The only good pirate ...

... is a dead one.

That doesn't stop the reflexive cowardice of the media and/or "officials", which is evident in the opening line of the story:

The death comes amid fears that increasingly aggressive pirates and the growing use of armed private security contractors onboard vessels could fuel increased violence on the high seas.

Mr. or Mrs. AP writer, you are an invertebrate.

Anyway, back to our celebration over dead pirates:

In the first killing of its kind, private security contractors shot dead a Somali pirate in a clash that left two skiffs riddled with bullet holes, officials said Wednesday.

Now, the notion that the skiffs were "riddled" with bullet holes would make me giddy, except that the nancies at the AP consider more than one bullet hole to qualify as "riddled", so I have my doubts.

The article goes on to "ask questions" - in nearly every paragraph - about having armed guards on ships. Never mind the obvious:

An EU Naval Force frigate was dispatched to the scene and launched a helicopter that located the pirates. Seven pirates were found, including one who died from small-caliber gunshot wounds, indicating he had been shot by the detachment onboard the Almezaan, and not by the helicopter gunship, said Cmdr. John Harbour, the EU Naval Force spokesman.

Translation: The EU showed up long after the matter had been resolved. (That's your cue to act shocked...)

Anyway, the AP writer and those he/she interviews - in one article about a dead pirate - goes to great lengths to: raise concerns about "increased violence on the high seas"; questions "jurisdiction", "regulation", "guidelines", "standards", the "quality of the individuals" who guard the ships, "oversight"; questions "who is responsible for investigating the incident".

In a dazzling display of bias, the author - after noting the rise in shooting incidents by pirates in the region in the past year - expresses "fears that the use of armed security contractors could encourage pirates to be more violent in their approach..." and then immediately points out that, "Pirate attacks have not declined despite patrols by dozens of warships off the Somali coast. The amount of ocean to patrol is too vast to protect every ship and pirates have responded to the increased naval presence by moving attacks farther out to sea."

The use of "security contractors" and civilian gun ownership seems to bring about the same predictable nonsense. Goodness, they say, only the authorities should have guns, otherwise there might be violence ... and they'll repeat that excrement no matter how much violence the disarmed suffer.

Here's a clue: If the 'authorities' could prevent the violence, perhaps there wouldn't be a call or a need for the unwashed proletariat to be armed. But - as the brilliant AP writer pointed out above - the 'authorities' tend to show up only after everything has gone down. There remains a market for "security contractors" for a similar reason ... If the "warships" of the "legitimate" governments/UN/EU or whoever were up to the task, there would be no need for contractors.

Additionally, the writer neglects to point out the obvious: the armed security contractors killed a pirate and saved the ship. For God's sake ... the contractors were successful! We can't have that, now can we?!?!?

The now infamous Blackwater suffered from a similar bipolar view. As far as I know, Blackwater had a 100% success rate in their EP missions in Iraq and Afghanistan ... and the public is encouraged to hate them because ... why? They make more money than average soldiers? They filled a niche, they did their job well. Blackwater was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina ... why? Because the N.O.P.D. either abandoned the city or was too busy looting the local Wal Mart to protect the people, maybe? Don't hate the player, hate the game (as the kids would say...) If armies and/or police could get the job done, you wouldn't need ... or probably wouldn't even have ever had ... Blackwater.

So, maybe it would be more constructive to address the factors that drive citizens - or cargo ships - to seek to be armed, rather than to criticize them for addressing their need for defense. Otherwise, shut up and let them keep their guns.

Actually, if somebody has to give up their guns ... maybe it should be the Somalis first. That might make the world a safer place.

In any event ... let the dead pirates pile up.

Congratulations!

Our cancer-stick-sucking Hypocrite-in-Chief has signed the first evolution of Socialized Medicine into law.

We're all going to feel so much better about ourselves while we pay for the healthcare smorgasbord of unrepentant smokers (like him), the super-sized obese, drug-addicts, drunk drivers, chronic STD carriers, non-compliant McDonalds-snorting diabetics and the like.

That'll show those greeeedy insurance companies! Behavior be damned ... we want our healthcare!!!

Wake up, fools, and look what you've done. At a time when our country is eyeball-deep in debt, fighting war on 2 fronts (didn't Obama promise to do something about that?), maintaining a near 10% unemployment rate ... hey, I know! Lets institute another gargantuan entitlement program!

Great timing!

What so many proponents of socialized medicine don't see - or refuse to see - is that entitlement programs create beneficiaries ... a class of people who only understand benefits, because they don't put anything into the benefit pool. They get, rather than give. That doesn't create a grateful, newly productive, healthy American - as they'd have you believe. Rather, it creates a slave to the system who understands only the benefits to be derived from the program ... a program supported by those of us who remain to prop it up with our tax dollars. In a way, it creates the greediest of mindsets.

Did I mention nearly 10% unemployment?

This program will drag us all under because of it's own fiscal weight. The claims that this will actually save money are outright preposterous.

8 years of working for Medicare and a couple years as a nurse have taught me that people who are given a benefit have absolutely no incentive to conserve the benefit. Rather, they're encouraged to use it, and to use it to its fullest.

Instituting that mindset in the context of American health care will bring the entire system crashing down ... but we'll be sitting in waiting rooms for a long, long time before it happens.

The waiting room to see your doctor is already full, America. Enjoy your wait.

3-gun!

I competed in my first 3-gun match on Saturday. I performed pretty badly, but I had a blast (no pun intended) anyway.

The club that hosted the shoot had a couple of sponsored 3-gun shooters who talked for nearly 2 hours before the match about gear, tips and general info on 3-gun, which was really helpful for someone like me who has only competed in IDPA previously.

I'll be able to shoot next month's match. I don't plan to be "competitive" per se in 3-gun, since none of my guns are set up as "race" guns; they're all "defensive" weapons, with lights and bells and whistles hanging off of 'em. That's OK ... 3-gun is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.

Yesterday's match

I shot yesterday's IDPA match better than I thought I would .... I placed last in my division, which would bum me out had I been less pleased in my own shooting. My competition was very good.

I missed 2 head shots that did me in. I couldn't see that I missed either one, otherwise I would have made up the shots. Darn those little 9mm holes... Despite that, my accuracy is improving (though at the cost of time.) IDPA works that way, though ... misses cost you way more than the additional time required to make accurate shots.

This was only my second match with the Glock 19. I honestly shoot it better than I ever shot the Kimber Ultra Carry that I've shot in so many matches before. Just goes to show you what an inch of sight radius can do for 'ya. The XS Big Dot sights work just fine for competition.

I'm attending a 3-gun beginners clinic next weekend, and I can't wait. I've been looking into 3-gun competition for years, but I couldn't find a venue close enough or that fit my ever-weirder schedule. This place isn't close to home, but it's close enough that I can attend matches (schedule permitting.) Hopefully I'll get some pictures up.

Update

I've been slack about posting on this blog. Plenty of things have changed.

I started working at a new hospital at the beginning of the year. Not only did I go from an 8-bed ER to a 26 bed department, but I'm in the ER full time now. This ER is way busier than my former hospital -- I'm working my butt off every shift -- but I'm learning far more than before. The hospital and the Emergency Department are very professional, I have plenty of opportunities of which to take advantage, and the staff has been really receptive. I'm jazzed to be there.

The downside is that the hospital is an hour away. A 12-hour shift is closer to 15 hours for me, when commuting time and lag time are added in. That's one long work day.

Anyway, so far it looks like going to this hospital was the right decision, which is a relief.

Unlike the cruel Leonidas, who demanded that you stand, I require only that you kneel.

-Xerxes to Ephialtes in 300

Sounds like something Obama is saying to America...