
I guess I could burn somebody to death with pistol powder, but as we see in the “Gun Death?” Files, gasoline is MUCH easier.
Hey, but we need more gun control, because only “Gun Death” counts
**UPDATE** From Dustin, she has since died
I think one of the biggest problems these days is we call our political representation “Lawmakers”. It implies that their job is not to represent their districts, states, and countries, but to MAKE LAWS. Our law books are BLOATED with laws, and statutes, and many of them are redundant. In Massachusetts it is illegal to text on a cellphone while driving. Decent law, but also redundant, as it was already illegal to operate a motor vehicle while being distracted away from said operation. You can’t read a newspaper, play with a child, attempt to restrain a pet, or apply makeup in a car already. Texting somebody is the same, but we somehow needed a NEW law for that.
Internet trolls could face up to two years in jail under new laws, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has said.
He told the Mail on Sunday quadrupling the current maximum six-month term showed his determination to “take a stand against a baying cyber-mob”.
The plan was announced days after TV presenter Chloe Madeley suffered online abuse, which Mr Grayling described as “crude and degrading”.
…Miss Madeley received threats after defending her mother Judy Finnigan’s comments on a rape committed by footballer Ched Evans, which she said was “non-violent” and did not cause “bodily harm”.
Richard Madeley has said “prosecution awaits” those who sent “sick rape threats” to his daughter.
First up, rape threats are physical threats. Second the law shouldn’t be any different if I send a rape threat via the internet, post mail, over the phone, or in a direct conversation.
Either this law will be 100% redundant, OR will be abused as an anti-free-speech law. Either way, I see no reason why it should have been passed.
A New Jersey mom ratted out her teen sons for the murder of a 12-year-old girl after reading a Facebook posting hinting that one of them wanted to go on the lam, law-enforcement sources told The Post.
…Autumn was allegedly lured to meet **REDACTED**, 15, and his brother **REDACTED**, 17, at their home Saturday because they wanted parts from her beloved BMX bike.
The massive search for Autumn came to a tragic end Monday night when her body was found stuffed in a recycling bin at a vacant property near the boys’ house.
An autopsy found she had been strangled.
Now at 15 and 17, these little monsters obviously got an early start. You think this was their first violent assault, or robbery? It was admirable that Mom turned them in, but do you think this is the first crime she suspected her little angels of being involved in?
Hey, but people who have been model citizens their entire lives should be disarmed because good people with guns are just “Dangerous” while punk teens go strangling little girls for their bike!
Though it really makes me think. What would it be like if the shooting industry was infiltrated and co-opted by feminism?
Note that Ms. Sarkeesian claims that any instance of a Damsel in Distress in a video game is “Objectification” and “Sexism”, yet the MOMENT she was “Threatened” (Scare quotes, because I’ve had similar threats leveled against me, and even worse than what I’ve read about…tho not the volume. Still I never took them seriously that my life may be in danger) she calls on men who are complete strangers to her to protect her. This isn’t even the video game trope where friends and loved ones come running to the rescue. When the strangers point out that if they make the “Safety” concessions she requests she desires they would be breaking the law and would face punishment she takes her ball and goes home. She doesn’t continue her alleged heart-felt fight. She doesn’t change the venue to a location where gun laws prohibit turning away the lawfully armed. (Look at the video I posted in the linked post, she wasn’t giving her talk in a massive lecture hall, or an arena, she was in a damn BARN. She could easily move to any number of private venues to seat that number of people).
Now compare that with the REAL Feminists in the gun world. People like Kay and Lena Miculek.
Compare and contrast:
Now compared to these women on both sides I’m a damn nobody. Can you believe that the pro-gun women haven’t received threats like Ms. Sarkeesian did? I doubt it. Yet these women know that if the off chance that the treat is credible they have the power to fight back. After that they simply keep going about their day like nothing happened. I mean has everybody who’s been raped, assaulted, or murdered been given the luxury of first getting a threat before the attack? So a day where you’ve been threatened by an anonymous person on the internet is really no different than a day when you have not seen any hostile activity.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Feminism is loud and proud in the gun industry, it just isn’t the kind of Feminism that “Progressive” preach, and they HATE that.