Put not your trust in bureaucracies - Second Amendment edition

 

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF for short) is bound and determined to put every single firearms transfer through a formal registration process, whether justifiable or not.

The ATF’s background check rule redefines the word “sale” so that private sellers who receive services or barter in exchange for a gun are required to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

. . .

... pages 26-27 of the rule equates “pecuniary gain” with “profit,” opening the door for the ATF to redefine the word “sale” so as to require a NICS check when a private seller is “bartering” over a gun.

Beginning with the last paragraph on Page 26 and reading into the first paragraph of page 27, the reader sees clearly that the ATF is defining the terms:  “Defining these terms to include any method of payment for a firearm would clarify that persons cannot avoid the licensing requirement by, for instance, bartering or providing or receiving services in exchange for firearms with the predominant intent to earn pecuniary gain even where no money is exchanged.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb commented on the ATF rule, saying, “This is a continuation of the Biden war on guns. It is another attempt to get around Congress to make new laws without congressional approval.”

There's more at the link.

Never in previous American history has such registration been necessary.  I entirely agree with Mr. Gottlieb:  the ATF is trying to effectively make a new law, which is the prerogative of Congress alone, by arbitrarily redrafting its regulations under existing law to such an extent that they actually change that law.  This is unconstitutional, to say the least:  yet, under the Biden administration, such bureaucratic shenanigans have become routine.  One hopes the Supreme Court will eventually get around to striking down this latest example of ATF overreach.

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats can't close every door.  I note, for example, that to give someone a firearm one has already owned for some time as a gift (where no money or other compensation, in cash or in kind, changes hands) is still entirely legal, and does not require a background check.  I would imagine that if Joe Bloggs gives John Smith such a gun as a gift one month, and John Smith gives Joe Bloggs such a gun at a suitably later date (so that there's no obvious link between the gifts), that would still be arguably outside the new regulations.  Furthermore, if one does not receive any "pecuniary gain" for a firearm by selling it (in other words, for less than one paid for it), I would imagine that would be a suitable defense against any charge under these regulations (assuming, of course, that one did not do so regularly, thereby "conducting a business" in the trade in firearms according to the bureaucratic definition).  In the old days, that used to be more-or-less loosely defined as selling more than five firearms per year.  Now, who knows?  The regulations have not yet been tested in actual court cases.  I imagine that can't be far away.

There's also the question of "swap meets", which have been conducted for some time.  A group of friends might get together and swap firearms with each other, so that two people might swap identical models of (say) Glock pistols, each ending up with a gun that was not registered in their name.  Doing that once would still leave a traceable chain, in that a rigorous investigator might uncover links between the two individuals, and be able to follow them;  but if a gun has been swapped several times between different people on different occasions, it becomes very hard to trace everyone who's owned it since its original owner bought it.  I suspect that will be declared illegal under the new regulation, in that the ATF will probably argue that receiving an identical gun in exchange for one's own constitutes "pecuniary gain" (even if that can't be measured in dollars and cents, because no money or other "trade goods" has changed hands).

Older regulations are likely to cause some problems, and raise legal questions.  For example, it used to be entirely legal (according to the ATF's own official instructions interpreting the law, which many of us have saved in downloads and screen shots) to buy a firearm to give as a gift to someone else, and put oneself down on the ATF's Form 4473 as the actual owner or purchaser of that firearm.  Yes, they said that in black and white, and it was in effect for years.  That advice is no longer to be found on the ATF's Web page - but it has never been formally withdrawn.  I suspect it will be an interesting moment in court (if the agency chooses to pursue the issue) when the accused points out something like this:

"I did something that was entirely legal under a previous ATF interpretation of the law, but am now charged with a crime for doing exactly the same thing under a later ATF interpretation.  The underlying law has not changed - only the official interpretation and regulation.  It makes no sense for conduct under the same, unchanged law to be legal one day, and illegal the next.  That is nothing more or less than an arbitrary bureaucratic decision.  It is not a change in the law."

I'm sure we'll see and hear a great deal more about this in future.  Meanwhile, if it's important to you to own a firearm or firearms that have not been officially linked to your name through a background check, you have only a very short time available (before the new regulations are implemented) in which to buy it/them from a private seller without going through the official background check process.

Peter

Victor Davis Hanson: "This will be the end of us"

 

This may be the most important video you'll watch in weeks, possibly months.  It's only 8½ minutes long, but it encapsulates the disastrous situation in which our country now finds itself.  I can't emphasize too strongly that you should not only watch this yourself, but circulate the link to your family and friends, because this is what's coming unless we turn our country around in very short order.

The following article, also by Mr. Hanson, isn't a transcript of the video above, but touches on some of the same points.  I highly recommend that you click over to it and read the whole thing.

Why are those controlling President Biden using him to advance so much of a destructive agenda that it will likely end America as we know it? If someone wished to destroy America, could he do anything more catastrophic than what we currently see and hear each day? What would an existential enemy do that we have not already done to ourselves?

1. Wipe out a 2,000-mile border. Allow 10 million foreign nationals to enter unlawfully. Have no audit of any; nullify all federal immigration laws. Let in toxic drugs that kill 100,000 Americans a year. Give free support to those millions who broke the law. Smear any objectors as racists and xenophobes.

2. Run up $35 trillion in national debt. Keep adding $1 trillion to it each 100 days. Defame anyone wishing to cut wild spending as cruel and inhumane.

3. Appease or subsidize enemies like Iran and China. Demonize allies like Israel. Allow terrorists to attack Americans without adequate response. See Islam as either similar or superior to Christianity. Make amends to leftist governments for supposedly past toxic American international behavior. Follow the lead of international agencies like the U.N., ICC and WHO to atone for past American neocolonial and imperialist behavior. Recede to second-tier international status, befitting American decline.

4. In a multiracial democracy, redefine identity only as one’s tribal affiliation. Ensure each identity group rivals the other for victimhood and the state spoils it confers. Reboot all political issues by race and sex oppressors and oppressed. Destroy all meritocratic standards of admission, retention, promotion and commendation.

5. Recalibrate violent crime as understandable, cry-of-the-heart expressions of social justice. Ensure no bail and same-day release for arrested, repeat violent felons. Empathize with the violent killer and rapist; ignore their victims, especially if they are slain police officers.

There's much more at the link.  Essential reading, IMHO.

Folks, we need to listen to Mr. Hanson's warnings, and pay attention to what's going on in our country, and do something before it's too late.  Even if we can't affect things on a national scale, we stand a better chance of doing so in our states, and an excellent chance in our local towns and counties.  However, if we do nothing, that tide of nihilism will wash over us, and history will say that we committed suicide by cooperating with those who set out to destroy us.

I hope my readers are listening - and willing to act, each of us as best we can in our own lives and circumstances.  In particular, we should be prepared to defend our lives, our loved ones, and our property in the face of a burgeoning crime rate committed by "migrant" aliens.  (As per our previous post this morning, ignore those who claim that aliens aren't contributing to crime, or that crime rates are actually going down.  They're lying.  Read the first link in this paragraph for the facts.)  Secure your premises, get armed and trained in the tools you need to defend yourself, and stand ready to assist police and others who are fighting against the criminal tide.

Peter

"Murders down 20%" versus "The Collapse in Law Enforcement". Who's right?

 

I (and many other independent observers) have been complaining that crime's getting worse - much worse.  Liberal and progressive commenters, on the other hand, are insisting that it's getting better.  Their view may be typified by this article, which I'm posting just as an example.

Homicides Are Plummeting in American Cities

Nationwide, homicides dropped around 20% in 133 cities from the beginning of the year through the end of March compared with the same period in 2023, according to crime-data analyst Jeff Asher, who tabulated statistics from police departments across the country.

. . .

The declines so far in 2024, on top of last year’s drop, mirror the steep declines in homicides of the late 1990s.

“There’s just a ton of places that you can point to that are showing widespread, very positive trends,” said Asher, co-founder of criminal justice consulting firm AH Datalytics. “Nationally, you’re seeing a very similar situation to what you saw in the mid-to-late ’90s. But it’s potentially even larger in terms of the percentages and numbers of the drops.” 

There's more at the link.

Sounds great, doesn't it?  Well . . . until one looks at the reality behind the numbers, that is.

The Collapse in Law Enforcement: As Arrest Rates Plummet, People Have Been Less Willing to Report Crime

The American news media has been working overtime to convince people that violent crime is dramatically falling.

. . .

But, there is a big problem with using the FBI Uniform Crime Report data on crimes reported to police because victims don’t report most crimes ... More importantly, the number of crimes reported to police falls as the arrest rate declines. If people don’t think the police will solve their cases, they are less likely to report them to the police ... This divergence arises for several reasons. In 2021, 37% of police departments stopped reporting crime data to the FBI (including large departments for Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York), and others are underreporting crimes. But also because of the dramatic decline in arrest rates.

Figure 1, presented at the top of this post, illustrates the dramatic drop in arrest rates for violent crimes reported to the police. If you compare the last five years before COVID-19 to 2022, the arrest rate for violent crime across all cities fell by 20%. But for cities with over one million people, it fell by 54%. The drops in arrest rates by type of violent crime ranged from 15% to 27% for all cities and from 38% to 58% for cities with more than one million people ... Comparing the five years from 2015-2019 to the arrest rate in 2022 shows a drop of 33% for all cities and a 63% decline for cities with more than a million people ... only 14.6% of violent crimes result in an arrest ... only 8.4% of all violent crimes resulted in an arrest. For property crimes, the numbers are even worse. With 31.8% of property crimes reported to police and only 11.9% of those reported crimes resulting in an arrest, that means that only 3.8% of all property crimes result in an arrest. For large cities with over a million people, only 1.4% of all property crimes result in an arrest.

Again, more at the link.  Plenty of statistics are provided in graphic form to illustrate the problem.

As to why people are reluctant to report crimes, the answer's obvious.  Left-wing District Attorneys and public prosecutors are minimizing prosecutions, reducing charges, eliminating cash bail, and generally making life as easy as possible for the criminals, rather than the cops.  It's not unusual in a big city to see criminals commit multiple crimes a day, because every time they're arrested, they're out on the street again within a couple of hours.  Here's one example.

Given that reality, store security often doesn't report shoplifting, because the penalties have been reduced to no more than a slap on the wrist.  Police don't bother arresting offenders that they know will be out on the street within hours, or at most a day or two, after being charged.  Citizens don't bother reporting crimes that they know won't be dealt with by police.  All that makes criminals bolder, and boosts the chances that they'll graduate from low-level, non-violent crime to more aggressive offenses.  They develop an attitude of invincibility ("The cops can't touch me!"), and proceed to test it on more and more serious crimes.  I've heard them boast about it in jail (that used to be my job, remember?).  

The same applies even to homicides.  There are plenty of them that are never reported as such.  I know cops who are quite blatant about it.  To paraphrase one of them:  "Look, I find a body on a street in the hood. Nobody saw anything, nobody heard anything, and if I try to pin anything down, everyone who lives there will get aggressive.  That leads to the precinct boss coming down on me for causing a fuss, and him having to send cops he can't spare to sort it out, and do all that extra report writing and explaining to his bosses.  I just can't win.  So, I call it in as a body I found, without mentioning anything suspicious.  The coroner comes and collects it, and I go on my way.  The coroner won't make a fuss, even if he finds a gun or knife wound.  He's got too much work as it is, and he knows most of those cases are never solved.  Result is, it'll just be filed as another random fatality - anything simple and believable to enter into the books.  I recall one case where a cop and the coroner agreed that a gunshot killing would be entered as an overdose.  Nothing criminal was reported, they both had minimal paperwork, and the precinct was happy because our statistics still looked good.  What, you think someone might dig up the body five years later to check?  Doesn't happen."

Murders involving someone with a family who cares, or someone of influence, will be investigated.  The rest?  There'll be a token effort, but it won't get very far, because detectives can't get very far with such investigations in big cities.  They each have too many cases to start with, and that means their attention is spread so thin that it won't be enough to resolve many of them.  What's more, many poorer families (and those who may not speak English very well, if at all) regard the police as their enemy.  Why would they report a murder of one of their family members when it means they have to deal with the enemy?  Even worse, if a gang is involved, it'll deal harshly with any family that implicates it or its members.  Simpler to just bury their dead, mourn as a family, then move on.  Again, I speak from experience, having dealt with rather a lot of such people.

If anyone tells you crime rates are down and big cities are safer, you know at once that they're either misinformed or lying.  Don't believe them.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 205

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

How many of you remember a British pop/rock group with the unlikely name of Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich?  They were never as popular in the USA as other British invasion bands such as their contemporaries the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, but did very well in the British, European and colonial markets.  A couple of their songs made it onto US charts as well.

Here's their best-known song, from 1968:  "Xanadu", complete with electronic whip-cracking.

From 1966, here's "Hold Tight".

From the same year, "Bend It".

And perhaps their most quirky hit, with incomprehensible, nonsensical lyrics:  1967's "Zabadak!".

You'll find more of their music on their YouTube channel.  The "Swingin' '60's" indeed!

Peter

No Snippet this morning

 

I'm afraid I haven't had time or energy to prepare a Saturday Snippet this morning.  I have surgery coming up later this month, and I'm in a fair amount of pain, so just keeping up with the daily round and common task is difficult for me at present.  Prayers for health and healing will be gratefully appreciated.

Meanwhile, please amuse yourselves with the bloggers in the sidebar.  They write good, too!

Peter

Emergency preparations: don't fool yourself - get real

 

Following the series of posts I've put up in recent weeks about various aspects of emergency preparations, I've been surprised by some of the feedback I've received.  Some readers are annoyed that I haven't addressed long-term survival by growing our own food;  others think that buying this, or that, or the other gadget(s) will solve all their problems and guarantee they'll survive;  and yet more think that they can continue to enjoy a risk-free existence if some form of disaster continues beyond a few days or a couple of weeks.  They're all wrong.

There are practical realities we have to keep in mind when planning for emergencies.  If we ignore them, we're living in a fool's paradise;  thinking we're prepared, but in fact being blind to reality.  In this post, I'll try to address some basic, fundamental issues that underpin all our emergency preparations.

The first is our own health and fitness.  How healthy are we?  If we have no major medical issues, that's great.  However, the older we get, the more likely such issues become.  If we're fit and strong right now, that's also great:  but the risk of injury, illness, etc. will become much greater if we have to do more and more emergency-related work (e.g. cutting firewood;  fetching and carrying heavy supplies such as water;  exposure to severe weather, insects, pollution, etc.;  diseases spreading among the victims of an emergency situation;  and so on).  A healthy, fit person has an excellent foundation for coming through such circumstances without too much difficulty;  but the longer they go on, the more likely it becomes that our foundation will deteriorate - sometimes a lot more quickly than we would believe.  (That also raises the question of prescription medicines, which we covered a short while ago;  add to that analgesics, allergy medications, laxatives, anti-diarrhea and other over-the-counter medications that address common conditions, because those are likely to become more common in an extended emergency.)

Let's face it:  death is the normal, inevitable end to life, and it comes to us all sooner or later.  While I'm all in favor of postponing that as long as possible, death remains inevitable.  We should not fear what we cannot avoid.  Instead, let's plan to avoid it as long as possible.  That means keeping ourselves as fit and healthy as possible, and stockpiling things that can help us achieve that.

That said, we need to be realistic in making preparations that are consistent with our health and strength.  I'll use myself as an example.  I was left semi-crippled by a work-related accident two decades ago.  My mobility is very limited, and my permanent pain level is high.  As a result, I'm very unfit (because it hurts to exercise), and have no effective way of regaining a reasonable level of fitness - my body will go on strike if I try too hard.  (I know this.  I've tried.)  Those factors mean there's no way I can keep up with a group trying to evacuate to a safer area if that relies on physical exertion (walking, running, climbing, carrying a heavy load, and so on).  Vehicular traffic is going to be extremely limited by factors such as limited fuel supply, obstacles blocking roads, and interference by those who didn't make any preparations for an emergency, trying to take what they need from those who did.  (If you think that won't happen, there's this bridge in Brooklyn, NYC I'd like to sell you . . . )  Therefore, I have little choice but to "bug in":  stay where I am and try to ride out the problem.  That decision alone already eliminates many approaches to emergencies, and forces me to concentrate on others.  Those who don't share my health issues will, of course, make choices appropriate to their own status.

Next, we have to choose emergency foods that are suitable for our likely needs.  If we may have to "bug out" to another area, we need foods that are relatively light for ease of carrying;  take up as little space as possible;  and are easy to prepare, so as to avoid needing heavy, bulky kitchen equipment.  Freeze-dried foods fit those requirements pretty well, but they're also very expensive on a per-calorie basis, which might be a serious disadvantage if money is tight.  Canned foods are bulkier and heavier, not helpful in a "bug out" situation:  but they cost a lot less on a per-calorie basis, making them a lot more affordable if you're "bugging in".  Many of them can also be eaten cold, straight out of the can if necessary, avoiding the need to prepare them.

Let's take an example from current pricing at Walmart.  Dinty Moore beef stew in a 2½-serving can (200 calories per serving) costs $3.32.  Mountain House freeze-dried beef stew in a 2-serving pack (210 calories per serving) costs $11.26.  (Given our calorie intake needs, both containers realistically offer only a single main course for one person - half that if we're expending a lot of energy, working hard to stay alive - and therefore should be supplemented by other foods as well.)  The freeze-dried meal costs almost 3½ times more than the canned meal.  How much of that cost differential can your wallet afford?  That's a major factor in emergency preparations.  Spend each penny wisely, because they're in limited supply for most of us!

I won't go into details of what foods to choose, how to store them, and all that.  We've covered most of it in earlier articles, and there's a wealth of information online.  The main thing is to choose foods suitable for our plan to deal with emergencies (i.e. "bugging out" or "bugging in"), that we can afford, and that offer as much nutrition as possible for our dollars and cents.

We've spoken about water needs quite a lot in recent weeks, so I won't duplicate those posts here.  Follow the links in this paragraph to read them.

Next, what sort of weather and environmental conditions are we likely to encounter in an emergency?  This is important whether we're "bugging out" or "bugging in".  Remember, the power's likely to be out, so our normal standbys of air-conditioning, heating, etc. are almost certainly not going to be available.  Do we live in an area where winters are cold, snowy, icy?  Then we're going to need a lot more warm clothes, indoors or outside, to keep going (that includes warm bedclothes, wraps, etc.).  Are we in an area with very warm summers?  Then we'll need clothing that allows sweat to evaporate, but also protects us against the sun, insect bites, etc.  We'll also need a lot of it, because normal laundry facilities will most likely not be functioning, and it's a lot of hard work (and water, and detergent) to wash clothes by hand, rinse them, and hang them out to dry.  If the weather doesn't help the drying process, it may be several days before they're fit to wear again.  Our footwear and work clothing needs to suit our climate, and additionally provide protection when we're more physically active than usual (e.g. chopping firewood, collecting water from nearby sources, walking longer and further than usual, etc.)  The factors mentioned in this paragraph also mean we need to add reserve supplies of laundry detergent, insect repellent, sun block, personal hygiene items, etc. to our emergency stash:  also, perhaps, overalls, work gloves and boots, hard hats, sun hats, etc.

There's also the question of the duration of an emergency.  If it's something like a large coronal mass ejection (a so-called "Carrington Event") or major nuclear war, then the effects will be felt for not just years, but decades.  There's no way we can stockpile enough supplies to cater for something like that.  Those who can farm, growing their own food, will have an edge:  but everyone else who survives will be doing their best to raid farms for food, so keeping it is likely to be a very serious problem.  Certainly, if we are not already growing at least some of our own food, we're very unlikely to be able to grow enough from scratch to survive.  We lack the knowledge, tools, seeds, and experience to do so.  Tempting advertisements to buy a certain brand of seed, or a particular tool, or land on which to establish an "emergency farm", are likely to benefit only those selling them.  Realistically, most of us can afford to plan, and stockpile supplies, for an emergency lasting from a few weeks to a year.  Anything beyond that . . . well, it's unlikely we'll live through it.  That's just the way it is.

What about transport and travel?  Sure, we can stockpile a certain amount of gasoline or diesel;  but it won't last forever, and besides, we'll need to power our generators and other engines.  Even if you put 100 gallons of fuel in your stash (which is far more than most of us are legally allowed to store at home), that's only a few tanks' worth for most modern vehicles, and when it's gone, it's gone.  That's why a small electrically-powered vehicle such as an e-bike, a golf cart or a tiny electric car or truck actually makes sense in a "bug in" situation, if we can afford it.  They can be recharged via solar panels or generators, and run around the neighborhood (e.g. to fetch water from a pond or stream).  They may be very practical local emergency vehicles.  (On the other hand, when no other vehicles are running, our electric vehicles will become very tempting targets for looters, whether official or criminal.  We should plan our security arrangements accordingly, and use the vehicles as little as possible to avoid such encounters.)

I could go on, but I hope the examples I've provided illustrate how we need to be extremely practical in our emergency planning.  It's no good planning for pie in the sky when there won't be much pie, and the sky will have fallen!  We should also accept that we'll never get everything right.  There are bound to be things - some of them very important - that we forget, or ignore, or of which we don't stockpile enough.  No sense in kicking ourselves about that when the time comes.  Instead, let's do what we can to stockpile what we're most likely to need in our own situation in life, and then get on with the business of living through hard times using what we've got.  As the late President Theodore Roosevelt put it:

Words to live by.

Peter

There's no fuel like sewage sludge!

 

I was amused to read this news report.

European low-cost carrier Wizz Air has struck a long-term deal with UK biofuels firm Firefly Green Fuels to source sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) made from sewage sludge, part of measures it hopes will enable it to achieve its newly set SAF usage targets.

Wizz today set out its goal of powering 10% of its flights with SAF by 2030 and has backed a new pathway being developed by Firefly, which aims to use human waste as a feedstock for the fuel.

The carrier is investing £5 million ($6.3 million) in Firefy to support the development and certification of SAF produced from sewage sludge.

”At Firefly we have chosen to address the decarbonisation of the aviation industry through the perhaps surprising medium of sewage – or to be accurate, through the medium of biosolids,” explained Firefly chief strategy officer Paul Hilditch during a press conference in London today.

There's more at the link.

An airliner fueled by sewage sludge . . . really?

• In a restaurant, a sommelier knows his wines.  In the airline business, will the quality of fuel now be judged by a smellier?
• Fireflies' butts flash as they fly.  If an airliner is fueled by Firefly, will its . . . oh, never mind.
• How does Firefly plan to cater for growth in its business - issue laxatives and label them "fuel additives"?
• I can't help laughing at the thought of future complaints from those living around large airports.  Aviation in bad odor again?

You'll have to excuse my sometimes schoolboyish sense of humor.

Peter

My deepest sympathy, but...

 

... if ever there was a self-inflicted injury, this was it.

The Long Island doctor who was fatally thrown out of her family’s Airstream should never have been in the RV while it was in motion, the manufacturer says.

Dr. Monika Woroniecka, 58, was not following Airstream’s guidance when she was hurled out of the door of the moving trailer and onto State Route 12E in upstate New York around 3 p.m. Saturday, the company said.

“Airstream travel trailers are not designed to carry passengers while in motion,” the company said in a statement.

“The safety protocol detailed in Airstream’s operating manuals and shared on Airstream’s website advises owners that they cannot tow an Airstream with people inside,” the statement continued.

“Many states prohibit carrying passengers in a travel trailer or fifth wheel, and we advise owners to consult their state’s Department of Motor Vehicles for up-to-date regulations.”

It also is illegal in New York to tow passengers in a “house coach trailer” while it is hitched to a vehicle and on the road.

. . .

Woroniecka struck her head on the road median, police explained.

She was pronounced dead at Samaritan Medical Center.

There's more at the link.

I'd have thought this was absolutely basic, foundational knowledge:  don't travel in any towed vehicle, ever!  It's illegal almost everywhere I know, and almost all manufacturers of such vehicles warn against the practice as well.  Yet now the deceased's daughter is apparently trying to put at least some of the blame for the tragedy on Airstream.

“This was an accident. Pure accident, and there’s nobody to blame. This is nobody’s fault,” Helena said. 

“Sure, maybe Airstream doesn’t advise traveling inside the trailer. But we thought maybe that the last 20 minutes of an eight-hour drive on very quiet and slow country roads would be fine,” Helena said.

“And it’s perfectly legal to do so in some states.

“It was just a crazy accident,” she said.

Still, “The doors on the Airstream open the opposite way that you would expect. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to know that on any moving vehicle, whether a bus or a car or a trailer, doors should open against the wind, not towards it,” Helena told The Post.

“That seems like a significant safety oversight to me and seems like the only reason they do open that way is to protect the awning of the trailer.”

Again, more at the link.

No, young lady, this was no safety oversight, and there's no flaw in the design, because the door was never intended to be opened - from within or outside - while the trailer was in motion!  When the trailer is parked, it's an entirely safe design.

As a pastor and chaplain, I've long since lost count of the number of surviving relatives of a victim of tragedy who've tried to blame anyone and anything they can think of for their loved one's death.  It might be another driver, or a police officer or EMS vehicle that didn't respond quickly or effectively enough (in their opinion), or even the attending chaplain for not praying hard enough (yes, I've actually been accused of that!).  People appear to find it impossible to accept that "pure" accidents happen, where someone is killed solely because they happened to be at the scene at the wrong time, or nature did her sometimes terminal thing (e.g. a lightning strike, or a tree falling due to internal rot) just when someone happened to be standing there.

Life happens.  So does death.  Sometimes there's no explanation possible.  Sometimes somebody or something else is to blame.  However, there are times - such as this incident - where the explanation is simply that the victim did something foolish, and paid the price.

May God rest Dr. Woroniecka's soul, and bring what comfort there may be to those who survive her.  That's all one can say.

Peter