Ethics?

Years ago, I had to take a class called "Ethical Decision Making" in pursuit of a college degree. The course required a textbook, as most do. Colleges make a lot of money through the school bookstore selling these textbooks at prices that fall anywhere between $100 and $500 each. Many college students, in a quest to save money, buy used textbooks from students who took the course last semester, or even last year. This means that the college loses those sales.

To combat this, the colleges pull a lot of underhanded tricks. In the case of this ethics class, they added a chapter to the book that no other college had, and they further changed that chapter every year, which meant that the only place that the book could be had was from the school bookstore. There were no used books to be had. I thought that this was ironic, considering that this was an ethics class.

I didn't know this, and bought a copy new on Amazon at a cost of $225. When I got the book, I discovered that the book was not the correct one, and had to buy the correct book at the full price of $300 at the school bookstore. This meant that the text book cost nearly as much as the $350 course it was used for. I put the used book on Amazon at $175 (so it would sell quickly), complete with a warning in the description that this was not the correct book for that college and that course. When the book sold, I noticed that the buyer lived in my city, so I sent him an email, telling him it was the wrong book. he replied back that he still wanted it, so I shipped it. I had never even taken the book out of its plastic wrapper.

A week after shipping, I get a note from the buyer stating that he did not need the book, because it was the wrong one. Amazon told me that their policy was that you always make the customer happy, and informed me that I had to refund his money, but since it was the customer's fault, I could charge him a restocking fee of 20%, but only if he returned the book.

When I informed him of that fact, he changed his complaint to say that the book was not new as advertised, that the book was written in and the cover was missing. Amazon forced me to accept the return for a full refund. When I got the book back, it was still in the wrapper that I had shipped it in.

I sent pictures to Amazon, and Amazon said that there was nothing they could do. I eventually sold the book, but I didn't get as much for it, and the entire episode also cost me the extra shipping charges for having to ship the book out twice.

To add insult to injury, the buyer gave me negative feedback, saying that I was dishonest and gave Amazon a bad name.

The first day of class, the sonofabitch was sitting right in that classroom with me.

He needed that ethics class far more than I did, but a college with this kind of textbook policy was in no place to teach it to him. Here is the kicker: He was prelaw. I keep waiting to see if he runs for political office.

Guns and employee wellness

My employer, as most do, has an Employee wellness program. The wellness program is a voluntary program that gets you a discount on your involuntary (thanks to Obamacare) employee insurance coverage.
Some employers are now saying that, if you refuse to participate in the wellness program, you will lose your employee heath insurance. How is this legal, you ask? After all, multiple Federal laws, including the ADA and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) state that this is not legal. Well, leave that to the Federal Courts:

Not so, said a federal judge in Madison, Wisc., who ruled on Dec. 31 that employers can deny coverage without violating the ADA as long as the data gleaned from the wellness program is used for purposes of overall health coverage.

This is where guns enter the picture. The anti gun forces in this country want to have firearms added as a public health issue. Now suppose this comes about and your employer wants to use data on gun ownership to enhance your overall health coverage.

Take this one step further: say your employer wants to say that gun ownership is a health hazard, and you must give up your guns or give up your employer sponsored health insurance. You would be forced (by Obamacare in concert with your employer) to have one of three options:

1 Give up your guns
2 Pay a $2100 "tax" each year for not having insurance, plus the full cost of your healthcare
3 Pay a minimum of about $3600 a year for a basic health plan that has a $6000 deductible

Gun training DERP

Here is a video from a police training site. There are so many testosterone laden idiots passing themselves off as firearms training experts, it simply makes me want to shake my head in disbelief. Is this REALLY what constitutes advanced police firearms training?

Why in the world would you ever need to train for an environment where you are in a gunfight with a disassembled pistol, a disabled arm, and wearing a gas mask? Seriously? This is simply pure stupidity, not to mention the multiple range safety violations.

Florida Open Carry bill

The proposed bill that would permit open carry in Florida is still alive.

As usual, the anti gun forces come with their main tool: Lies and misdirection. One of the things that makes me laugh is this part of the story:

Marion Hammer, long-time lobbyist for the NRA in Tallahassee, said that without open-carry, concealed-weapons permit-holders “are in danger of being arrested and prosecuted like a criminal if your gun accidentally and unintentionally becomes exposed to the sight of another person.”
“I don’t want to be arrested if my jacket blows open and somebody sees my gun and calls police,” she said.
Hammer cited anecdotal cases, but no statistical data, about people who have been arrested for inadvertent open-carry. Gaetz acknowledged there's been a "small handful" of cases.

While earlier in the article, this was said:

Meanwhile, critics also worry that an open-carry law might be a deterrent for visitors, harm the state's tourism economy and tarnish Florida’s image as a family-friendly destination.

Which isn't even anecdotal, it is purely speculative.

Here is what one sheriff had to say about the proposal:

Some people want to be police officers, like George Zimmerman did. We don’t need George Zimmermans walking around with firearms exposed.

Except Zimmerman was fully in compliance with the law, as it stands to day, and as it is proposed. Open carry would not have changed this case one bit, because it had nothing to do with open carry.

Pro rights folks are required to provide mountains of actual evidence, while anti gun forces can respond unchallenged with hypothetical speculation that is based on the thinnest shred of popular tripe.

Not funny

Following is a prank that involves a person dressed in Arab clothing, chanting in Arab, who then throws a book bag at passers by. The point of this so called prank is to scare the intended victims into thinking it is a bomb while filming their reactions, so all can laugh at the fear that they are causing.




Like the idiots who are dressing as murderous clowns to scare others into thinking that they are about to be murdered, they are placing themselves in a very dangerous position. The whole purpose of this exercise is to place people in fear for their lives. After all, if the intended victims are not afraid, there is nothing to video and laugh at.

The problem here is that in Florida,

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

This clearly places a person in the position of being in fear of death or great bodily injury, because THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE PERSONS MAKING VIDEO.  Not only that, but look at the definition of forcible felony:

“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

This means that a person with a firearm would be legally justified in shooting you. Of course you could claim that the felony was no longer imminent once the "bomb" was thrown, but good luck finding a jury that would convict on that theory.

This just isn't funny. In fact, it is illegal:

(1) For the purposes of this section, “hoax bomb” means any device or object that by its design, construction, content, or characteristics appears to be, or to contain, or is represented to be or to contain, a destructive device or explosive as defined in this chapter, but is, in fact, an inoperative facsimile or imitation of such a destructive device or explosive, or contains no destructive device or explosive as was represented.
(2) Any person who, without lawful authority, manufactures, possesses, sells, delivers, sends, mails, displays, uses, threatens to use, attempts to use, or conspires to use, or who makes readily accessible to others, a hoax bomb commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Winds of change

Recently, the theme of  training at my school has been a review of how teachers should be reacting to an active shooter. Our school resource officer was the instructor for the training. He had some interesting facts to share. For example he told us that my county, which is fairly rural, has three people living in it who have pledged their support for Isis.

He also provided a link to the FBI report (pdf warning) on active shooter incidents. It makes for interesting reading.

After the training was over, the floor was opened up for questions. The first question was asked by a math teacher, who wanted to know what the deputy thought of the proposed law that would allow teachers to carry weapons on campus. The deputy replied that he used to be opposed to citizens carrying weapons, because he feared that responding police officers might mistake an honest armed citizen with the shooter, and shoot the citizen by mistake. (The obvious hypocrisy here is stunning: so I shouldn't be allowed to carry because of your irresponsibility?) The deputy then went on to say that he has since changed his opinion, because the evidence is mounting that armed good guys are the key to defending against armed bad guys. He said that all of the active shooter incidents that he is aware of occurred in areas where the intended targets were unarmed.

The deputy also revealed that, should the law pass, they are looking at a system where selected teachers  would be trained and certified by the sheriff's office to carry weapons on school property. The sheriff's department will place locked, secure cabinets at strategic locations on campus. These lockers will be opened by fingerprint locks that are keyed to the authorized teachers' fingerprints, and will contain a handgun, spare magazines, and pale blue body armor with the word "Teacher" on the front and back. Responding deputies will be trained to look for the body armor before mistakenly blazing away at any armed people who aren't law enforcement officers. While I have several issues with this plan, this is much better than the "only one" attitudes that law enforcement has had in the past.

In the group discussion that followed, another teacher at my table spoke up and said that this idea made her nervous, because she didn't think that a teacher having a gun around children was a good idea, because in a shooting confrontation, this children could be hit in the crossfire. I sarcastically told her that I agreed, because after all, it would be better to have the shooter lining the children up and shooting them 20 at a time without having to worry about people shooting at him. The other teachers at the table laughed. Ridiculing these stupid ideas is, in my opinion, the best way to shut the idiots up.

Winds of change, indeed.

Incredible changing of attitudes

My fiance, who I began dating two years ago, is from New York, and was initially mildly antigun, and was definitely anti-concealed carry. Her mother was even more so. Her mother would tell me stories about how one of their friends carried a concealed weapon, and how ridiculous and paranoid it was in this day and age, what with all of the police here to protect us, all the while ignorant of the fact that I was carrying a firearm at the time.

Eventually, they discovered my position on carry. There wan't too much fuss, because they had already known me for some time, and they knew that I wasn't prone to paranoia or violence. Two years later, we reached a breakthrough:

Yesterday my fiance and her mother, both from New York and both (formerly) moderately antigun, attended a firearm safety course in preparation for applying for their Florida Concealed Weapons permits. The course was billed as "taught by women, for women, with a focus on women's issues with firearms." At $100 a person, it wasn't the cheapest course, but after looking around, I thought it was the best. All ammo and targets were provided, but there was an extra charge of a dollar for eye and ear protection.

According to them, the class began with a review of how crime affects women, and the laws behind firearms in Florida. Then they reviewed firearm basic terms, function, and safety. One woman began crying out of fear, and the instructors handled it well. After lunch, they went to the range, where they spent four hours firing 3 different semi-automatics and 3 different revolvers. They began with a 22 auto, and also fired .38 revolvers, a .380ACP, and 9mm handguns. My fiance's favorite of the ones they tried was a brand that I had never heard of before. The instructor told them that they can retake the course once for only $10, if they do so within the next year. I thought it was a good deal.

I paid for the course, and now gun rights have two more people who won't be voting antigun. It was the best $200 I have ever spent on gun rights. If every shooter did that for just one person, that $100 we each spend would double the number of progun people in the US, and the antigunners would virtually disappear.

As for my fiance, she has already made an appointment at the district office to get her CCW permit.

This is how we win: one shooter, one voter, one range trip at a time.

Truth o meter tells lies

A Florida lawmaker advocating for a law that would allow teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms claimed that school shootings happen in gun free zones, and used the shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College as an example. He stated that this college was a gun free zone.

Truth o meter from Politifact called him a liar. What did they use as the basis for this lie?

The school’s student code of conduct lists the "possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms," among other weapons and dangerous chemicals or devices, on college property or at college-sponsored events as a punishable offense. There’s a similar policy spelled out on Umpqua’s website.
The clause "without written authorization" is important.
There is a policy prohibiting guns at Umpqua Community College, as Steube said. But students are allowed to have guns on campus if they have a concealed carry permit — essentially what Steube’s HB 4001 wants to codify in Florida.

That talking point can be found all over the liberal media. So who is correct?

It turns out that the anti gun forces are stretching the truth here.

In 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the Oregon University System's longstanding ban of firearms on college campuses, allowing those with concealed carry permits to bring weapons on university grounds.
The following year, the Oregon Senate considered a bill that would have again prohibited the carrying of guns onto school, college, or university grounds in the state. That legislation lost by a single vote.
The day after the vote, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education took up the issue, setting a policy that allows guns on campus, but bars them from college buildings and sporting venues. Umpqua Community College upholds this ban, making an allowance for those "expressly authorized by law or college regulations."

This is where even Florida law stands: In Florida, a concealed weapons permit holder can have a weapon in his car on school grounds, but cannot have the weapon inside the building. When a shooter is rampaging through my school, the pistol that is in my car 200 yards away from my classroom is useless.

As usual, the anti gunners have only one tool in the tool box: lies.

Fishing

While reading a news story about police in one town planning to stop people who are not breaking the law, in order to reward their law abiding behavior with coupons and other free goodies, I was appalled. This is another tool that will be used as a police state tool. Let me explain:

The law in the United States is that police must have some idea that you are committing a crime in order to stop and question you. This is called "reasonable suspicion" and it must be based upon some specific set of facts that a person would reasonably believe to be an indication that the person being stopped is breaking the law.

In this case, the police would be stopping someone that they believe ISN'T breaking the law. This stop would then result in the police being able to stop anyone at anytime, for no reason at all. Of course, if a person is then found to be breaking the law, they can be searched and arrested. These stops would soon be used as a method for police to stop and detain people who the police would like to find reasons to arrest, and allow the police to go on a fishing expedition.

I am glad the idea was scrapped here, but there are other places where the policy continues.

Gaming the system

An airline passenger gets a note from a therapist saying that a turkey is their support animal, so Delta must give it a seat on the plane without charge.

Yet another way that the Feds are destroying the airline industry. Imagine what they are going to do to health care, more than they already have.

Only ones professional enough to hide in the shadows

In Arizona, a former cop turned lawmaker wants to make it a crime to record a cop's activities in public. The law states that

people must be at least 20 feet away while recording “law enforcement activity” or farther if officers decide that’s needed. Recording inside private buildings such as homes would be allowed from “an adjacent room or area” unless an officer objects.

The whole reason why people feel the need to record the cops is that police are the ones abusing their authority. Filming the cops is a way to keep them from doing things like planting drugs on people (click the link to see a cop planting drugs on a suspect.)

This law would allow cops to get away with behavior like this cop in Missouri who threatened to plant evidence and even kill the kid:



Especially since it always seems to go one of two ways: the video shows the cops acting properly, or the video is mysteriously "unavailable for technical reasons."

The lawmaker in this case claims:

“I’ll never forget how I was distracted by someone being behind me while I was making an arrest,” he says. “He could have pulled out a gun just as easily and shot me. And now you have people everywhere with these video cameras in their phones who are walking up behind cops when they are making an arrest.”

I am willing to bet that the number of cops who are shot by a person with a camera are far less than the number of cops who are caught on film committing crimes.

Honest cops should have nothing to fear from a camera. The police have become a criminal gang with badges.

Active shooter

As a teacher, we are  spending the month training on active shooters. Here a link to an article that we have been asked to read as a part of that training. I want you to read the money quote:

“Never call an unarmed man ‘security’,” Grossman said, “Call him ‘run-like-hell-when-the-man-with-the-gun-shows-up’ but never call an unarmed man security."

The article talks about having redundant, overlapping layers of security. It talks about how this approach to fires has resulted in a 50 year period in which not one school child has died in a fire. Not one.

One of the points mentioned in the article are:

Armed citizens can help.  Think United 93. Whatever your personal take on gun control, it is all but certain that a killer set on killing is more likely to attack a target where the citizens are unarmed, rather than one where they are likely to encounter an armed citizen response.

Banks have armed guards to protect your money, why don't we have armed guards to defend our children?

In Florida, if a school decides that they want to hire armed guards, they cannot. It is against the law. If a school wants to allow teachers to be armed, they cannot. It is against the law.
The only option that schools have is an armed police officer on campus. That is NOT defense in depth. It is not redundant.

Yet the schools, and parents, scream that arming teachers would be wrong. They claim that no one should be permitted to have guns around children. They never mention what happens when someone ignores that law, and begins shooting kids.

Now I am not suggesting that we arm ALL teachers, but if just a few teachers, volunteers, were to undergo the training, doesn't it make sense to arm them?

I became a teacher after I retired from over 20 years as a firefighter and paramedic, where I spent part of my career working with the SWAT team. I spent years as an IDPA competitor, and I am a military veteran. I have carried a concealed weapon for more than 25 years. A permit that has allowed me to carry a weapon into McDonald's, Disney, public parks, streets and sidewalks. Not once have I used that weapon in a threatening or illegal manner. I have not even had a traffic ticket in more than a decade.

I have spent more than 30 years wearing one uniform or another, defending the people who could not defend themselves, saving lives, and helping others. In that time, I have had dozens of background checks for security clearances, teaching, firefighting, and paramedic licenses, as well as for concealed weapons permits. Again and again over the past three decades, I have proven my character, my devotion, and my trustworthiness.

I would, if necessary, lay down my life in defense of the children that have been placed in my care. Even in Kindergarten. Possibly YOUR children, if you are reading this.
Except the politicians have declared that I am not permitted to do so, because they don't trust me. So instead, I must sit in the dark, unarmed, unable to protect those children, hiding and waiting for help that may not come, wait with your children to die at the hands of a madman who didn't obey your laws or your signs.

Meanwhile, at school

We had a teacher workday recently. During that day, we had a meeting of the science department. Here is how part of it it went:
Head of Science Department: "If we actually graded our students' performance against the standards, and gave them the grades that we should, two thirds of them would have an F."
Anatomy teacher: "If we do that, we will all be out of a job."
Department head: "You got that right. Just give them good grades, and send them down the road."

It is a losing battle. You assign homework, less than half the class even attempts to do the work, and of that half, three quarters of them copy the answers from another student. I caught a student cheating on an exam by using his cell phone. As per policy, he got a zero and a referral. The parent, rather than being angry at the child for cheating, defended her child by saying that there is no proof that using a cell phone during a test is cheating.

She said that the child was simply texting his mother about picking him up after school, and claimed that we cannot prevent a child from texting his mother. The Vice Principal asked me if I had actually seen the child using the phone to lookup answers. I replied that I cannot see that, because the kid puts the phone away as soon as you approach.

I was told that I must allow the student to take the test without penalty, unless I actually see the student looking up answers. Simply having a phone out during a test is not sufficient, because a phone can be used for doing other things besides looking up answers.

The kids learn nothing, because they cheat on tests all year, do not do homework, and refuse to study. However, if the child gets anything less than a B, parents complain. If more than a handful of the students receive a failing grade, the teacher is in danger of losing their job. The school famously says "There are no bad students, only bad teachers. It is your job as a teacher to find a way to motivate them to learn."

At the end of the year, the students are given a standardized test to see what they learned in the past year. The test is 30% of the student's grade, but the score is adjusted. If a child misses every question, the minimum score that is used for their grade is a 58%. This makes it impossible for them to fail the test. The students know this, and unless the student is an honor student, which most are not, they don't care what grade they get.

However, the school gets graded on how the students do, as do the teachers. If the students of a given school do poorly, the school gets less money from the state. The teachers are also graded on how the students do. If your students do poorly, then you are out of a job.

It is the craziest, most dysfunctional system that I have ever seen. My job depends, not on my performance, but on the performance of a third party, who faces no consequences for poor performance. I have high school seniors as students who are reading at a second grade level, and who cannot even convert grams into kilograms without using an App on their phone. How can I teach them Chemistry?

My job depends on two things:
Keeping parents happy by ensuring that most kids get good grades.
Hoping like hell that the kids do well enough on the standardized tests at the end of the year.

Photoshop skills needed

For the love of God, will someone please photoshop Michael Moore's picture:







Onto this picture:

You want a raise?

On Friday, we went to McDonald's for breakfast. After 24 minutes, we had still not received the 2 breakfasts that had cost us $16.88. I told an employee that they were going to make us late for work. She replied "It's OK, I am late for work all of the time, no one cares. You will be fine." I finally left without getting my food, because I was running late.
Maybe that attitude is the reason why you are stuck working at McDonald's. I can't believe that you idiots want $15 an hour.
I wrote the company an email to complain. All I got was this reply:

Hi -
Thanks for your feedback and I apologize for your experience.  I will certainly discuss this matter with our General Manager

That's it. I will just go to a sit down diner from now on. It will take the same amount of time, likely cost about the same, and at least I will receive my food.

Blame

By now, all of you  have read about the Muslim who tried to kill a police officer in the name of Allah using a stolen police firearm as his weapon of choice. His mother stated that he was a "devout Muslim." I want to make sure that some facts of this shooting see a wider audience:

A few facts from this story at Philly.com:

Edward Archer confessed to investigators that he had acted "in the name of Islam," authorities said.

In the name of Islam, eh?

 In the fall of 2011, he traveled to Saudi Arabia for a pilgrimage to Mecca and stayed for several weeks, an FBI spokesman said. The next year, he went to Egypt for reasons that are unclear and spent several months there.

After reading that, look at this gem of a statement:

Investigators are scouring Archer's Internet activity to see if he may have had contact with ISIS members or other radical Islamic groups. A law enforcement source said late Friday that so far they have not found any indication that Archer had been in contact with known terrorism suspects.

Maybe the fact that he traveled to two countries that are known hotbeds of terrorist activities is a hint? The usual suspects then chime in:

Jacob Bender, executive director of the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said the incident "should not be seen as representative of Muslims or the faith of Islam," and called for a thorough investigation of the shooting.

The shooting was carried out with a handgun that had been stolen from a police officer:

Archer was armed with a semi-automatic 9mm pistol - a police-issued firearm that had been reported stolen from an officer's home in 2013, Ross said. He said it was unclear how Archer got the gun.

The shooter was a convicted felon:
In January 2012, Archer threatened another man with a gun in West Philadelphia. He pleaded guilty to simple assault and carrying a firearm without a license. He was sentenced to 9-23 months in jail and two years' probation. He was still on probation at the time of the shooting. He was immediately paroled, without serving time.

He was convicted and awaiting sentencing on charges of forgery, careless driving, and driving on a suspended license, and more. He was to be sentenced on Monday.


The Mayor stated that this shooting shows that there are too many guns on the streets. He also had this to say:

 In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen. In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen.

The District Attorney doubled down on the stupid:

This shows us the need for smarter laws when it relates to guns on the street. 

So let me get this straight:

A Muslim who is a convicted felon on probation for other crimes shoots and attempts to murder a police officer using a firearm that was stolen from a cop's home during a burglary. He then admits and states that he did it to further the cause of Jihad. We are told that this is not related to terrorism, and that we should in no way use this shooting as a yardstick with which to judge all Muslims.

Then we are told that this indicates that the one group of people who were not in any way involved in this incident must be punished, because gun owners are to blame when a police officer's weapon is stolen by a terrorist criminal and is used in an attempt to kill another police officer.

Suicide/homicide argument

Anti gunners love to break out with the "gun death meme" and claim that 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year. I point out that the only way that this number is accurate is to include the 22,000 or so suicides each year. I point out that there are only about 8400 firearm related homicides each year, and making guns illegal will not stop someone bent on suicide from kissing a train.

Here is an example of the counter argument that I have been getting from them:

I'm well aware that there's plenty of ways to kill yourself if you had the wherewithal to do so. But I'm also not the one trying to discount deaths in this country vis-a-vis guns. I'm hearing that a lot, now, and I'm declaring that I won't let ya'll have a free pass with death rates by subtracting that number. 

Here is my counter argument to that:

If I don't get to ignore suicide, then you don't get to ignore that murderers and people committing suicide simply choose other tools to accomplish the task, once guns are made illegal. After all, if the goal is to save lives, a person who is strangled to death or leaps from a tall building is just as tragic and senseless as a person who is shot.
So let's count suicide AND homicide rates from all causes, not just from firearms, and see if eliminating firearms actually saves lives..

The US has a combined suicide/homicide rate of 16.6 per 100,000
South Korea, where firearms are virtually illegal, has a rate of 29.8
India, with gun laws FAR more restrictive than the US, 24.6
Japan, where guns are illegal for private ownership sees 18.8 deaths per 100,000 people.
Canada, where there is severe gun control and handguns are virtually illegal: 18.3 per 100,000.


Each of the nations listed above have gun control laws that are FAR more restrictive than the United States, yet people are dying from suicide and homicide at rates significantly higher than the United States. It's almost like firearms have little to do with suicide and homicide, and seems like your argument is not intended to save lives, but is instead a means to your true intent of banning those icky guns, because you don't like them.

In the business?

I have a coworker whose father in law just passed away. The father in law was a gun collector, and owned 65 firearms, which were left as an inheritance with this coworker's husband. The coworker and her husband do not want to own guns. They are not anti-gun, they just don't want them. They do not know anything about guns, but knowing that I am a "gun guy," have asked me to help them get rid of the firearms. I am going over to their house this weekend to see what they have. I may make an offer on at least some of them.

Here is the issue:
The firearms are surely worth a good bit of money. The couple is left with two choices:
1 They can sell the guns for themselves, in which case they will get a decent amount of money, but risk being accused of illegally dealing firearms without a license under the new Obama directive.

2 They can sell them to a dealer, in which case they will only get pennies on the dollar, as most dealers will, at best, offer you half the money that you would get by selling the weapons themselves.

Chicago Airport Police Told To ‘Run And Hide’ from shooters

The Chicago police department has instructed its officers to run and barricade themselves into a safe hiding place in the event of an active shooter. This is why I carry a gun: when seconds count, the police are hiding to protect their own ass.

Internal aviation department documents obtained by CNN instruct officers: “do not become part of the response to an attack. If evacuation is not possible, you should find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you. Block entry to your hiding place and lock the door,” but Matt Brandon, secretary-treasurer of the airport officers union, told CNN they have serious issues with the protocol.

Hawaii trip, part two

We began our trip to Hawaii on the island of Oahu. We stayed in a hotel on Waikiki beach. The first night, we decided to take a walk along the beach in front of our hotel. I was approached twice by homeless bums who were looking for a handout. The place is overrun with homeless. In fact, I counted 19 homeless people living on the beach in front of our hotel.

On the first day, we went to the north shore. A surfers' paradise, the waves there during the winter are 30-40 feet tall. They were about 20 feet high on the day that we were there. It was amazing. I have never seen waves that tall at any beach.

We also went to the Hawaiian cultural center.

On day two, we visited the Arizona memorial, and the other museums commemorating the attacks on December 7, 1941.



After five days of touring Oahu, we climbed on a flight for our next island. My impression of Oahu is that it is a crowded tourist trap with a large military base on it. There are large numbers of people who struggle to make a living there because the cost of living is so high. Often, three families will live in a crappy wooden 900 square foot house built in 1945 that cost half a million dollars, because real estate prices are so high. The average rent on a three bedroom home on Oahu is nearly $2700 a month, and that home is likely more than 50 years old. A four bedroom apartment will set you back $3200 each month.

The only people who can afford to live there are multimillionaires (a nice house costs several million dollars), or military members who live on base. Everyone else lives on the edge of poverty.

One of the things that I saw when we were on Oahu was a large number of signs declaring that haole (white people) should leave, "Tourist go home," or "We have enough hotels." Signs of that nature. There are a large number of 'native' people who believe that Hawaii was some sort of peaceful paradise until Europeans arrived, and they think secession will return them to the 'good old days.' That will be the subject of  a future post.

Arrested for bad attitude

I know this is old, but I just saw it. A woman in Indiana is pulled over for speeding. Since she is alone on a dark road, she is afraid for her safety, and does what many safety experts, as well as the Indiana state police, recommend: she engaged her flashers, slows down, and drives to a well lit, public area before stopping. 

She was arrested for felony resisting arrest. When contacted by reporters who had learned of the arrest, the police chief had this to say:

"The officer indicated the motorist displayed a defiant attitude."

So she was arrested because she did not display the appropriate amount of deference to the authoritah of a cop. Officer roid rage approached her car, furious that she did not pull over, and she got mouthy with him, which is not illegal. Instead, he found a way to exact his revenge. This is a classic POP (pissing off police) charge. I have have heard many cops say this:

You might beat the charges, but you won't beat the ride.

Meaning that they are knowingly abusing their arrest powers to hassle people.

Fortunately, in this woman's case, the public outcry resulted in charges being dropped. There are many cops who are good people, and you are all being painted with a pretty broad brush lately. Have you wondered why? It is because, as a profession, this sort of behavior has continued for long enough that most people know someone who has been mistreated by a rude, overbearing bully of a cop. For years, this has continued, and now a large percentage of the people don't trust you.

Clean up your profession, get rid of the power hungry idiots, and maybe people will be more likely to support you.

Gun laws not enforced

Here is a case where a 17 year old and his 14 year old brother were smoking marijuana and drinking vodka after shooting two people in an apparent read rage incident. 

The 17 year old will be charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. There are a host of other charges that I wonder why they were not also charged.

Drug possession

Alcohol possession by a minor

DUI (in Florida, if you are legally intoxicated in a vehicle with the keys in the vehicle with you, you can be charged with DUI)

Possession of a firearm by a minor: The only way that a minor can possess a firearm in Florida is for the purpose of hunting, marksmanship competition, target practice, or if the firearm is being lawfully transported to or from the aforementioned activities.

It is also a felony for any adult to have provided this minor with the firearm.

My theory is this: the real utility in firearms laws is not in reducing crime. The anti gunners don't care about reducing crime. What they really want to reduce is firearm ownership. Reducing crime is really just an excuse for passing firearms laws. 

The reason that any gun law is not enforced is that the powers that be KNOW that criminals will not obey them, and that is just fine with them, because the crimes committed are just used as an excuse to pass another gun control law. The real target of gun control laws is the law abiding gun owner.

Free money

The video below is a typical Democrat voter. Watch it all the way through. I know it is torture, but if you really want to understand the depth of our problems, you need to watch all of it while remembering that her vote counts the same as yours.

Flying and the TSA

I recently took a trip to Hawaii. I have a lot of thoughts on what I did and saw on this trip, enough to make several posts on the subject. Since the trip involved 7 different flights departing from 5 different airports, I want to begin the series with a discussion of the experience of flying and going through TSA security.

First, the TSA:
Since travelling with a firearm is such a hassle, and since the state of Hawaii does not honor my concealed weapons permit, I was travelling unarmed. I locked my firearms in the safe, and headed out.

Screening is a mess. During the seven different screening processes, I was asked to remove my shoes for 5 of them, my belt for two.

In four cases, I was scanned with the millimeter wave devices. In three of those 4 cases, I also received a pat down. In one case, the machine had them frisk me because of a wadded up receipt in my pocket. Twice, they felt the need to examine my left calf. This is the same calf that required extensive surgery to repair. Perhaps the old scar tissue sets it off, I do not know.

In four of the airports, I was also sniffed by a TSA dog.

In three airports, my luggage (checked and carry on) was x-rayed at least twice.

It went like this:
(Hawaii) Bags are x-rayed upon entry to airport, for so- called "agriculture inspection."
Have papers examined at ticket counter. Hand checked bags to TSA. They x-ray them and send them through.
Stand in queue that passes by sniffing TSA dog.
Have papers inspected by TSA agent.
Remove shoes, belt, and contents of pockets. Place them with belongings on belt for x-ray exam.
Go through perv scanner.
Get dressed while standing under TSA version of flag.

I actually felt DIRTY and sick to my stomach each time I had to go through this. What happened to the freedom we used to have?


Airlines:
Of my 7 flights, four flights were late. Three had been moved to different gates without notification. Three of them had me sitting next to crying babies.

Flying sucks.