Friday, October 19, 2018

Psst! Don't Tell Anyone, But I Love Your Work.

Have you ever seen the artwork of Adolf Hitler?  The dude was very talented!  Many of his works are quite suitable for hanging.  I'm serious.  He was a true artist. 

So obviously this means that I support all the murdering of Jews that took place by his command. 

I'm a big fan of the music of Elton John.  I don't have all his fact only a couple...but I think his stuff is really good (and his vocal range is right in my wheel house, so that's nice).

So obviously this means that I support the homosexual agenda.  Or, wait!  Maybe it's because I oppose the homosexual agenda that I must disavow any appreciation for Elton John music, Ellen DeGeneres comedy or Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey.  And I mustn't dare admit I've always enjoyed the acting ability of Kevin Spacey or else by doing so I'm admitting that I support sexual assault.

Does any of the above seem weird to you?  Are we allowed to admire the work of wicked people?  I don't mean their wicked acts, of course, but the way they do their jobs or craft? 

Apparently not.  And this is never more true than in the case of one Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of these here United States of America.  You see, anyone who voted for him supports adultery and sexual abuse and crudeness.   You didn't know that, did you?  It's true.  Ask any idiot...I mean, any leftist...same thing.  They'll tell you.  Nothing Trump has done as president matters.  To support his work as president means you're defending...well...whatever nasty thing they believe applies to the man.

The reality, though, is that Trump's biggest flaw is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or any of the GOP presidential hopefuls beaten by Trump in the primaries.  And it is just so super-duper easy to continue putting the focus on his adultery and sexual abuse (only unproven allegations, really) and crudeness, than to defend the policy proposals of one's preferred alternative.  Hey, I still think Ted Cruz was the best choice among the hundred and forty-two or so Republicans running (there's something like 687 Dems gearing up to try for 2020!), but I'm not going to pretend that Trump hasn't been doing far, far better than I ever thought he might or even might be capable of doing.

And that's all that matters at this point.  I still oppose adultery, sexual abuse and crudeness.  I oppose questionable business practices.  But there's been no real suggestions that as president Trump has been doing anything truly horrible.  Sure, some pantywaist idiots...I mean leftists...same thing...wet themselves over his...what is it up to now?...5000 "lies", and over the fact that he doesn't mince words or has no filter to smooth over his extemporaneous speech.  But that's just who he is and despite the fact that I would much prefer more class and less crass in my presidents, the dude is simply doing a really, really good job.  Perfect?  No.  But really, really good.  All who disagree are liars or not paying attention 

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

The Great Debate: Impotence in the Face of Tragedy, Part 2

1.  Bar sales to all violent criminals
2.  Assault weapons ban
3.  Semiautomatic gun ban
4.  High-capacity magazine ban
5.  Universal checks for gun buyers
6.  Universal checks for ammo buyers
7.  Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider
8.  Bar sales to convicted stalkers
9.  Require gun licenses
10. Ammo purchase limit
11. Centralized record of gun sales
12. Report lost or stolen guns
13. 3-day waiting period
14. Gun purchase limit
15. Workplace weapons ban
16. School weapons ban
17. Guns that microstamp bullets
18. Require gun safes
19. Require safety training
20. Fingerprint gun owners

Let's pick up where we left off, with #11.  This is a gun registry.  To record gun sales, and have a "centralized" record is a registry.  Does this person suppose that government would have no access to this record?  And if government has access, how can this not be a registry by which government can also find gun owners for the purpose of confiscation?  Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other countries.

12.  This sounds good in theory, and any good gun owner would likely report a missing weapon out of a sense of responsibility.  But there are problems with making this a mandatory thing.   Let's say the gun owner isn't particularly zealous about training.  He owns a weapon but the novelty has faded and he simply is content to have it "just in case".  This is fine.  No reason he must feel obliged to meet anyone's standards for ownership other than his own.  If the gun is stolen and used in a crime, particularly a murder, he may not be aware that it is even missing.  How can one be mandated to report what he doesn't even realize has happened? 

Depending upon just how draconian his area might be with regard to gun control laws, the mere reporting could lead to charges against him, particularly if awareness of the missing weapon came after a crime was committed with his gun.  What's more, mandatory reporting is not likely to work very well without some kind of registering of one's weapons, which only burdens the law-abiding and only puts the law-abiding at risk of confiscation.

13.  This sounds good in theory.  The usual argument revolves around a "cooling off period" for those who are pissed now at someone and wants to kill them.  The idea that such a person would cool off and not feel as strongly about killing whomever pissed him off.  However, in three days, he also might be three times as pissed and simply more intent than ever to kill whomever pissed him off. 

But what about the victim of a stalker or murderer?  Why should that person have to wait three or more days to obtain a weapon to defend him/herself?  There are way too many stories of women who have been murdered by their husbands, boyfriends, ex-husband/boyfriend because they had to wait to buy a gun.  It's absurd and a clear infringement of one's right to bear arms.

A school shooter would have no problem waiting another three days to carry out his desire to shoot up a school.  A P-O'd former employee would have no problem waiting to shoot up his former workplace.  It's absurd to think a waiting period would make much difference.

Then there's the issue of suicides.  While I do not wish to see anyone take his/her own life, I'm afraid my concern for such people can't take precedence over my concern for people who wish to defend their lives.  If such a person is only seeking to take his/her own life, so be it.  If such a person is wishing to take the lives of others as well, such a person would likely have no problem waiting out the waiting period.

14.  This doesn't even sound good in theory.  Take the Vegas shooter.  Did he need all the weapons he brought with him, or could he have done the same damage with one or two and multiple magazines?  Guns are expensive.  One is not likely to find another purchasing too many at one time, or even over a period of a couple of months.  And whatever limit one faces, one can simply wait out whatever period is in place and then buy again until the desired amount is acquired.  If the limit is on total quantity one can possess, that would require a registry which is immoral and puts the law-abiding at risk.  One can only shoot one gun at any given moment, so the owner of multiple weapons is no more dangerous than the own of one with multiple magazines or reload capability.

15.  Any employer who wishes to ban weapons from his private property (his business) is free to do so.  Any employee who wishes to risk his own life by abiding his employer's ban is free to do so.   Any employee who wishes to risk his position by ignoring his employer's ban is free to do so.  Anyone who thinks the government can dictate such a mandate upon the private sector is no American, as this is clearly and plainly unconstitutional.  Anyone who thinks this will protect employees from those who wish to enter to shoot up the place is an idiot.

16.  We've seen too often the idiocy of this suggestion and indeed, this series of posts is about protecting students.  "Gun free zones" in schools, as in other places, do not work.  Never have and never will.  Only abject idiots continue to push this stupidity.

17.  I'll just leave this to and expert who will certainly be assailed for appearing in an NRA-related site.  Or, just know this is a really stupid idea that won't protect anybody from murderers.

18.  Gun safes are a good idea for those who believe they have a purpose in their own lives.  For example, if one doesn't trust one's friends or family members to respect the deadly potential of a firearm, one might want to lock up their guns.  But for those who believe that locking up one's weapons puts one's own life at risk should that weapon be needed, they should not be told their situation is of no significance.  If the buffoon who suggested this wishes to try getting his assailant to wait while he retrieves his weapon from the safe, good luck to him with that.  This same advice goes to those who like the idea of trigger locks (try fumbling around with that while your daughter is getting raped!), or keeping the weapon unloaded.  All the best to you.

19.  Really.   Mandating just about anything regarding guns is a form of infringement.  As this piece suggests, imagine other rights having training mandates imposed in order to engage in those rights.  And still, how does it protect anyone?  This same article goes on to express that there is no data (as of its writing) that proves a connection between training and accidents, but shows that accidents have been falling.  No doubt they'll ebb and flow up and down over time, but still, is it a matter of training, not enough training, poor training, poor listening and learning?  Responsible gun owners train.  They don't need to be told.  The rest won't train more than any mandate requires and likely not put their total hearts into it if they don't wish to abide the mandates in the first place.  Another impotent suggestion.

20.  This is for registry purposes and thus is unconstitutional as well as completely stupid.  The 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from government, and idiots who suggest this type of law give the fox power over the hen house.  It's imbecilic.

The biggest problem with the lot of these 20 suggestions is that it focuses on the laws regulating the law-abiding, assuming that among them are those who take up arms for criminal purposes.  Rational people enact laws and regulations that impede the ability of the criminal...not the law-abiding.  If you wish to protect the innocent, you don't handcuff the innocent.  You leave their liberty intact while doing all possible to confound the criminal.  None of these suggestions fall under any heading of "common sense" suggestions because the focus is in the wrong direction. 

This list came from a dolt who claims that his "real" plan involved these suggestions and were backed by studies and such that bear out his claim.  But as he's under strict limitations here, and is too cowardly to open up his own blog for serious discussion under his own goof terms means that we'll never know his "plan".  I've no doubt it would be time we'd be sorry to have lost from our limited lives were we to peruse it. 

Saturday, July 07, 2018

The Great Debate: Impotence in the Face of Tragedy

We now come to the end of this series offering solutions to the problem of school shootings.  At least for the time being.  Circumstances of one kind or another may prompt more, but for now, this is it.

For this one, I want to look at things that won't work and things that don't work.  Much of what follows has been offered by one particular low intellect individual who hasn't any actual solutions of any kind.  He does have bumper sticker slogans, one of which is particularly idiotic:

"Simple rule: the more guns, the more gun deaths.  Start there on any plan, for it to be rational and workable. Doesn’t mean banning everything. It dies (sic) mean caring for everybody."

But this is merely simple-minded.  He bases this nonsense on alleged studies that allegedly bear this out.  Basically, this dude hasn't the brain capacity to think beyond a superficial level, being that he's simple-minded, posting this kind of drivel because he believes it backs his preconceived notions...notions he hasn't a clue regarding how they came to exist in his pointy head.  I guess he's happy to have something in there besides space.

What his "study" doesn't really answer, is the question of which came first...the more guns part or the more gun deaths part.  Never mind the fact that where there are more automobiles, there are more automobile fatalities.  Or where there are more bathtubs, there are more slips and fall fatalities.  Or where there are more people like this guy, there are more really, really stupid things said as if they were (and this is the funny part) intelligent.  By the reasoning of this guy, if Homer shoots somebody, Gomer down the street might feel having a gun for protection is a good idea.  If after Gomer buys the gun, Homer shoots another guy, did Gomer's purchase have anything to do with the increase in shootings?  I don't think so.  So it could be that the reverse of that equation...more gun deaths equal more just as likely, if not more so.

More importantly, this poop-for-brains platitude doesn't take into account where the gun deaths are if it matters not.  But in rural areas, gun ownership is generally higher percentage-wise than cities with strict gun-control Chicago...and there isn't a whole lot of gun violence compared to Chicago.  It's not the guns.  It's never the guns.  There's nothing at all rational about this simple-minded rule.  Worse, it does nothing to truly demonstrate caring, because it's so meaningless and there's no way to apply it so that it gives the results this incompetent fool thinks it will. 

Finally as regards this useless crap, "it doesn't mean banning everything".  There is nothing that can be banned that would do much to address the real problem, which is not guns, types of guns or how many exist among law-abiding people.  This pants-wetter thinks he can know what somebody he doesn't know nor knows about needs for protection.  He certainly doesn't have the brain power for far less, so there's no way he's competent enough to judge for anyone else.  But let's move on to what he pretends is a plan.  While this list is likely not dedicated to school safety per se, it's so stupid I had to include it:

1.  Bar sales to all violent criminals
2.  Assault weapons ban
3.  Semiautomatic gun ban
4.  High-capacity magazine ban
5.  Universal checks for gun buyers
6.  Universal checks for ammo buyers
7.  Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider
8.  Bar sales to convicted stalkers
9.  Require gun licenses
10. Ammo purchase limit
11. Centralized record of gun sales
12. Report lost or stolen guns
13. 3-day waiting period
14. Gun purchase limit
15. Workplace weapons ban
16. School weapons ban
17. Guns that microstamp bullets
18. Require gun safes
19. Require safety training
20. Fingerprint gun owners

To begin with, this insipid suggestion fails to account for the fact that almost all of these points of his "plan" are already in play most everywhere in the country to one degree or another.  So, to pretend one is suggesting solutions by doing what is already being done pretty much means that the job is finished and, all students everywhere in every school are now perfectly safe and school shootings will never again take place in the United States of America from now until time eternal.    But let's go through them, as I enjoy showing this dude what he can't see because his head's up his backside:

1.  It is already illegal for violent criminals to purchase a gun.  But hey, dude...try denying one criminal from buying from another.  I'm sure that'll work out just fine.  

2.  This was tried and failed.   What's more, rifles the stupid refers to as "assault rifles" aren't used all that often for crimes of any kind.  The most recent serious school shooting involved the use of a shotgun and a revolver...two guns that are not normally on a gun-grabber's list of guns to grab.  What's more, it didn't matter to the dead.

3.  See point #2.  The stupid in this one is that what the stupid refers to as "assault rifles" are simply semi-automatic weapons, which I believe comprise the most popular weapons, whether rifle or handgun.  So this is really a blatant gun grab considering how many guns would be denied the law-abiding public.  It's also a case of stupid people dictating to others what they need based on the baseless criteria of the stupid, not those who know their own situations and the risks they face.

4.  A worthless proposition.  There is no correlation between magazine size and how many are killed.  What matters is aim.  But assuming one's aim is perfect, there is still no difference in how many can be hit.  The time it takes to drop and empty 10 round mag and replace it with another is tiny and presents no legitimate opportunity to interfere unless one is pretty much right next to the shooter.  Here are two links to debunk the notion that magazine size matters.

In self-defense, stopping a person with a gun requires some skill.  Cops in gun battles fire far more shots that miss than those that hit.  Having more ammo at the ready in a larger mag makes sense, particularly with handguns, as carrying extra mags is inconvenient.  What's more, stopping that assailant might take several hits.  To have to reload could mean one's life.  And for the purposes of protecting students or others, it makes no difference at all how many rounds a magazine carries if the purpose is to kill as many as possible.  The shooter will likely have extras.

5 & 6.  This sounds good even to a lot of pro-gun people.  But the reality is that it, too, will make little to no difference and thus save no one.  What's the point?  To deny criminals and the insane, both of whom are already restricted.  What's more, the criminal who attempts to purchase a gun and goes through a check will be arrested.  They simply won't submit to a check in the first place.  A crazy person or suicidal person might, but if there is no record of one's insanity or suicidal tendency, the nut will pass the check. 

7.  Already in place pretty much everywhere.  The problem, though, is reporting and detecting early enough to do something about it.  Thus, it is no solution.

8.  Already in place pretty much everywhere.

9.  Total infringement on the right to bear arms for self-defense.  What's more, those who license their weapons are not likely to be those who use them for criminal acts.  In the meantime, criminals won't get licensed.

10.  This is goofy.  To limit ammo purchases severely inhibits one's ability to practice and it's another way to prevent the law-abiding from protecting themselves as THEY see fit, which is their right.  More importantly, it can be ignored and side-stepped by a potential mass murderer by simply buying a little at a time, or having another buy on the shooter's behalf.  But what would that limit be?  If it is less than, say 1000, it hurts the law-abiding, while doing nothing to stop the mass shooter, who usually doesn't fire that many rounds before the incident has come to an end.  I think the Las Vegas shooter might have fired off quite a bit, but he's an anomaly among incidents that are especially rare in the first place.

11.  This is the most stupid.  Ask any Jew who was around in 1930s Germany.  This is a call for a registry, which leads to confiscation.  Who puts in charge of storing such information the very entity the 2nd Amendment was meant to deny such controls?  It's amazing how idiotic this one is.

I'm going to leave it there for now.  The rest will follow.  If possible, feel free to address any of the 11+ points made thus far.

Notice to Readers

It is with great regret that due to the childish and petulant antics of a single immature and low-intellect troll names feodor, I have elected to engage comment moderation.  Using the control I have as administrator of this blog, I feel it best for all to deny him the ability to engage in his disruptive behavior.

feo has from his first visit been nothing more than a foul stench, bringing nothing to the table but arrogance, condescension, falsehood, hatefulness and profanity.   He projects his own faults and character flaws onto his discourse opponents, accusing them of all manner of sin when his positions are exposed for the baseless and flawed corruptions they are.  When it is clear his inability to mount a cogent argument against more logical, reasoned and fact-based positions leaves him exposed and facing his own inadequacies, and all attempts to present himself as the intellect his failure proved he isn't grates his sensibilities, he turns to attack the person who bested him so easily.  He's done this not only to those who've engaged him here, but those cited for support of the moral and logical positions he opposes.  He assumes a right to dictate as if this blog is his or as if he has some moral authority.   I have been accused of all manner of sin, such a racism and hate, without the slightest evidence or argument in support of the contention. 

Yet for all his lies about me, I've continued to hope for civil discourse and some semblance of a cogent description of his opinions and ideas about whatever topic is being discussed.  Even as I have taken to deleting his comments due to repeated failures to act like the Christian he hasn't come close to proving he truly is, he still has been given the means to atone for his childishness, but like the infant he is, he prefers petulant stubbornness and psychotic antics. 

So I feel I have no choice but to enable comment moderation until he finds it within his dark and unholy heart to at least pretend he knows what being a Christian is all about and complies with the terms under which he will always remain.

At present, there is a problem with this plan over which I have no control.  It is a technical glitch with Blogger, and for the time being, it may be difficult to post comments for the time being.  Supposedly Blogger is on the case, but if too much time goes by without the problem being resolved, I may switch to Wordpress or some other platform.  I actually have a Wordpress presence, though I haven't been using it at all.

It's too bad that such immaturity has come to this.  It's too bad that my openness and welcome has been so crudely abused.  I don't like deleting comments.  I prefer to let those with low character expose themselves for all to see, focusing on whatever point they choose to make if they have the capacity for doing so.  My rules have always been simple enough for even this simple-minded fool to understand and abide.  Now all must pay the price...another consequence I've always disliked, but with limited options, this is the result. 

Your patience is appreciated.

Tuesday, July 03, 2018

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 4

I'm almost done with this series.  Already I've provided sound solutions to the problem of protecting our students in schools.  This post will provide several more workable and practical ideas.

To begin, it can't be stressed enough that the number one easiest solution to employ is the rejection of the "gun free zone" policy in schools.  This is without a doubt the most idiotic policy for protecting students in schools, or patrons in, say, theaters showing Batman movies.  It is an invitation, not a prohibition.  The vast majority of publicized mass shootings occurred in "gun free zones", and frankly, that should include towns and cities with the strictest gun control laws...which, by the way, are actually law-abiding people control laws.  As most schools in the nation operate under this nonsensical policy, there is no one to defend students when the shooting starts.

Thus, to allow those school staff members who would be willing, particularly those who are already licensed gun owners with concealed carry permits (should be automatically every law-abiding American), armed personnel is logical, reasonable and common sense policy.  There are schools in the country that have already adopted this policy.  No problems reported so far.

There are two main objections to this idea which are easily resolved:

1.  This would be on a volunteer basis, so no one would be forced to carry a weapon.

2.  Law-abiding gun owners, most of whom already have some training and practice with some regularity, do not abuse their liberty to bear arms.  Few who are convicted of crimes involving guns are NRA members.

Teachers are already concerned with the safety of their charges, with teachers among the dead often  having given their lives protecting their students against attacks.  For most of them, had they been armed and firing back rather than simply blocking bullets from hitting students, death tolls would have been drastically reduced.  Indeed, it is likely that in most cases, merely aiming the gun at the attacker would have ended the assault.

If teachers and/or other staff members are covertly carrying firearms, it would not be necessary that all are carrying.  It would take some great effort to determine which staff member is actually carrying and when as well as how many.  But the policy being made known...and reiterated often...would make a given school less likely to be invaded by an armed thug intent on doing harm and whose purpose is generally the most newsworthy high body count. 

"Gun free zone" policy must end if we're serious about protecting our kids.

In addition to having adults properly trained and outfitted to protect students often referred to more than rhetorically or metaphorically as "my kids" by teachers and administrators, there are numerous other ways to protect kids from armed assaults, which is actually the point.  They range from expensive items such as metal detectors (already utilized in many schools simply because of gang-bangers among the student population), to reducing entry points which would be monitored by both adults and video cameras.  There are also devices that are relatively inexpensive (some incredibly so) that would be far more effective than pretending assailants care about "gun free zones" or laws prohibiting types and quantities of firearms.  Below are links I found to effective ideas for protecting students.  Most people would even rightly refer to them as "common sense"  (in no particular order):

---This link concerns campus and building design and contains links to other articles focusing on specific areas of concern.

---This link features something that is alluded to in the link above, and is one of the first things I saw (on Facebook, actually) that compelled my interest in real and effective solutions to the problem of protecting students, that don't include depriving the law-abiding of their God-given right to determine how best to protect themselves.  It actually takes an existing product and finds that it works especially well for protecting students from active shooters, also.

---This link contains a general overview of identifying students who might be threats, as well as reducing their presence through education.  It breaks it down between what schools, communities and parents can do.

---This link offers two very inexpensive and easy to use products to secure classrooms and prevent entry.

---This link is another product, notable for the inventor of it.  It was a high school student who came up with this and outfitted his entire school with this device.  It shows true ingenuity and a decided degree of intelligence not found in the typical "ban assault weapons" buffoon.  The kid now has a patent on the device and is (or likely has by this point) making them for a second school.  He's making money, too, which is capitalism at its finest...seeing a problem, creating a solution, providing it to all who have need for a reasonable price.

---Finally, this link speaks to things some parents have thought of doing to help keep their kids safe.

Quite frankly, each of the above are true examples of "common sense" solutions to the problem.  While some might be expensive, adults must decide just how badly they want to protect kids, particularly when the next teacher contract expires and they choose to go on strike again.  Or, if towns insist on raising property taxes with the excuse that money is needed for schools, school board meetings should be packed with parents who demand spending priorities be adjusted so as to include, at the very least, some of the less expensive options listed above.  In addition, donating to the cause in one's own neighborhood, should be a no-brainer for anyone who expresses any concern at all with every publicized school shooting incident.  You want solutions?  How badly?  They exist in a variety of forms, none of which require taking away the rights of the law-abiding. 

Friday, June 29, 2018

Shameful Behavior Month

As June comes to a close, I am left feeling there is something seriously wrong with a society that devotes a month, as well as parades, to celebrating a sexual compulsion.   Even for those who take delight in acting on that compulsion, how do they come to feel it appropriate to march around proclaiming their sexual compulsion as if it actually deserves public applause? 

I get it.  The idea is supposed to be that there's no reason to be ashamed (not true...there's plenty reason), that they should not be judged in a negative manner (though their compulsion is to act immorally).  But to march around, designating a month of the year?  That's just plain goofy, to say nothing of perverse. 

When I see T-shirts that say something like, "Proud to be Irish", or I hear of "Black Pride", I think, "What did you do to become Irish or Black?"  Did you work hard to be born Armenian?  Was there a special test?  Again, there's no reason to be ashamed of one's race or heritage, even if one's race or heritage has a bad rep.  That is, Germans of today don't need to be ashamed because of all those nazis back during WWII.  But to be proud to be a German? 

Or one can be proud to be a part of a people that has done great things, more or less being proud of those members of one's people who actually did the great things, rather than being proud of having been born into that group.  But either way, these things are just accidents of birth and are no reason to be "proud to be a...whatever".  Did YOU do something great?

But this is different.  This is being proud because one feels like doing something.  Or worse in this case, actually having done it.  A sex act.  "I'm proud to have sex with my significant other!  Let's have a parade!"  Doesn't make sense.  Are these thirteen-year-olds?  "Check it out, dudes!  Me and Ellen did it!  I'm gonna celebrate it annually!" 

Of course, the reality is that it is just another attempt to convince normal people that these particular celebrants are normal, too (though they most certainly aren't), that they're no more or less moral than normal people (though they most certainly are celebrating immorality).  It is meant to enable the guilty and coerce everyone else into accepting the dysfunction.   It is meant to ram their idea of morality and normalcy down the throats of the general population, without the consent of the general population. 

Here's a really goofy aside:  I turned on the radio as I was about to drive in to work and a sports talk show was ending.  One of the two sports dudes was talking about how much fun he had at the city's "Pride" parade, and how his wife continued to hang out there while he had to go to the radio station for his show...and how the station needs a float or something in next year's parade...and how everyone at the station is down with the idea (or so he believes, anyway).  Good gosh! 

Hell in a handbag, my friends.  Hell in a handbag.

Saturday, June 02, 2018

Poor LeBron!

I couldn't tell the proximity or distance of either ref, one calling a blocking foul on James and the other calling charging on Durant.  But as I saw the play commence, there was no doubt in my mind that the blocking call was correct.  I don't know about all the sports talk dudes who discussed the call the next day, but in real time it was quite clear to me that James was moving when contact was made.  That makes it a blocking foul on him.  The replay made it even more apparent.  The sports talkers believed that at any other point in the game, or in any other game, Durant is called for charging.  This is nonsense given at least one of the refs called blocking immediately. 

So the refs pretend there is a question about the restricted area so the rules say they go to the tape.  There was never any real question that James was outside the restricted area.  It was just a ruse to settle the question since both refs were convinced of what they saw.  Again, not really seeing where they were when they made their respective calls, who knows?  But they abused a rule in order to see the tape and the tape showed James was moving.

I thought I heard someone, and it could have actually been while the play was being discussed by the announcers and analysts, that moving doesn't matter.  But that's not true.  And James was clearly moving, even without benefit of the replay to confirm.

Everybody is saying the Cleveland was robbed, because without the replay, the charge call, which I guess was the call on the floor, would have stood and should have.  But here's the truth:  if the roles were reversed, and it was James going to the rim and Durant defending, there is no way James would have been called for charging.  This is a guy who routinely runs over defenders who are even moving away from him, trying to avoid contact.  He could be called for charging two or three times per game on average, and when he is called for charging, he whines.

So for anyone who believes the game was stolen because of this call, go wet yourself.  Try scoring more points next time or prevent being scored upon, then these calls won't matter.

As for replays, I hate 'em.  Never wanted them to be employed in any sport I watch.  That is to say, not for the purpose of correcting or confirming calls.  Whiners whine about not wanting a game decided by a bad call.  Again, play better.  Score more.  Ensure that the other team scores less.  No one likes a call to go against them whether the call is right or wrong.  To blame a loss on the refs is wussy stuff.  Suck it up.  You weren't good enough.  The refs had nothing to do with it.  

Saturday, May 26, 2018

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 3

Before getting into other suggestions for solutions to the issue of school shootings, I would be remiss if I did not point out how the most recent incident at the Sante Fe, Texas happens to show the stupidity of the gun-control narrative.  No semi-automatic rifle was used.  The punk used a sawed-off shotgun (as I understand it) and a revolver.  Now the gun-control buffoons must admit they want to ban all firearms, because neither of these can be classified as military grade weapons.  They are not semi-automatic, don't have large magazines and don't look like M-16s.  The weapons were stolen from the punk's parents.  They were not purchased from a gun show, or through a straw purchase.  As such, no background checks were possible. 

And again, adults failed to see the warning signs, but thankfully, school resource officers were there to confront the punk and limit the carnage.  A teacher with a concealed carry permit might have done better were one on sight.  Thus, we again see that a punk felt relatively safe attacking people in a school with little fear of return fire. 

We also see that when we consider the weapons used, the means by which such a punk might achieve his goals is dictated by circumstance.  He didn't need an AR15 because he could get his hands on a shotgun and revolver.  With those, twenty took hits with half of them dying.  This means that banning rifles like AR15s is a worthless move and meaningless if other forms of firearms are accessible.  What's more, the reports stated that explosive devices were part of the plan as well, so no firearms wouldn't have mattered anyway, were his lethal intentions intense.  So still, guns aren't the problem.

So what other solutions might have made prevented this incident?  One that I encountered in a previous job that brought me to a number of schools is limited entry.  The fewer doors through which people can enter, the easier it is to monitor who comes in.  In several schools I had to regularly visit, I had to get buzzed in.  I'd ring a bell, a person from the office would speak to me over an intercom and, as I was expected, I was allowed entry.  More often than not, my entry was directly through the main office before I could access any other part of the school.  Some schools also had cameras at the main entrance so that a visitor was seen as well as heard.  (Other co-workers visited city schools --Chicago-- were there were security people who not only watched out for you, but for your vehicle as well, while protecting the school, too.)  Anybody that looked the least bit suspicious would not be granted entry.  This doesn't even require armed guards.

This one simple strategy acknowledges something that feo-for-brains gun control people don't:  the issue is protecting students from attacks by those who will find a way to do harm no matter what weapons are denied the law-abiding public.  By monitoring who comes in (listen up defenders of illegal immigrants), those in charge can regulate entry to those deemed safe for admittance.  Thus, the means by which an assailant intends to do harm...what tool chosen for the task...doesn't matter.  One who has no legitimate reason for being there isn't allowed entry in the first place.

I recall back in the early 70's, a friend and I drove another friend for his last day of summer school.  We sought to wait the four hours until school was out and drive the dude home.   We attempted to plant ourselves in the cafeteria where vending machines and a jukebox would make our wait enjoyable.  The administration denied us, simply because we had no legitimate business being in the building...waiting for our friend not considered legitimate business.  I have no doubt that the thought that we might be armed and intending to shoot up the place never crossed their mind.  It was simply a natural and reasonable attitude that those with no legitimate business could not remain in the building, particularly when classes were in session.  We were escorted out.

But let's get back to the Sante Fe shooting.  Would this suggestion have made a difference?  No.  The shooter was a student in the school.  But limited entry would help make this trench coat wearing kid stand out.  A hot day and one kid is overdressed.  Might that not be a good reason to approach the kid?  It was his practice and while I don't know if he was so attired on the day in question, had he been then perhaps he was planning this, or something like this, by setting the precedent of always wearing the coat.  How much intelligence is required to suppose that such fashion statements might be used for ill and thus it might be best to dissuade the kid from so dressing?  In another flashback to my yoot, a group of us was attending a school dance (live music from local bands populated with other friends was common back then).  Entry was limited through one doorway.  At the post was a couple of school staff, including the school cop, with whom we were each personally acquainted for one reason or another.  The officer had no moral issue with plunging his hand in the coat pocket of my buddy, wrapping his hand around an ounce of weed.  Knowing we were more rascal than criminal, he released his grip and warned us to stay out of trouble.  It would have been an easy bust, and had we been more than mischievous a ride to the station would have been in my buddy's immediate future.  The point here is that true monitoring was common then and that single point of entry resulted in an awareness the authorities couldn't have had with multiple avenues of access.

This school security thing isn't complicated.  Some of it, like single point of entry, has been implemented in many schools for some time.  Why it isn't universal is a failure of the adults who aren't using their heads.  It doesn't require denying weapons to the law abiding to implement in order to make schools that much safer.  It can be enhanced with metal detectors for those schools who want to go that far, as one school I visited now and then had upon passing through their single point of entry.   It can be enhanced by a cop, a volunteer or any member of the school staff with a concealed carry permit.  And it stands as one more point on a larger list of solutions that would actually reduce the ability of assailants to achieve their fatal goals, and which gun-grabbers with their heads up their feo's lack the intelligence to recognize is reasonable, practical and easily doable.