Sandy Hook was a tragedy but lets think shall we?

NewImage

Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner has proposed that California impose a waiting period on bullet sales.

Her sound bite on TV last night was so insane I thought my head would explode.

Most gun owners always keep a supply of ammunition around. Oh and for your information… 200, 250, 500, even 2000 rounds of ammunition isn’t that much, despite the mock breathless shocked reporting of the talking heads on CNN.

At a shooting match, you go through 250 rounds. On the shooting range you can easily fire 300 rounds. Why? because you’re practicing!

How many golf balls do you hit at the driving range? How many baseballs do you hit in a batting cage?

NewImage

If you’re practicing to hit a target, you use a lot of bullets, just like any other situation where practice improves skill.

This “Lawmaker” obviously doesn’t know what the term “Pre-Meditated” means.

NO, It doesn’t mean that you meditate seeking karmic balance before you get your gun and go shoot up a school. 

It means that you plan well in advance your actions. 

That being said a waiting or cool down period before you can purchase ammunition is pointless.

NewImage

Do you think that James Holmes wasn’t planning?

Lets see, allegedly he had guns and ammunition in his car along with body armor. He didn’t stop at the army surplus store and buy that stuff on the way to the theater.

Holmes also took the time to boobytrap his apartment and was probably not intending to come back but was trying to take out additional fire and law enforcement officers that he knew would come to investigate his residence.

So Ms. Skinner what kind of waiting period do you think you’d like to impose? A month? 6 months? A year? 

No it’s pretty obvious that you’re trying to impose and eternal ban on bullets followed by an eternal ban on guns.

The last time a bullet ban was proposed environmental protection was the vehicle. After all we don’t want lead in the environment do we?

NewImage

Adam Lanza didn’t stop at “bullets r us” on the way to the Sandy Hook school. He had all the ammo he needed because it was in the gun cabinet.

The problem is that people are trying to assign meaning and rationality to the insane actions of people that are… pardon my technical terms here, crazy as fucking hell.

There is no logic, no sense, no reason behind these events. These individuals were / are out of their minds.

I for one am sick and tired of everything being tied back to the Sandy Hook tragedy and the way that tragedy is being used to forward the agenda of the gun control lobby.

I personally find it obscene that the gun control lobby, our liberal politicians, and the media are using the murders of children to push their agenda forward.

Let’s stop engaging in knee jerk reactions. Let’s look at these tragedies in the harsh light of reality.

Crazy people, do crazy shit. There’s nothing more complicated about it than that. If we want to live in a free society we accept that there will be a certain element of risk.

A question I’d like to see answered is this.

Why is it that when I was growing up no-one would even have thought about shooting up a theater or even more unthinkable a school. What has changed in the fundamental fabric of our society that allows what was once unthinkable, to be manifested in reality?

That’s what we need to identify and fix.

Time for journalistic responsibility.

NewImage

I couldn’t resist the Reagan poster. But you have to admit if anyone aside from James Brady could speak to the subject it’s Reagan. 

CBSNews Is reporting the New York paper responsible for publishing a map showing the addresses of registered gun owners in two NY counties has added to their grandstanding by hiring armed security guards to protect one of their offices.

The so called “journalists” are kinda missing the point.

I love the irony in that they’ve turned to armed security to protect them.

Registered gun owners are law abiding citizens which by default means that these people aren’t likely to go to the newspaper to exact revenge.

Law abiding citizens are going to choose weapons of mass destruction…. LAWYERS!

The Lawyers will be far more devastating to the newspaper than anyone with a gun.

If I were one of the people affected I’d be seriously pissed off. Not because now the world knows I have guns, but because of the invasion of privacy for no good purpose other than headlines.

Essentially this newspaper has stigmatized the gun owners of these counties. What they’ve done is tried to equate gun owners to sex offenders. “Who are the gun owners in your neighborhood?”, Who are the sex offenders in your neighborhood?”

I’m sure that the editors of the newspaper have gotten some really negative mail and deservedly so.

The gun owners affected have committed no crime, they’ve done absolutely nothing that should have resulted in the forfeiture of their privacy and yet… They’ve lost their privacy. Their homes may be targeted for potential break-ins by criminals who would like to steal guns and resell them to other criminals.

Now the newspaper is trying to look like the victim, and spin the story that they’re scared of the gun owners. 

I have a few things to say to that;

1 Buck up. You published the piece, you must have thought about the invasion of privacy you were enabling and if you didn’t well you’re not very good journalists. You need to accept the consequences and responsibility for your actions.

2 You have nothing to fear from the registered gun owners. You need to fear their attorneys.

3 In the years to come you need to fear the criminal element that breaks into these houses and manages to steal the weapons. They’re the people that are going to mug you, rape you, and shoot you. The blood of innocent victims, and the blood of the home owners occupying these houses will be on your hands.

In my opinion, a single injury or god forbid a death caused because a criminal targeted these homes should result in prosecution of the journalists involved in the story.

I’m for freedom of the press, but with that freedom also comes responsibility. 

There’s a quote from one of the Star Trek movies. “Just because we can do a thing, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should do a thing.”

Yes, it wasn’t said by a statesman, or a scientist, or a politician. But it’s nonetheless a wonderful cautionary statement.

I suspect that the movie quote is based on something Robert Oppenheimer said;

When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb. – J. Robert Oppenheimer”

The point is, sometimes it’s important to take a step back to look beyond your ability to act and decide if the ends are really justified. 

How many wars, how much harm would have been avoided if people had simply considered the ramifications of their actions?

An interesting piece about mass shootings

This piece is in my opinion well written and thoughtful

NewImage

The author makes several good points about mass shootings and doesn’t engage in the rhetoric.

I don’t know how accurate his information is but I think his points are worth noting.

For the record, I’m not for assault weapon bans nor am I for additional gun control.

I’m honestly not sure what actions would make a difference in making schools in particular and our world in general safer.

The public schools I went to as a child were all open.

In the morning and at the end of the day we students came onto the grounds on our bicycles and on foot from all directions and we felt safe. It never occurred to us that there was any danger except crossing the street.

Of course, in point of fact… there wasn’t any danger. We’d all avoid strangers and none of us were kidnapped. Our neighborhoods were essentially safe, and our neighbors kept an eye on the kids going to and from school.

I’m personally disturbed by schools today that look like prisons. 

NewImage

What’s changed?

A friend and I were discussing this subject the other day. As we all know I’m opinionated and my friend patiently listened to my theory.

I think that the problem is manyfold. With the primary issues being;

1) We have pussified our male children

2) As part of that enforced PC thou shall not fight, we’ve created a situation where our young people don’t understand the consequences of violence. 

3) Life isn’t a video game, you don’t get to ‘respawn”, which is not to say video games are at fault.

What I’m saying is that if all the violence a person knows is in the context of a video game then they’re obviously going to have a skewed idea about violence.

Now let me briefly, defend my points

Children have pecking orders. Just like Wolves, Chimps, and the Great Apes. Those pecking orders are established and defined often by shoving, pushing, biting, and in the case of Chimps and Great Apes outright fighting to demonstrate dominance.

I believe this is completely normal and shouldn’t be interfered with. The adults in the species that I’ve sited observe and interfere only when it becomes apparent that someone is going to get seriously hurt.

NewImage

The winners, losers, AND the other young observing the fight for dominance all learn something.

Violence up to a point is OK as long as no-one is permanently injured.

In my personal case, I saw many fights at school. I participated in quite a few of them. In the case of the humans we learned a few lessons. 

1) Fighting hurts.

As we got older, we began to make choices about what was worth fighting over.

2) Choose your battles carefully.

3) Peace and discussing the problem is always preferable to fighting.

As I entered high school, fights were moderated by the Phys Ed coaches. They took on the role of referee. These Men made sure that there was no hitting or kicking below the belt.

They made sure that neither party got too badly banged up and when it was obvious that one party had surrendered, they made sure that the fight came to an end and both parties shook hands and acknowledged that IT was over.

The lessons that I learned then have been invaluable throughout my life.

In my fights, win lose or draw I learned that I was capable of defending myself. I developed confidence and became more self assured. 

I knew, I could take an issue to one of those coaches… Those Men and that they’d arrange for someone I was having a problem with, and me to sit down and decide how we’d proceed. 

I knew that I was becoming a good citizen and that I was gaining the respect of those Men when I was able to talk out an issue with another guy without resorting to fighting.

I learned that consequences follow your decisions and being injured was a possible consequence of improper behavior.

I believe today, that we’ve demonized being male and cut masculinity out of the equation so much that males never get an opportunity to connect the dots between violence and the consequences.

There is NOTHING as powerful as the moment when you’re standing over your defeated opponent.

Yeah you taste your blood because he got off a good shot to your face.

But standing over your opponent savoring the adrenaline rush and your victory, you learn something else too.

You learn that your physical power can be dangerous.

If you have an iota of conscience you also have pity and compassion for that person lying on the ground.

Because at some point in your young life, you’ve been that person too.

That’s the moment you learn that peace is always a preferable choice to war.

That’s also when you look directly into the eyes of one of the coaches and your newfound knowledge is reflected in their eyes. It’s that moment that they accept you into manhood.

That was a very powerful and transformative experience for me and many of my friends. 

Perhaps part of our problem is that we no longer allow any rites of passage.

I’m not a fan of fighting… but I’m also not a fan of the emasculation that’s so prevalent in our society either.

I’d suggest that we start allowing the schoolyard fist fights. I have many memories of sitting in the chair outside the principals office waiting for judgement. 

Those lessons about consequences were as valuable as anything else I learned in school.

There’s Snow in them mountains

NewImage

Got about 1/2 inch of snow while I was away. 

It was snowing when I came home last night & it looks like it snowed off and on all night. I can’t see my tire tracks anymore…

I got in the door, was greeted by the dogs who told me how awful it was that I’d been gone and then demanded treats to atone for their suffering… Any excuse for treats is alright by them.

I started coughing and hacking yesterday morning. Indicating that this damn cold is moving into my chest and well, by time I got home I was feeling pretty poorly.

NewImage

And why the FUCK does it always take 2 1/2 hours to get home from Orange County? What the hell?  There were no accident’s, or any other issues other than stupid people playing Indy 500 pace cars

If these morons would simply remember slower traffic to the right we’d all get to our destinations in a timely fashion. Yeah I was a little cranky. I left OC at 3:30 and didn’t get home until 6:00.

I was just in time for the Nightly News.

My goodness! 

All those poor folks in Connecticut…

At the risk of doing the same thing I’m about to accuse someone of…

The gun control advocates jumped right on the band wagon.

Pardon my bluntness but the shell casings aren’t even cold. You’d have thought that the gun control people would have at least waited a day or two before firing up their agenda and using this tragedy as a plank.

Sheesh!

I have to point out, all it would have taken is one teacher, janitor, or administrator at the school who had a concealed carry permit, and the knowledge to properly use a weapon to have minimized this tragedy.

The perpetrator in this didn’t own the guns, his mother did. 

The only way gun control can ever work is if you literally take guns … ALL guns… away from every single person in this country. To do that you have to perform a house to house search, and then illegal search and seizure of NewImageproperty.

Even after this blatant violation of American rights, you’d still have a gun problem. Because our government won’t  be able to secure the borders and smuggling operations will start immediately.

Consider Chicago. They have some of the most stringent anti-gun laws in the country. You’re not allowed to have a gun in Chicago, to put it plainly.

Yet Chicago has one of the highest number of murder by gunshot rates in the country.  Clearly zero gun policies and insanely stringent laws don’t have the deterrent effect they’ve been touted as having.

Before we go nuts about implementing gun control in the wake of this tragedy. Let us take a moment to look at all sides. Let’s make an informed and well reasoned decision based in fact not the emotionally charged opinions of the moment.

Most of all, let’s let these families grieve and bury their children in peace, lets not use these people or their tragedy to increase ratings or push political agendas.

I hadn’t’ planned to comment

I believe that a safer city, state, and nation, is a place where owning weapons is not only allowed but encouraged.

That’s my personal opinion but I’m not completely alone in that thinking.

I grew up in a place at a time when guns weren’t status symbols, or romanticized, or mystical. They were tools.

You respected any weapon, treated it as if it were loaded

If you didn’t know about how a particular model of gun worked…  you asked. It was that simple. There were guns all over Dad’s house, all of them loaded, all unlocked and none in a safe.

A locked, unloaded, gun in a safe is completely and absolutely useless to anyone. Except the thief  that manages to open the safe to take the guns and valuables to the local pawn shop.

There were no shootings, no children played cowboys & indians with a loaded weapon and the guns didn’t spontaneously go off randomly killing members of the family. We all knew from an early age what a gun was, and how to appropriately handle one if it came to protecting the family. Obviously, when there were toddlers around, the weapons were place out of reach.

 

I wasn’t going to comment on SB 249. I’ve been aware of it for a while and was not too interested. I knew it was another idiot gun ban bill that would probably fail or simply be ignored like so many Bills/Laws that are enacted in California.

Then I read the Bill…

This bImagesill is  one of those things that you just have to read to believe.

SB249. The link will download a PDF document. showing the amendments as of 2012 / 08 / 07.

This Link will take you to the original bill as introduced 2011 / 02 / 10 by California Senator Yee.

Part of what has caught my attention is how the bill has metamorphosed.

As introduced, it’s an agricultural bill that seems to be concerning itself with the business of a regional agricultural district and how members of a local association will be selected and appointed. This is standard stuff dealing with the business of governing California.

SB249 as it currently exists is about firearms.

Specifically, in it’s latest iteration if passed the bill could be used to remove almost any semi automatic weapons from law abiding citizens.

The Law and Lawyers are interesting. The definition of a word is EVERYTHING in law. Remember Bill Clinton and his request for clarification about what exactly defines sex?

Think about it.

What is Sex? Is sex defined as mans penis in a woman’s vagina? If that’s the definition you apply then mutual touching, oral and anal activities are not sex and therefore do not fall under any laws prohibiting adultery.

That’s why Sodomy laws are so very specific about the activities that are punishable offenses. Many Sodomy laws start out by defining ANYTHING that isn’t a mans penis in a woman’s vagina as sodomy and therefore punishable.

Masturbation falls under that definition so when your girlfriend gave you a quick hand job under the bleachers at the homecoming game you both could have been arrested.

I use sex here because it’s one of the easiest examples of how much turns on a definition. Mainly because the desire for puritanical control of who does what and to whom in the bedroom has led to some of the silliest laws ever.

Senator Yees Bill says and I quote;

“This bill would define “detachable magazine” for this purpose to mean any ammunition feeding device that can be removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action, and to include a magazine that may be detached from the firearm by depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.”

This paragraph isn’t talking specifically about rifles or assault weapons. Because it’s defined “detachable magazine” as any ammunition feeding device it’s broadly encompassing almost any semi-automatic pistol, so called “Assault Rifles” and a number of hunting rifles including standard bolt action types.

At first glance you scan down the items that are listed as strictly forbidden (defined as an assault weapon) and you think “Oh it’s only AR-15s or AK replicas.

You even get to Item 18 (4) which says;

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.

(B) A second handgrip.

(C ) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

So you think “OK cool, my Glock, doesn’t meet all of those requirements so while this is a bad law it’s not going to take all my semi-automatic weapons away”.

Then you get to item 29 (5) which says;

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds

Again… this still doesn’t ban yoImages 1ur normal Glock. But it’s ONE single word away from making the possession of a semi-automatic pistol illegal in California.

A Fixed magazine is a magazine that still requires tools to drop & reload. All that has to happen now is for Yee or one of his co-authors to delete the word “Fixed“.

Since most semiautomatics can take high capacity magazines which accommodate more than 10 rounds, if they delete fixed, then because your standard Glock, SIG, or S&W CAN have 11+ round magazines now they’re all banned in California.

Remember how the definition of a word is so important? 

With the deletion of one single modifier, this law could be used to ban most weapons in California.

Yee goes on to open the door to unreimbursed confiscation of weapons but hasn’t actually written that into the bill as of yet. However, due to the rather broad definition of assault weapons, possession of any weapons defined under this law would become illegal.

Even if you’d purchased the weapon when it was legal to do so.

This brings up a constitutional issue. You’re not supposed to have to worry about something being made illegal after the fact.

Again, let me use sex as a vehicle for example.

You’ve got 10 children, some dimwit in the government makes it illegal to have more than 2 children.

Since you’ve got 10 you’ve obviously violated the law 8 times. That gets you and your wife 20 years in a detention / re-education camp and your children all get sent to the state run orphanage where they’re told they’ll be a scum underclass of workers all their lives because daddy and mommy couldn’t be socially responsible.

That’s why way smarter people than me set up a basic framework that was designed to protect the individual from abuses of power by the government.

Think about it… the “Founding Fathers” had been screwed over time and time again by an oppressive government that was all about power, privilege, and wealth.

It makes sense that those same men would want to prevent that kind of thing from happening in a country where they were trying to create a better system of government.

And lets be realistic here… that better form of government was a form of government that favored people like the founding fathers.

But here comes Senator Yee.

He knows better, and is wiser than our founding fathers. In the best interests of the people of California Senator Yee is willing to circumvent the constitution allowing an Ex post facto implementation of the law… just this once…

…to take the guns away. It’s for the good and safety of the people of California. Think of the children…

Well Senator Yee,

I’ll give my right to have a gun up, the day that no criminal in the united states has a gun.

Until then, having the ability to protect myself and my family is my first concern.


Apparently sometime in the past two weeks Senator Yee has pulled the bill. This doesn’t mean he can’t put it back on the docket. 

The major point here is about gun control

But there’s another point that may actually be far more important.

This bill started out as an agriculture bill and is in some cases still listed as an agriculture bill.

This begs the question,

How many other innocent sounding bills are being voted on and PASSED that are eroding any of the myriad rights we believe are un-assailable?


Authors note: I’m sorry that this piece has been republished and edited so much. For some unknown reason when it published this morning it was really garbaged up. After taking the piece through three editors and finally stripping out and re-inserting most of the HTML code, it’s stable. There are line breaks and spacing that make no sense but the piece is readable. I’m not editing it anymore.

I am going to see if I can figure out what happened and why.

Over-React Much???

In an article this morning in the Christian Science Monitor the pundits and wags are already talking about the probability of increased security at theaters.

Uhhh It was ONE fucked up dude…

Statistically speaking ONE does not represent a trend.

While tragic, the Aurora theater shooting was an incident carried out by exactly 1 crazy person. 

This is not a wake up call to increase the level of fear in our country. Unfortunately that is exactly what the media is doing. 

I already don’t go to the movies very often.

Here’s why

1) the expense,

2) the crowds

3) the idiots texting throughout the whole fucking movie

4) the idiots talking throughout the whole movie

5) most of the movies SUCK!

But if you add metal detectors, and prohibitions on what can and cannot be carried into the theater, For example a shopping bag from another store in the mall then a lot of folks are just not going to bother. Really? I’ll have to carry my $200 of jeans out to my car then come back to the movie theater? Nahhh I’m going to get in my car and go home.

I’ll simply wait until the movie in question is available on pay per view or DVD/BlueRay. Lets face it, the time from theater to DVD has gotten ridiculously short.

So I personally have no problem waiting until I can rent a movie for 5 bucks and then every one in the whole house can watch it. I save 13 bucks, can make my own popcorn, have a beer and press pause when I have to take a leak. I like my surround sound system better than the theaters most of the time anyway and I don’t have to wear earplugs because the soundtrack is too loud. Everything is under my control and honestly, I like it better that way anyway.

Of greater concern to me is how we as a people react to these situations.

I agree with metal detectors at airports. The metal detectors at airports were not a result of terrorism… They came about as a reaction to NOT ONE… But Several aircraft Hijackings to Cuba. The metal detectors weren’t about making people FEEL safe… they’re about actually doing something to BE SAFER. 

Today we have to take our shoes off at the airport because ONE stupid moron tried… AND FAILED to light explosives in his shoes.

We are patted down and / or XRAYED, Microwaved, or otherwise imaged to determine if we’re carrying weapons or bombs on airplanes because a couple of morons tried to set off explosives in their underwear. We can’t carry liquids on planes because of the threat that someone might make a bomb out of two liquids.

As any 1st year chemistry student knows, there are elements that are inert until they are mixed with plain simple water. There are a variety of chemicals and elements that in even small quantities can make big booms, or poison gases. These chemicals could be carried on planes in a variety of ways.

The only way to be truly safe on an airplane is to not permit luggage, or carry-on bags of any type. And every single passenger and crew member on the plane would have to be naked. In addition,  there could be no in flight services, no moving about the cabin, no bathrooms, and every passenger would have to be locked into their seat for the duration of the flight.

1342801511 james holmes

Even then, you’re only mostly safe… the plane could be sabotaged, or there could be an act of God that causes the plane to fall out of the sky.

In the wake of the theater shooting, New calls for gun control, restriction of ammunition, and greater security in theaters, are being heard from around the country.

Nidal Hasan

When does it stop? Where do you draw the line?

One could argue that James Holmes and Maj. Nidal Hasan were both involved in the study of brains… By the knee jerk logic of the talking heads… ALL psychology and neuroscience study should be halted because it makes gun toting crazies who shoot into crowds of people.

Are we to have TSA style security in all public places?

Should going to the local shopping mall require a pat down? How about the grocery store?

Will we be required to take our shopping bags out to our cars as we complete each purchase?

Done at Macys, out to the car, back through security Second X-ray of the day, done at Pennys back to the car, back through security 3rd X-ray of the day, and so on.

If that’s what we’re heading for we’ll all be glowing in the dark by the end of the year.

Why didn’t we hear calls for tighter security in the wake of the Brian Stow beating? Oh… yeah the criminal thugs who destroyed Mr. Stow’s life did that with their fists and feet, in a parking lot. I suppose that the only way to prevent something like Brian Stow is to shackle everyone from the time they leave their cars until the time they are returned to their cars.

The point is this…

Being completely safe is an illusion. The only way to be completely safe is to never leave your house, even then safety isn’t guaranteed. So whether you acknowledge it or not we all make choices about the level of personal safety that we’re willing to accept.

Gun control, Draconian Security procedures, and restrictions of our freedoms are not the answer.

We as a people, shouldn’t live in fear. We shouldn’t change our lives because of terrorism, or lone gunmen, or the fear mongering of the talking heads on TV, or of the political candidates.

We as a people, can help to insure greater safety of the society at large by paying attention, by choosing not to ignore odd things.

James Holmes reportedly opened an exit door in the theater and then propped that door open while he went to his car to get the guns and body armor.

All it would have taken is for any one of the people in the theater to close that door. Presumably Holmes purchased a ticket… if he’d forgotten something or needed a medication from his car, he’d have a ticket stub and he could have re-entered the theater via the front door. Holmes needed the dark, he needed stealth and inaction on the part of the theater goers. Someone would have raised an alarm if he’d walked through the main lobby with guns and body armor.

This is not to imply that the victims were at fault. They behaved exactly as predicted and exactly as everyone in America would have. They didn’t get involved. They didn’t ask WTF? 

People who are about to do bad things typically “telegraph” their intentions before they act. If everyone in our society would stop ignoring the odd, the out of place, or the strange, then we’d be a long way toward being safer.

If we instead reported odd behavior or odd situations or asked questions of the person that was acting odd then we’d be in a safer environment all the time.

Criminal activity almost always requires stealth. Asking or having a Policeman ask a suspicious individual what they’re doing may be just enough to stop a crime before it happens.

We text, call, email, Facebook and tweet pretty much 24 / 7 you’d think that with that kind of communication there would be no crime.

But in fact we are so glued to the glow of our smart phones that we’re not only driving distracted…

We’re LIVING distracted.

Consider that, the next time you’re in a restaurant and you notice people texting more than talking.