Maybe I’m reading too much into this?

The kid posted the following on his twitter account:


Click to enlarge

It’s a link to a joke by comedian Daniel Tosh about a man pointing a gun to a fish he had caught. In it, Daniel Tosh jokes that it “must be in retaliation from the mercury poisoning he got last month.”

Maybe I’m reading too much into the kid’s reasoning for posting this. I’ll keep that “reading” to myself right now, but I’d like to hear your comments. When you keep in mind that the kid labels himself as “toxic” because of vaccines, one could only wonder why he finds it funny/interesting to share this post with the world.

On the other hand, I find it interesting that someone who supposedly finds it to be “bigotry” that someone would disagree with him would label himself, an autistic, as “toxic”. People with autism are not toxic (i.e. “poisonous”). Toxic means that they’re capable of causing toxicity to others, not necessarily that they’ve been intoxicated themselves. It’s a bad label to put on people who may depend on others for care because it makes it seem like that dependence is somehow a scourge forced on others. It’s not.

People with any disability deserve to be cared for and helped because of the very fact that they’re human, not because it’s in our “good nature” to help them. And helping them is an honor, a blessing if you will.


Won’t somebody think of the guns?

Ah, the good old National Rifle Association. On the one hand, they oppose a national database of gun owners, citing privacy concerns and some crazy fear of the federal government. On the other hand, they want a national database of people with mental illness. No privacy concerns there, I reckon.

Like other denialists, they don’t let facts get in the way. According to the Washington Post:

“Turns out, many states are ahead of him: 38 states require or authorize the use of certain mental health records for use in a firearm background check, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that tracks state level gun legislation.”

Then, just when I think I can stop shaking my head, the NRA puts out this iPhone app to teach kids how to shoot guns. Though “the app is aimed at users aged just four and above,”:

“It doesn’t just allow you to shoot things; according to the app’s description, it’s “the NRA’s new mobile nerve center,” where you’ll find “one-touch access to the NRA network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resources.” All of these things are available via the app’s main menu, but as noted by The Next Web, all they do is link to the relevant sections of the NRA’s website.”

Alright, well, as long as it doesn’t just glamorize guns. I mean, the NRA is just looking out for the kids, right?
However, it seems to me that the NRA is thinking of the guns, just not in the way you think they’re thinking of the guns. Why? Because they’ve vowed to not let the city of Tucson, Arizona, melt down a whole bunch of recovered guns. Check this out, after a gun buyback program was successful, this is what happened:

“Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn’t want: “They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven’t had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in.”
That’s exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn’t expect was the response after he announced the event.
“I’ve been getting threats,” Kozachik says. “I’ve been getting emails. I’ve been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or ‘We’re going to sue you’ or ‘Who do you think you are?’ “
Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.
“We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns,” he says.
Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.
“If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that’s exactly what they should do,” he says.
That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.””

I bolded that last part to emphasize what the NRA really seems to want. They want “gun safety” alright, but it’s all about keeping the guns safe from people… Not the other way around.

And, if the NRA doesn’t get its way? Well, here:

“”We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can’t do it,” Rathner adds.”

I wonder if the legislators work for their friends or for their constituents?

Let’s arm ourselves to the teeth

Everyone is writing about the senseless act of violence that took away from this world 20 young lives full of promise. On the one hand, you have the dribbling idiots who say that we shouldn’t “politicize” this event in asking for gun control. (One or two of them may have also stated that the President showing tears of emotion while delivering a press statement about it was a sign of weakness.) On the other hand, you have the group of people who — like me — are wondering why anyone would need an assault rifle to defend themselves at home. And then, on the third hand, are those who say that it was the lack of armed people at the school that allowed this tragedy to happen.

It’s to that third group that I am directing this post. People who post things on Facebook like this…

What. The. [Redacted, but the word rhymes with “duck”].

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? You really want faculty and staff at a school to have guns at their disposal on the off chance that someone comes at them, bro? And, if someone does come in, do you really want a firefight, with cops running in with their own guns to find themselves in the middle of a shootout? Is that what you really want?

Idiots. All of you.

Of course, this particular person then goes on to comment that teachers in Israel are armed, and we don’t see mass shootings happen there, do we? Well, the thing about Israel is that it just happens to be a place surrounded by “natural” enemies, where suicide bombings and other acts of terror are a very real danger. In the United States, not so much. Neither Canadians nor Mexicans want to come over and kill us left and right for sport.

Maybe I should point out to this person that the United Kingdom and, frankly, most of Europe gets by just fine without everyone being armed. On the other hand, you have countries like Afghanistan and other failed states where every boy gets a Kalashnikov rifle (aka an AK-47) when they come of age. And what do they have. (Hint: A failed state.)

It seems to me that the problem is not just that we have too many guns. Rather, we have too easy an access to guns mixed with a thinking that we can all be cowboys in the Wild West and shoot it out with each other, or at each other, for no good reason whatsoever. And, if someone has a really big beef with someone else and happens to have a gun… Why, let’s shoot first, second, third, and then ask questions.

But let’s just say that, yes, we arm ourselves to the teeth. We all carry guns. Again, what happens in a shootout at the mall where everyone brings out their gun? Who’s the bad guy and how can you tell? At least with the police and armed guards you know who they are because they have badges and uniforms. But arming civilians on the off chance that this happens? That’s just asking for someone to get shot.

At the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, this summer, do you really think that no innocent bystanders would have been killed had people in the theater shot back at the assailant? A dark theater room with a loud movie playing, and you think that there wouldn’t be SOME goddamned confusion?

I realize now that I’m about to end this post that I asked more questions and offered no real solutions. But, you know what? I don’t feel like it. What happened in Connecticut — and has happened recently over and over again —  is not happening because there are stricter gun laws. Gun control laws have gotten loose, very loose. I can go to the store right now and get an assault rifle, no questions asked. How does that make me safe? How does that make anyone around me safe, especially since I have zero training in how to use the goddamn thing?

So you know who I’m going to blame for this latest shooting and any others that will come? The same people that think that we should all be armed to the teeth. It is their thinking and their lobbying that has allowed too easy an access to weapons to people who don’t know how to use them, how to lock them away, how to keep them from unauthorized people. You did this. You allowed an assault weapon to get into the hands of someone who did the most horrible damage with it.