atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3793: "What charges, IF ANY"? Seriously? SERIOUSLY??

JayG has a story from Chicago about a 17-year-old who accidentally shot himself. Said 17-year-old was riding around town in a car with some girls, showing them his pistol, and there was a negligent discharge which ended up wounding him in the leg.

This is the outrageous part: "It was not yet known as of Saturday morning what charges, if any, the boy faces."

...

JayG lists the obvious ones, saving me the trouble:
A) He's 17 years old - too young to own a handgun in the state of IL;
B) He's carrying a concealed weapon in a state that still does not permit carry of any kind;
C) Illegal discharge of a firearm;
D) Theft charges on the handgun - even if he got it out of his mama's sock drawer, he still stole the firearm; and
E) Making a false report to the police. Just because he finally 'fessed up after telling conflicting stories doesn't make him any less culpable.
The latter is because he first told the police that he'd been shot by "two masked men".

Now, here's what happens to me if I'm caught possessing a firearm of any kind, even if I'm driving around with the unloaded gun in a locked case in my trunk:
1) I get arrested
2) I get charged under Illinois' stupid FOID law for possessing a firearm without a valid FOID card.
3) I go to jail. If I'm lucky I merely get probation, but it's still a felony conviction.
4) I can never legally own a firearm again, anywhere.
If I get treated exactly the same as that 17-year-old punk, the mainstream media demands to know why a white middle-aged suburbanite is not being held to the letter of the law, and anyone who tries to dismiss this as not a big deal is crucified.

JayG gets the sarcasm just right in his closing paragraph.

Meanwhile, the Democrat party insists that We Need More Gun Laws Because Current Laws Do Not Protect The Children. Gee, maybe if we tried enforcing the laws on the books we might have better results, y'think?

Meanwhile, Karl Denninger has a post up with more information on the psycho shooting at Sandy Hook, and the salient detail is one that the liberal media has very, very carefully suppressed:
[The Connecticut police] believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what [they] believe."
And the common thread with the Aurora, CO shooter? He went to a so-called "gun free zone". He picked a SOFT target for his rampage.

None of these guys picked a police station for their killing spree. The Fort Hood shooter had his day in an environment--ironically enough--where troops weren't allowed to load their weapons. (So much, by the way, for the "only ones" doctrine, which says only cops and soldiers are qualified to have firearms.)

That's because when people try to go on shooting sprees in free areas, where people are allowed to carry firearms, the sprees are usually stopped before they're even well begun--the shooter gets off a few rounds and is then taken down, one way or another.

Gun control is about disarming the populace, not about "safety".

* * *

Global warming, again--

AoSHQ's Overnight Open Thread begins with that chart showing how badly anthropogenic global warming theory has failed, and Maetonloch gets in a great quote:
When your 95% confidence interval is exceeded within just a few years, maybe your models kinda suck.
Oh yeah. Not "kinda" though.

The hell of it is, most of the graph is mere historical data. There's a white line which denotes a year somewhere near 2007, and at the start of the actual prediction the real-world data is already at the bottom edge of their 75% confidence interval. The real-world observation has not been within that 75% figure since then; it's been on the low side of the 95% confidence interval.

Six or seven years after the prediction is made, reality has blown right out the bottom of their most pessimistic (or optimistic, depending on your viewpoint) prediction.

So: we were supposed to severely curtail our use of fossil fuels because GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, MAN-MADE, AND HAPPENING NOW, AND WE HAVE A CONCENSUS THAT THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED....

Except, guess what?

THE "SCIENCE" WAS FUCKIN' WRONG.

...as it frequently is even when it's not composed primarily of shit someone made up to keep the grant money flowing.

There is no denying that the global climate is changing, but it has always changed and Man has perilously little control over it.

"Carbon dating showed it was made around 300 AD." ...wait, is it the same kind of carbon dating they used for that recent study that rearranged the dates of the core samples? Because they totally need to correct for that; it might mean the tunic was made in 1942 by a Bronx haberdasher or something.

Gee: we keep finding evidence that the Earth was warmer than it is now within historical times. Do you think that information might be saying something about the variability of Earth's climate?

Hey, now! Don't you forget, there was a huge market for SUVs in 300 AD....

* * *

Another crack about the infallibility of science comes to us today from XKCD:



Go to today's strip for the mouseover text; totally worth it.
Subscribe

  • #7557: Whose fault, exactly?

    Kid is ranked 62 out of 120 with a GPA of 0.13. What's his mother have to say? He didn't fail, the school failed him. The school failed at their…

  • #7556: Yakisoba night!

    I don't get to make it very often, but I saw a really nice piece of round steak at the store the other day, so I bought it. 1-1.5 lbs beef (round…

  • #7555: And it's only nine o'clock! *sigh*

    Today I watched the Jeep blow its taillight fuse. It blew when I went home for lunch; I drove back to work with no taillights. Before leaving the…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments