Yesterday I posted on urban coyotes. Frequent commenter, blueeyes, made a lengthy comment. I started to answer in a post length comment and realized I’d probably exceed the Halsoscan limit, so I decided to post my reply.
Blueeyes wondered if I thought he was turning into an "eco-troll." I don’t feel his comment was trollish. We’ve exchanged comments about this before and I know he’s informed and passionate about it.
First, blueeyes pointed to advice in the article I linked from the Boston Globe. It mentioned that you could discourage coyotes with cayenne pepper. Blueeyes points out that using pepper spray is not a good idea for various reasons. One could spread powdered red cayenne instead of using a spray, but using either is not ideal. Still, it's typical of the advice many in authority give when they’re confronted with questions about living with wild animals--almost useless.
Blueeyes had three specific issues he asked me about. I’ll ask them in the order he gave, but I’ll paraphrase the questions:
Question A: Coyote attacks on human are not frequent, so what is the significance of increased human-coyote interaction? Coyotes aren't the only animals living with us. Increasingly we’re living with bears, alligators, deer, mountain lions, foxes, etc. even packs of wild dogs. Some are predators, some aren't. We live with these creatures and they have their own set of rules. Too many people are separated from the natural world and only know about nature from Disney movies.
Nature is a great thing. I love being outdoors and I hunt and fish. I’ve also read up on animal behavior and have a modest understanding of animal behavior (you have to if you want a successful hunt). The fact that animals are living among us and that too many people are ignorant of animal behavior is a recipe for disaster. It’s not just my opinion. Here’s an article that discusses changes in coyote behavior as they become acclimated to humans. It also lists coyote attacks in California (.pdf link).
People no longer react to a predator the way our ancestors did when a predator would face a gun, a loud bang, and pain or oblivion. Now, they face people who do nothing to scare it let alone hurt it. In time, that animal is going to associate people with food especially if humand feed it or leave food out for them (see page 5 of the report I linked above). Since children are much more defenseless than adults, when a coyote (or bear, mountain lion) starts to think of humans as food, they’ll go after children first.
Question B: A woman in the Boston Globe article came upon a coyote while driving and honked her horn at the animal, why wouldn’t she use her car as a better weapon than a gun? It’s mindset. People here in New England have become too civilized. She could have used her car, but she may have faced prosecution if someone turned her in for deliberately running over a coyote. Granted, using a gun would have been worse for her.
Too many people have forgotten what our ancestors understood. They knew that killing animals (and people) in self-defense was no crime. Our ancestors went too far when they tried to wipe out mountain lions and wolves. I like having predators in the eco-system; you need them. But, predators have to be reminded that they shall not eat of the hairless ape. Human predators have to be reminded that not all of us are toothless and there’re more of us than them.
Question C: Why is this gun news when there’s so much blog-fodder out there? I blog about what interests me. The fact that predators are making a comeback and that people don’t know how to relate to wild animals anymore interests me. Also, blueeyes quoted a story about idiots firing a stolen gun in Massachusetts woods, but mAssBackwards already covered it. Why repeat something that another blogger covered better than I might have?
Finally, many New Englanders get to me. I’m from the West and lived in Texas before I moved here. I grew up at a time when a truck gun was normal. People in Massachusetts would get an attack of the vapors if they even thought of someone having a gun in a truck or car. In so-called civilized parts of America we’ve gotten away from self-reliance and self-responsibility. Instead, we expect the authorities to do something even when our laws (for instance, coyotes are protected in Massachusetts) ties their hands.
I would oppose suburbanites or cops wiping out coyotes. I do expect that people should be able to protect themselves, other humans, and even their pets with a gun if the danger justifies that action. However, Massachusetts has made it difficult to own a gun and even pepper spray. This is a foolish policy and we’re seeing its results.
Massachusetts is facing backyard predators that don’t respond to our laws and could attack a child or an adult as they become more acclimated to humans. This situation is the ultimate irony for a “civilized” and disarmed population. Even better, it’s a metaphor for two-legged predators that know our laws, but refuse to comply with them. It doesn’t get better than that.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Urban Coyote Blogging, Again
It seems like I am doomed to Coyote blog (here) (here) and (here). And, it looks like I’m going to have to do it again.
It’s not because I hate coyotes. In fact, I’m glad predators are returning to our forests and plains. You can’t have a balanced ecosystem with only prey animals and no predators. No, I have to do it again because the Boston Globe has yet another report on coyotes in cities and their article highlights the ignorance gun fearing states have when it comes to dealing with wild animals.
This time Saugus, Massachusetts is where people fear their coyote neighbors. The article opens with a woman and two young children. While driving home she came across a coyote chasing a neighbor’s dog when the coyote stopped in front of her car. Repeated horn blowing didn’t budge it until our furry woodland friend decided to run off.
So far, Saugus' Police Department has had seven coyote calls in the past three weeks. The article gives a little natural history on coyotes, a description of a coyote carrying off a wild turkey (while not as big as their supermarket cousins, a wild turkey is a good sized bird), a sighting of pups, and near the end there’s a report that a three-year Cape Cod boy suffered a coyote bite in 1998.
I throw in the last to discuss a few instances of head-in-the-sand thinking exhibited by officials as reported by the article’s author, Cristina Silva. Officials claim coyotes aren’t dangerous. State biologist Peter Mirick says it is uncommon for them to attack people. I grant you that one human coyote bite in the past seven years shows that coyotes don’t attack humans often, but it also proves that it can happen. Further, coyotes are pet killers as Mirick admits, ''They do, however, definitely eat some cats and dogs from time to time."
The biggest question I have about the article though is, “While coyotes have always lived in the area, development in recent years has made the coyotes more visible and less afraid of humans,” a statement made by Saugus police officer Harold Young. First, I doubt coyotes have always lived in the area. Second, many liberals, and those fooled by liberals, blame development for the increasing brazen behavior of coyotes and other wild animals.
It’s not development. Saugus is only a little north of Boston. It was founded in 1629. This area has been settled for a long time. It’s congested as well with 916.2 people per kilometer--about the same as Bangladesh and more than twice as dense as Puerto Rico. Most open space has been built up except for parks, cemeteries, and a handful of mostly organic farms. While there is new construction, most happens where something else once stood.
Coyotes have found a suburban niche. After all, we feed them with trash, roadkill, our pets, and perhaps one day our children. If Officer Young is right that they're becoming less afraid of humans, it’s not because of development, it’s because we give them nothing to fear.
The problem with coyotes, bears, and even alligators is not that they’re here. The problem is that too many citizens have demanded that state government disarm us and government responded. Few Massachusetts’ citizens have carry permits, few own a gun, you must have a permit to own pepper spray, and even more would be aghast at a "civilian" using a gun even to save a child's life. They may want the authorities to do something as a woman in the coyote article demands, but there is little sense of individual responsibility.
I’m not recommending hunting coyotes in suburbs, but I am saying that anyone with common sense will understand that self-defense is a human right. That a gun is a significant self-defense tool and that using it against a predator (four- or two-legged) is not evil. But, first you have to have a gun to defend yourself. Honking horns, swinging a broom, or other "improvised weapons" won't substitute for a gun.
It’s not because I hate coyotes. In fact, I’m glad predators are returning to our forests and plains. You can’t have a balanced ecosystem with only prey animals and no predators. No, I have to do it again because the Boston Globe has yet another report on coyotes in cities and their article highlights the ignorance gun fearing states have when it comes to dealing with wild animals.
This time Saugus, Massachusetts is where people fear their coyote neighbors. The article opens with a woman and two young children. While driving home she came across a coyote chasing a neighbor’s dog when the coyote stopped in front of her car. Repeated horn blowing didn’t budge it until our furry woodland friend decided to run off.
So far, Saugus' Police Department has had seven coyote calls in the past three weeks. The article gives a little natural history on coyotes, a description of a coyote carrying off a wild turkey (while not as big as their supermarket cousins, a wild turkey is a good sized bird), a sighting of pups, and near the end there’s a report that a three-year Cape Cod boy suffered a coyote bite in 1998.
I throw in the last to discuss a few instances of head-in-the-sand thinking exhibited by officials as reported by the article’s author, Cristina Silva. Officials claim coyotes aren’t dangerous. State biologist Peter Mirick says it is uncommon for them to attack people. I grant you that one human coyote bite in the past seven years shows that coyotes don’t attack humans often, but it also proves that it can happen. Further, coyotes are pet killers as Mirick admits, ''They do, however, definitely eat some cats and dogs from time to time."
The biggest question I have about the article though is, “While coyotes have always lived in the area, development in recent years has made the coyotes more visible and less afraid of humans,” a statement made by Saugus police officer Harold Young. First, I doubt coyotes have always lived in the area. Second, many liberals, and those fooled by liberals, blame development for the increasing brazen behavior of coyotes and other wild animals.
It’s not development. Saugus is only a little north of Boston. It was founded in 1629. This area has been settled for a long time. It’s congested as well with 916.2 people per kilometer--about the same as Bangladesh and more than twice as dense as Puerto Rico. Most open space has been built up except for parks, cemeteries, and a handful of mostly organic farms. While there is new construction, most happens where something else once stood.
Coyotes have found a suburban niche. After all, we feed them with trash, roadkill, our pets, and perhaps one day our children. If Officer Young is right that they're becoming less afraid of humans, it’s not because of development, it’s because we give them nothing to fear.
The problem with coyotes, bears, and even alligators is not that they’re here. The problem is that too many citizens have demanded that state government disarm us and government responded. Few Massachusetts’ citizens have carry permits, few own a gun, you must have a permit to own pepper spray, and even more would be aghast at a "civilian" using a gun even to save a child's life. They may want the authorities to do something as a woman in the coyote article demands, but there is little sense of individual responsibility.
I’m not recommending hunting coyotes in suburbs, but I am saying that anyone with common sense will understand that self-defense is a human right. That a gun is a significant self-defense tool and that using it against a predator (four- or two-legged) is not evil. But, first you have to have a gun to defend yourself. Honking horns, swinging a broom, or other "improvised weapons" won't substitute for a gun.
Announcing Postal Matches
AnalogKid at Random Nuclear Strikes is coordinating Postal Matches. These matches will enable a far-flung Nation of Riflemen (and women) to compete with each other on an even playing field. Not only compete, but also practice and get better. Each match will test different skills and in so do doing will help each participant practice new ways of shooting. For instance, let’s say you concentrate on pistol shooting. If you decide to enter a rifle match, you’ll experience an entirely different way of shooting and learn new techniques.
So, go check out this week’s match. Bill “Yosemite Sam” and I plan to participate (if we can get our house moving done in time).
Improving your shooting, competing against other riflemen and women, learning new gun sports. What’s keeping you? Enter, participate, send in electronic copies of your targets, have fun, and keep it safe.
So, go check out this week’s match. Bill “Yosemite Sam” and I plan to participate (if we can get our house moving done in time).
Improving your shooting, competing against other riflemen and women, learning new gun sports. What’s keeping you? Enter, participate, send in electronic copies of your targets, have fun, and keep it safe.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
NYT and "We're Not Afraid" Website
Gratuitous Home Improvement Update: Bill and I completed laying the Pergo floor (except for a few pieces of quarter round molding). We’re now packing up the old place and will move soon. Enough of that, here’s some real content.
I read an editorial disguised as an article in today’s New York Times (registration might be required). It’s not about guns. Bill and I try to keep Ten Ring on focus, but sometimes you just have to rant about something else.
The article by Sarah Boxer is part of “Critic’s Notebook,” an art feature. It discusses a website, We’re Not Afraid, created in response to the terrorist bombings in London last week. The editorial article explains how We’re Not Afraid started and says it is similar in concept to the site Sorry Everybody in which Americans apologized to the world for Bush’s re-election.
Boxer complains that "We’re Not Afraid" has a very different tone and effect from "Sorry Everybody." She doesn’t say what the different tone is, but I’ll read between the lines so you don’t have to. It’s defiance. It’s telling the terrorists, sometimes with conspicuously raised middle fingers, that they ain’t going to win.
Boxer implies that "We’re Not Afraid" began with the best of intentions, but as more people posted pictures, the focus seems to become frivolous. She describes a few silly pictures, but I thought art was all about self-expression. I wonder if she complained about silly pictures in the Sorry Everybody site.
I went though several pages of photos until the site stopped loading—its popularity is overwhelming its servers. I didn’t see frivolity, but I saw anger, sadness, and celebrations of life; but, most of all I saw defiance. There were even a few pictures of American soldiers, taken from news sources, showing terrorists what they need to fear.
Finally, Boxer shows her true colors. She criticizes pictures of people in their cars and vans or on vacation. She describes it as “a brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure.” Brutish, what the hell is brutish about enjoying life? If you own a sports car, what’s wrong with taking a picture of you and your spouse in it and telling these nasty, cowardly, life-destroying, pleasure-hating, misogynistic, homophobic, hate-filled, sons of pigs, anti-Semitic terrorists that you’re going to enjoy life in spite of them? What’s wrong with showing yourself at leisure? Does Boxer ever take a vacation?
Boxer thinks she answers these questions. She says, the site “…seems to be turning into a place where the haves of the world can show that they're not afraid of the have-nots.” Have-nots???!!!! These terrorists are not have-nots. Bin Laden is filthy rich (or just filthy now), his inner circle came from the Middle East’s middle and upper classes, and Mohammed Atta was from a prosperous Egyptian family. Many people who blew themselves up in Israel have been students with a good future, engineers, and other professionals. Terrorist cells have plenty of money for explosives, travel, computers, cell phones, and everything else they need.
Boxer makes a fundamental mistake when she refuses to understand that we’re not fighting an economic war. Likewise, we’re not fighting a war as we know it against a nation with an army and a diplomatic corps.
Instead, we’re fighting a war against ideologues who’ve perverted a religion, one in need of reformation and enlightenment. Their perverted concept of Islam allows them to target civilians. To them we’re all soldiers; every man, woman, and child is a legitimate military target in their eyes.
Boxer and her ilk think that we need to be humble, that we need to negotiate, that we need to “understand” these people and their demands. And, that we need to share our wealth with the world.
I understand our foes and I don’t fear them. I know they’ll fail when the world finally unites against them. Such unity will happen when the left, people like Boxer, finally gets it. When the left learns that there is no negotiation and realizes that terrorists don’t envy us for our possessions, that they hate us for standing in the way of a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia.
The left will learn this lesson when enough blue cities have enough bomb craters. When they do, they’ll be first in line calling for destruction that fifty years from now their intellectual heirs will cite as an example of American perfidy just like when Democrats decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan.
I read an editorial disguised as an article in today’s New York Times (registration might be required). It’s not about guns. Bill and I try to keep Ten Ring on focus, but sometimes you just have to rant about something else.
The article by Sarah Boxer is part of “Critic’s Notebook,” an art feature. It discusses a website, We’re Not Afraid, created in response to the terrorist bombings in London last week. The editorial article explains how We’re Not Afraid started and says it is similar in concept to the site Sorry Everybody in which Americans apologized to the world for Bush’s re-election.
Boxer complains that "We’re Not Afraid" has a very different tone and effect from "Sorry Everybody." She doesn’t say what the different tone is, but I’ll read between the lines so you don’t have to. It’s defiance. It’s telling the terrorists, sometimes with conspicuously raised middle fingers, that they ain’t going to win.
Boxer implies that "We’re Not Afraid" began with the best of intentions, but as more people posted pictures, the focus seems to become frivolous. She describes a few silly pictures, but I thought art was all about self-expression. I wonder if she complained about silly pictures in the Sorry Everybody site.
I went though several pages of photos until the site stopped loading—its popularity is overwhelming its servers. I didn’t see frivolity, but I saw anger, sadness, and celebrations of life; but, most of all I saw defiance. There were even a few pictures of American soldiers, taken from news sources, showing terrorists what they need to fear.
Finally, Boxer shows her true colors. She criticizes pictures of people in their cars and vans or on vacation. She describes it as “a brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure.” Brutish, what the hell is brutish about enjoying life? If you own a sports car, what’s wrong with taking a picture of you and your spouse in it and telling these nasty, cowardly, life-destroying, pleasure-hating, misogynistic, homophobic, hate-filled, sons of pigs, anti-Semitic terrorists that you’re going to enjoy life in spite of them? What’s wrong with showing yourself at leisure? Does Boxer ever take a vacation?
Boxer thinks she answers these questions. She says, the site “…seems to be turning into a place where the haves of the world can show that they're not afraid of the have-nots.” Have-nots???!!!! These terrorists are not have-nots. Bin Laden is filthy rich (or just filthy now), his inner circle came from the Middle East’s middle and upper classes, and Mohammed Atta was from a prosperous Egyptian family. Many people who blew themselves up in Israel have been students with a good future, engineers, and other professionals. Terrorist cells have plenty of money for explosives, travel, computers, cell phones, and everything else they need.
Boxer makes a fundamental mistake when she refuses to understand that we’re not fighting an economic war. Likewise, we’re not fighting a war as we know it against a nation with an army and a diplomatic corps.
Instead, we’re fighting a war against ideologues who’ve perverted a religion, one in need of reformation and enlightenment. Their perverted concept of Islam allows them to target civilians. To them we’re all soldiers; every man, woman, and child is a legitimate military target in their eyes.
Boxer and her ilk think that we need to be humble, that we need to negotiate, that we need to “understand” these people and their demands. And, that we need to share our wealth with the world.
I understand our foes and I don’t fear them. I know they’ll fail when the world finally unites against them. Such unity will happen when the left, people like Boxer, finally gets it. When the left learns that there is no negotiation and realizes that terrorists don’t envy us for our possessions, that they hate us for standing in the way of a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia.
The left will learn this lesson when enough blue cities have enough bomb craters. When they do, they’ll be first in line calling for destruction that fifty years from now their intellectual heirs will cite as an example of American perfidy just like when Democrats decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan.
Friday, July 08, 2005
VPC Makes Me Angry...Again
Okay, now I’m mad. Of course that happens every time I think of what anti-gunnies want to do to us. It happens when I think about guns going into smelters, and it happens when I hear gun-grabber lies. I don’t quite know what to do with my anger right now.
I’m writing this during lunch at work and will post during a break, so I can’t go to a range even though getting into the zen of shooting would ease my anger. I can’t kick trashcans here since they don’t belong to me. I would love to buy another gun because that’s always a good way to stick a figurative finger in gun banners’ eyes and I always get a warm fuzzy feeling when I do. But, I can’t buy another one right now because I’ve spent almost all my money on home improvement stuff and it hasn’t ended yet. (For you home owners out there, does it ever end? Help me.)
So what’s got my dander up today? Fair question. It’s the VPC, the self-styled Violence Policy Center. I went there to see if they had issued one of their scurrilous attacks on gun owners. I’ve read almost all of their tracts (here is their list) and I noticed that they have nothing newer than Fall of 2004. Maybe they’re running out of things to lie about. Well, a girl can dream, can’t she?
While there, I clicked on their links page and it was here that I became infuriated. Check out the second group of links, “Pro-Gun Special Interests.” Very helpful of them to include it I thought. They list National Rifle Association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Gun Owners of America and other fine organizations. They even included Americans for Gun Safety. I wouldn’t call it a pro-gun organization, but they’re using a different definition of “pro-gun” than I am. But, then I noticed the bottom link, Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page. This pisses me off.
I refused to click on the link at work partly because I think the filters here would prevent loading the page. Therefore, I’m not sure what's on the “resource page.” I do know that Stormfront is one of the largest portals for American Nazis and “White Power” people. I’m a gunnie, but I’m not a Nazi and I resent VPC putting this page in their list of pro-gun organizations. VPC is deliberately listing this organization to cast aspersions on all the rest.
The next section of links is “National Organizations Working to Reduce Firearms Violence.” Why don’t they put Stormfront here? Hitler was a gun banner. He disarmed Jews and anyone else he disagreed with. Why don’t they put Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge here. It was another gun banning institution. You could throw in Stalin’s Soviet Union and others. Of course, all of these regimes are in history’s trash can, but their gun-banning spirit lives on in groups listed here.
These lies and crass emotional manipulations infuriate me. You see, at one time I was fairly relaxed about my gun rights. I lived in Texas and felt little threat. I wasn’t politically aware enough to realize how tenuous our rights are. When I moved to Massachusetts, I learned differently. As I did more research, including reading much anti-gun literature, one thing struck me the hardest: anti-gunnies lie. Sure, the pro-gun groups present their side, but the whoppers and the out-and-out propagandistic lies come from gun-banners.
Not only do they lie, they also play little tricks like placing American Nazis into a list of gunnie organizations that represent gun owners from every walk of life—including Jews, blacks, everyone. Maybe you can understand my anger better. Now, I gotta go and find something to kick so I won’t growl at my co-workers all afternoon.
I’m writing this during lunch at work and will post during a break, so I can’t go to a range even though getting into the zen of shooting would ease my anger. I can’t kick trashcans here since they don’t belong to me. I would love to buy another gun because that’s always a good way to stick a figurative finger in gun banners’ eyes and I always get a warm fuzzy feeling when I do. But, I can’t buy another one right now because I’ve spent almost all my money on home improvement stuff and it hasn’t ended yet. (For you home owners out there, does it ever end? Help me.)
So what’s got my dander up today? Fair question. It’s the VPC, the self-styled Violence Policy Center. I went there to see if they had issued one of their scurrilous attacks on gun owners. I’ve read almost all of their tracts (here is their list) and I noticed that they have nothing newer than Fall of 2004. Maybe they’re running out of things to lie about. Well, a girl can dream, can’t she?
While there, I clicked on their links page and it was here that I became infuriated. Check out the second group of links, “Pro-Gun Special Interests.” Very helpful of them to include it I thought. They list National Rifle Association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Gun Owners of America and other fine organizations. They even included Americans for Gun Safety. I wouldn’t call it a pro-gun organization, but they’re using a different definition of “pro-gun” than I am. But, then I noticed the bottom link, Stormfront White Nationalist Resource Page. This pisses me off.
I refused to click on the link at work partly because I think the filters here would prevent loading the page. Therefore, I’m not sure what's on the “resource page.” I do know that Stormfront is one of the largest portals for American Nazis and “White Power” people. I’m a gunnie, but I’m not a Nazi and I resent VPC putting this page in their list of pro-gun organizations. VPC is deliberately listing this organization to cast aspersions on all the rest.
The next section of links is “National Organizations Working to Reduce Firearms Violence.” Why don’t they put Stormfront here? Hitler was a gun banner. He disarmed Jews and anyone else he disagreed with. Why don’t they put Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge here. It was another gun banning institution. You could throw in Stalin’s Soviet Union and others. Of course, all of these regimes are in history’s trash can, but their gun-banning spirit lives on in groups listed here.
These lies and crass emotional manipulations infuriate me. You see, at one time I was fairly relaxed about my gun rights. I lived in Texas and felt little threat. I wasn’t politically aware enough to realize how tenuous our rights are. When I moved to Massachusetts, I learned differently. As I did more research, including reading much anti-gun literature, one thing struck me the hardest: anti-gunnies lie. Sure, the pro-gun groups present their side, but the whoppers and the out-and-out propagandistic lies come from gun-banners.
Not only do they lie, they also play little tricks like placing American Nazis into a list of gunnie organizations that represent gun owners from every walk of life—including Jews, blacks, everyone. Maybe you can understand my anger better. Now, I gotta go and find something to kick so I won’t growl at my co-workers all afternoon.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Brief note on London
As everyone knows, London suffered a terrorist attack this morning. It happened during their morning rush hour and the attackers focused on ordinary citizens on their ways to work. Our hearts go out to Londoners.
When Bill was in the Air Force, he was based in England for two years and he visited London often. Since we've been together, we've both visited London several times. We've been near the bus bombing site and I recognized the neighborhood from photos. It is a peaceful area not too far from the British Museum and Library.
We would like to visit London again and will. Can't let terrorist bastards win, you know.
It remains to be seen if the terrorists awaken England's Chamberlain spirit of appeasement or England's Churchill spirit of fighting. Here's hoping that Churchill's spirit will be leading the charge against Islamofascism with tommy gun blazing.
When Bill was in the Air Force, he was based in England for two years and he visited London often. Since we've been together, we've both visited London several times. We've been near the bus bombing site and I recognized the neighborhood from photos. It is a peaceful area not too far from the British Museum and Library.
We would like to visit London again and will. Can't let terrorist bastards win, you know.
It remains to be seen if the terrorists awaken England's Chamberlain spirit of appeasement or England's Churchill spirit of fighting. Here's hoping that Churchill's spirit will be leading the charge against Islamofascism with tommy gun blazing.
D.C. Gun Laws and a Modest Proposal
I just love it when newspapers take two only slightly related topics, massage them for awhile, and put them in the same article under a misleading title. That’s too close to what I do here particularly when I mix home improvement blogging with gun blogging.
This morning, the Boston Globe has an article that deals with Washington, D.C.’s gun law and its possible revocation or defunding. Mayor Anthony Williams wants state rights for the District thus allowing his government to continue infringing the rights of District residents.
Then the article goes on to discuss how Washington has no representation in Congress. An organization named the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) improbably is calling for the United States to give full representation to District citizens. I say “improbably” because last I looked Washington, D.C. is not in Europe. Maybe certain of its denizens wish they could live on oh so enlightened Paris, but they don’t.
Two slightly related topics, one article. Let’s look at both parts.
Mayor William’s city has a law that bans handgun ownership at all unless one registered a handgun before 1976. There are strict regulations on long guns and all guns must be disassembled and locked up. Thus, self defense with a firearm is effectively made illegal. Still, something must not be working since the District has a very high gun crime rate.
Red State legislators have noticed that District residents have been denied their Second Amendment rights and want it corrected either by revoking the law entirely or not allowing Federal funds to be used in its enforcement. District officials are squealing that they should determine their own course, that they should be able to have their own laws, and that they should be treated like a state.
Enter part two of the article. The OSCE desires representation for D.C. Of course, this would mean two more Senators from an extremely liberal city and one or more Representatives. Just what the Democrats would love.
Let’s get radical here for a moment. Let District residents have their representation, but as citizens of Maryland. The city could be called Washington, Maryland. Their gun laws would be subject to Maryland’s state laws and the citizens would have representation. We could kill these two birds with one stone.
It would be easier to do than it seems. D.C. once included land that was ceded back to Virginia, so with proper planning it can be done.
Of course, we would still need a District of Columbia. It would include the Mall, White House, Capitol, Library of Congress, monuments, and Federal office buildings around the Mall. There would be no homes (other than the White House) inside the District. Any Federal buildings located elsewhere in D.C. would simply be based in Maryland.
I see few disadvantages to just giving the residential parts of D.C. to Maryland. True, Maryland would skew even more blue, but it does now anyway. Advantages include granting representation to current D.C. residents, reducing Federal tax dollars that now flow to D.C., and it just makes sense. Maybe it’s time.
NOTE: While writing this, I checked the web and Say Uncle has a post based on the Boston Globe article. And, so did Alphecca (I really must start posting in the mornings). Go read their posts.
This morning, the Boston Globe has an article that deals with Washington, D.C.’s gun law and its possible revocation or defunding. Mayor Anthony Williams wants state rights for the District thus allowing his government to continue infringing the rights of District residents.
Then the article goes on to discuss how Washington has no representation in Congress. An organization named the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) improbably is calling for the United States to give full representation to District citizens. I say “improbably” because last I looked Washington, D.C. is not in Europe. Maybe certain of its denizens wish they could live on oh so enlightened Paris, but they don’t.
Two slightly related topics, one article. Let’s look at both parts.
Mayor William’s city has a law that bans handgun ownership at all unless one registered a handgun before 1976. There are strict regulations on long guns and all guns must be disassembled and locked up. Thus, self defense with a firearm is effectively made illegal. Still, something must not be working since the District has a very high gun crime rate.
Red State legislators have noticed that District residents have been denied their Second Amendment rights and want it corrected either by revoking the law entirely or not allowing Federal funds to be used in its enforcement. District officials are squealing that they should determine their own course, that they should be able to have their own laws, and that they should be treated like a state.
Enter part two of the article. The OSCE desires representation for D.C. Of course, this would mean two more Senators from an extremely liberal city and one or more Representatives. Just what the Democrats would love.
Let’s get radical here for a moment. Let District residents have their representation, but as citizens of Maryland. The city could be called Washington, Maryland. Their gun laws would be subject to Maryland’s state laws and the citizens would have representation. We could kill these two birds with one stone.
It would be easier to do than it seems. D.C. once included land that was ceded back to Virginia, so with proper planning it can be done.
Of course, we would still need a District of Columbia. It would include the Mall, White House, Capitol, Library of Congress, monuments, and Federal office buildings around the Mall. There would be no homes (other than the White House) inside the District. Any Federal buildings located elsewhere in D.C. would simply be based in Maryland.
I see few disadvantages to just giving the residential parts of D.C. to Maryland. True, Maryland would skew even more blue, but it does now anyway. Advantages include granting representation to current D.C. residents, reducing Federal tax dollars that now flow to D.C., and it just makes sense. Maybe it’s time.
NOTE: While writing this, I checked the web and Say Uncle has a post based on the Boston Globe article. And, so did Alphecca (I really must start posting in the mornings). Go read their posts.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
What we did for the Fourth of July
Bill and I enjoyed (if that’s the right word) a long holiday weekend. Fourth of July weekend has always been special to us. We usually celebrate it with steaks on a grill, a trip out to the local fireworks display, and often a trip to a gun range.
Yesterday’s weather in New Hampshire was glorious and not too hot either. So, what did we do on our holiday weekend? We stayed in the new condo laying flooring. I’m so tired of stooping, crawling on the floor, kneeling, sawing, and hammering that I could just scream. We’re almost done. We made an amateur’s mistake of not getting quite enough product to cover the floor (we measured accurately, but angles, alcoves, etc. caused more waste than we thought). Now, we’ll have to buy a little more to fill an agonizingly thin strip of subfloor
We took time to reflect on living in America. There’s no other place I’d want to live. We have warts as a nation. Yeah, we’ve made foreign and internal policy mistakes. We displaced our aborigines and our ancestors took too great a delight in killing them. We muddled in politics in South America and Vietnam when we probably should have sit back and left well enough alone.
We, as a nation, have made these mistakes, but I’m tired of the people who see nothing but mistakes while giving even worse offenders a pass. Look at little Belgium. They had African colonies and paid bounties for severed hands of escaped rubber plantation laborers. Look at New Zealand and their Moriori policies of virtual extermination at the hands of Maoris. Look at the Soviet Union as an example of meddling in the affairs of other states. America haters give these and other states a pass.
Look at what we have here. Bill and I don’t have to prove our patriotism. We’re free to lay a floor or attend a Fourth of July picnic. We’re even free to buy a gun—few nations can say that to the extent Americans can.
We’ve had losses of liberty. We had the ten-year long Assault Weapon Ban, but that’s dead now. There’s the Kelo decision, but that’s outraged enough people that legislators may curb their abuses. There’s work to do in order to secure our individual liberties, but we still live in a great country.
Bill and I took an hour or so off and went down to the local Fourth of July celebration midway to watch people, see model airplanes fly, watch a karate school demonstration, see a hot air balloon soar to the extent of its surly tethers. But, we didn’t stay for fireworks. We eased our aching bodies home for a salmon dinner and an early bedtime.
Next year we promise to include guns in our Fourth of July celebration. We’ll shoot skeet or even better we’ll shoot a few of our World War I and World War II era battle rifles. We’ll also reflect on advances in liberty and losses of liberty and hopefully there will be much more of the former than the latter. Whatever we do will not include home improvements.
Yesterday’s weather in New Hampshire was glorious and not too hot either. So, what did we do on our holiday weekend? We stayed in the new condo laying flooring. I’m so tired of stooping, crawling on the floor, kneeling, sawing, and hammering that I could just scream. We’re almost done. We made an amateur’s mistake of not getting quite enough product to cover the floor (we measured accurately, but angles, alcoves, etc. caused more waste than we thought). Now, we’ll have to buy a little more to fill an agonizingly thin strip of subfloor
We took time to reflect on living in America. There’s no other place I’d want to live. We have warts as a nation. Yeah, we’ve made foreign and internal policy mistakes. We displaced our aborigines and our ancestors took too great a delight in killing them. We muddled in politics in South America and Vietnam when we probably should have sit back and left well enough alone.
We, as a nation, have made these mistakes, but I’m tired of the people who see nothing but mistakes while giving even worse offenders a pass. Look at little Belgium. They had African colonies and paid bounties for severed hands of escaped rubber plantation laborers. Look at New Zealand and their Moriori policies of virtual extermination at the hands of Maoris. Look at the Soviet Union as an example of meddling in the affairs of other states. America haters give these and other states a pass.
Look at what we have here. Bill and I don’t have to prove our patriotism. We’re free to lay a floor or attend a Fourth of July picnic. We’re even free to buy a gun—few nations can say that to the extent Americans can.
We’ve had losses of liberty. We had the ten-year long Assault Weapon Ban, but that’s dead now. There’s the Kelo decision, but that’s outraged enough people that legislators may curb their abuses. There’s work to do in order to secure our individual liberties, but we still live in a great country.
Bill and I took an hour or so off and went down to the local Fourth of July celebration midway to watch people, see model airplanes fly, watch a karate school demonstration, see a hot air balloon soar to the extent of its surly tethers. But, we didn’t stay for fireworks. We eased our aching bodies home for a salmon dinner and an early bedtime.
Next year we promise to include guns in our Fourth of July celebration. We’ll shoot skeet or even better we’ll shoot a few of our World War I and World War II era battle rifles. We’ll also reflect on advances in liberty and losses of liberty and hopefully there will be much more of the former than the latter. Whatever we do will not include home improvements.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Gun Banners and Unskilled Shooters
Wednesday, I blogged about curmudgeons at gun ranges. You know those people with a little authority (or none at all) who come up to you and tell you everything you’re doing wrong. Usually, you’re not doing anything at all wrong, they are the ones who don’t know a given rule or law.
A number of people commented on my post. Seth from Massachusetts pointed out that some people just need correction. Of course he’s right, but those of us who aren’t doing anything wrong are greatly annoyed by busybodies who think they know it all. (You know the old saying; “Those who only think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do.”)
I want to discuss the coin’s other side. There are unskilled shooters out there, believe it or not. These are people who buy a gun and think that years of movie and television watching make them ready to use that gun. You’ve seen them at your range and they take several forms.
They’re the ones who hold the gun in a death grip, spread their legs wide, and then turn their heads while shooting as fast as they can. They don’t hit anything worth mentioning, but their bullets fly down range.
Then there are the ones who turn the gun sideways and blast away. I guess they don’t know what the sights are for. Maybe they think they’re nubs to hold the gun in its holster.
You also have those folks who come to an indoor range and blast away with a rented rifle. Now, I’ve rented rifles or brought my own. Nothing wrong with that. But, these are the ones who hang a target at fifteen feet and proceed to put shots in every place but in the target rings—with a rifle at short range.
Of course, you have trash shooters who don’t clean up after themselves, or who shoot things that aren’t real targets (i.e., road signs) but we’ll leave those for another discussion.
The people I described above don’t know they’re doing anything wrong. They're not malicious, they're just unskilled. As far as they’re concerned, that’s how you shoot. You know why that is? Gun control. Yep, gun banners are at fault (of course I blame rainy days on gun banners, but that’s another story).
Gun banners have made shooting a “suspect” activity. It almost seems today, that if you teach your own child how to shoot, you’ll be arrested. We’re not there yet, but I’m sure gun grabbers would want to pass a law preventing anyone from giving a gun to a kid. If you can’t let your kid touch a gun, you can’t teach him how to shoot it. There are not enough of us passing skills to our kids, which is the way I learned how to shoot.
If your parents didn’t teach you how to shoot maybe you could learn from a neighbor. Well, depending on where you live, many gunnies don’t want to admit they’re gun owners and shooters. People who want to shoot, don’t know whom to ask for help.
Gun banners also like to close ranges or drive them out of business. There goes another opportunity to learn shooting skills.
Formal shooting schools are hard to find, again depending on where you live, and often expensive. If you don’t have the time, money, and travel wherewithal to spend on a class, you can’t learn that way. Some gun banners I’ve talked to, also tend to link shooting schools with militia training and such. One anti-gun person at work saw a report on GunSite and told me, “They teach people how to kill.” No I said, “They teach people how to defend themselves with a gun and do it safely.”
So where do you get training? Gun grabbers aren’t going to teach it. They demonize NRA to where many “liberal” gun owners don’t want anything to do with the organization. In short, the only training many can get is going to the range, watching movies, and hoping for the best.
It’s not all gun banners fault. These unskilled shooters should ask others for help, although too many don’t know they need help. Some are too convinced they're right to ask.
Also, gunnies should give freely of their time to help someone to learn to shoot. Also, we’re all responsible to ensure a range stays safe. Any unsafe practice must be halted immediately.
Still, an unintended consequence of anti-gun behavior is an increase in unskilled gun owners. Maybe they should think about that next time they want to close a range, school, or pass laws.
A number of people commented on my post. Seth from Massachusetts pointed out that some people just need correction. Of course he’s right, but those of us who aren’t doing anything wrong are greatly annoyed by busybodies who think they know it all. (You know the old saying; “Those who only think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do.”)
I want to discuss the coin’s other side. There are unskilled shooters out there, believe it or not. These are people who buy a gun and think that years of movie and television watching make them ready to use that gun. You’ve seen them at your range and they take several forms.
They’re the ones who hold the gun in a death grip, spread their legs wide, and then turn their heads while shooting as fast as they can. They don’t hit anything worth mentioning, but their bullets fly down range.
Then there are the ones who turn the gun sideways and blast away. I guess they don’t know what the sights are for. Maybe they think they’re nubs to hold the gun in its holster.
You also have those folks who come to an indoor range and blast away with a rented rifle. Now, I’ve rented rifles or brought my own. Nothing wrong with that. But, these are the ones who hang a target at fifteen feet and proceed to put shots in every place but in the target rings—with a rifle at short range.
Of course, you have trash shooters who don’t clean up after themselves, or who shoot things that aren’t real targets (i.e., road signs) but we’ll leave those for another discussion.
The people I described above don’t know they’re doing anything wrong. They're not malicious, they're just unskilled. As far as they’re concerned, that’s how you shoot. You know why that is? Gun control. Yep, gun banners are at fault (of course I blame rainy days on gun banners, but that’s another story).
Gun banners have made shooting a “suspect” activity. It almost seems today, that if you teach your own child how to shoot, you’ll be arrested. We’re not there yet, but I’m sure gun grabbers would want to pass a law preventing anyone from giving a gun to a kid. If you can’t let your kid touch a gun, you can’t teach him how to shoot it. There are not enough of us passing skills to our kids, which is the way I learned how to shoot.
If your parents didn’t teach you how to shoot maybe you could learn from a neighbor. Well, depending on where you live, many gunnies don’t want to admit they’re gun owners and shooters. People who want to shoot, don’t know whom to ask for help.
Gun banners also like to close ranges or drive them out of business. There goes another opportunity to learn shooting skills.
Formal shooting schools are hard to find, again depending on where you live, and often expensive. If you don’t have the time, money, and travel wherewithal to spend on a class, you can’t learn that way. Some gun banners I’ve talked to, also tend to link shooting schools with militia training and such. One anti-gun person at work saw a report on GunSite and told me, “They teach people how to kill.” No I said, “They teach people how to defend themselves with a gun and do it safely.”
So where do you get training? Gun grabbers aren’t going to teach it. They demonize NRA to where many “liberal” gun owners don’t want anything to do with the organization. In short, the only training many can get is going to the range, watching movies, and hoping for the best.
It’s not all gun banners fault. These unskilled shooters should ask others for help, although too many don’t know they need help. Some are too convinced they're right to ask.
Also, gunnies should give freely of their time to help someone to learn to shoot. Also, we’re all responsible to ensure a range stays safe. Any unsafe practice must be halted immediately.
Still, an unintended consequence of anti-gun behavior is an increase in unskilled gun owners. Maybe they should think about that next time they want to close a range, school, or pass laws.
Celebrate
We interrupt this blog for an important announcement. The Ten Ring has passed a milestone. As of today, we've have had over 25,000 visits and over 40,000 page views since we began the blog on December 29, 2004. Thanks to all you readers. It's humbling to know that you've kept coming back. And now for another post....
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Range Police (or "When Curmudgeons Attack")
Say Uncle made a very important post yesterday and the more I thought about it, the more I realized I needed to second it (also read comments on his post).
Uncle tells us about a recent experience at a gun range. He and three friends were shooting black rifles among other guns when a curmudgeon came over. Our "friendly" curmudgeon was the day’s range officer and he complained about their noise (at a shooting range!), the fact that an SKS had a bayonet on it (which according to him was illegal, never mind that it’s not), and he made other assorted gratuitous comments.
I second the story because a similar incident happened to Bill and I. We were shooting shotguns at a club in Massachusetts. We were on an unused trap field brushing up before a pheasant hunt. We were shooting our pump-action hunting shotguns and using a foot operated thrower. We’d set the thrower so that it threw away from us and slightly quartering—a very common pheasant hunting shot. If we missed a shot, we did what we would do in the field, which is to shoot a follow up shot. We obviously weren’t shooting trap.
Well, we were minding our business when a club officer comes waddling over, let’s call him Curly. Moe and Larry were a few yards behind him, guarding his six from us desperados, I guess. Curly proceeds to check our club membership cards since he didn’t remember us from the last time we’d met.
Curly snorts at our shotguns as if they were garbage (a Remington 870 may be common, but its not garbage). He says, “You can’t shoot those things here like that.” I’m a little taken aback and I say politely, “Like what, Curly?” His rejoinder was, “You just can’t blast away until you hit a target, there’s rules in trap shooting.”
We tell him, we’re not shooting trap, we’re brushing up for a hunting trip. He then says, “It doesn’t matter, we got rules about how you shoot here, you can’t just shoot like you want to.” Now mind you there are no posted rules and there are no rules in the club’s rulebook that addressed what we were doing one way or the other.
I told him, “Where should we practice?” He hems and haws, and then says, “Well, you can’t put any more than two shells in those things at a time and no more than one shot at one clay. We got standards here.” Bill is about ready to tell him to waddle himself out of here and shove it. I agreed to his stipulations, but only to keep the peace and finish the box of clays.
We had done nothing wrong. There’s nothing, even now, in the rulebook about using the filed as we were. And, our set up was safe. In fact, Bill and I are NRA certified Range Safety Officers and our club cards show that. But it’s not the first time we’ve heard recitals of rules that don’t exist or laws that aren’t laws; only a figment of someone’s imagination.
Curmudgeons are not just older people, we’ve had younger people tell us our black rifles were illegal, that our ammunition was wrong for our gun (like our SKS takes .223 Rem), even how to hold a gun, and many other gratuitous comments. Half the time, they come from people who’ve been given a little authority and they have to express it. They deliberately look for something a little different from what they do. Then they pounce.
These petty people could kill off shooting if they don’t change their ways. Shooting should be relaxing, enjoyable, and fun. It’s awfully hard to get into a relaxed shooting state-of-mind after you’ve been bawled out for infringing a rule or law that never existed in the first place. If you haven’t been shooting long enough to know when to stand your ground, you may make it your last trip.
The sad thing is, a handful of these curmudgeons seem to want to keep others out of shooting. They want it to be their club and their hobby. Well, they’ll probably be around to see the death of their “sportsman’s club” and perhaps of shooting itself.
So, if you have a curmudgeon at your range, take away his range officer cap, don’t re-elect him to the board, and don’t give him authority. You’ll be saving others some grief.
Uncle tells us about a recent experience at a gun range. He and three friends were shooting black rifles among other guns when a curmudgeon came over. Our "friendly" curmudgeon was the day’s range officer and he complained about their noise (at a shooting range!), the fact that an SKS had a bayonet on it (which according to him was illegal, never mind that it’s not), and he made other assorted gratuitous comments.
I second the story because a similar incident happened to Bill and I. We were shooting shotguns at a club in Massachusetts. We were on an unused trap field brushing up before a pheasant hunt. We were shooting our pump-action hunting shotguns and using a foot operated thrower. We’d set the thrower so that it threw away from us and slightly quartering—a very common pheasant hunting shot. If we missed a shot, we did what we would do in the field, which is to shoot a follow up shot. We obviously weren’t shooting trap.
Well, we were minding our business when a club officer comes waddling over, let’s call him Curly. Moe and Larry were a few yards behind him, guarding his six from us desperados, I guess. Curly proceeds to check our club membership cards since he didn’t remember us from the last time we’d met.
Curly snorts at our shotguns as if they were garbage (a Remington 870 may be common, but its not garbage). He says, “You can’t shoot those things here like that.” I’m a little taken aback and I say politely, “Like what, Curly?” His rejoinder was, “You just can’t blast away until you hit a target, there’s rules in trap shooting.”
We tell him, we’re not shooting trap, we’re brushing up for a hunting trip. He then says, “It doesn’t matter, we got rules about how you shoot here, you can’t just shoot like you want to.” Now mind you there are no posted rules and there are no rules in the club’s rulebook that addressed what we were doing one way or the other.
I told him, “Where should we practice?” He hems and haws, and then says, “Well, you can’t put any more than two shells in those things at a time and no more than one shot at one clay. We got standards here.” Bill is about ready to tell him to waddle himself out of here and shove it. I agreed to his stipulations, but only to keep the peace and finish the box of clays.
We had done nothing wrong. There’s nothing, even now, in the rulebook about using the filed as we were. And, our set up was safe. In fact, Bill and I are NRA certified Range Safety Officers and our club cards show that. But it’s not the first time we’ve heard recitals of rules that don’t exist or laws that aren’t laws; only a figment of someone’s imagination.
Curmudgeons are not just older people, we’ve had younger people tell us our black rifles were illegal, that our ammunition was wrong for our gun (like our SKS takes .223 Rem), even how to hold a gun, and many other gratuitous comments. Half the time, they come from people who’ve been given a little authority and they have to express it. They deliberately look for something a little different from what they do. Then they pounce.
These petty people could kill off shooting if they don’t change their ways. Shooting should be relaxing, enjoyable, and fun. It’s awfully hard to get into a relaxed shooting state-of-mind after you’ve been bawled out for infringing a rule or law that never existed in the first place. If you haven’t been shooting long enough to know when to stand your ground, you may make it your last trip.
The sad thing is, a handful of these curmudgeons seem to want to keep others out of shooting. They want it to be their club and their hobby. Well, they’ll probably be around to see the death of their “sportsman’s club” and perhaps of shooting itself.
So, if you have a curmudgeon at your range, take away his range officer cap, don’t re-elect him to the board, and don’t give him authority. You’ll be saving others some grief.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Let's Fight Crime with the New York Times
I never thought I would see a certain line of thought in the New York Times editorial page. Nicholas Kristof is a liberal, but at least he thinks about and analyzes his positions. In today’s editorial “To Catch a Thief,” he takes on criminal behavior and ways to reduce crime.
He believes that building more prisons is not the solution. He feels that many politicians don’t want to say that. Instead, they’d rather please constituents with a “string ‘em up” argument. Kristof believes we need to take a more original line to crime reduction.
Without discussing the merits of his other ideas lets look at one broad theme. Kristof cites LoJack car alarm systems. When a LoJack equipped car is stolen, a radio signal is sent to police and helps them locate the car. Because LoJack is hidden, a car thief can’t tell what car is equipped with one and thereby greatly increases his risks. Eventually, he’ll pick a LoJack equipped car and find himself in jail. Other systems, such as The Club, are visible to a thief and thus passes the risk onto an easier to steal car. Further, increasing the risk to car thiefs helps everyone because we all enjoy resulting reductions in car theft.
Kristof also wonders if home owners could install a silent burglar alarm. That way, if a burglar breaks into your house, the police will catch him in the act and pack him off to jail. Audible alarms and yard signs only convince a thief to attack another house. One problem I can see with a silent alarm is I wouldn’t want a dirtbag in my house at all, let alone for the length of time it takes police to respond. Maybe this idea needs a little more thought.
Kristof challenges us to come up with other ideas that could reduce crime. I’ve got one that could reduce armed robbery maybe even murder and I’ll address it to Mr. Kristof. The idea is simple; let law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms. Then, let these citizens go about their normal affairs with their sidearms cleverly concealed. If a mutant, sorry Mr. Kristof, let me rephrase. If a misguided member of our community tries to rob that citizen, he or she can take action and thus raise themutant’s misguided person’s risk considerably.
To make it even better, let’s ensure that ourgoblins misguided community members learn that a percentage of citizens are armed. Such knowledge will greatly reduce armed robbery and other crimes against persons. After all, a criminal will know any particular victim could shoot him, thus increasing risk. Since a criminal would not know which victim was carrying a gun, he would find a different line of work.
Now that I’m on a roll, I have an idea that would reduce forcible rape. Make sure that a goodly number of women carry concealed firearms and ensure thatdirtbags misguided criminals know that they could get killed or; even worse, get their manhood shot off if they try to rape any woman.
Mr. Kristof, I’m using the outline of your idea here. In a nutshell, identifying ways to catch or perhaps stop criminals in the act, raising their risk to the point where they and their ilk will find honest work.
I have to admit though that my ideas aren’t original to me. They’re what John Lott and other pro-gun writers have been saying for years. It’s also why 33 states have adopted “shall issue” (or permitless) concealed weapon laws. It’s the apotheosis of the common sense idea that you might reduce crime by raising the risk of those who would commit crime.
While my argument is the same as Kristof’s, I doubt he or other editors at The New York Times will adopt it. After all, it means the end of gun control as we know it today-- even in New York City. It’s an idea whose time has come. So how about it Mr. Kristof, want to suggest this idea to your editors and readers? {Cue crickets chirping.}
He believes that building more prisons is not the solution. He feels that many politicians don’t want to say that. Instead, they’d rather please constituents with a “string ‘em up” argument. Kristof believes we need to take a more original line to crime reduction.
Without discussing the merits of his other ideas lets look at one broad theme. Kristof cites LoJack car alarm systems. When a LoJack equipped car is stolen, a radio signal is sent to police and helps them locate the car. Because LoJack is hidden, a car thief can’t tell what car is equipped with one and thereby greatly increases his risks. Eventually, he’ll pick a LoJack equipped car and find himself in jail. Other systems, such as The Club, are visible to a thief and thus passes the risk onto an easier to steal car. Further, increasing the risk to car thiefs helps everyone because we all enjoy resulting reductions in car theft.
Kristof also wonders if home owners could install a silent burglar alarm. That way, if a burglar breaks into your house, the police will catch him in the act and pack him off to jail. Audible alarms and yard signs only convince a thief to attack another house. One problem I can see with a silent alarm is I wouldn’t want a dirtbag in my house at all, let alone for the length of time it takes police to respond. Maybe this idea needs a little more thought.
Kristof challenges us to come up with other ideas that could reduce crime. I’ve got one that could reduce armed robbery maybe even murder and I’ll address it to Mr. Kristof. The idea is simple; let law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms. Then, let these citizens go about their normal affairs with their sidearms cleverly concealed. If a mutant, sorry Mr. Kristof, let me rephrase. If a misguided member of our community tries to rob that citizen, he or she can take action and thus raise the
To make it even better, let’s ensure that our
Now that I’m on a roll, I have an idea that would reduce forcible rape. Make sure that a goodly number of women carry concealed firearms and ensure that
Mr. Kristof, I’m using the outline of your idea here. In a nutshell, identifying ways to catch or perhaps stop criminals in the act, raising their risk to the point where they and their ilk will find honest work.
I have to admit though that my ideas aren’t original to me. They’re what John Lott and other pro-gun writers have been saying for years. It’s also why 33 states have adopted “shall issue” (or permitless) concealed weapon laws. It’s the apotheosis of the common sense idea that you might reduce crime by raising the risk of those who would commit crime.
While my argument is the same as Kristof’s, I doubt he or other editors at The New York Times will adopt it. After all, it means the end of gun control as we know it today-- even in New York City. It’s an idea whose time has come. So how about it Mr. Kristof, want to suggest this idea to your editors and readers? {Cue crickets chirping.}
Monday, June 27, 2005
Home Stuff and 2nd Amendment Democrats
What a weekend we had. Bill and I are doing home improvements on our new condo. Our first project is installing a Pergo floor. We spent about three of our precious project hours trying to buy a table saw at three different Home Depots. The first didn’t have the one we wanted in stock. The second could not find the ones they had in stock, and finally the third had several in stock, it just took a while to get it off the top level. Of course, we had to assemble the saw and take up the old carpeting.
To make a long story short, we finally laid some Pergo and it looks really good, but we didn’t get as far as we’d hoped. Oh well, there’s a long weekend coming up.
One more thing, because of all the stoop labor and kneeling involved, I discovered there are certain muscles in my legs and back that haven’t been used for a while. Now, they’re reminding me of their existence. I woke up this morning as stiff as the Pergo we were laying. I even walk like John Wayne now, although I don’t say “Pilgrim” a lot.
Enough Pergo blogging. I stumbled on a new web site called “Amendment II Democrats” that is trying to become the liberal voice for gun ownership. It’s new and doesn’t have much content yet, but I love the old CNN cartoon on its home page (a Million Mommie is going out to march, behind her is a Soviet-style police state thug who says he is behind her 100%).
I think liberals buying and learning to use guns is a good thing. The more people--whether they are liberals, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians--who support the Second Amendment the better.
There are some liberal Second Amendment supporters who embrace registration and licensing, both of which are anathema to me especailly after living in Massachusetts, the home of such evil schemes.
I am not sure if the owners of “Amendment II Democrats” embrace such schemes. They also want to elect a pro-gun Democrat Congress in 2006. They will bear watching on several levels. But, for now, I welcome any one who wants join us gun nuts in protecting our firearm rights
To make a long story short, we finally laid some Pergo and it looks really good, but we didn’t get as far as we’d hoped. Oh well, there’s a long weekend coming up.
One more thing, because of all the stoop labor and kneeling involved, I discovered there are certain muscles in my legs and back that haven’t been used for a while. Now, they’re reminding me of their existence. I woke up this morning as stiff as the Pergo we were laying. I even walk like John Wayne now, although I don’t say “Pilgrim” a lot.
Enough Pergo blogging. I stumbled on a new web site called “Amendment II Democrats” that is trying to become the liberal voice for gun ownership. It’s new and doesn’t have much content yet, but I love the old CNN cartoon on its home page (a Million Mommie is going out to march, behind her is a Soviet-style police state thug who says he is behind her 100%).
I think liberals buying and learning to use guns is a good thing. The more people--whether they are liberals, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians--who support the Second Amendment the better.
There are some liberal Second Amendment supporters who embrace registration and licensing, both of which are anathema to me especailly after living in Massachusetts, the home of such evil schemes.
I am not sure if the owners of “Amendment II Democrats” embrace such schemes. They also want to elect a pro-gun Democrat Congress in 2006. They will bear watching on several levels. But, for now, I welcome any one who wants join us gun nuts in protecting our firearm rights
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Home Improvements and Kelo
I haven’t said anything about the Kelo decision because Bill’s quotes have been eloquent enough for me. This will be my only post on the matter, unless there’s a new development.
In case you haven’t heard, the United States Supreme Court decided Kelo vs. City of New London. Fiveblack robed tyrants justices held that a city can take private land from its owner and give to a private developer if the city thinks the other private party can make a more productive use of that property. (Here’s a good primer, also many other bloggers and news outlets have covered it better than I can.)
I’m a former liberal. When I first heard about the decision that quiet, hidden liberal voice that I’ve not quite choked off muttered about damn conservatives talking land from the little people and giving it to the rich. Boy howdy was that voice wrong. It was the Court’s liberal wing that decided against Kelo and others living in a working class, but not blighted neighborhood. It was the same gang, plus Scalia, that decided the medical marijuana case (Gonzalez v. Raich). Raich expanded the Commerce Clause to mean that that the Feds can get involved in virtually any aspect of American life.
These two cases radically expand the power of government at any of its many levels to impinge on our lives. I was dismayed at the Raich decision, again decided by so-called liberals. When I was a liberal, liberalism meant expanded personal freedoms, and power to the little people. Or, rather that’s how it was sold to young idealistic teens. Now it means increased state interference in our private lives.
The Raich decision dismayed me, but the Kelo decision horrified me. It means no one’s property is safe, but those of us who aren’t rich are more at risk. If you own a nice house and a few acres, what’s to stop a city to decide a McMansion isn’t a better use of that land? If you own a McMansion, what’s to stop a city from deciding that a Wal-Mart isn’t a better use of the land? Horrible implications.
There are political, even gunnie, implications as well. What’s to stop a city, county etc. to decide it wants to close a shooting range, abortion clinic, or any other entity unpopular in that city? There’s nothing to stop that city from taking the property if they can find a developer willing to use it.
Kelo outrages me. I understand the need for limited eminent domain; that there is a need to take private land for public use after compensating the owner. But Kelo pushes legitimate eminent domain into the illegitimate realm of tyranny. This must not stand, but our only legal recourse is convincing our state legislators to pass laws limiting eminent domain to true public use, not this expanded definition.
Beyond this recourse lies the ammo can. Do these black-robed tyrants really want to start another revolution or civil war? What were they thinking when they decided Raich and Kelo? Do they have any idea what property rights mean to a property owner or one who hopes to own property? God save the Republic from fools such as these.
Now that I’ve mastered my outrage, Bill and I will be working in our new condo. We’re laying a Pergo floor. I sort of wonder if we should bother since our city might have designs on the land. After all, we only own it at the sufferance of our masters in City Hall, the State House, or Washington and we will be paying a sort of rent (taxes). Guess I haven’t quite mastered my outrage after all.
In case you haven’t heard, the United States Supreme Court decided Kelo vs. City of New London. Five
I’m a former liberal. When I first heard about the decision that quiet, hidden liberal voice that I’ve not quite choked off muttered about damn conservatives talking land from the little people and giving it to the rich. Boy howdy was that voice wrong. It was the Court’s liberal wing that decided against Kelo and others living in a working class, but not blighted neighborhood. It was the same gang, plus Scalia, that decided the medical marijuana case (Gonzalez v. Raich). Raich expanded the Commerce Clause to mean that that the Feds can get involved in virtually any aspect of American life.
These two cases radically expand the power of government at any of its many levels to impinge on our lives. I was dismayed at the Raich decision, again decided by so-called liberals. When I was a liberal, liberalism meant expanded personal freedoms, and power to the little people. Or, rather that’s how it was sold to young idealistic teens. Now it means increased state interference in our private lives.
The Raich decision dismayed me, but the Kelo decision horrified me. It means no one’s property is safe, but those of us who aren’t rich are more at risk. If you own a nice house and a few acres, what’s to stop a city to decide a McMansion isn’t a better use of that land? If you own a McMansion, what’s to stop a city from deciding that a Wal-Mart isn’t a better use of the land? Horrible implications.
There are political, even gunnie, implications as well. What’s to stop a city, county etc. to decide it wants to close a shooting range, abortion clinic, or any other entity unpopular in that city? There’s nothing to stop that city from taking the property if they can find a developer willing to use it.
Kelo outrages me. I understand the need for limited eminent domain; that there is a need to take private land for public use after compensating the owner. But Kelo pushes legitimate eminent domain into the illegitimate realm of tyranny. This must not stand, but our only legal recourse is convincing our state legislators to pass laws limiting eminent domain to true public use, not this expanded definition.
Beyond this recourse lies the ammo can. Do these black-robed tyrants really want to start another revolution or civil war? What were they thinking when they decided Raich and Kelo? Do they have any idea what property rights mean to a property owner or one who hopes to own property? God save the Republic from fools such as these.
Now that I’ve mastered my outrage, Bill and I will be working in our new condo. We’re laying a Pergo floor. I sort of wonder if we should bother since our city might have designs on the land. After all, we only own it at the sufferance of our masters in City Hall, the State House, or Washington and we will be paying a sort of rent (taxes). Guess I haven’t quite mastered my outrage after all.
Friday, June 24, 2005
As true then as now
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness……. The history of the present King of Great Britain United States Supreme Court is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. ……..
Thursday, June 23, 2005
This is my response to today's Kelo decision
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
--Thomas Jefferson
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
--Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
More Range Closings
From the ever informative Kim du Toit, we find a story about gun-banners who want to close down a range that has long served its community. A new development was built and a new elementary school is being built. People who just moved into the area now don't like the noise and many are worried about children in playgrounds. One more time, let's hear the refrain of, "It's for the children," sang in your most plainitive voices.
Give me a break. These people come into a new area and immediately they want to remodel it. If guns are concerned, no matter how safe one makes the range, there's always the children to consider.
The range Bill and I joined recently has gone through no little expense and trouble to redesign all the ranges and ensure that no bullet could leave the range. Otherwise, the "it's for the children" gang would claim that bullets are peppering their roofs and endangering their children. It doesn't make any difference that there is no evidence of a bullet let alone one that hit a roof. Or, if they find a bullet someone there is no evidence that it came from the range and not the nearby woods. Still, one must be a good neighbor I guess and please the local gun fearing wussies by tightening up on safety.
This is how our gun rights will disappear. Our neighbors will be so concerned for children, they'll start to get politicians to close down ranges. They'll say shooters could use one in the next town over--one more suited for shooting because it's a smaller, more rural town. That is, until that new town gets bigger. Before long, you'll be driving across your state or paying an exorbitant fee at a "safe" indoor range." One made safe by location, armored walls, soundproofing, .22 Long Rifle only, no drawing from holsters, and everything else they can think of to make it "safe for the children."
The problem is many of those politicians and "mommies" who're trying to set gun safety policies have never shot a gun before. They have no idea what makes a range safe. They don't know how far shotgun shot can carry, all they hear is a big boom and imagine something out of a movie they once saw. They have no idea what make a berm safe to shoot rifles into and yet they try to tell us how to do it.
I'm getting tired of it. If it's not a new bill to fight, it's a range closing. If it's not lead, it's the noise. If it's not a new school, then it's a new church. And, always, "It's for the children." We must fight to keep our gun rights on every front they open. The fight is worth it, but Claire Wolfe time seems to be getting closer. (And, compared to Bill, "Yosemite Sam," I'm the quiet, moderate one.)
Give me a break. These people come into a new area and immediately they want to remodel it. If guns are concerned, no matter how safe one makes the range, there's always the children to consider.
The range Bill and I joined recently has gone through no little expense and trouble to redesign all the ranges and ensure that no bullet could leave the range. Otherwise, the "it's for the children" gang would claim that bullets are peppering their roofs and endangering their children. It doesn't make any difference that there is no evidence of a bullet let alone one that hit a roof. Or, if they find a bullet someone there is no evidence that it came from the range and not the nearby woods. Still, one must be a good neighbor I guess and please the local gun fearing wussies by tightening up on safety.
This is how our gun rights will disappear. Our neighbors will be so concerned for children, they'll start to get politicians to close down ranges. They'll say shooters could use one in the next town over--one more suited for shooting because it's a smaller, more rural town. That is, until that new town gets bigger. Before long, you'll be driving across your state or paying an exorbitant fee at a "safe" indoor range." One made safe by location, armored walls, soundproofing, .22 Long Rifle only, no drawing from holsters, and everything else they can think of to make it "safe for the children."
The problem is many of those politicians and "mommies" who're trying to set gun safety policies have never shot a gun before. They have no idea what makes a range safe. They don't know how far shotgun shot can carry, all they hear is a big boom and imagine something out of a movie they once saw. They have no idea what make a berm safe to shoot rifles into and yet they try to tell us how to do it.
I'm getting tired of it. If it's not a new bill to fight, it's a range closing. If it's not lead, it's the noise. If it's not a new school, then it's a new church. And, always, "It's for the children." We must fight to keep our gun rights on every front they open. The fight is worth it, but Claire Wolfe time seems to be getting closer. (And, compared to Bill, "Yosemite Sam," I'm the quiet, moderate one.)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Monday, June 20, 2005
We're Still Here
Bill and I are actually glad today (Monday) is a work day. It'll give us a chance to rest. We had a very busy four days. I had to fly to Maryland and back for a two-hour meeting on Thursday. Of course, my plane back home ended up sitting on the runway for about two hours--the same length of time as the meeting. I was not a happy camper.
Friday, we closed on our condo. We are now the proud owners of a New Hampshire home! Now instead of our occasional real estate blogging, you'll be subjected to our home improvement blogging.
Speaking of which, we bought some flooring to replace a dirty carpet over the weekend and did some clean-up and further inspection.
We are now ready to resume gun-blogging. Thanks for your patience.
Friday, we closed on our condo. We are now the proud owners of a New Hampshire home! Now instead of our occasional real estate blogging, you'll be subjected to our home improvement blogging.
Speaking of which, we bought some flooring to replace a dirty carpet over the weekend and did some clean-up and further inspection.
We are now ready to resume gun-blogging. Thanks for your patience.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
A Burglary in Newton, MA
I don’t know how many of you know of Howie Carr. He’s somewhat right of center radio talk show host on WRKO in Boston. Carr is sympathetic to gun owners although he doesn’t devote too many shows to gun issues.
I caught the last segment of his show yesterday when he featured a 911 call. It was a woman in Newton, Massachusetts who was suffering a burglary. The dispatcher collected the information as she sent units to the caller’s home. The caller said she had locked herself in the bathroom but her infant and toddler were asleep in their bedrooms. She began fairly calm, but got more distraught and the call ended with her screaming uncontrollably.
I checked Boston Globe for similar stories and I think, although I’m not sure, that this one may be the same case, Cynthia Lothian was the victim. The paper very dispassionately laid out facts and stated the suspected burglar, Timothy J. Carlson, left because of her screams. They caught him later and they suspect that he may be involved in up to 50 burglaries in Newton and nearby towns.
If it’s the same case, then all ended well. Still, I heard stark terror in her voice. Her scream became almost that of an animal. Her babies were left unprotected from a suspected burglar, one who was found later with a razor knife and a six-inch nail—again if it’s the same case.
I felt sorry for the woman. She had no choice but to cower in her bathroom. Her only weapons her voice and her phone. While her situation ended all right, it could have been very different. She or her children could be dead or injured now, a burglar free to attack again.
If she owned a gun and learned how to use it, she could have called for police help. She could have still barricaded herself in the bathroom or felt more able to go to her children. She would have had her gun in case the burglar did worse than break in and then leave once he heard her screaming. She would have had options. Instead she had only her terror.
I caught the last segment of his show yesterday when he featured a 911 call. It was a woman in Newton, Massachusetts who was suffering a burglary. The dispatcher collected the information as she sent units to the caller’s home. The caller said she had locked herself in the bathroom but her infant and toddler were asleep in their bedrooms. She began fairly calm, but got more distraught and the call ended with her screaming uncontrollably.
I checked Boston Globe for similar stories and I think, although I’m not sure, that this one may be the same case, Cynthia Lothian was the victim. The paper very dispassionately laid out facts and stated the suspected burglar, Timothy J. Carlson, left because of her screams. They caught him later and they suspect that he may be involved in up to 50 burglaries in Newton and nearby towns.
If it’s the same case, then all ended well. Still, I heard stark terror in her voice. Her scream became almost that of an animal. Her babies were left unprotected from a suspected burglar, one who was found later with a razor knife and a six-inch nail—again if it’s the same case.
I felt sorry for the woman. She had no choice but to cower in her bathroom. Her only weapons her voice and her phone. While her situation ended all right, it could have been very different. She or her children could be dead or injured now, a burglar free to attack again.
If she owned a gun and learned how to use it, she could have called for police help. She could have still barricaded herself in the bathroom or felt more able to go to her children. She would have had her gun in case the burglar did worse than break in and then leave once he heard her screaming. She would have had options. Instead she had only her terror.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Getting Rid of Some Guns
Yesterday, Countertop Chronicles posted about a New York Times article on the lengths a metrosexual assclown sensitive guy went to get rid of several guns. Countertop is actuallyone of my daily reads, but I didn’t read him until I saw the link in Alphecca’s Weekly Check on the Bias. I was at an all-day conference Monday and just didn’t get around to reading blogs. Shame on me.
Both Alphecca and Countertop covered the story, but because I experienced such a jaw-dropping moment, such anguished disbelief, I have to blog on it for my own sanity. Let me sketch it all out before I get to those parts that so bothered me.
Our oh so noble author, Mike Kessler, once lived in Los Angeles. He now lives in Boulder, Colorado where he edits Skiing Magazine (you might want to think about dropping your subscriptions). Our intrepid hero helped a friend, Elizabeth, remove belongings from her deceased brother’s home. They found a locked metal box with her brother’s small collection of handguns—they had no key, but she knew what was in it. She wanted to get rid of the guns or in Kessler’s words, have them “…put out of commission.”
He didn’t want them and decided the police would be happy to get them off the streets. He recounts trying to get LAPD to take them. They refused to take them because they were in a locked box. He got a locksmith to open it. He took them, now in a cardboard box, to Glendale PD. The officer there offered to buy them as a private sale. Our narrator didn't want any part of what could have been a shady deal.
He goes through a few moral permutations and decides to smash the guns. OH THE HUMANITY! He actually, if he is to be believed, broke up these fine weapons ( he described them I believe he had a Glock, a Smith & Wesson revolver, and a pocket sized .25 caliber, although there may have been another .38 and another small gun).
Kessler is proud of his act of vandalism and that’s enough for me to curse his name and his actions. Anyone who would do that to a gun deserves a plague of boils and locusts. Still, there are other troubling things here.
For instance, Kessler states, “…I'd been to the indoor shooting range over the years…and each time I enjoyed it. It made me shaky with excitement, and scared, like looking over the edge of a tall bridge.”
Oh my God, he got all shaky with excitement and scared. Then during his moral permutations he confesses, “Every time I'd been to a shooting range, I was fascinated by the power I wielded.” I hate to say it, but I don’t trust such a person with a gun. Excited, scary, fascinated with power. Get him a shrink, not a Glock.
But now here’s a funny thing. Kessler says he has shot guns before. When the locksmith opened the box, he had to take the guns to a friend, a former hunting guide who still owns old rifles no less, to inspect them. He found that they were loaded and his friend gave Kessler a quick lesson in unloading them.
Now, I’ve got a few questions. How the hell do you shoot a gun without knowing how to load and unload it? If he really did shoot guns at all, what lackwit turned him lose with a gun he didn’t know how to verify was loaded, or how to unload it? Or did he go to a range and have someone hand him loaded guns that he could fire a couple of times and then leave on the table for someone else to deal with?
Finally, what kind of human being would take a “fifteen-pound” ax (?) and smash up valuable items? He could have sold them for Elizabeth. They could have donated the money to the Brady Bunch if they really wanted to be ironic. Instead, smashing at least two fine weapons is a sign of a mental disorder in my view.
There may be a degree of projection in Kessler’s mind here. He talked earlier about a feeling of power and he’s concerned that kids will get the smashed guns and stage a “made for TV movie” so he throws the battered pieces into a bag adds dirt and old paint, and then throws them away. Take that you evil guns you.
The man is proud of his vandalism. I hope Elizabeth’s brother’s ghost haunts him and maybe her too.
Both Alphecca and Countertop covered the story, but because I experienced such a jaw-dropping moment, such anguished disbelief, I have to blog on it for my own sanity. Let me sketch it all out before I get to those parts that so bothered me.
Our oh so noble author, Mike Kessler, once lived in Los Angeles. He now lives in Boulder, Colorado where he edits Skiing Magazine (you might want to think about dropping your subscriptions). Our intrepid hero helped a friend, Elizabeth, remove belongings from her deceased brother’s home. They found a locked metal box with her brother’s small collection of handguns—they had no key, but she knew what was in it. She wanted to get rid of the guns or in Kessler’s words, have them “…put out of commission.”
He didn’t want them and decided the police would be happy to get them off the streets. He recounts trying to get LAPD to take them. They refused to take them because they were in a locked box. He got a locksmith to open it. He took them, now in a cardboard box, to Glendale PD. The officer there offered to buy them as a private sale. Our narrator didn't want any part of what could have been a shady deal.
He goes through a few moral permutations and decides to smash the guns. OH THE HUMANITY! He actually, if he is to be believed, broke up these fine weapons ( he described them I believe he had a Glock, a Smith & Wesson revolver, and a pocket sized .25 caliber, although there may have been another .38 and another small gun).
Kessler is proud of his act of vandalism and that’s enough for me to curse his name and his actions. Anyone who would do that to a gun deserves a plague of boils and locusts. Still, there are other troubling things here.
For instance, Kessler states, “…I'd been to the indoor shooting range over the years…and each time I enjoyed it. It made me shaky with excitement, and scared, like looking over the edge of a tall bridge.”
Oh my God, he got all shaky with excitement and scared. Then during his moral permutations he confesses, “Every time I'd been to a shooting range, I was fascinated by the power I wielded.” I hate to say it, but I don’t trust such a person with a gun. Excited, scary, fascinated with power. Get him a shrink, not a Glock.
But now here’s a funny thing. Kessler says he has shot guns before. When the locksmith opened the box, he had to take the guns to a friend, a former hunting guide who still owns old rifles no less, to inspect them. He found that they were loaded and his friend gave Kessler a quick lesson in unloading them.
Now, I’ve got a few questions. How the hell do you shoot a gun without knowing how to load and unload it? If he really did shoot guns at all, what lackwit turned him lose with a gun he didn’t know how to verify was loaded, or how to unload it? Or did he go to a range and have someone hand him loaded guns that he could fire a couple of times and then leave on the table for someone else to deal with?
Finally, what kind of human being would take a “fifteen-pound” ax (?) and smash up valuable items? He could have sold them for Elizabeth. They could have donated the money to the Brady Bunch if they really wanted to be ironic. Instead, smashing at least two fine weapons is a sign of a mental disorder in my view.
There may be a degree of projection in Kessler’s mind here. He talked earlier about a feeling of power and he’s concerned that kids will get the smashed guns and stage a “made for TV movie” so he throws the battered pieces into a bag adds dirt and old paint, and then throws them away. Take that you evil guns you.
The man is proud of his vandalism. I hope Elizabeth’s brother’s ghost haunts him and maybe her too.
Monday, June 13, 2005
More on Thugs, Coyotes, and Bears
Last Friday, I posted on bears and coyotes that are now found in Boston’s metropolitan area. I also mentioned two-legged predators who predate on their own kind. In a comment, Blueeyes (# 2) believed I might be exaggerating the threat of animal attack. He wrote a very well reasoned comment, for which I thank him. He believes danger posed by wild animals is an insufficient reason to own guns when compared to thugs and the Second Amendment.
Here is where I differ from him. For too many Americans, the Second Amendment is a dead letter. At best, they believe it protects a state’s right to have a degree of influence over its National Guard. At worst, they believe it’s a relic from a bygone age. New scholarship has shown how flawed both arguments are (starting with Sanford Levinson’s “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”). We gunnies are making progress in ensuring that the correct reading of our Constitution’s Second Amendment is used in courts and in media, but we have a long way to go.
Using guns against thugs (mutants, goblins, however you want to describe human predators who have no feelings) in self-defense or defense of another is certainly a valid use of guns. It is also one that is fraught with a lot of emotional weight. I’ve had people tell me that burglary shouldn’t be a death sentence, that a person who fought and killed an attacker was a murderer as well, that violence even in a noble cause only increases violence. These people don’t get it and Bostonians in particular seem to suffer from an extreme case of anti-gunnie-ism.
Using wild animals as an argument for defending yourself is valid. I am not an animal behaviorist, but coyotes do eat pets frequently. A colleague’s neighbor in Jamaica Plain saw a coyote carry off her cat. My original post, Coyotes in Boston, mentioned a Boston Globe story about a man who witnessed a coyote killing his dog. So, I have one second-hand story and one documented story on coyote pet attacks in Boston’s metropolitan area. I have seen other stories also.
Further, I’ve seen coyotes while hunting (I don’t hunt coyotes since I eat what I kill) and these animals are as large as any German Shepherd I’ve seen. I would put their weight at 50 to 60 pounds--certainly large enough to kill a toddler. I honestly believe that such an event could happen, especially if one had no weapon to stop a possible attack.
Here’s my greatest concern though. Massachusetts has set up an elaborate gun-licensing scheme to discourage gun ownership. When I lived in that state, I got a gun license. Believe me when I say, Massachusetts’s gun laws are a mess. Many people don’t want to own a gun in the first place, but even those who do must go through a legal maze before buying one. (Read here for a description and cites to Massachusetts law). Blueeyes mentioned bear spray as a way to fend off an animal attack. In Massachusetts you have to get a Firearms Identification Card to own only pepper spray of any description. Even if you could own it, you still have to get up close and personal to use it.
A gun is a necessary defense tool. When you need one no other item will do. Massachusetts has disarmed most of its people and it likes it that way. But, I grew up near the country and now the country (wild animals) is coming to Boston. Citizens of Massachusetts need to have a firearm available to deal with an overly aggressive coyote or bear and a mutant.
Also, anywhere you have wild animals you have the chance of rabies in the population. Rabid animals behave very differently from their species’ norms. If one is bitten by a rabid animal, one must recover that animal or its carcass for testing or else potentially undergo a series of rabies shots. A gun is the best way to deal with a rabid animal.
Finally, I believe a gun is a tool for self-defense and a recreational item (target shooting). I don’t believe I should be forced to convince anyone that I have a need to own a tool. Living among thugs, coyotes, bears, and even possibly a rabid chipmunk is enough justification, if I really needed one, to buy a gun and learn how to shoot.
So, once again thanks Blueeyes for your excellent comment, but we will have to agree to disagree on at least a few of your otherwise excellent points.
Here is where I differ from him. For too many Americans, the Second Amendment is a dead letter. At best, they believe it protects a state’s right to have a degree of influence over its National Guard. At worst, they believe it’s a relic from a bygone age. New scholarship has shown how flawed both arguments are (starting with Sanford Levinson’s “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”). We gunnies are making progress in ensuring that the correct reading of our Constitution’s Second Amendment is used in courts and in media, but we have a long way to go.
Using guns against thugs (mutants, goblins, however you want to describe human predators who have no feelings) in self-defense or defense of another is certainly a valid use of guns. It is also one that is fraught with a lot of emotional weight. I’ve had people tell me that burglary shouldn’t be a death sentence, that a person who fought and killed an attacker was a murderer as well, that violence even in a noble cause only increases violence. These people don’t get it and Bostonians in particular seem to suffer from an extreme case of anti-gunnie-ism.
Using wild animals as an argument for defending yourself is valid. I am not an animal behaviorist, but coyotes do eat pets frequently. A colleague’s neighbor in Jamaica Plain saw a coyote carry off her cat. My original post, Coyotes in Boston, mentioned a Boston Globe story about a man who witnessed a coyote killing his dog. So, I have one second-hand story and one documented story on coyote pet attacks in Boston’s metropolitan area. I have seen other stories also.
Further, I’ve seen coyotes while hunting (I don’t hunt coyotes since I eat what I kill) and these animals are as large as any German Shepherd I’ve seen. I would put their weight at 50 to 60 pounds--certainly large enough to kill a toddler. I honestly believe that such an event could happen, especially if one had no weapon to stop a possible attack.
Here’s my greatest concern though. Massachusetts has set up an elaborate gun-licensing scheme to discourage gun ownership. When I lived in that state, I got a gun license. Believe me when I say, Massachusetts’s gun laws are a mess. Many people don’t want to own a gun in the first place, but even those who do must go through a legal maze before buying one. (Read here for a description and cites to Massachusetts law). Blueeyes mentioned bear spray as a way to fend off an animal attack. In Massachusetts you have to get a Firearms Identification Card to own only pepper spray of any description. Even if you could own it, you still have to get up close and personal to use it.
A gun is a necessary defense tool. When you need one no other item will do. Massachusetts has disarmed most of its people and it likes it that way. But, I grew up near the country and now the country (wild animals) is coming to Boston. Citizens of Massachusetts need to have a firearm available to deal with an overly aggressive coyote or bear and a mutant.
Also, anywhere you have wild animals you have the chance of rabies in the population. Rabid animals behave very differently from their species’ norms. If one is bitten by a rabid animal, one must recover that animal or its carcass for testing or else potentially undergo a series of rabies shots. A gun is the best way to deal with a rabid animal.
Finally, I believe a gun is a tool for self-defense and a recreational item (target shooting). I don’t believe I should be forced to convince anyone that I have a need to own a tool. Living among thugs, coyotes, bears, and even possibly a rabid chipmunk is enough justification, if I really needed one, to buy a gun and learn how to shoot.
So, once again thanks Blueeyes for your excellent comment, but we will have to agree to disagree on at least a few of your otherwise excellent points.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Thugs, Coyotes, and Bears--Oh My
Back in May, I posted on Coyotes in Boston. That is, the fact that predators were discovered near downtown Boston, in its innermost suburbs.
When predators are found in gun-fearing locations, city and state leaders and their citizens suffer a sort of paralysis. All of a sudden they realize that danger exists. When listening to people on radio talk shows, or journalists writing about in newspapers, you begin to get a feeling that a penny is about to drop. You almost swear that Massachusetts's leaders will stop their gun grabbing. You begin to think that they will realize there are reasons to keep and bear arms, and that our Second Amendment provides for our common defense—even that of an individual against a predator.
You think that such an awakening might happen, but too long ingrained habits rear their heads. Massachusetts’s gun-fearing and gun-hating leaders and their followers begin to understand that if guns are useful against four-legged predators they might be useful against two-legged predators as well. But accepting that would mean that all those gun owners and NRA members were right. Further, they can’t accept they’ve made such a horrible mistake. An error that’s led to the deaths of countless crime victims and will lead to children’s death in the maws of coyotes. Their minds shut down in horror. After a few moments of stuttering cognitive dissonance, the mental wheels begin spinning again and they once more resume a cry of “Ban those guns, ban those guns.”
If you think that Boston and its environs are a peaceful area, read mASSBackwards almost any day, but you might as well start here. City leaders can’t see how their policies are endangering their citizens and citizens demand that their leaders save them. They don’t see how taking personal responsibility for their own safety is the only way out of a brutal spiral they have created and perpetuated in the name of peace, love, and Kumbaya.
Having wild animals in one’s back yard does focus one’s mind. Now, not only do we have coyotes near downtown Boston we have black bears in its outer suburbs.
Don’t get me wrong, I like bears. I like their big shambling bodies and how they loll back on their haunches like nature’s Falstaff. Still, I wouldn’t want to find a bear in my back yard. Even more, I wouldn’t like to find a sow with her cubs in my back yard with me between her and her cubs and no gun in my hand.
I don’t want to exaggerate black bears’ ferocity. But, they’re wild animals that are much stronger than us and can very easily kill a large man if they feel threatened. They will kill pets and they could easily kill children. So, Boston sleep tight tonight in your righteous belief that two-legged predators will disarm themselves because you passed some silly gun licensing laws and that the police can protect you from all harm.
Sleep tight Boston knowing that many of your citizens have self-righteously forbade any gun, even a toy gun for Junior, from entering your home.
Sleep tight Boston while your dogs and cats become a snack for your local coyote.
Sleep tight Boston knowing that bears won’t bother you unless you bother them; provided they don’t feel you’re a threat, they’re not rabid, and they don’t decide to enter your house because they caught a remarkable smell of fried chicken through your window. That same delicious smell that is in your and your children’s hair and bedclothes.
Sleep tight Boston. You’ve striven so hard to disarm your citizens that now there’s no need to fear animals or thugs. Sleep that deep peaceful sleep of the deluded.
When predators are found in gun-fearing locations, city and state leaders and their citizens suffer a sort of paralysis. All of a sudden they realize that danger exists. When listening to people on radio talk shows, or journalists writing about in newspapers, you begin to get a feeling that a penny is about to drop. You almost swear that Massachusetts's leaders will stop their gun grabbing. You begin to think that they will realize there are reasons to keep and bear arms, and that our Second Amendment provides for our common defense—even that of an individual against a predator.
You think that such an awakening might happen, but too long ingrained habits rear their heads. Massachusetts’s gun-fearing and gun-hating leaders and their followers begin to understand that if guns are useful against four-legged predators they might be useful against two-legged predators as well. But accepting that would mean that all those gun owners and NRA members were right. Further, they can’t accept they’ve made such a horrible mistake. An error that’s led to the deaths of countless crime victims and will lead to children’s death in the maws of coyotes. Their minds shut down in horror. After a few moments of stuttering cognitive dissonance, the mental wheels begin spinning again and they once more resume a cry of “Ban those guns, ban those guns.”
If you think that Boston and its environs are a peaceful area, read mASSBackwards almost any day, but you might as well start here. City leaders can’t see how their policies are endangering their citizens and citizens demand that their leaders save them. They don’t see how taking personal responsibility for their own safety is the only way out of a brutal spiral they have created and perpetuated in the name of peace, love, and Kumbaya.
Having wild animals in one’s back yard does focus one’s mind. Now, not only do we have coyotes near downtown Boston we have black bears in its outer suburbs.
Don’t get me wrong, I like bears. I like their big shambling bodies and how they loll back on their haunches like nature’s Falstaff. Still, I wouldn’t want to find a bear in my back yard. Even more, I wouldn’t like to find a sow with her cubs in my back yard with me between her and her cubs and no gun in my hand.
I don’t want to exaggerate black bears’ ferocity. But, they’re wild animals that are much stronger than us and can very easily kill a large man if they feel threatened. They will kill pets and they could easily kill children. So, Boston sleep tight tonight in your righteous belief that two-legged predators will disarm themselves because you passed some silly gun licensing laws and that the police can protect you from all harm.
Sleep tight Boston knowing that many of your citizens have self-righteously forbade any gun, even a toy gun for Junior, from entering your home.
Sleep tight Boston while your dogs and cats become a snack for your local coyote.
Sleep tight Boston knowing that bears won’t bother you unless you bother them; provided they don’t feel you’re a threat, they’re not rabid, and they don’t decide to enter your house because they caught a remarkable smell of fried chicken through your window. That same delicious smell that is in your and your children’s hair and bedclothes.
Sleep tight Boston. You’ve striven so hard to disarm your citizens that now there’s no need to fear animals or thugs. Sleep that deep peaceful sleep of the deluded.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Girls Will Be Girls, And Men Should Be Men
Kim du Toit linked an article on metrosexuals (urbanized males who excessively groom, preen and are overly fashion conscious). Yesterday, I read a Little Green Footballs post on a State Department magazine that will be sent all over the world. One article described the beauty regime of a young metrosexual.
Since these young urban males take more care of their grooming than many do women, Kim even accuses women of trying to make men more like women.
I concede his point, but I don’t know if women are behind men becoming more like women. Most women I know, myself included, like men who take care of themselves, but who do not preen. We want men to shave regularly or to grow and groom a beard. Two days of beard growth is like sandpaper on one’s cheek or other sensitive areas. We want men who bathe enough to eradicate odor, but not so much that he begins to smell like, well, a woman. He should also wear clothing appropriate to where we are going—like no shorts and tee shirts to a romantic restaurant. But, moisturizers, make-up, man-purses; c’mon guys get a grip and find your gorm if at all possible.
I guess the topic hits home because I have a similar problem; I’m a woman who likes guns and hunting. I often clean guns after shooting and my hands are not a pretty sight with Break-Free and powder residue all over them. Often, I smell more like Hoppe’s # 9 than Chanel #5. At the range, I’m more likely to have a smudge of powder under my eyes than eye shadow.
When I’m hunting, I’ wear baggy clothes and big boots. Because I’m tall (5’9”), I have biggish feet and I call my boots Frankenboots since they make my feet look even bigger. If a hunt is successful, I will have bloody hands and bloody camos. Even if a hunt isn’t successful, Bill and I come back dirty, sweaty, and neither of us smell like a metrosexual.
People I know have considered what I do “unladylike” whatever the hell that means. (Maybe it means not saying, "whatever the hell that means").
I can’t understand why so many women don’t follow my lead and get messy occasionally. They’re missing out on so much. I hate the girly-girl excuse of, “Oh no I might break a nail.” Gals, we ain't fragile flowers, even if we don’t want men to realize it. That’s not to say we need to be like men. Also, we need to give men their space. Face it there’re times when men need to get away from our chirping. But, guns and hunting are not automatically a male purview. In fact, when it comes to guns, John Moses Browning himself never made one that tested for testosterone in order to fire them.
To be honest, I do get all girly at times, but folks it takes effort. Armpits and legs need shaving, then there’s make up, nails, hair, and oh don’t get me started. Now that I’m over 50 it seems like even more work is involved (so far, I’m lucky--no gray hair yet). That said, I can’t understand why a man would want to put themselves through such grief.
I hope trends will lead to more women becoming involved in guns and hunting. But, I don’t want to live it a world where men aren’t men. God help us if all men go metrosexual. Beauty salons just wouldn’t be the same.
Since these young urban males take more care of their grooming than many do women, Kim even accuses women of trying to make men more like women.
I concede his point, but I don’t know if women are behind men becoming more like women. Most women I know, myself included, like men who take care of themselves, but who do not preen. We want men to shave regularly or to grow and groom a beard. Two days of beard growth is like sandpaper on one’s cheek or other sensitive areas. We want men who bathe enough to eradicate odor, but not so much that he begins to smell like, well, a woman. He should also wear clothing appropriate to where we are going—like no shorts and tee shirts to a romantic restaurant. But, moisturizers, make-up, man-purses; c’mon guys get a grip and find your gorm if at all possible.
I guess the topic hits home because I have a similar problem; I’m a woman who likes guns and hunting. I often clean guns after shooting and my hands are not a pretty sight with Break-Free and powder residue all over them. Often, I smell more like Hoppe’s # 9 than Chanel #5. At the range, I’m more likely to have a smudge of powder under my eyes than eye shadow.
When I’m hunting, I’ wear baggy clothes and big boots. Because I’m tall (5’9”), I have biggish feet and I call my boots Frankenboots since they make my feet look even bigger. If a hunt is successful, I will have bloody hands and bloody camos. Even if a hunt isn’t successful, Bill and I come back dirty, sweaty, and neither of us smell like a metrosexual.
People I know have considered what I do “unladylike” whatever the hell that means. (Maybe it means not saying, "whatever the hell that means").
I can’t understand why so many women don’t follow my lead and get messy occasionally. They’re missing out on so much. I hate the girly-girl excuse of, “Oh no I might break a nail.” Gals, we ain't fragile flowers, even if we don’t want men to realize it. That’s not to say we need to be like men. Also, we need to give men their space. Face it there’re times when men need to get away from our chirping. But, guns and hunting are not automatically a male purview. In fact, when it comes to guns, John Moses Browning himself never made one that tested for testosterone in order to fire them.
To be honest, I do get all girly at times, but folks it takes effort. Armpits and legs need shaving, then there’s make up, nails, hair, and oh don’t get me started. Now that I’m over 50 it seems like even more work is involved (so far, I’m lucky--no gray hair yet). That said, I can’t understand why a man would want to put themselves through such grief.
I hope trends will lead to more women becoming involved in guns and hunting. But, I don’t want to live it a world where men aren’t men. God help us if all men go metrosexual. Beauty salons just wouldn’t be the same.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
One From the Vault--vi
Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket
There is so much in the news and blogs today. There is an excellent discussion of the Supreme Court’s medical marijuana decision and possible impact on gun cases, the release of John Kerry’s crappy college grades, a story on how a group of yachters drove off Yemeni pirates with a shotgun but the press gives short shrift to them even having a shotgun. With so much to blog about, I can either spin about in a dither or do a "One From the Vault" post. Here goes.
Seriously, I like sharing my collection with readers. I wish I had better camera equipment and skills, but I get my point across. Besides, I think these entries are worth the price of your admission to Ten Ring.
As I’ve posted before, I’m fond of mouse guns; that is, small guns made to be carried in a pocket. These little guns aren’t very accurate, you can’t hunt with them, and most shoot such under-powered cartridges that you might hurt an attacker more by hitting him with the gun than with a bullet. Also, gun grabbers tend to view them as cheap, dangerous, and easily concealed. Despite all criticisms, I like them. I think they’re little engineering jewels and I have several in my collection.
With that in mind, today’svictim entry is the Colt 1908 Vest Pocket Pistol, a .25 caliber pistol.
Colt Vest Pocket pistols were first produced in 1908 and went through several design changes, primarily new safety features. For instance, a magazine disconnect (remove the magazine and the gun won’t fire) was added in 1916. Colt made the gun until 1948 (only one was made that year so actually 1947). The war years of 1942-1945 also halted production. About 420,000 of these little guys were made. In 1958, Colt introduced a similar model called the Junior Colt.
Colt Vest Pockets were popular with men and women. As a woman, the grip fits my hand perfectly. Most of the grips for these little guns are plastic, but you could order one with factory walnut, ivory, carved ivory, mother of pearl, and carved mother of pearl grips. Most of the guns were blued, but one could order gold plated, silver plated, and nickel finishes. The Colt factory offered engraving and given the number of places to engrave on a 1908, engraving could be extremely fancy.
My Vest Pocket is blued with standard plastic grips appropriate to its year of manufacture. It was made in late 1919 when 43,000 of its brothers and sisters were born. Mine still has case-hardening colors on the trigger, grip safety, and slide lock safety. Most of its bluing is still intact. It is mechanically sound and complete with all matching serial numbers. It weighs only thirteen ounces and is 4.5 inches long overall.
I’ve taken this little fellow to the range and it is fairly accurate up to 25 feet, at ten feet it is surprisingly accurate even though its sights are minimal. In fact they are a groove carved in the rear leading to the front with a slight lump ending the groove. I think its accuracy is a factor of how well it fits my hand. It feels like an extension of my hand though my little finger doesn’t touch the gun at all. For an 86-year-old gun, it proved quite reliable. I had one stovepipe type misfeed that could be due to ammo or a weak magazine spring.
I mentioned engineering in these small packages. To disassemble all you have to do is pull the slide back a little and give the barrel a slight turn. It comes apart easily and goes together easily. All it takes is a little knowledge of how far back to move its slide and which direction to twist.
Appropriately, the Vest Pocket pistol fits in a pocket of an old vest with only a little bit of the grip showing (Vest Pocket is not truly descriptive, the name differentiates between it and the larger Colt 1903 Pocket Pistol). I tried it in the watch pocket of Bill’s jeans and it fits perfectly. I can imagine a man during the Roaring Twenties putting on a suit and slipping his Colt 1908 in a pocket or a woman sliding it into a beaded purse.
Colt Vest Pocket pistols represent a different era. They came from a time when people didn’t question a person’s need to carry a gun. It was just done. It was a more civilized time.
Other “One From the Vault” posts:
Introduction
Smith & Wesson 340PD
Trapdoor Springfield
Beretta 21A
Winchester 101
Broomhandle Mauser "Bolo"
There is so much in the news and blogs today. There is an excellent discussion of the Supreme Court’s medical marijuana decision and possible impact on gun cases, the release of John Kerry’s crappy college grades, a story on how a group of yachters drove off Yemeni pirates with a shotgun but the press gives short shrift to them even having a shotgun. With so much to blog about, I can either spin about in a dither or do a "One From the Vault" post. Here goes.
Seriously, I like sharing my collection with readers. I wish I had better camera equipment and skills, but I get my point across. Besides, I think these entries are worth the price of your admission to Ten Ring.
As I’ve posted before, I’m fond of mouse guns; that is, small guns made to be carried in a pocket. These little guns aren’t very accurate, you can’t hunt with them, and most shoot such under-powered cartridges that you might hurt an attacker more by hitting him with the gun than with a bullet. Also, gun grabbers tend to view them as cheap, dangerous, and easily concealed. Despite all criticisms, I like them. I think they’re little engineering jewels and I have several in my collection.
With that in mind, today’s
Colt Vest Pocket pistols were first produced in 1908 and went through several design changes, primarily new safety features. For instance, a magazine disconnect (remove the magazine and the gun won’t fire) was added in 1916. Colt made the gun until 1948 (only one was made that year so actually 1947). The war years of 1942-1945 also halted production. About 420,000 of these little guys were made. In 1958, Colt introduced a similar model called the Junior Colt.
Colt Vest Pockets were popular with men and women. As a woman, the grip fits my hand perfectly. Most of the grips for these little guns are plastic, but you could order one with factory walnut, ivory, carved ivory, mother of pearl, and carved mother of pearl grips. Most of the guns were blued, but one could order gold plated, silver plated, and nickel finishes. The Colt factory offered engraving and given the number of places to engrave on a 1908, engraving could be extremely fancy.
My Vest Pocket is blued with standard plastic grips appropriate to its year of manufacture. It was made in late 1919 when 43,000 of its brothers and sisters were born. Mine still has case-hardening colors on the trigger, grip safety, and slide lock safety. Most of its bluing is still intact. It is mechanically sound and complete with all matching serial numbers. It weighs only thirteen ounces and is 4.5 inches long overall.
I’ve taken this little fellow to the range and it is fairly accurate up to 25 feet, at ten feet it is surprisingly accurate even though its sights are minimal. In fact they are a groove carved in the rear leading to the front with a slight lump ending the groove. I think its accuracy is a factor of how well it fits my hand. It feels like an extension of my hand though my little finger doesn’t touch the gun at all. For an 86-year-old gun, it proved quite reliable. I had one stovepipe type misfeed that could be due to ammo or a weak magazine spring.
I mentioned engineering in these small packages. To disassemble all you have to do is pull the slide back a little and give the barrel a slight turn. It comes apart easily and goes together easily. All it takes is a little knowledge of how far back to move its slide and which direction to twist.
Appropriately, the Vest Pocket pistol fits in a pocket of an old vest with only a little bit of the grip showing (Vest Pocket is not truly descriptive, the name differentiates between it and the larger Colt 1903 Pocket Pistol). I tried it in the watch pocket of Bill’s jeans and it fits perfectly. I can imagine a man during the Roaring Twenties putting on a suit and slipping his Colt 1908 in a pocket or a woman sliding it into a beaded purse.
Colt Vest Pocket pistols represent a different era. They came from a time when people didn’t question a person’s need to carry a gun. It was just done. It was a more civilized time.
Other “One From the Vault” posts:
Introduction
Smith & Wesson 340PD
Trapdoor Springfield
Beretta 21A
Winchester 101
Broomhandle Mauser "Bolo"
Monday, June 06, 2005
On Losing Shooting Ranges
Bill and I had a busy weekend with real estate meetings and other not so fun stuff. We did manage to get out to the range and shoot for awhile. I shot my Sig Hammerli target pistol and my AR-15 carbine. Bill shot his Baikal target pistol and his Schmidt-Rubin K31 Swiss rifle. Considering we haven’t burned any gunpowder for too long now, we both liked how our bullets hit more or less where we aimed.
It was great being out at the range on a sunny day after so many rainy days in May. We go to a private club that we had to join just to find a place to shoot. There are too few public ranges or even informal plinking ranges here.
Speaking of places to shoot, Michael Bane lost his range a few days ago. The United States Forest Service as represented, so far as I know, by a lone anti-gun ranger said no more shooting here. When you go to Michael’s post (and you should), be sure to read the comments for more background and information.
Back in April, Bill and I faced a similar loss. There’s a public area in Merrimack, New Hampshire called Horse Hill Nature Preserve. It’s been used for decades for hunting, target shooting, and other outdoorsy stuff. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been hurt or killed there because of shooting or hunting. A handful of nearby residents complained about noise and managed to get a petition that would have banned any shooting, even hunting, at the preserve. City councilmen softened it to limit only target shooting and to conduct a study on hunting affects.
The watered down version was offered to the voters and I’ll be damned, but it passed by an almost two-to-one margin. And New Hampshire is the “Live Free or Die” state. Since our state has a firearms preemption law, there’s a chance the state will squash the new regulation, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Ranges on public lands are getting few and far between. Granted, people still go out into the forest and set up a target and bang away, but in a congested area like Southern New Hampshire that’s not always a good idea. The dedicated shooter is then forced to look a private ranges open to anyone. Of course, these ranges have an hourly charge. Bill and I were spending way too much of our hard-earned dollars at one of these ranges.
We joined the private club and have a place to shoot for now. I don’t know if anti-gunnies are behind ranges closing and high range fee (their activities could drive up range insurance costs). For that matter they don’t have to be behind it. Market forces are enough to change shooting, as we know it. Back when I was a teenager, I could bike or later drive to the edge of town and plink to my heart’s content. No one whined about noise, no one called cops or rangers. Shooting was a normal activity 30 or so years ago.
Now shooting is a suspect activity. People who’ve never touched a gun before pass laws or regulations telling us where, when, and what to shoot. Neighbors have no toleration for a little noise on a Saturday afternoon. They view gunshots as a nuisance at best and something to fear at worst. To me, gunshots are the sound of freedom. I guess I’m just an old-fashioned gal in a new-fangled world.
It was great being out at the range on a sunny day after so many rainy days in May. We go to a private club that we had to join just to find a place to shoot. There are too few public ranges or even informal plinking ranges here.
Speaking of places to shoot, Michael Bane lost his range a few days ago. The United States Forest Service as represented, so far as I know, by a lone anti-gun ranger said no more shooting here. When you go to Michael’s post (and you should), be sure to read the comments for more background and information.
Back in April, Bill and I faced a similar loss. There’s a public area in Merrimack, New Hampshire called Horse Hill Nature Preserve. It’s been used for decades for hunting, target shooting, and other outdoorsy stuff. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been hurt or killed there because of shooting or hunting. A handful of nearby residents complained about noise and managed to get a petition that would have banned any shooting, even hunting, at the preserve. City councilmen softened it to limit only target shooting and to conduct a study on hunting affects.
The watered down version was offered to the voters and I’ll be damned, but it passed by an almost two-to-one margin. And New Hampshire is the “Live Free or Die” state. Since our state has a firearms preemption law, there’s a chance the state will squash the new regulation, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Ranges on public lands are getting few and far between. Granted, people still go out into the forest and set up a target and bang away, but in a congested area like Southern New Hampshire that’s not always a good idea. The dedicated shooter is then forced to look a private ranges open to anyone. Of course, these ranges have an hourly charge. Bill and I were spending way too much of our hard-earned dollars at one of these ranges.
We joined the private club and have a place to shoot for now. I don’t know if anti-gunnies are behind ranges closing and high range fee (their activities could drive up range insurance costs). For that matter they don’t have to be behind it. Market forces are enough to change shooting, as we know it. Back when I was a teenager, I could bike or later drive to the edge of town and plink to my heart’s content. No one whined about noise, no one called cops or rangers. Shooting was a normal activity 30 or so years ago.
Now shooting is a suspect activity. People who’ve never touched a gun before pass laws or regulations telling us where, when, and what to shoot. Neighbors have no toleration for a little noise on a Saturday afternoon. They view gunshots as a nuisance at best and something to fear at worst. To me, gunshots are the sound of freedom. I guess I’m just an old-fashioned gal in a new-fangled world.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Types of Anti-Gunnies Part II
In yesterday’s post, I identified six groups of gun grabbers based on their primary motive for opposing gun rights. There are shadings between them. So, I think it is useful to assign certain gun banners to a primary category, it might be useful to imagine the categories as a sort of Myer-Briggs smorgasbord (i.e., Statist/Victim/Legal Eagle). This is especially true of those who go out of their way to ban guns.
Here are a few ideas on how to deal with arguments by and members of these groups.
Hoplophobes are probably the easiest group to reach even though certain individuals may be impossible to convince. These people have an unreasoning fear of guns, but for an unknown number if they become familiar with a gun, shooting it, marrying into a gun owning family, etc. can eliminate their fears. In fact, gun purchases and concealed carry permitees increased after 9/11. Presumably, some of these purchasers were hoplophobes who lost their fear of guns due to increased fears over domestic terrorism. In fact, 9/11 gave gunnies a potent argument against hoplophobia since around 3,000 people were murdered without one gun present. These folks might be reached through offers of trips to shooting ranges, if they can overcome their fears.
Pacifists are hard to reach because most are certain that they’re right and no argument will change their minds. They are very dangerous to gunnies and must be fought head on. They might respond to information that gun control is a necessary precursor to genocide. The example of Darfur shows what happens when a government and their pawns clash with unarmed rivals. To protect ourselves from unrepentant pacifists we must strive to pass laws that strengthen the Second Amendment. If they ever achieve office they can at least face a thicket of laws to cut through before they begin gun grabbing.
Legal Eagles are hard to persuade, but unlike pacifists they can be convinced. Showing them evidence that gun bans don’t work, such as England’s bans, disturbs their worldviews. They will take time to process evidence, but eventually a handful will come around (Laurence Tribe for example). Unlike other groups, people in this category need facts, figures, and a good argument. Since they have a legalistic mindset, they appreciate a good debate. Read up on Second Amendment issues so that when you come up against a legal eagle you can defeat their rote arguments.
Victims cannot be persuaded. They believe in what they are doing and cloak themselves in their grief. At the same time, we must not be unsympathetic to their losses. Bad people do use guns to hurt good people. Telling victims that if they or their loved ones had been armed they would be unhurt or alive today is a slap in the face for them. They have to be fought with laws that protect us from them. We also need to decide what if anything we gunnies can do to reduce gun violence. I am not sure what we can do since I don’t trust Project Exile type solutions, and I don’t accept any form of gun control. Still, we must be willing to listen and not throw their grief back at them.
Opportunists go wherever the wind blows. This group can be very dangerous to us since they speak to perceived wisdom. They get elected and their ideas get noticed because those ideas mirror those shared by certain population segments. The media is our greatest enemy and their best ally. We need to secure friends in the media through journalist shooting classes and other outreach. We have made some strides here.
Elitists are snobs even when they’re gun collectors and avid shooters. Many are relatively harmless to our gun rights, except those who support bans on certain guns and try to limit gun ownership. Massachusetts’ gun control scheme is one example since getting a license is so often dependent on who you know and if you are of "a right sort." We can’t change their minds, so never put one in office and fight any kind of gun licensing scheme. We can reach out to them based on their shooting. If we can get them into shooting and owning fine black rifles they won’t support another “assault weapon” ban.
Statists believe that the state is benevolent and can lead us to a promised land. They will never admit they are wrong even if you show them what’s happening in places like England and Darfur. Like a Legal Eagle, they believe that one more law will solve gun violence only for them it’s actually one more increase in state power. They want registration, licensing, and every other power to “save” us from ourselves. They must be fought head on and on several fronts. For them, any increase in state power even as distant from gun control such as Kyoto Accords is a goal and tool for increased state interference in our lives.
As I said, there may be other categories and there may be different ways to fight anti-gunnies. But, I believe it is easier to fight an enemy one understands. I hope this idea makes at least a small contribution to our success.
Here are a few ideas on how to deal with arguments by and members of these groups.
Hoplophobes are probably the easiest group to reach even though certain individuals may be impossible to convince. These people have an unreasoning fear of guns, but for an unknown number if they become familiar with a gun, shooting it, marrying into a gun owning family, etc. can eliminate their fears. In fact, gun purchases and concealed carry permitees increased after 9/11. Presumably, some of these purchasers were hoplophobes who lost their fear of guns due to increased fears over domestic terrorism. In fact, 9/11 gave gunnies a potent argument against hoplophobia since around 3,000 people were murdered without one gun present. These folks might be reached through offers of trips to shooting ranges, if they can overcome their fears.
Pacifists are hard to reach because most are certain that they’re right and no argument will change their minds. They are very dangerous to gunnies and must be fought head on. They might respond to information that gun control is a necessary precursor to genocide. The example of Darfur shows what happens when a government and their pawns clash with unarmed rivals. To protect ourselves from unrepentant pacifists we must strive to pass laws that strengthen the Second Amendment. If they ever achieve office they can at least face a thicket of laws to cut through before they begin gun grabbing.
Legal Eagles are hard to persuade, but unlike pacifists they can be convinced. Showing them evidence that gun bans don’t work, such as England’s bans, disturbs their worldviews. They will take time to process evidence, but eventually a handful will come around (Laurence Tribe for example). Unlike other groups, people in this category need facts, figures, and a good argument. Since they have a legalistic mindset, they appreciate a good debate. Read up on Second Amendment issues so that when you come up against a legal eagle you can defeat their rote arguments.
Victims cannot be persuaded. They believe in what they are doing and cloak themselves in their grief. At the same time, we must not be unsympathetic to their losses. Bad people do use guns to hurt good people. Telling victims that if they or their loved ones had been armed they would be unhurt or alive today is a slap in the face for them. They have to be fought with laws that protect us from them. We also need to decide what if anything we gunnies can do to reduce gun violence. I am not sure what we can do since I don’t trust Project Exile type solutions, and I don’t accept any form of gun control. Still, we must be willing to listen and not throw their grief back at them.
Opportunists go wherever the wind blows. This group can be very dangerous to us since they speak to perceived wisdom. They get elected and their ideas get noticed because those ideas mirror those shared by certain population segments. The media is our greatest enemy and their best ally. We need to secure friends in the media through journalist shooting classes and other outreach. We have made some strides here.
Elitists are snobs even when they’re gun collectors and avid shooters. Many are relatively harmless to our gun rights, except those who support bans on certain guns and try to limit gun ownership. Massachusetts’ gun control scheme is one example since getting a license is so often dependent on who you know and if you are of "a right sort." We can’t change their minds, so never put one in office and fight any kind of gun licensing scheme. We can reach out to them based on their shooting. If we can get them into shooting and owning fine black rifles they won’t support another “assault weapon” ban.
Statists believe that the state is benevolent and can lead us to a promised land. They will never admit they are wrong even if you show them what’s happening in places like England and Darfur. Like a Legal Eagle, they believe that one more law will solve gun violence only for them it’s actually one more increase in state power. They want registration, licensing, and every other power to “save” us from ourselves. They must be fought head on and on several fronts. For them, any increase in state power even as distant from gun control such as Kyoto Accords is a goal and tool for increased state interference in our lives.
As I said, there may be other categories and there may be different ways to fight anti-gunnies. But, I believe it is easier to fight an enemy one understands. I hope this idea makes at least a small contribution to our success.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Types of Anti-Gunnies
I got to thinking today about people who want to ban guns. These thoughts reminded me of our second blog post in which I described categories of gun owners.
It might be useful to categorize gun banners too. I tend to think in terms of categories since I categorize information as part of my job. I based my gun-banner categories on motives for wishing to ban all or certain guns. Let’s see what we get when we try to identify groups of gun haters.
True Hoplophobes fear guns unreasonably. They’ve probably never touched a gun. They believe that a gun can go off if they look at it funny, and feel that a gun turns a person into a Neanderthalic killer. Hoplophobes may give money to anti-gun organization and are willing to vote our rights away, but few are not leaders in anti-gun organizations. In fact, most tend to ignore the entire subject. However, if you marry one he or she will make you get rid of your guns.
Pacifists hate guns since they’re made to kill. They don’t necessarily fear guns, they just don’t understand why anyone could own or like to shoot firearms. They don’t recognize any sporting uses for guns, even hunting is bad since people kill Bambi. They believe self-defense is wrong since you might hurt or kill your fellow man. For them, it’s better to turn the other cheek or “be like Gandhi.” Many of them have religious (Christian or Eastern) motivations or are ex-hippies. They won’t rest until they convert all of us to their way of thinking. The editorial writers of the Christian Science Monitor are good examples.
Legal Eagles believe that if they pass enough laws they will end gun violence. Because they are law-abiding themselves, they tend to explain criminal behavior with poverty or a bad childhood rather than accepting a person might choose a life of crime. They blame Chicago’s and Washington, D.C.’s gun violence on other states like Virginia that haven’t reduced gun availability. They are confounded by reports that handgun crime has increased in England despite banning almost everything that even looks like a handgun. Senator Charles Schumer is one example.
Victims have actually survived gun violence themselves or someone close to them was maimed or killed with a gun. They ally themselves closely with Legal Eagles especially, but build bridges with anyone who can help their cause. The want to make sure that no other parent or spouse will ever feel the grief of gun violence. They are the speakers at Million Mom March rallies and include notable gun banners such as Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy.
Opportunists are primarily politicians or “celebrities” who see gun banning as a cause that will help their popularity. They read polls that convinced them that most Americans want gun control. They don’t study the polls close enough to see that public opinion on guns is a mixed bag. For instance, a 2002 ABC News poll states that 73% of Americans believe the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights to guns, but 57% favor more gun control. People want to end gun violence, but they don’t want to end gun ownership at least not totally. Bill Clinton and most of Hollywood belongs here.
Elitists believe that gun ownership is fine for them and their "kind." They stereotype gun owners who haven’t attended the correct schools as troglodytes and rednecks. Elitists own guns, but lean toward fine shotguns and collector pieces. John Kerry is an example.
Statists can be from any walk of life, but politicians pose the most danger to us. Similar to Elitists, they believe that only certain people should have guns, but would limit gun ownership to the military or police. (Kerry could be in this group since he said if you wanted to own “assault weapons” you should join the military; however I think he has no problems with fine guns being in the hands of “his kind of people.”) They believe most Americans are too violent to be trusted with gun ownership. Al Gore belongs with these people.
There is cross-pollination between these categories. For instance, to win arguments a pacifist might borrow language from statists, but I believe most gun banners come to their beliefs through one primary motive. There may be other categories I haven’t identified, but I think my list is a good start.
Once we identify categories of gun-banners we still need to figure out how to convince individuals in each group to change their gun banning ways or how to neutralize their arguments. That will be in my next post.
06/06/05: I wrote the companion to this piece. Click here to read it.
It might be useful to categorize gun banners too. I tend to think in terms of categories since I categorize information as part of my job. I based my gun-banner categories on motives for wishing to ban all or certain guns. Let’s see what we get when we try to identify groups of gun haters.
True Hoplophobes fear guns unreasonably. They’ve probably never touched a gun. They believe that a gun can go off if they look at it funny, and feel that a gun turns a person into a Neanderthalic killer. Hoplophobes may give money to anti-gun organization and are willing to vote our rights away, but few are not leaders in anti-gun organizations. In fact, most tend to ignore the entire subject. However, if you marry one he or she will make you get rid of your guns.
Pacifists hate guns since they’re made to kill. They don’t necessarily fear guns, they just don’t understand why anyone could own or like to shoot firearms. They don’t recognize any sporting uses for guns, even hunting is bad since people kill Bambi. They believe self-defense is wrong since you might hurt or kill your fellow man. For them, it’s better to turn the other cheek or “be like Gandhi.” Many of them have religious (Christian or Eastern) motivations or are ex-hippies. They won’t rest until they convert all of us to their way of thinking. The editorial writers of the Christian Science Monitor are good examples.
Legal Eagles believe that if they pass enough laws they will end gun violence. Because they are law-abiding themselves, they tend to explain criminal behavior with poverty or a bad childhood rather than accepting a person might choose a life of crime. They blame Chicago’s and Washington, D.C.’s gun violence on other states like Virginia that haven’t reduced gun availability. They are confounded by reports that handgun crime has increased in England despite banning almost everything that even looks like a handgun. Senator Charles Schumer is one example.
Victims have actually survived gun violence themselves or someone close to them was maimed or killed with a gun. They ally themselves closely with Legal Eagles especially, but build bridges with anyone who can help their cause. The want to make sure that no other parent or spouse will ever feel the grief of gun violence. They are the speakers at Million Mom March rallies and include notable gun banners such as Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy.
Opportunists are primarily politicians or “celebrities” who see gun banning as a cause that will help their popularity. They read polls that convinced them that most Americans want gun control. They don’t study the polls close enough to see that public opinion on guns is a mixed bag. For instance, a 2002 ABC News poll states that 73% of Americans believe the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights to guns, but 57% favor more gun control. People want to end gun violence, but they don’t want to end gun ownership at least not totally. Bill Clinton and most of Hollywood belongs here.
Elitists believe that gun ownership is fine for them and their "kind." They stereotype gun owners who haven’t attended the correct schools as troglodytes and rednecks. Elitists own guns, but lean toward fine shotguns and collector pieces. John Kerry is an example.
Statists can be from any walk of life, but politicians pose the most danger to us. Similar to Elitists, they believe that only certain people should have guns, but would limit gun ownership to the military or police. (Kerry could be in this group since he said if you wanted to own “assault weapons” you should join the military; however I think he has no problems with fine guns being in the hands of “his kind of people.”) They believe most Americans are too violent to be trusted with gun ownership. Al Gore belongs with these people.
There is cross-pollination between these categories. For instance, to win arguments a pacifist might borrow language from statists, but I believe most gun banners come to their beliefs through one primary motive. There may be other categories I haven’t identified, but I think my list is a good start.
Once we identify categories of gun-banners we still need to figure out how to convince individuals in each group to change their gun banning ways or how to neutralize their arguments. That will be in my next post.
06/06/05: I wrote the companion to this piece. Click here to read it.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
An Editorial Writer on Gun Owners
Between condo buying and getting married, I haven’t been keeping up with the blogs and news as much as I should. While reading Ravenwood’s Universe I noticed a post about an editorial written by Lionel Van Deerlin appearing in the San Diego Union-Tribune on May 12. I told you I’ve been our of touch for awhile.
I actually felt my blood pressure rise as I read Van Deerlin’s editorial. I even wondered how his editors could have let him publish such a stilted and unfair piece. And, then I realized they believed every argument, every statement Van Deerlin uttered about gun owners and NRA. He was preaching to the choir and the choir was happy to let him sing while they hummed along.
So let us delve more deeply into Van Deerlin’s twisted arguments. In his first paragraph, Van Deerlin proudly waves his membership card in the "Bash George Bush" club. He describes NRA as a Bush beneficiary along with off-shore tax profiteers, contractors in Iraq, and religious right preachers. You gotta hand it to him; he is sneering, snide, and cynical all in his first paragraph.
He goes on to cite the Assault Weapon Ban as just one example of Bush helping an unholy alliance between NRA leaders and gun makers. Then, according to him, NRA lawyers are fanning our all over the country, “…to widen the beachhead for gun laws that won't stop until every American packs a pistol as casually – and yes, as lawfully – as his cell phone.”
I don’t know if NRA lawyers are pushing these laws, but I if not, I sure wish they would. Why shouldn’t law-abiding Americans be able to pack a pistol anywhere a police officer can pack one? If Van Deerlin could hear me now, his jaw would drop and his eyes would bug out. He couldn’t fathom that many of us think that carrying a concealed pistol for self-defense is a self-evident right. No, I imagine that he believes every "right-thinking person" understands how absurd it is to carry a gun—until that person finds out why he or she needs one.
He bashes Florida’s recently enacted “Castle Doctrine,” which states that if a reasonable person feels his or her life is in danger there is no special requirement to retreat from that danger. You can meet it with deadly force. Van Deerlin exaggerates the law into a license to murder anyone and a get-out-of-jail free card, “No court henceforth will have a right to convict, thanks to new rules that Gov. Jeb Bush was happy to sign into law. "I felt threatened" is all a judge or jury need hear to acquit.” Not close at all Mr. Van Deerlin, and one hopes you find treatment for that reading comprehension problem you’re exhibiting here. But, then again, I guess an accurate account of Florida’s new law wouldn’t serve his purposes.
He then describes efforts in other states to ease or revoke laws on carrying concealed weapons in places that serve alcohol (Ravenwood finds an error in his linking Virginia’s Citizen’s Defense League with NRA). Here Van Deerlin reveals just how little he regards Americans who subject themselves to FBI checks, criminal history checks, testing, training and everything else one must do in most states to carry a gun legally. To paraphrase, he believes armed Americans would let a chef know his food was inedible with a bullet. How insulting, how typically elitist and snobbish. How very stereotypical of an editorialist writing about gun owners.
He closes with two paragraphs. In one, he states NRA is on a roll and mentioned NRA’s convention Bill and I attended in April. The final paragraph ends with a snarky statement tying gun owners and gun homicides together. But, he can’t understand that the two don’t go together. Very few murderers have ever joined NRA, got a concealed weapon permit, got a curio and relics license, and took other steps that so many gun owners go through today.
Van Deerlin’s chief problem is shared by so many others in his profession. They are ignorant about gun owners and they don’t want to learn. They’ve received wisdom from on high that gun owners want to shoot at anyone who looks different from them. He needs to pull his head out of hisfundament office and meet shooters, find out why so many states have enacted “shall issue” concealed carry.
If he did he would discover that gun owners have historically low accident rates, that concealed carry licensees don’t act like movie cowboys, and that blood hasn’t stained our streets with the end of the Assault Weapons ban. Still, I doubt he'll change his mind. He likes his sarcastic little tissue of lies more than the truth.
I actually felt my blood pressure rise as I read Van Deerlin’s editorial. I even wondered how his editors could have let him publish such a stilted and unfair piece. And, then I realized they believed every argument, every statement Van Deerlin uttered about gun owners and NRA. He was preaching to the choir and the choir was happy to let him sing while they hummed along.
So let us delve more deeply into Van Deerlin’s twisted arguments. In his first paragraph, Van Deerlin proudly waves his membership card in the "Bash George Bush" club. He describes NRA as a Bush beneficiary along with off-shore tax profiteers, contractors in Iraq, and religious right preachers. You gotta hand it to him; he is sneering, snide, and cynical all in his first paragraph.
He goes on to cite the Assault Weapon Ban as just one example of Bush helping an unholy alliance between NRA leaders and gun makers. Then, according to him, NRA lawyers are fanning our all over the country, “…to widen the beachhead for gun laws that won't stop until every American packs a pistol as casually – and yes, as lawfully – as his cell phone.”
I don’t know if NRA lawyers are pushing these laws, but I if not, I sure wish they would. Why shouldn’t law-abiding Americans be able to pack a pistol anywhere a police officer can pack one? If Van Deerlin could hear me now, his jaw would drop and his eyes would bug out. He couldn’t fathom that many of us think that carrying a concealed pistol for self-defense is a self-evident right. No, I imagine that he believes every "right-thinking person" understands how absurd it is to carry a gun—until that person finds out why he or she needs one.
He bashes Florida’s recently enacted “Castle Doctrine,” which states that if a reasonable person feels his or her life is in danger there is no special requirement to retreat from that danger. You can meet it with deadly force. Van Deerlin exaggerates the law into a license to murder anyone and a get-out-of-jail free card, “No court henceforth will have a right to convict, thanks to new rules that Gov. Jeb Bush was happy to sign into law. "I felt threatened" is all a judge or jury need hear to acquit.” Not close at all Mr. Van Deerlin, and one hopes you find treatment for that reading comprehension problem you’re exhibiting here. But, then again, I guess an accurate account of Florida’s new law wouldn’t serve his purposes.
He then describes efforts in other states to ease or revoke laws on carrying concealed weapons in places that serve alcohol (Ravenwood finds an error in his linking Virginia’s Citizen’s Defense League with NRA). Here Van Deerlin reveals just how little he regards Americans who subject themselves to FBI checks, criminal history checks, testing, training and everything else one must do in most states to carry a gun legally. To paraphrase, he believes armed Americans would let a chef know his food was inedible with a bullet. How insulting, how typically elitist and snobbish. How very stereotypical of an editorialist writing about gun owners.
He closes with two paragraphs. In one, he states NRA is on a roll and mentioned NRA’s convention Bill and I attended in April. The final paragraph ends with a snarky statement tying gun owners and gun homicides together. But, he can’t understand that the two don’t go together. Very few murderers have ever joined NRA, got a concealed weapon permit, got a curio and relics license, and took other steps that so many gun owners go through today.
Van Deerlin’s chief problem is shared by so many others in his profession. They are ignorant about gun owners and they don’t want to learn. They’ve received wisdom from on high that gun owners want to shoot at anyone who looks different from them. He needs to pull his head out of his
If he did he would discover that gun owners have historically low accident rates, that concealed carry licensees don’t act like movie cowboys, and that blood hasn’t stained our streets with the end of the Assault Weapons ban. Still, I doubt he'll change his mind. He likes his sarcastic little tissue of lies more than the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)