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.

Less than Two Hours to Go? Doubt it Folks!

At 6:11, my time here in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, the countdown ends for the supposed Mayan prediction.  Some say the prediction is for the end of the world, and others say it's only a massive change coming our way according to the translations.  Even this close to the impending time, I have no faith that the world will end in less than two hours.  Give me a break, people!  How many times has some idiot predicted the end of the world?

I can easily imagine some sort of catastrophe happening to a vast majority of the people on this planet, because as a whole we're dumb enough to cause our own demise.  I think there will be people left roaming the planet, however.  If we're wiped out by a disease, there will be some people who are immune, and others that are merely carriers.  If we're wiped out by nuclear war, there will be pockets of people that only receive minor effects from the radiation.  After all, is anyone really going to attack Nunavut Territory in Canada?  How about equally sparse and isolated towns around the world?  I doubt it very much.  What would be the point?  Those places aren't threats.

Nope, in less than two hours' time, we're all going to be sitting around, or sleeping, and the moment will pass without a hiccup.  Then everyone who feared the big event will look like the gullible idiots they are.  I sure hope nobody was dumb enough to lay in supplies, spending their money on ridiculous things when Christmas is already sucking the money out of your wallets.  Maybe the Mayans got the date wrong, and they were predicting their own demise, which happened a very long time ago.

The fact is, the Mayans really did not predict the end of the world, and those who say otherwise are sadly misinformed trouble-brewers who seem to enjoy predicting disaster.

A Lot of Hokum, Hooey and Bull Crap

If there's one thing I've learned as a writer, especially when conveying information that people might not find so believable, is to do vast amounts of research and then document the sources of my reference material.  If people don't believe me, instead of just ranting that I don't know what I'm talking about, it gives them an avenue to explore to find out for themselves.  Chances are they're going to check things out before making themselves look potentially stupid, and it pretty much always works.  I don't remember anyone ever having to correct one of my articles, but I've had people argue with me when I've commented on theirs.  Of course, that has a lot to do with people not wanting to be 'shown up' on their own work.

There have been a couple of people that I've 'picked on' when it comes to them spouting off crap they obviously know nothing about.  One of which was a medical doctor who had no apparent knowledge of the drugs he was prescribing.  Granted, a pharmacist knows more about prescription drugs than a physician does.  That's their whole job, so doctors often consult with them before prescribing something they may not fully understand.

Another person I've picked on was the woman saying gay marriage was the same thing as paedophilia and incest.  Give me a break.  There's a question of consent there, if nothing else.  I let her have it.  Then she started quoting the bible, and it seems to me like she's never actually read it, so I let her have it for that too.

The most recent person I was a lot nicer to, because I think he's trying to help people.  However, he was blathering on about cancer being a modern disease, and being caused by genetics, when I know that isn't the case.  I left him a comment letting him know what the facts are, and told him it wasn't good for his business to sound like he didn't know what he was talking about.  I did say I wasn't arguing that cancer couldn't be dealt with the way he said, but by not having his facts straight people weren't going to believe him.  90% of cancers now are from environmental issues, particularly lifestyle choices like smoking.  Cancer was first documented and treated surgically by the Egyptians as early as 1600 BC.

Yes, we as humans have been dealing with cancer since at least 1600 BC.  I prefer the term BCE (before common era), but try getting everyone else to use that dating system.  It's an uphill battle.  Considering the fact that only a third of the world's population are Christian, that confounds me, but there you go.


If you don't believe me type History of Cancer in the search box on Wikipedia (or just click on the link I've used to make it really easy for you).  If you haven't heard of Wikipedia, Google it, but I don't hold out much hope for your research capabilities if you don't know what Wikipedia is.

Sometimes people try to say stupid things like, "Well, everyone knows how unreliable Wikipedia is," and I have to laugh at them.  Wikipedia is hands-down the best available source of information that is constantly being corrected, updated and argued against.  Experts all over the world dispute any false claims made on the site, and research documentation is provided in vast quantities.

Text books are one of your worst sources of information, especially if they haven't been printed in the last year.  Information changes all the time, and the latest facts and figures were likely not known at the time of printing, even with the most recent edition.  Then there's the gap between printing and distribution.  Also, if there is an error printed in them it can be overlooked for a very long time, re-printed over and over.  After all, how many people read a textbook cover-to-cover?  Wikipedia is maintained by the world on a daily or even hourly basis, depending on how popular a topic is.  Before an article is even allowed to be posted on the site, it is vetted by people who are knowledgable enough to do so.  Sources are checked.

If I'm writing an article, even if I use a source other than Wikipedia for information, I still end up on Wikipedia to be certain the information I'm getting is accurate.  As an experienced writer and researcher I feel I get the best quality of information from it.  There are things missing on the site, and one day if I get around to doing the scads of research it would take to submit an article to them, I will be able to contribute.  Believe me, the requirements for contribution are quite high.  You have to prove, hands-down, that the information you submit is 100% accurate, so while the information might not always be there, what is there is generally correct.

So, now you're wondering where I feel Wikipedia falls down, I suppose.  Well, their list of Canadian serial killers is very incomplete.  Serge Archambault is a good example.  Sure, they have Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, as well as Robert Pickton, the so-called pig farmer, and Clifford Olson.  These cases are very well-known.  Canada has more of a problem than people think, however.  I have a list of dozens more, and I doubt very much that my own list is complete.

I'm not sure if our government has managed to hire a profiler as of yet (although I have my doubts as to their efficacy), but many years ago I met a woman who wanted to be one and mentioned to me that Canada didn't have any because they didn't want to admit they had serial killers.  Well, good luck keeping that little fact under wraps in the information age.  At the time I think the FBI only had four of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot more now.  I have no idea, since it's not something I've research, and I don't intend to blather on about someone I have no knowledge on.

On the subject of profiling itself, though, I don't believe there's been a single case of a profiler being responsible for the apprehension of a serial killer.  A profile gives only general guidelines into which any number of people could fit.  I think they're pretty much a huge waste of money in that respect, especially since they're not always right, and if memory serves they're wrong quite a bit.  The danger in following a profile is that the investigators follow different leads based on the profile.  If the profile is wrong it may be the one thing that allows a killer to evade capture.  That's even worse than a waste of money.  As I said, I don't have a lot of hard facts on this subject, and it's a matter of opinion.  I've read up on the subject, but that's about it.

I guess this is the benefit of a blog.  I can say what I like without having to worry too much about the facts and references.  Writing an article that will be read by hundreds, or sometimes thousands, of people, I have a responsibility to document only the truth.  Facts are important if they're being used in the piece.  Opinion pieces are a bit different for obvious reasons, although any argument I make that is based on fact still has to be documented.

I find it very disturbing, the poor level of research a lot of writers do.  People read articles online and think they're getting quality information, when that often isn't the case.  The level of irresponsibility is insane.  If you're going to write a piece based on opinion, you need to make it clear that it is just an opinion.  If you're going to write a fact-based piece, provide references to your sources and make sure your sources are good ones, not another poorly researched piece (of which there is a plethora).  Your good sources should have good sources.

This is where the actual work of writing comes in.  A lot of people want to write, but it doesn't make them good at it.  Some people are good at writing interesting things, which is a talent in itself, but that doesn't make them accurate either.  Writing involves research, plain and simple.  Fiction is the only writing that you can get away with poor research and artistic licence.  Well, it's the only writing in which you should be able to get away with it.  Even then, however, unless you're writing about a fantasy world that has no relationship to the real world, you're still better off knowing some things about reality.  Historical novels mean historical research.  Science fiction requires research into scientific principles that relate to your story.

In the movie Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone's character uses the term, "Suspension of disbelief", and it's a really great term for what fiction writers have to do.  The only way to accomplish that is to make the fictional world as real as possible.  When a reader stumbles onto a patently false statement, the suspension of disbelief fails utterly.

I remember a reference in a book about how one writer wrote that her character flew through the Windsor tunnel (in a car), and the critic of that asks, "Really?  Without stopping for the Border Patrol?"  Yeah, that would make for an interesting scene in real-life, wouldn't it?  In the book they simply went on their merry way, which is obviously not what's going to happen if you cross the border without stopping, especially when it's the border between Canada and the US, both of whom take entry into their country seriously.  Just the import taxes alone give them good reason.

The strange nature of fiction is that in order for it to really work you have to use fact and reality to bolster it properly.  Even with fantasy writing you at least have to be consistent with your alternate reality.  If you make up a world, you make up the rules for it, and you have to follow them.  Changing the rules will just make the whole thing silly and be an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

I guess the whole point of this ramble is a wish that writers would be more responsible regarding their creative endeavors.  There's enough misinformation and urban legend floating around without adding to it.  Then again, people enjoy causing trouble in the world, and that impulse is pretty difficult to curtail.