Ridiculous Predictions and a Little About Gun Control

I don't know what it is about the gullibility of people that they're willing to believe almost any end-of-the-world prediction, no matter how inaccurately stated or scientifically unfounded.  It goes beyond the ridiculous.  Even if the Mayans were accurate in all their predictions, they did not predict the end of the world.  They made no predictions of that sort whatsoever.  Whoever it was that decided they did, obviously didn't do their research.  Sure, it made for an entertaining movie starring John Cusack, whom I like very much as an actor, but it is not reality.  It was a movie, folks.

So, in the foreseeable future I would really appreciate it if people would stop with all this crap.  Yes, I think there's a possibility we, as a human race, will do something stupid to cause our demise, or a new disease will develop to kill off most of us, but chances are pretty good we'll either see it coming from a long way off, through the wonders of modern science, or we won't see it at all and most of us will be dead before we know what hits us.

I apologize for the run-on sentence in the last paragraph, but I was on a bit of a rant.  What do I mean when I say we'll see it a long way off?  Well, in the case of a new disease.  People will start coming down with something that will turn into a pandemic.  For those who don't know a pandemic is defined as a contagious disease that has spread across a very large area, such as multiple continents or even worldwide.  We've had a few, and the world is still spinning just fine, but there is the possibility that there will be one we have no way of fighting.  We're still going to see it coming.  The media will be blasting us with their dire predictions, which might just be accurate that time around.  However, it's a tangible thing.  A virus is something we understand to some extent.  It's not some vague predictor of the end of the world with no details.

As for not knowing what hits us, well, say for instance North Korea decides to launch another missile that somehow gets past all the defenses that are in place, like what supposedly happened a little while ago.  Now, apparently the missile they just launched had to do with launching a satellite, but a lot of people believe it brings them a step closer to the capability to launch nuclear weapons.  How much warning do you thinks you're going to have if an undetected nuclear weapon is heading your way?  Not much.

The fact is, neither of those scenarios are likely to happen, although they are a lot more possible than this ridiculous December 21st 2012 so-called Mayan prediction.  Woohoo, they predicted the winter solstice.  Right.  The same thing anyone with a calendar can do.

The real question is why people are so happy to believe these things.  Personally I think they just like the drama and excitement.  Their lives are too boring for them, and if they can get all 'het up' about something it just makes their day.  I've known some real drama queens in my day, both men and women, and it's extremely annoying.  If I wanted drama in my life, I'd be living a totally different lifestyle.

As disgusting as it may sound, when you look at someone who is really into the excitement of the artifically heightened moment, take a good look at their flushed faces.  Sort of reminiscent of sexual excitement isn't it?  If that's how they're fulfilling the needs of their libido, they need to get laid.  The problem is, who would want to do the honours with someone like that?  These are people that breed conflict.  Normal people don't consider that an attractive personality trait.

I'm sure there are people who would be happy at the thought of a reduced population, and I can actually understand that quite well.  A world with fewer people would solve a lot of our problems.  Of course, we likely won't get to choose the people who live, will we, so there's no guarantee you'll be surrounded by anything resembling intelligence.  There's no guarantee that the people you care about will survive, either.  Maybe one person, if they release a virus personally, and have inocculated anyone they want to live, would be able to control something like that, but it's doubtful.  That thought reminds me of 12 Monkeys, actually.  The world pretty much ended, and they were wrong the whole time about what caused it.

A lot of terrorists seem to have thoughts like that, actually.  Suicide bombers are willing to die for a cause.  Terrorist are willing to kill anyone, including people of their own religious affiliation, in order to try to further their cause.  It doesn't really work, and just makes people think badly of the group as a whole.  There were several Islamic prayer rooms in the WTC when it was hit, yet people think it was true Muslims who did the deed?  A true Muslim would not have done any such thing.  "Peace be unto you" is not generally succeeded by crashing a plane into a building where there are other Muslims.

There was a huge stink about the idea of putting a mosque near the former WTC.  Why?  Muslims were killed, too, not just Christians.  The people who committed this act were insane, not Muslim.  The problem, of course, is the reactionary behaviour of people before hearing the realities of the situation.  This is how panic starts in difficult situations, as well as end-of-the-world predictions.  People just jump onto the first thing they hear, like it's the word of a supreme being, without showing the least bit of skepticism.  We should know better.

There are so many people in the US and even in Canada who, despite the fact that we brag about being a free country, don't like 'other religions' coming into our countries.  Talk about your hypocritical behaviour.  This whole thing about people fighting for the second amendment and it being an infringement of their freedoms as Americans to talk about gun control, is in direct opposition to the idea of curtailing religious freedom.  They're willing to try to keep the US a strictly Christian country, infringing on the freedoms of other Americans, but then they want the freedom to own repeat-fire assault weapons.  Despite the idiocy of it.  I mean, seriously, when was the last time there was a need to be able to spray bullets into a crowd?

When muskets were changed into rifles in the 18th century, a well-trained soldier could fire approximately four rounds per minute.  (The rifle got its name from the rifling in the barrel).  These were men that repeated a series of steps over and over again.  They were not in battle situations during their firing drills, but the practice certainly helped.  This basically means that it took about 15 seconds to be ready to fire again, every time you shot off a round.  In a classroom full of children, maybe only one person would have died.  At most, two.

The fully automatic version of the Bushmaster .223 caliber AR-15 fires up to 800 rounds per minute.  Unless you have 800 people coming at you, I don't see where that would be necessary.  Granted, the rifle used by Adam Lanza was a semi-automatic.  This means you need to pull the trigger again to fire another round.  A fully automatic rifle means you can hold the trigger down and the rifle will continue to fire until the trigger is released.  A semi-automatic will prepare the rifle for firing the next round by ejecting the spent cartridge and loading a new one, as long as you still have cartridges in the magazine.  It will not allow you to spray bullets just by holding the trigger.  So, the rate of fire with a semi-automatic depends entirely on the ability of the person holding the weapon to depress the trigger in rapid succession.

Adam Lanza was taught to shoot by his mother.  Oddly, I do believe children need to be taught to handle a weapon if they're going to be exposed to them at all.  I do not believe you should allow anyone access to a gun who isn't the registered owner, if you are not there to supervise.  His mother was obviously pretty casual about how she stored her guns, because he grabbed the Bushmaster while she was sleeping, killing her first, and then proceeding to the school.

I'm Canadian, and we have stricter gun controls.  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used is a restricted firearm here, but it is perfectly legal to own one.  They were originally planning on prohibiting the AR-15s of all makes and models, but they're used extensively in sporting competition so our government allowed them.  Kind of stupid if you ask me, but I believe strongly in tighter gun controls.  I like guns, personally, but I don't think most people are capable of handling the responsibility of owning one.  I think it becomes too tempting to resolve your problems the wrong way.

Of course, the same make and model of gun was used by the D.C. Sniper, so I really think people need to re-think what is acceptable for use in the general public.  If it took 15 second to load a musket around the time the second amendment was instituted, isn't it just a little bit possible that the law is out of date?  We have internet laws now that we didn't have back then.  Why?  Because the technology didn't exist back then?  Well, repeat-fire weapons didn't exist back then, either.  They're a new technology that needs to be examined for its implications to society.

Even with fully automatic guns, however, at least we don't have to worry that they're going to end life on Earth.  That belongs to the province of our various governments and their widely ranging "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or WMDs.  If the world is going to end, it won't be the Adam Lanzas of the world that do it.  It will be some idiot who decides he really wants to take over the world.  Now, let me ask you, why the hell would anyone want to run the world?  I don't even know why anyone would want to run a country!  Talk about responsibility and headaches.  Then you would have the thankless job of having to make the right decisions for everyone concerned.  Most people can't cook a dinner that makes their whole family happy.  I feel sorry for Obama.  I like him as a leader, but I feel bad for the mess he's fallen into.  W. left him a whole heap of crap to slog through.

A Sick Ferret, Animal Rights and Serial Killers

I'm terrified right now.  Not for myself but for my ferret.  He's getting up there in age and he's having some issues that may not be fixable.  I'm extremely attached to him - more so than any other animal I've had in my life - it will kill me when he goes.  When he was at the vet's a couple of weeks ago she noticed a lump.  She wasn't sure if it was a swollen kidney, or if it was a tumour.  He has to go back for tests to find out.  He's had a couple of really bad days since then, and even I can feel swelling, but I feel it on both sides.  It's my hope it's simply a kidney infection that can be cleared up relatively easily, assuming permanent damage hasn't been done by the time we figure out what's really wrong with him.

He got pretty weak because he stopped eating, so I had to make him a mush from his kibble and spoon-feed him.  Once he started eating, though, he didn't stop for a long time.  That gives me hope for more time with him.  He's still eating, drinking, going to the bathroom and walking around, so that means he's not ready to go just yet.  However, he's become a lot more cuddly so I know he isn't feeling good.  He's never been a lap ferret, but when he's sick he becomes one for an hour or so before returning to him own bed.  It's nice to have his company like that, but I don't like the implications.

Many people do not understand my attachment to him, and it's not something I can explain to someone who has never felt it.  I've heard people rant and rave about people saying, "They're like my children."  Usually they say it's not possible, and that people who say that obviously have never had children.  Well, that's not the case.  My pets have always been like my children to some extent, and I have a daughter so I don't make the comparison ignorantly.  My ferrets are just as precious to me as my daughter, and they're a lot more vulnerable than she is.

I'm a protector by nature.  I always have been.  I'm also a fighter.  If I hadn't been I wouldn't be alive today.  Woe betide the person who tries to hurt someone or something I love.  Hell, I'd protect a total stranger as long as I felt the situation warranted it.  I don't like seeing anyone or anything picked on or bullied.  I suppose that's part of the reason I'm such a defender of animal rights.  Animals have no voice of their own, and require people like me to stand up for them.  It might be silly to some people, but I hate seeing even an insect suffer.  If they have to be killed, it has to be done quickly or I get really pissed off.  I don't even know if they feel pain, but I so strongly empathize with the possibility of their suffering that I simply can't take the chance that they do.

It has been shown time and time again that a lot of serial killers start out by hurting animals.  A person who is capable of hurting an animal eventually moves on to "bigger" things.  I don't understand why we allow animal cruelty in our world, knowing what we do about the nature of people who are cruel to them.  If we had harsher penalties for animal cruelty, along with mandatory psychiatric evaluations and counselling, we might very well be able to cut down on the number of human predators that prey on other humans.  That's what makes sense to me anyway.  A lot of people don't seem to deal in common sense, however, so it's difficult to reason with them.

The mindset of people who hurt animals usually involves someone having no respect for life, no empathy for other living creatures, and quite often someone who is passing on to animals the abuse they experience at the hands of other humans.  Animal abusers feel powerful.  It's that whole need to control others.  These same people will most likely end up abusing their life partners, and some end up at the extreme end where they kill people.  So, again I ask, why do we tolerate this behaviour?  It's not just little boys, either.  Little girls do it, too.

There are very few case studies on female serial killers.  Women are less willing to talk about their crimes than men.  Men often enjoy the attention and some have even committed the crimes specifically for the attention.  There's a competitiveness among male serial killers.  Female serial killers are a different breed of killer.  I have read several books documenting the crimes of females SKs, but I've only found one case study where there was a decent cross-section of women that were properly interviewed and studied.  Of course, most serial killers are men anyway, which leaves fewer women to pick from when doing these studies, and their reluctance to discuss it makes it even more difficult to find answers.

The few bits of information we seem to have are that the women were almost always severely abused, sexually, emotionally and physically.  They don't sleep well at night.  They tortured animals as children.  There is a great deal of anger in them, which seems obvious given their crimes, but a lot of serial crimes are done for the thrill.  Sometimes women work that way, but it seems that a vengeful mindset is more often the case.  They're pissed off at what they went through, and who could blame them for their anger?  No, I do not think they're justified in killing people because their father had inappropriate contact with them, or their mother burned them with cigarettes.  I don't mean that at all.  I'm just looking at their motivation.

The anger displayed by male serial killers usually revolves around sex.  Granted, the history of abuse is often the same.  A lot of them were dressed in girls' clothing, many of them had mothers that were prostitutes, almost all of them were horrifically abused.  In a lot of cases the first sign that there was a problem was when pets started going missing, or dead wild animals were found that had obviously been tortured.

This is getting a little deep for a blog, and will probably find its way into an article one day, so I'm not going to go into further detail here.  I'll just say I wish people would wake up to the realization that our true personalities show in how we treat those who are weaker than us.  There have been lots of expressions, including stuff written by Nietzsche, regarding judging people by how they treat prisoners or those who are weak, and it's true.  It's a real test of someone's character.  A person who will not hurt something, even when no one is looking, is truly a good person in that respect.  How we act when not being monitored says everything about who we really are.

I look at Stimpy, my little 2-pound ball of fur, and wonder every time how any person could harm such a sweet creature, but it happens all the time.  As for me, I'll just be grateful to have any time I can get with him.  I'd fight to the death to protect him, but there are some things I just can't protect him from and this is one of them.  If he's suffering and there's no cure I will let him go, no matter how painful it might be for me to do so.  Keeping him alive if there's a lot of pain and no way to help him would be selfish in the extreme, and I couldn't bear to watch him suffer.  I will continue to appreciate the times he curls up in my lap to sleep, knowing there might not be too many of those times left.