The Screaming Viking

Some dude has written a scientific style paper titled “A Unifying Theory of Superman’s Powers”.  I’ve glanced through it and it’s semi entertaining.

A unifying theory of Superman’s Powers

I’ve gone on wax being all for people being able to carry firearms.  I think I should be allowed to carry a gun anywhere I please…barring the land/establishment owner’s objection.  I think when someone owns a chunk of land they should be allowed to set (legal) rules for what people can do when they step on to that chunk of land.  Starting Wednesday people with valid concealed weapons permits are going to be allowed to carry in to businesses that serve food and booze.

I am on the fence about this situation.  I think people should be able to carry the legal tools to defend themselves in all situations, but I also feel that if you feel you need to carry a weapon maybe you are in a situation you don’t really need to be in.  The most important part of personal protection that seems to escape most people is being aware of your surroundings and to leave potentially dangerous areas before they become dangerous.  Using your head a bit is going to be far more beneficial than having some tool or some sort to try and protect yourself after the fact.

Read the rest of this entry »

I misread the title of this article.  I thought it was something to do with one girl hiding her boyfriend’s guns for some reason…maybe fear for her life or something.  After reading the article, it’s about women hiding and smuggling guns for their boyfriends.  I’m fully on board with the statement that if she hides the gun she is partly responsible for the crime(s) committed with that gun.

As a side note, usually when I quote a story like this I set the picture they use in their caption as my thumbnail for the picture.  The one they used for this article was titled “ODD-US-POLICE-WOMEN”  /me shrugs

link

LONDON (Reuters) – A campaign warning girls not to stash or carry guns for their boyfriends was launched by London police Wednesday.

The hard-hitting adverts, which are aimed at 15 to 19-year-olds of African and African Caribbean heritage, are designed to combat a worrying growth in the number of young women being arrested and convicted of possessing weapons.

“This year’s campaign has been designed to tackle an emerging and concerning trend,” said Detective Chief Superintendent Helen Ball, head of Trident, the Metropolitan Police unit that investigates gang shootings.

“Those who store and carry guns for others are partly responsible for the crimes committed with those weapons. The consequences for them, their families and their friends are not worth thinking about.”

Police said Trident officers had charged 12 women with possessing a gun so far this year of which seven were teenagers. That compares with 13 charged last year and two the year before.

One recent case saw a 16-year-old girl from southeast London charged with possessing a gun with intent to endanger life and with supplying a firearm after a 9mm Browning self-loading pistol with one round was found in her bedroom.

The four-week campaign, which has the strap line “Hide his gun and you help commit the crime,” will run on radio, in cinemas and on billboards.

“Sadly, young women have always been involved in carrying and storing firearms,” said Claudia Webbe, chairman of Trident’s Independent Advisory Group.

“We are deeply concerned, however, that this involvement seems to be increasing and those who are involved seem to be younger and younger.

“Vulnerable young women are sometimes pressurized into storing or transporting the weapons by men they know, or sometimes willingly do so.”

There is a blog I glace at every once in awhile, something about cop talk or some shit.  Usually I look at the headline in the RSS and mark it read, but the headline today interested me:  For Profit Police.  This interested me immediately because I think it is a hell of a good idea.  The writer of the blog read this article and threw out some of his opinions on the topic.  He was against the idea for several reasons, the main one seemed to be integrity of the police force.  Quite frankly, I don’t believe in that argument.

I think a city could whittle down their cost by farming out a police force and jail system to a company that is familiar with how to run a business.  The main problem I have with government running “companies” is that they are not business men.  Maybe that’s not necessarily true, but a government isn’t run as a business (although I think it should be).  The city would need to spend time and money to develop guidelines and standards for the company to follow, determine some sort of QA procedure and they are done.  After that, it’s up to the company to take the money and figure out how to turn a profit and stay within those rules.  The cops would still be trained as well if not better than they are now, the law is still the law…and people would need to follow the rules or be prosecuted.  The state would still run the court system, and “fairness” would be the same.  Is there a greater chance of the cops being unfair or planting evidence?  Something like that would depend on the company’s bonus system and if an overturned or “fail to convict” would cause their job to be in jeopardy more so with a private company than the city.

1/2 of the judicial system is a “for profit” venture.  Defense attorneys, outside of public defenders, are in it for profit…and it “works” I guess.  I think this is something definitely worth exploring, and in the end it could potentially save the tax payers some money.