Making it right is sometimes impossible, he said.

Attempting to fix what is broken? Yet, he said, ‘it’ is already broken… The concentric circles have echoed outward from the breaking, and no matter how much we try, the waves can never be put into reverse to make it ‘as if it never happened.’

I said that I was sorry. He smiled that Gogs smile and said, “Aren’t we all?”

He said, “Try to smile.”

To summarize Gogs…

Smile

You will look better, you will feel better, and I hope, at some point, that we can all realize that getting over ‘it’ and forgiving will make us happier, even if it can’t make it ‘as if it never happened.’

Smile.

It really feels better.

We all make mistakes. Me, you, them, us, … I will not define you by your mistake–much less your worst mistake. I hope you extend everyone else the same courtesy I extend you.

You might actually feel better if you let go, smile, and think better of them, of yourself, and of life in general.

Smile.

You are worth it, and, whether you think so now, they are deserve no less than you.

Gogs. He was a smart man.

Conan O’Brien has 32 Million reasons to not like Jay Leno and to retire, for now…

Jay Leno has the Tonight Show back, has little honor, and learned nothing…

We all now see what a professional Johnny Carson was when he let Leno take his spot.

I wish we could have Carson back…

There are too many “experts” on every subject.

In my opinion, there are too many subjective thoughts that enter people’s “objective” opinions.

People might like a particular car and find ways to justify their finding that it is “the best” whatever…

Similar with firearms and Ammunition…

Firearms

Many ‘experts’ talk about the 1911, the Sig, or (insert your firearm choice here)…

The question to ask is are any of them suggestion or opinion that a gun is the best that isn’t their carry gun? If there are ‘many’ experts who disagree on the ‘best’ gun, why do you think there IS a ‘best’ gun?

What is ‘right’ for one person may not be ‘right’ for another even though it ‘not being right’ doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ for anyone else…

What I mean is that IF I like the Sig P239 for my CCW, others may disagree. People can say “It is too heavy” or doesn’t offer enough rounds for the weight/cost. They could opine that the P239 in .40 is too heavy, too expensive, sits too high in the hand, … The Sig P239 may still be the ‘right’ gun for me. I don’t care what everyone else says because I am not everyone else… I don’t have their hands, their stance, their experience, … I have me and mine. As long as I shoot it well, like the gun, and carry it, it IS the best gun for me regardless if everyone else in the world hates the gun in question. Comprende?

If someone else says the best CCW is a 1911 in .45 ACP because… That may be the best gun for them. How does their choice affect me in any way? Because they ‘justify’ their definition of ‘best?’ Give me a break… If placement is all (we will get to this in a minute..), why does their thought on weight, bore-axis, safety placement, decocker location, etc. make any difference? An opinion, theirs and mine, relates to MY thoughts and may not mean anything to anyone else.

Who cares? Why do people need to feel as if they have people agreeing they have made the ‘best’ gun or ‘best’ choice? Be happy with the gun you use and be happy everyone else doesn’t agree–we couldn’t afford that single firearm then could we?

Diversity in thought is a GOOD thing… Try to remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion, BUT that opinion doesn’t make any differing opinion mean that the ‘others’ who share that ‘differing opinion’ are ‘wrong…’ That is hard for people to do–separate the subjective from the objective. However, practice thinking that way helps, so practice…

Ammunition

Chuck Hawks has a site where he discusses guns, bullets (aka, ammunition), and other items. He states

I agree with him when he states

I cannot stress too heavily that the primary determinant of stopping power is BULLET PLACEMENT.

He states a .32 is better if carried and well-placed (head, torso, …) when shot than a .45 ACP that is at home or used to shoot a person in the foot or finger.

I also agree with him when he states

One should carry only hollowpoint ammunition in a defensive handgun.

The reason is that solid metal bullets (ball) often go in and out of the person being shot. The exiting bullet can hit someone else as it can travel quite some distance past the person being shot. You want to stop the lethal threat not create lethal threat to an innocent bystander or neighbor. A hollowpoint, by design, is supposed to expand upon hitting the target–the idea is to enter the body, expand, and stop in the body.

What do I disagree with?

An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two, and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss.

Lets think about this for a second… If there are two 8″ holes in a gallon of water, the gallon of water with two holes may empty the gallon of water quicker. If the water in the gallon container is in a sponge, the limiting factor to “bleeding out” may be how fast the blood enters the wound channel (the pipe) rather than the size of the pipe… Remember, blood lose from a shot to the foot may be less than that from a wound to the heart… Placement is king.

We all have our preferences. While I see many carrying 230grain JHP ammunition in their .45 handguns, I don’t think that is ‘better’ than the 185grain JHP. Why? Because statistics show…

Statistics can show anything. If the person threatened with the loss of their life has either ammunition and places their shots well, there is no difference in the outcome–the attacker is stopped. Hell, ammunition in .380 ACP or 9mm would be just as effective wouldn’t it?

Remember, as Chuck states…

I cannot stress too heavily that the primary determinant of stopping power is BULLET PLACEMENT.

Summary

Choice is, by definition, subjective. While statistics may say the X is ‘best,’ I may still chose to use Y. You don’t have to agree, and you don’t have to like it. I’m not saying you are ‘wrong,’ and I would ask why you feel some need to be ‘right,’ although you might not be… Let others be different and do what they want.

I guarantee you aren’t always right. If you think you are, you have already been wrong…

I was reading up on some handguns to help a friend chose one to buy since they feel threatened when they work in the woods–she felt she was approached by a bunch of wild/feral dogs while she consulted for a client.

I suggested some safety-laden handguns for her to review, and while we were looking on-line, I came upon this analysis of ‘guns vs. no guns.’

I generally laugh when I read a ‘pro-gun’ or an ‘anti-gun’ position that uses ’statistics’ and ‘analysis’ to ‘justify’ their position. People… we can disagree without getting upset or thinking the other person is ‘an idiot.’

I always write so the ‘moderator’ thinks I am irritated with their article. Then I use calm language and facts to one of many solutions that I think might work to solve the perceived problem.

Here is my response…

I am surprised by your response…

“There’s the rub. If they were not to hand, they could not be handled irresponsibily.”

Well… We might as well make the possession of ammonium nitrate, knives, cars, and other items capable of causing individual or massive damage, illegal!

You state this as well…

“This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).”

I hate to mention it, but were all those murders in the UK from rifles? If not, it seems making handguns illegal won’t stop the murders–it just means that the average citizen can’t own a handgun. You see, the criminal doesn’t care what the law says…

What is the murder rate in the UK vs. the USA? Per population? What are the issues involved–crime, hate-group involvement, etc? You can’t simply look at specific rates. At least you focus on murder rate and don’t use the death by firearm that many use–which includes suicides…

I don’t see anyone suggesting we don’t … fly any more since September 11 just because some terrorist used a perfectly good weapon (da plane) in an irresponsible manner.

Your comment:

“I’ll think about that next time I kill someone with a Liquorice Allsort or assault them with a Hamster.”

does not address his comment. Rather than make a subjective statement, address the issue or your argument is very weak.

It would be easier to remove the ability to fly or drive as those ‘rights’ are not even listed in the Constitution.

Look at the Bill of Rights–a national expert pointed this out to me. What do those Amendments guarantee? To whom are those rights guaranteed?

You might find some way to disagree, but those amendments guarantee rights to all citizens rather than to a specific group of people. Even the criminals are entitled to those rights…

Perhaps you should realize that everyone (even the criminal) has rights even if you don’t like them. Instead of trying to remove the rights people have, try to make a solid, valuable, and constructive suggestion on how to reduce violence.

You state:

“This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).”

What I’d like to see is what is the murder rate… Do you think that the murder rate would change if guns/handguns were never available or do you think that the murderer would simply choose a different … weapon? Remember, without the intent to kill with malice aforethought, there is no murder. Whether the person uses a gun, a bat, a car, or other ‘item’ is irrelevant.

Who is committing the murders? What is the breakdown of CCW permit holders vs. non-holders? What percentage or number are under-age?

You shouldn’t say “That person ate meat and he died” to support your vegan cause. People who eat plants die too. What caused the death? What was his genetic predisposition? There are MANY things that affect death, and focusing on generalities is not accurate or helpful in my opinion.

People need to be taught, starting at a young age, how to reason and identify and solve problems. Taking a position and stating that everyone else is wrong is not logical or reasonable — even if you are right (and I don’t think you are).

The difference between those who I know and you is that you appear to want everyone to be/think/live like you–everything else is wrong. I prefer to allow diversity in thought so that people have the freedom to do what they think is right for them without being limited by what I want to see/hear/etc. I don’t guess you suggest my freedom of speech should be limited because you don’t like what I am saying? I certainly support your right to have your position. I think you are mistaken that any inanimate object can be a ‘killer’ just because it is an object.

Certainly, chemicals react with air/water and may explode at a certain point with no human interaction, but I don’t think there is any ‘intent’ to kill in that instance.

What drives a person to kill? I don’t have all those answers, but research on that topic and how to limit disagreements and the feelings/emotions that lead one party or both parties to get so emotional as to feel a need to use violence to ’solve’ the problem would be much more valuable than to simply yell, “you are wrong” while providing bad data that only supports your side.

Unfortunately, nobody doing any of these discussions actually appears to look look at really good data. Do some Google/Yahoo searches for the Texas study that looked at data between CCW permit holders and the average citizen population. What was found?

How can we, as a society, allow differences that make this country great while protecting our safety? Teach psychology starting in elementary school as it deals with bullies, inadequacy, etc. so that people learn why people do what they do and to assist in everyone knowing productive ways to resolve disagreements.

You aren’t going to remove disagreements–my guess is you and your closest friends disagree on certain issues. However, I doubt you end up picking up a book and throwing it at them (or do you?). Perhaps you, like most of us, have tools at your disposal to resolve these emotional issues instead of resorting to violence.

The people we need to worry about are those people who are not capable of rationalizing behavior and a method to solve disagreements.

Funny that you don’t realize that…

If we all could rationalize appropriately so that we don’t let our emotional response get to ‘that point,’ the free availability of guns, poison, etc. wouldn’t be relevant since there would be no violence anyway.

So… What is better? Remove guns and don’t address the underlying issue as you suggest? I’d suggest we start trying to solve the problem with a solution rather than address the ‘runny nose.’ By solving the problem, we remove the deaths and much more than the runny noses…

Of course, that is just my opinion…

Shuttlefly is one of many on-line photo storage sites. You might be asking why I am writing about them …

If you look at the Terms of Service, you will notice that Section 3 states…

3. Your Submissions

In the event that you post or upload to the Service, or otherwise submit to or through Shutterfly as part of your use of the Service, any materials including, without limitation, photographs and other images, text, graphics, videos, visuals, sounds, data, files, links and other materials (collectively, “Submissions”), you will retain ownership of such Submissions, and you hereby grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), create derivative works of, and publicly display and perform (publicly or otherwise) such Submissions, solely in connection with the Service (including without limitation for purposes of promoting the Service). Please note that, while you retain ownership of your Submissions, any template or layout in which you arrange or organize such Submissions through tools and features made available through Shutterfly are not proprietary to you, and can be used by Shutterfly and others for any purposes. You acknowledge and agree that you have no rights in any such template and/or layout, and such template or layout shall be the sole and exclusive property of Shutterfly.

Wow…

So they can use your photos to promote their service without any notice, permission, or payment.

Not a big deal?

I say it is… Why does Shutterfly need a world-wide, non-exclusive right to distribute, to anyone for any purpose, a picture of “Uncle Ed” or anyone else for that matter? They could use a sunset picture free of charge in a world-wide superbowl ad, and the Copyright holder might not even get acknowledged.

Some ’service’ they provide…

I think I’ll look for another on-line storage site. I’ll let you know what I find…

I have blogged about this before, and I stand by what I have written.

There have been times in the past where there was no ice at the poles.

Now, scientists think we could have a summer with no ice in the Arctic as early as 2030–just 20 years away!

I am not going to say it–because I already have…

The article states

An increasing number of experts feel the North Pole will be ice free in summer by 2030 at the latest, for the first time in a million years.

Please learn about the natural warming and cooling trends on this planet.  Do some research rather than just believe what people say–even it if appears everyone else is saying it…

Remember, “everyone” used to think the earth was flat and that the earth was at the center of the solar system.  How do you know what you “know?”  Is it because you accept what others say or because you thought critically about facts/data and have come to a conclusion?

A U.S. District Court has ruled that a person is not entitled to know if the government takes a look at your e-mail.

The opinion, available here, was written by Michael Mosman in a case involving probable cause for a search of an individual’s gmail e-mails in order to search for evidence of a crime. The federal government asked that the person whose e-mails were being searched had no right to kno his e-mails were being searched.

Be worried?

Not really. The federal government still have to have probable cause to get the warrant, but they don’t have to notify you.

Remember, the federal government can search items in a FedEx truck without notifying you–they do have to notify FedEx… Therefore, your ISP or mail provider will get a notice about the federal government searching your e-mail.

The 4th Amendment applies, but it applies to the Service Provider and not to the user who sent/received the e-mail message.

The Judge, in an article on Yahoo News, states

“If a suspect leaves private documents at his mother’s house and the police obtain a warrant to search his mother’s house, they need only provide a copy of the warrant and a receipt to the mother, even though she is not the ‘owner’ of the documents,” he writes.

Whether you like it or not, that makes legal sense…

I saw the video on Wave. It does look like a new way to communicate.

I wonder just how “new” this is or whether it is a new way to display data.

Wikis are everywhere. E-mail is everywhere. IM is everywhere… You get the idea.

Is this a database driven wiki that simply includes e-mail and IM? Is it more?

What happens when your internet connection goes down? Do you still have all the data or do you have to be on-line to use it? Is there a way to use peer-to-peer communication in case Google goes down (as unlikely as that might be…)?

Why do we want all of our communications public? Haven’t we already seen pictures and statements come back to haunt enough people? Do we think we won’t make any “mistake” or statement or picture that can be misinterpreted?

While interesting, do we want to let Google farm all of that data and/or sell it to others?

I need to read the license to see who owns the content and who has the right to use the content for what purpose(s).

Big brother may be an overstatement. However, maybe it isn’t.

Have you looked to see?

You may be asking why anyone would carry a loaded gun in public.

Of course, the police do it every day, and most people have no problem with the police carrying guns around in broad daylight.

Why are “normal civilians” any different? It might be that the person carrying the firearm has more training than the police. You never know. The person carrying the firearm may have no training. Funny how that works…

A story carried by the Associated Press states

Meleanie Hain made headlines after she attended her then 5-year-old daughter’s soccer game in a park on Sept. 11, 2008, with her 9mm Glock pistol in plain view holstered on her hip, upsetting other parents.

The county sheriff, Michael DeLeo, revoked her gun-carrying permit nine days later.

Hain successfully appealed the permit revocation, although the judge who restored the permit questioned her judgment and said she had “scared the devil” out of other people at the game.

Unfortunately, the article alleges their kids ran from the house yelling that their dad had shot their mom in a “murder-suicide.”

Back to the Issue…

When you see a policeman carrying a gun, nobody panics even though we don’t really know that the person in the uniform and carrying the gun is a police officer. We assume the person is an officer and we expect them to carry guns and know how to use firearms.

Our expectations kill us and appear to force us to not think critically.

Many of those “upset parents” at the soccer game likely know her but were scared by the “open carry” which is legal in many jurisdictions.

An attorney with the Brady Center (anti-gun group), one David Vice, was quoted in the article

“It is a case that calls out for common sense,” Brady Center attorney Daniel Vice said then. “It’s ridiculous to bring a gun to a child’s soccer game.”

I sincerely hope that nobody wants to make a point at a game where his child is running around playing soccer unless one educated, knowledgeable, and trained civilian is carrying a firearm with a valid concealed carry permit.

I’d hate to think that anyone’s child had to die because “we” were afraid that “we” couldn’t appropriately and carefully use a firearm to protect the public even though we are not “police officers.”

If someone was to pull a gun in public and start shooting, how long would it take the police to arrive?

What would you think of a civilian, your neighbor perhaps, if they pulled a gun and shot the lunatic that opened up at a kid’s soccer game with an uzi? Hero or someone lacking in “common sense?”

I’ll tell you what I think…

I wrote earlier about what is “scary.” I still think we act childish–flippant, critical, belittling, and other derogatory actions. Why do we act this way?

The media shows it is acceptable and, even, profitable.

Joy Behar on Glen Beck - “I think he is frequently rediculous. somebody who frequently yells, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. But I believe in free speech, and, as long as there are no weapons involved, he is fine.

Remember Joy (and Glen), that weapons don’t get up by themselves and shoot people. People, often when mad and upset, pick up guns and kill people. So communication between people would be better if it was civil.

Calling people “ridiculous” and “stupid” does not solve any problems. Calling Glen ridiculous when she says the same type of things he says appears to say “It is okay if I do it but not if you do it.”

Sort of like Polanski…

Instead of “joining the crowd,” why doesn’t someone confront this media blitz that generates profits by appealing to the entertainment crowd with a show that promotes a serious discussion without detracting from the discussion?

Realize that we are over 300 million people. Why does anyone expect that every other person (all 299,999,999 of them) will or should think exactly like me? Why is it that “they,” whoever “they” are, are always the ones who are “wrong?”

Why can’t they just have a difference of opinion that might be based on the experiences of their life? Why do most people have to classify something else they have not experienced and do not understand as “stupid” or “ridiculous?”

Examples

Abortion, Firearms and Hunting, Politics, Environment, Money, …

The list goes on.

People can be for or against each of these “issues.” Each person may have a personal story about why they have their opinion. However, most people appearing on television or in the media appear to think the “other side” is just wrong without any concerted effort to understand their position.

Where is the empathy?

I guess I shouldn’t expect empathy from everyone. However, where is the civility?

Do you think getting mad is solving any issues?

Actually, practice shows it does…

Here is the rub.

People accept a lack of civility as a “First Amendment Right.” People accept people having a right to be critical of others and to exclude them from “their group.” People expect the freedom to (whatever) without any regard to how the exercise of that freedom may affect anyone else.

People who complain get results because people cave to their yelling, criticism, or other action, and I think caving in to this type of behavior is rewarding bad behavior rather than rewarding good behavior.

Exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech may alienate a child and, in effect, help them find an outlet using violence. Virginia Tech, Long Island, and other recent examples come to mind.

Often, the person committing these violent outbursts was a victim many times over prior to committing any violent act. At some point, most people will “pop.”

Don’t focus on the act–however violent and terrible. Focus on what caused the act, who is responsible, what helped cause the problem, and how can we change so that these outbursts are less likely to happen.

cough

Calling people “stupid” and “ridiculous” does not solve any problem, and speaking in those terms says a lot about the speaker and nothing about those spoken about.

However, most listeners and viewers don’t realize that people speaking say something about the person speaking. Rather, people seem to think that the spoken work (much like the printed word on the Internet) is full of truth.

Where is critical thought?

Please teach your children that someone saying, “X is stupid” only means that a person said “X is stupid” and does not mean that “X is stupid.” Rather it means the speaker is hoping that others will think X is stupid, and the real question is why does the speaker want people to think that way? What do they have to gain?

And you all thought putting a “spin” on a story was only what politicians did? Funny, I seem to recall that putting “spin” on a story started in school…

Unfortunately, there is no real focus to teach kids to think critically–anywhere that I can find.

Summary

Need proof?

Even the Library of Congress, on a page dealing with the discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation, stated that the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the United States of America.

If you think that is true, you need to go read the document… You might be surprised.

We are “taught” things that we accept as “truths.” What we should be doing is accepting what others say and then questioning…

Critical thinking and Empathy - the only way to enlightenment.