So last night (the 29th) I went into my work to check my schedule and ensure that I could attend the North County Calguns.net Shooting Trip and while checking my schedule I was strapped and had no issues. A set of regulars came by and chatted with me and said how cool it was that I am open carrying. Gotta love support.
Then tonight, I met with some friends at Macaroni Grill for an impromptu birthday dinner. We waited in the lobby for about 40min for a table and only one person made a vocal announcement about me packing, everyone else was "meh" about it. Same deal on the way out.
Well, that's about it. I might go have a beer with another friend of mine. Until next time.
-N8
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
LA DA MEMO ON OPEN CARRY!
So this got posted up by hoffmang on calguns.net on his website. I am so excited by this memo, I can hardly contain myself. It is from the Los Angles District Attorney's office and it was sent to all LEO and LEA personnel.
This document is linked in the "Essential Links" side bar! Click here for quicker access.
WOO HOO!
This document is linked in the "Essential Links" side bar! Click here for quicker access.
WOO HOO!
Monday, December 22, 2008
For you Mustangworld.com viewers
So I have been reading the thread that you guys started on open carry over on mustangworld.com (Link here) and I would like to link you guys to a few of my blog posts so you can inform yourselves better of the open carry movement. I would post such a thing on mustangworld but I have not had my account approved yet :(
Here is my 1st blog post and original opening statement.
Someone said it is badass to carry a revolver. Well boys, I do!
This is a very well written reason why we open carry. Not my own words, Q&A format.
Just to answer a few other comments/remarks about open carry.
-While open carrying unloaded is kind of lame, it is the only real way of legally bearing arms in this semi-socialist state. It is not preferred, but it is what we have and I and others are doing what we can, with what we have, where we are. This is not some attempt to scare soccer moms nor to aggravate policemen, this is about exercising what rights we have in an attempt not to lose them entirely. California is always at the tip of some asinine gun legislation and by fostering the spirit of the 2nd amendment to those less inclined to gun knowledge is a sure way to spread the word against these regulations. We need more friends, not less.
-While I would prefer to have a CCW permit that allows for both conceal and open carry, the issuance and maintenance policies of California and the issuing sheriffs, including San Diego's, are reprehensible at best and for the moment, unchangeable. Until Nordyke is brought to the head of the issue then we can't do much in the way of reform.
-There are probably other things that I could articulate but as of right now I am a little hungry.
With that, fellow brethren and keepers of the flame, let us not go forth and project disdain and scorn upon those that desire to be sheepdogs instead of sheep, to fight for what is right instead of cowering behind closed doors and hoping that you will not be noticed.
As my older brother Sam once posted on Calguns.net
"Too many of us are scuttling along the bottom of the ocean of life, hoping to God that if we're quiet enough and inconspicuous enough, the state won't totally destroy the rest of our rights before we leave this planet.
Not me." -elsensei
Another good quote by Justice William O. Douglas:
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will" — Justice William O. Douglas
I look forward to commentary and discussion.
Carry on!
-N8
Here is my 1st blog post and original opening statement.
Someone said it is badass to carry a revolver. Well boys, I do!
This is a very well written reason why we open carry. Not my own words, Q&A format.
Just to answer a few other comments/remarks about open carry.
-While open carrying unloaded is kind of lame, it is the only real way of legally bearing arms in this semi-socialist state. It is not preferred, but it is what we have and I and others are doing what we can, with what we have, where we are. This is not some attempt to scare soccer moms nor to aggravate policemen, this is about exercising what rights we have in an attempt not to lose them entirely. California is always at the tip of some asinine gun legislation and by fostering the spirit of the 2nd amendment to those less inclined to gun knowledge is a sure way to spread the word against these regulations. We need more friends, not less.
-While I would prefer to have a CCW permit that allows for both conceal and open carry, the issuance and maintenance policies of California and the issuing sheriffs, including San Diego's, are reprehensible at best and for the moment, unchangeable. Until Nordyke is brought to the head of the issue then we can't do much in the way of reform.
-There are probably other things that I could articulate but as of right now I am a little hungry.
With that, fellow brethren and keepers of the flame, let us not go forth and project disdain and scorn upon those that desire to be sheepdogs instead of sheep, to fight for what is right instead of cowering behind closed doors and hoping that you will not be noticed.
As my older brother Sam once posted on Calguns.net
"Too many of us are scuttling along the bottom of the ocean of life, hoping to God that if we're quiet enough and inconspicuous enough, the state won't totally destroy the rest of our rights before we leave this planet.
Not me." -elsensei
Another good quote by Justice William O. Douglas:
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will" — Justice William O. Douglas
I look forward to commentary and discussion.
Carry on!
-N8
Sunday, December 21, 2008
My Busy Day!
Well, I had a fairly prolific shopping day with my brother and sister and at every location possible I had my Tracker strapped to my side. Here is a rundown of my day
After I went to Sunday Mass, I headed back home, changed into normal clothes and hopped into my car with my brother and sister, OJ and Ashley, to go to Fry's Electronics in San Marcos to check out digital picture frames for the primary birthgiver (my Mom). The whole event was uneventful to say the least. My sister thinks I am dumb for doing it but she doesn't get the point of exercising one's rights quite yet. Oh well, it happens.
After being disappointed by Fry's wide yet totally crappy selection of digital picture frames, we headed over to Best Buy across the street to see what was going on over there, though it came to pass as yet another shopping disappointment. I nearly bought a Sony voice recorder to replace the one I am borrowing from my friend but I want to learn more on the specifications first so I passed. Overall, uneventful.
Feeling a bit hungry, we hopped on the 78 and exited Nordahl to go to a hole-in-the-wall sushi place. However, that place was totally packed so we went next door to a taco shop for some good roasted chicken. However, Ashley didn't want to eat there so then we got back in the car and I placed the Tracker on the center console and drove across the street to another sushi place, which was closed. FINALLY, we decided on Rubio's and actually ordered food. This event, like all others, was eventless. No one seemed to notice and if they did they said nothing. I sat right next to a father and daughter having lunch and after the initial glance they just continued their conversation about Christmas.
After we finished our respective burritos, we walked over to the Tmobile store so OJ could show Ashley the G1 Google phone, but alas! No working example was to be had! We left within a few minutes.
We then went to Costco to pick up a few things but since I cannot carry in there due to their policy I just wore my holster.
The last three stops at Target, World Market and Albertsons (all near Valley Parkway) were done without OCing though I did have my holster on like I did in Costco. I hate that 1000' rule, I pray that it gets done away with soon!
Well, I am going to go try to cheer my friend up by watching A Muppet Christmas with her. Freaking love classic Christmas movies!
Also, thanks to whomever posted my blog on Mustangworld.com for doing so, I always love knowing that my blog is getting out there!
Sincerely,
N8
After I went to Sunday Mass, I headed back home, changed into normal clothes and hopped into my car with my brother and sister, OJ and Ashley, to go to Fry's Electronics in San Marcos to check out digital picture frames for the primary birthgiver (my Mom). The whole event was uneventful to say the least. My sister thinks I am dumb for doing it but she doesn't get the point of exercising one's rights quite yet. Oh well, it happens.
After being disappointed by Fry's wide yet totally crappy selection of digital picture frames, we headed over to Best Buy across the street to see what was going on over there, though it came to pass as yet another shopping disappointment. I nearly bought a Sony voice recorder to replace the one I am borrowing from my friend but I want to learn more on the specifications first so I passed. Overall, uneventful.
Feeling a bit hungry, we hopped on the 78 and exited Nordahl to go to a hole-in-the-wall sushi place. However, that place was totally packed so we went next door to a taco shop for some good roasted chicken. However, Ashley didn't want to eat there so then we got back in the car and I placed the Tracker on the center console and drove across the street to another sushi place, which was closed. FINALLY, we decided on Rubio's and actually ordered food. This event, like all others, was eventless. No one seemed to notice and if they did they said nothing. I sat right next to a father and daughter having lunch and after the initial glance they just continued their conversation about Christmas.
After we finished our respective burritos, we walked over to the Tmobile store so OJ could show Ashley the G1 Google phone, but alas! No working example was to be had! We left within a few minutes.
We then went to Costco to pick up a few things but since I cannot carry in there due to their policy I just wore my holster.
The last three stops at Target, World Market and Albertsons (all near Valley Parkway) were done without OCing though I did have my holster on like I did in Costco. I hate that 1000' rule, I pray that it gets done away with soon!
Well, I am going to go try to cheer my friend up by watching A Muppet Christmas with her. Freaking love classic Christmas movies!
Also, thanks to whomever posted my blog on Mustangworld.com for doing so, I always love knowing that my blog is getting out there!
Sincerely,
N8
Friday, December 19, 2008
Shooting trip breakfast
While waiting for my friend and his dad to arrive at our rendezvous point at Big 5 so we could caravan up to the hallowed shooting grounds of the Lake Wholford shooting range, I decided to grab a bite to eat at Spire's Family Restaurant across the parking lot. Per the usual trend, I had no issues while carrying and the old folks didn't seem to really mind, not even the older gentlemen sitting two seats away. The waitress didn't even see the voice recorder going while I ate my breakfast.
Highlight of the back page of the NC Times...Burger King now has a fragrance out, with a hint of meat in it. Freaking weird!
Well, that's all for now. Time to watch an episode of House and turn in.
-N8
Highlight of the back page of the NC Times...Burger King now has a fragrance out, with a hint of meat in it. Freaking weird!
Well, that's all for now. Time to watch an episode of House and turn in.
-N8
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Turners and Roadhouse
So I went today with my friend JP to transfer his first gun, a Ruger Single Six, to his name at Turner's San Marcos and I open carried while there. While waiting during the paperwork process, one employee (kinda looks like Clark Kent) said "Dude, you're printing!" to which I said, "Yeah, it's supposed to!" I then chatted up the other guy behind the counter that was doing the paperwork (can't remember his name, but he is totally cool!) about my stories, some of the laws, etc. and we have a good laugh about a few things. One customer overheard me talking about OCing and asked me about some of the laws and I filled him in on the basics and gave him my blog address and told him that he could find more of the legal stuff on the side bar.
After that was finished (and I molested two CZ-75s), JP and I went over to the Original Roadhouse across the street and I did my thing over there. JP said he was a little nervous about it and told me to go in ahead of him to be safe but no one really noticed and our meal went without issue.
Time to clean up a few things. Good night all!
-N8
After that was finished (and I molested two CZ-75s), JP and I went over to the Original Roadhouse across the street and I did my thing over there. JP said he was a little nervous about it and told me to go in ahead of him to be safe but no one really noticed and our meal went without issue.
Time to clean up a few things. Good night all!
-N8
Friday, December 12, 2008
UCSDPD WEAPON SEARCH!!!
So I went to UCSD on 12/5/08 to undergo my orientation and I was detained and searched by the UCSDPD because someone said that I was carrying a handgun on campus! Completely bogus and a really great way to welcome a new student to UCSD. Here we go...
During our orientation, we all went upstairs in the Price Center to see all the clubs and services offered to UCSD students. One of the tables there was the Sexual Assault and Rape Center (SARC). Being the curious person that I am, I engaged a woman by the name of Cynthia in a discussion about the most recent rape and I asked her questions about the new memo going around about banning certain weapons on campus and her feeling on it. After that little icebreaker, we had about a 20 minute conversation on how LEOs have no legal compulsion per the multiple Supreme Court rulings to protect one's life (came as a shocker to her, that poor social worker!), UCSD's R.A.D. (Rape Aggression Defense) program for women, how banning weapons on campus only makes it easier for criminals to perpetrate crimes than it already is, etc. Eventually, I began to explain to her gun laws and I imparted some of my OC stories as well.
Concluding this conversation, Cynthia asked me if I would like to be contacted as a a consultant to the policy makers for the college, to which I responded "Yes!" and gave my Calguns.net handle, my email address and my blog address for her to peruse later
1.5 grueling hours (spent in orientation) later, orientation was finally concluded. Walking down to the Student Center with our orientation group while on my way to my car, I was confronted by Officer Larry Darwent, who pulled me aside and asked to talk with me. When I asked what was wrong, I was told to not make a scene and that I knew what was going on. Still completely clueless, he said that he needed to search me for weapons and told me to put my hands behind my back. Upon complying with that request, I was given a Terry search and cleared. Once released, I was informed that a member of the college informed them that she had reason to believe I was carrying a weapon, particularly a handgun. I suspect that it was the woman that I was talking with (Cynthia) that gave me the Judas kiss, because the piece of paper where I wrote down my contact information was with the printout of my driver's license. After my search was completed, I was told that I could leave but I decided to talk with the officer.
After the Terry search, two more officers showed up and joined in the conversation. Apparently, they had checked my arrest record and pistol registration before they made contact with me. I had a chat with them about open carry and answered one officer's questions about my activities to humor myself, since I am pretty sure he was trying to size me up on what I know of the law (In the end, he got totally schooled.) I asked them about some of the other weapons policies, particularly knives, to which they proceeded to misquote 626.10, saying that it was illegal to have a knife over 2.5", but I have since proven (via e-mail to Larry) that the penal code dictates that one cannot have have a FIXED BLADE over 2.5" and there is no length limit on folding knives on California university campuses.
Here is the police report (just received today)
This is an artist's rendering of the UCSD rapist. Apparently, the call came in as that I looked like the UCSD rapist (AFTER ADVOCATING FOR ARMED WOMEN ON CAMPUS!), hence the "possible 261" code. Next to it is what I look like (a good photo, from what I have been told)
Letter that was sent to Larry Darwent once I got home from UCSD
Lessons learned about this incident...
A) Freaking know your 4th amendment rights! I did not exercise mine and I should have. I was kind of out of my element and didn't know what to do. Next time, I will be prepared.
B) Carry a voice recorder, even when not OCing. That way, I can prove that these guys potentially violated my rights. It isn't that I have anything to hide, it is just the principle of the matter.
Now, before everyone starts (potentially) posting with "Why would you talk about guns at school?" or any other such nonsense, let me tell you now that I made absolutely no threats or anything to Cynthia about me possibly carrying a gun. The only mention I made about carrying a gun is the fact that I did it off-campus and I wrote my stories up in a blog.
As usual, I am open for commentary both here and on calguns.net (THREAD HERE) and I will do my best to answer your questions, respond to comments, etc. While you have not experienced the writing abilities of my brother Sam quite yet, I will let you know beforehand that I am not as eloquent as he is nor is my passive memory as detailed so therefore the best details come out when I am asked questions.
With that, I must depart for work. I look forward to your commentary!
During our orientation, we all went upstairs in the Price Center to see all the clubs and services offered to UCSD students. One of the tables there was the Sexual Assault and Rape Center (SARC). Being the curious person that I am, I engaged a woman by the name of Cynthia in a discussion about the most recent rape and I asked her questions about the new memo going around about banning certain weapons on campus and her feeling on it. After that little icebreaker, we had about a 20 minute conversation on how LEOs have no legal compulsion per the multiple Supreme Court rulings to protect one's life (came as a shocker to her, that poor social worker!), UCSD's R.A.D. (Rape Aggression Defense) program for women, how banning weapons on campus only makes it easier for criminals to perpetrate crimes than it already is, etc. Eventually, I began to explain to her gun laws and I imparted some of my OC stories as well.
Concluding this conversation, Cynthia asked me if I would like to be contacted as a a consultant to the policy makers for the college, to which I responded "Yes!" and gave my Calguns.net handle, my email address and my blog address for her to peruse later
1.5 grueling hours (spent in orientation) later, orientation was finally concluded. Walking down to the Student Center with our orientation group while on my way to my car, I was confronted by Officer Larry Darwent, who pulled me aside and asked to talk with me. When I asked what was wrong, I was told to not make a scene and that I knew what was going on. Still completely clueless, he said that he needed to search me for weapons and told me to put my hands behind my back. Upon complying with that request, I was given a Terry search and cleared. Once released, I was informed that a member of the college informed them that she had reason to believe I was carrying a weapon, particularly a handgun. I suspect that it was the woman that I was talking with (Cynthia) that gave me the Judas kiss, because the piece of paper where I wrote down my contact information was with the printout of my driver's license. After my search was completed, I was told that I could leave but I decided to talk with the officer.
After the Terry search, two more officers showed up and joined in the conversation. Apparently, they had checked my arrest record and pistol registration before they made contact with me. I had a chat with them about open carry and answered one officer's questions about my activities to humor myself, since I am pretty sure he was trying to size me up on what I know of the law (In the end, he got totally schooled.) I asked them about some of the other weapons policies, particularly knives, to which they proceeded to misquote 626.10, saying that it was illegal to have a knife over 2.5", but I have since proven (via e-mail to Larry) that the penal code dictates that one cannot have have a FIXED BLADE over 2.5" and there is no length limit on folding knives on California university campuses.
Here is the police report (just received today)
This is an artist's rendering of the UCSD rapist. Apparently, the call came in as that I looked like the UCSD rapist (AFTER ADVOCATING FOR ARMED WOMEN ON CAMPUS!), hence the "possible 261" code. Next to it is what I look like (a good photo, from what I have been told)
Letter that was sent to Larry Darwent once I got home from UCSD
Lessons learned about this incident...
A) Freaking know your 4th amendment rights! I did not exercise mine and I should have. I was kind of out of my element and didn't know what to do. Next time, I will be prepared.
B) Carry a voice recorder, even when not OCing. That way, I can prove that these guys potentially violated my rights. It isn't that I have anything to hide, it is just the principle of the matter.
Now, before everyone starts (potentially) posting with "Why would you talk about guns at school?" or any other such nonsense, let me tell you now that I made absolutely no threats or anything to Cynthia about me possibly carrying a gun. The only mention I made about carrying a gun is the fact that I did it off-campus and I wrote my stories up in a blog.
As usual, I am open for commentary both here and on calguns.net (THREAD HERE) and I will do my best to answer your questions, respond to comments, etc. While you have not experienced the writing abilities of my brother Sam quite yet, I will let you know beforehand that I am not as eloquent as he is nor is my passive memory as detailed so therefore the best details come out when I am asked questions.
With that, I must depart for work. I look forward to your commentary!
Oil change
I went over to Mossy Nissan today and experienced no issues while open carrying for an hour in the waiting room while reading a few things on my kick-ass Kindle. Afterwards I came home and had a bite to eat and then typed this blog.
Off to pick up my sister!
Off to pick up my sister!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Intrafamilial Debate (II)- Response
This response was sent in by a fellow calgunner by the name of Nick and I decided to post this as a blog post since posting as a comment would negate the italics and other editing measures that are present in this response.
With that, here it is.
“I think its an infringement of my rights to tell me that I NEED to carry a gun to protect myself, I am supposed to be paying people like the police to do that for me. If everyone should have guns, then I should save some tax money shouldn't I?. If I told Fox news that, they would call me "soft on crime."”
Well, to state the obvious, the police, even with the best of intentions, can’t possibly be there for every single individual. They can clean up the mess and find the responsible, yes, but other than that, it’s chancy. Moreover, in many, if not most states, including California, it was determined that the police doesn’t have the obligation to protect an individual, just the society as a whole. Which doesn’t really help the individual potential victim of a crime all that much.
Another problem with this expectation is the spirit of depending on the government, as opposed to striving for individual independence. A society of independent individuals can be great, as this country has proven over the first 100-150 years of its existence. The societies where people depend on their government… Well, do I really need to say more on this?
As far as saving the tax money on the police, it’s also not a good idea. While they can’t necessarily protect one directly, they do a lot to protect one indirectly by putting criminals behind bars, keeping public order (and as such keeping the society from getting into a state similar to that of New Orleans after Katrina, which, armed or not, makes the danger to an individual much greater), and deterring many crimes just by being present. Personally, I don’t begrudge my tax money to the police (well, I would to some departments, such as NOPD, but luckily I don’t live in any such place).
Also, saying that you need to carry a gun for self-protection, which of your rights does it infringe on? Someone other than the government saying this to you doesn’t have any power over you other than that of an advice, which you can either heed or not, as you see fit.
How do we stop 4 and 5 year olds from being caught in the crossfire of gang shootings? Obviously they cannot carry guns or protect themselves, and I think we'll all agree that even if these kids are safely in their houses, sometimes stray bullets come through windows and kill them, obviously this cannot be completely blamed on their parents. I would like a solution from the people on this forum that address this problem.
Well, first of all, we can’t prevent 4 and 5 year old kids from being caught in the crossfire of gang shootings 100%. No matter what you do, you’ll never eliminate 100% of the crime. Nothing really works 100% in this world, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover, one has to consider the cost of doing things. For instance, Vlad Tepes prided himself on eliminating theft in his domain. Do I need to detail how he achieved such a feat? Just a hint, it had to do with mass executions in a very gruesome fashion. Moreover, he still PRIDED himself in it, it doesn’t mean theft was non-existent there.
Now, on this specific topic, first of all, the guns used in such crimes are usually obtained illegally, and whatever “gun control” laws are passed to combat it, they will apply to legally owned guns. By definition, law-abiding citizens are those who abide by the laws, and criminals are those who break them. So, a criminal willing to shoot someone will be stopped by the fact that the law prohibits him from having a gun?
Besides, even attempting to deal with the criminals’ guns would still be fighting the instrument, and not the cause of the crime. The cause being that gangs exist, and can operate without much of a deterrent.
The various steps that could be taken to deal with this would be to promote (and demand) greater integration of immigrants and various minorities into our society (as it is we promote the opposite), abandoning political correctness which prevents us from doing so, arming the population so that committing a crime becomes a dangerous proposition, changing the laws in a way that doesn’t punish people for defending themselves, get the government out of the family, so that families can exist (as gangsters come from dysfunctional families more often than not), ensure that the punishment matches the crime (and that includes death penalty), the list goes on.
There is some serious logic missing from the discussion. I'm just asking questions here, and they seem to be crucifying me. Also, I don't live in downtown Chicago. I live in a nice neighborhood with virtually zero crime, and I'm sure not every household has a gun. I love guns, I love the technology, I love the history, I'm not anti-gun by any means.
Well, tempers tend to run hot in such a debate. Part of living among humans. Although a bit more civility would be nice, I agree.
I live in a nice neighborhood which until recently had very little crime. It’s changing though, thanks to a liberal mayor and political correctness. The criminals discovered that nice safe neighborhoods are safe to commit crimes, too, as the people and the police are less prepared.
I'm sure everyone heard the story about the 8 year old who killed his parents and his neighbor with a .22 rifle 2-3 weeks ago. I'm sure that if he didn't have access to that rifle, they would still be alive right now (its a lot harder for an 8 year old to kill his parents with a knife then it is with a gun). Obviously that kid was messed up, and mentally unstable people will always find a way to kill each other, but seriously... it was pretty easy for that 8 year old. I don't think it should be that easy... this is where my questions come from. Incidents like that make me question everyone's right to own a gun. Obviously the parents are the blame for not teaching him and not keeping the gun locked up, but honestly, some parents are as irresponsible as 3-year old, and I wish we could say "alright, all the responsible citizens can have guns, and all the stupid ones can't" but that isn't what people on this forum are advocating.
Well, there’re a few issues here, but first I’d like to say that accidents, mistakes, etc. will ALWAYS happen. It’s simply impossible to prevent them 100%, and it’s dangerous and detrimental to the society to even try. Preventing them within reason is what the society should strive for. Which is why I have the problem even with the title of the No Child Left Behind act, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
I agree, if the kid in question didn’t have the access to that rifle, this wouldn’t have happened. And he wasn’t supposed to gain access to that rifle. In California, there’s a law saying that if there are kids in the house, guns have to be locked up. Like with any law, there will be people breaking it, but the law itself (and its proper enforcement) are good enough to deal with this issue. Trying to do more would only mean more government intrusion into the family without much of an improvement.
Preventing the good people from having guns (or driving cars, or… well, you get the idea) because of the few idiots/miscreants doesn’t sound like something that promotes a good society, or a sustainable society in the first place. It seems like that’s where we’re heading though. Also, call me callous, but we keep trying to eliminate natural selection. And to remove people’s responsibility for their own actions (and the consequences). While the former is a noble goal, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I also don’t think that the cost to society is worth it.
When you say "everyone should have the right to own a gun" I get confused, because time and time again, we are shown that some people just can't handle it.
Yep, and some people can’t handle driving a car, flying a plane, or using a gas stove. Humans are imperfect, and we have to recognize such incidents for what they are.
How do we differentiate between the people who should have the right and the people who shouldn't?
Well, the above should’ve addressed it. I can only add that there’re common sense provisions already in place (such as not allowing criminals or mentally ill people have guns). Beyond that, I don’t think any government involvement would do any good, both to prevent such incidents, and as far as costs to the society are concerned.
Second of all, I agree that everyone should have the right, but its just a hard problem to fix ya know? Obviously if innocent people get killed, and cops get shot while trying to defend themselves, there is a problem with our current setup. If the guys on the forums don't believe the system is flawed, then maybe that is where our different paths of thinking emerge from.
Once again, no amount of legislating will make the society perfect. If nothing else, it’ll make the society crappy to live in, just look at California. Moreover, I’m not sure I’d want to live in such a “perfect” society. Criminals will always have weapons, including guns, and our task should be to protect the non-criminals and to make committing a crime hard. I don’t see how taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and punishing them for self-defense achieves either one of these goals.
It rather reminds me of the debate of eliminating collateral damage (a.k.a. innocent bystanders) on the battlefield. A noble goal, but impossible to achieve (and the attempt to achieve it without common sense, as usually happens, lead to severe costs to society, once again).
You can post it if you want, but obviously I didn't expect to change minds, I just wanted my questions answered, and no one has been able to tell me how to give everyone guns, but keep cops and 4 year olds from being shot to death.
I think, the above addresses it. Also, approaching such matters only from emotional standpoint doesn’t usually lead to any good. To give an example, the last Russian tzar was quite a nice man, much nicer than most of his predecessors. That led to the suffering and deaths of tens of millions.
If people on the forum don't think that those deaths are a problem, and that there isn't a problem with guns in this country, then that is where we differ.
Once again, not all problems can and should be addressed 100%, and this what this seems to call for.
------
Thank you for your response Nick, you have done an excellent job.
Carry on!
-N8
With that, here it is.
“I think its an infringement of my rights to tell me that I NEED to carry a gun to protect myself, I am supposed to be paying people like the police to do that for me. If everyone should have guns, then I should save some tax money shouldn't I?. If I told Fox news that, they would call me "soft on crime."”
Well, to state the obvious, the police, even with the best of intentions, can’t possibly be there for every single individual. They can clean up the mess and find the responsible, yes, but other than that, it’s chancy. Moreover, in many, if not most states, including California, it was determined that the police doesn’t have the obligation to protect an individual, just the society as a whole. Which doesn’t really help the individual potential victim of a crime all that much.
Another problem with this expectation is the spirit of depending on the government, as opposed to striving for individual independence. A society of independent individuals can be great, as this country has proven over the first 100-150 years of its existence. The societies where people depend on their government… Well, do I really need to say more on this?
As far as saving the tax money on the police, it’s also not a good idea. While they can’t necessarily protect one directly, they do a lot to protect one indirectly by putting criminals behind bars, keeping public order (and as such keeping the society from getting into a state similar to that of New Orleans after Katrina, which, armed or not, makes the danger to an individual much greater), and deterring many crimes just by being present. Personally, I don’t begrudge my tax money to the police (well, I would to some departments, such as NOPD, but luckily I don’t live in any such place).
Also, saying that you need to carry a gun for self-protection, which of your rights does it infringe on? Someone other than the government saying this to you doesn’t have any power over you other than that of an advice, which you can either heed or not, as you see fit.
How do we stop 4 and 5 year olds from being caught in the crossfire of gang shootings? Obviously they cannot carry guns or protect themselves, and I think we'll all agree that even if these kids are safely in their houses, sometimes stray bullets come through windows and kill them, obviously this cannot be completely blamed on their parents. I would like a solution from the people on this forum that address this problem.
Well, first of all, we can’t prevent 4 and 5 year old kids from being caught in the crossfire of gang shootings 100%. No matter what you do, you’ll never eliminate 100% of the crime. Nothing really works 100% in this world, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover, one has to consider the cost of doing things. For instance, Vlad Tepes prided himself on eliminating theft in his domain. Do I need to detail how he achieved such a feat? Just a hint, it had to do with mass executions in a very gruesome fashion. Moreover, he still PRIDED himself in it, it doesn’t mean theft was non-existent there.
Now, on this specific topic, first of all, the guns used in such crimes are usually obtained illegally, and whatever “gun control” laws are passed to combat it, they will apply to legally owned guns. By definition, law-abiding citizens are those who abide by the laws, and criminals are those who break them. So, a criminal willing to shoot someone will be stopped by the fact that the law prohibits him from having a gun?
Besides, even attempting to deal with the criminals’ guns would still be fighting the instrument, and not the cause of the crime. The cause being that gangs exist, and can operate without much of a deterrent.
The various steps that could be taken to deal with this would be to promote (and demand) greater integration of immigrants and various minorities into our society (as it is we promote the opposite), abandoning political correctness which prevents us from doing so, arming the population so that committing a crime becomes a dangerous proposition, changing the laws in a way that doesn’t punish people for defending themselves, get the government out of the family, so that families can exist (as gangsters come from dysfunctional families more often than not), ensure that the punishment matches the crime (and that includes death penalty), the list goes on.
There is some serious logic missing from the discussion. I'm just asking questions here, and they seem to be crucifying me. Also, I don't live in downtown Chicago. I live in a nice neighborhood with virtually zero crime, and I'm sure not every household has a gun. I love guns, I love the technology, I love the history, I'm not anti-gun by any means.
Well, tempers tend to run hot in such a debate. Part of living among humans. Although a bit more civility would be nice, I agree.
I live in a nice neighborhood which until recently had very little crime. It’s changing though, thanks to a liberal mayor and political correctness. The criminals discovered that nice safe neighborhoods are safe to commit crimes, too, as the people and the police are less prepared.
I'm sure everyone heard the story about the 8 year old who killed his parents and his neighbor with a .22 rifle 2-3 weeks ago. I'm sure that if he didn't have access to that rifle, they would still be alive right now (its a lot harder for an 8 year old to kill his parents with a knife then it is with a gun). Obviously that kid was messed up, and mentally unstable people will always find a way to kill each other, but seriously... it was pretty easy for that 8 year old. I don't think it should be that easy... this is where my questions come from. Incidents like that make me question everyone's right to own a gun. Obviously the parents are the blame for not teaching him and not keeping the gun locked up, but honestly, some parents are as irresponsible as 3-year old, and I wish we could say "alright, all the responsible citizens can have guns, and all the stupid ones can't" but that isn't what people on this forum are advocating.
Well, there’re a few issues here, but first I’d like to say that accidents, mistakes, etc. will ALWAYS happen. It’s simply impossible to prevent them 100%, and it’s dangerous and detrimental to the society to even try. Preventing them within reason is what the society should strive for. Which is why I have the problem even with the title of the No Child Left Behind act, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
I agree, if the kid in question didn’t have the access to that rifle, this wouldn’t have happened. And he wasn’t supposed to gain access to that rifle. In California, there’s a law saying that if there are kids in the house, guns have to be locked up. Like with any law, there will be people breaking it, but the law itself (and its proper enforcement) are good enough to deal with this issue. Trying to do more would only mean more government intrusion into the family without much of an improvement.
Preventing the good people from having guns (or driving cars, or… well, you get the idea) because of the few idiots/miscreants doesn’t sound like something that promotes a good society, or a sustainable society in the first place. It seems like that’s where we’re heading though. Also, call me callous, but we keep trying to eliminate natural selection. And to remove people’s responsibility for their own actions (and the consequences). While the former is a noble goal, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I also don’t think that the cost to society is worth it.
When you say "everyone should have the right to own a gun" I get confused, because time and time again, we are shown that some people just can't handle it.
Yep, and some people can’t handle driving a car, flying a plane, or using a gas stove. Humans are imperfect, and we have to recognize such incidents for what they are.
How do we differentiate between the people who should have the right and the people who shouldn't?
Well, the above should’ve addressed it. I can only add that there’re common sense provisions already in place (such as not allowing criminals or mentally ill people have guns). Beyond that, I don’t think any government involvement would do any good, both to prevent such incidents, and as far as costs to the society are concerned.
Second of all, I agree that everyone should have the right, but its just a hard problem to fix ya know? Obviously if innocent people get killed, and cops get shot while trying to defend themselves, there is a problem with our current setup. If the guys on the forums don't believe the system is flawed, then maybe that is where our different paths of thinking emerge from.
Once again, no amount of legislating will make the society perfect. If nothing else, it’ll make the society crappy to live in, just look at California. Moreover, I’m not sure I’d want to live in such a “perfect” society. Criminals will always have weapons, including guns, and our task should be to protect the non-criminals and to make committing a crime hard. I don’t see how taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and punishing them for self-defense achieves either one of these goals.
It rather reminds me of the debate of eliminating collateral damage (a.k.a. innocent bystanders) on the battlefield. A noble goal, but impossible to achieve (and the attempt to achieve it without common sense, as usually happens, lead to severe costs to society, once again).
You can post it if you want, but obviously I didn't expect to change minds, I just wanted my questions answered, and no one has been able to tell me how to give everyone guns, but keep cops and 4 year olds from being shot to death.
I think, the above addresses it. Also, approaching such matters only from emotional standpoint doesn’t usually lead to any good. To give an example, the last Russian tzar was quite a nice man, much nicer than most of his predecessors. That led to the suffering and deaths of tens of millions.
If people on the forum don't think that those deaths are a problem, and that there isn't a problem with guns in this country, then that is where we differ.
Once again, not all problems can and should be addressed 100%, and this what this seems to call for.
------
Thank you for your response Nick, you have done an excellent job.
Carry on!
-N8
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Intrafamilial Debate
So I sent an article, The Life and Death Cost of Gun Control over to my Chicagoan cousin Andrew this morning for his perusal, as we have been discussing the merits and demerits of gun control as of late. In response to this article, he sent me the following excerpt via email...
I think its an infringement of my rights to tell me that I NEED to carry a gun to protect myself, I am supposed to be paying people like the police to do that for me. If everyone should have guns, then I should save some tax money shouldn't I?. If I told Fox news that, they would call me "soft on crime."
Ah, the conundrum....
See if your blog followers will support that idea :)
So what have you, fellow readers? What do you think of this idea? Most of you all know my viewpoint on the matter but I (more so, my cousin) am interested in seeing your viewpoints.
Post comments here or on the calguns.net thread referring to this blog post!
UPDATE FROM ANDREW (the cousin)
I have re-read the documents and would like you to post this new quote from me.
"The previous cases you informed me about more than prove your point, and you've convinced me. I agree that police have no duty to protect you as an individual. I need some questions answered though...
How do we stop 4 and 5 year olds from being caught in the crossfire of gang shootings? Obviously they cannot carry guns or protect themselves, and I think we'll all agree that even if these kids are safely in their houses, sometimes stray bullets come through windows and kill them, obviously this cannot be completely blamed on their parents. I would like a solution from the people on this forum that address this problem.
Thanks man,
Talk to you later.
Lets all comment on this one now!
UPDATE: More argument fodder
There is some serious logic missing from the discussion. I'm just asking questions here, and they seem to be crucifying me. Also, I don't live in downtown Chicago. I live in a nice neighborhood with virtually zero crime, and I'm sure not every household has a gun. I love guns, I love the technology, I love the history, I'm not anti-gun by any means.
I'm sure everyone heard the story about the 8 year old who killed his parents and his neighbor with a .22 rifle 2-3 weeks ago. I'm sure that if he didn't have access to that rifle, they would still be alive right now (its a lot harder for an 8 year old to kill his parents with a knife then it is with a gun). Obviously that kid was messed up, and mentally unstable people will always find a way to kill each other, but seriously... it was pretty easy for that 8 year old. I don't think it should be that easy... this is where my questions come from. Incidents like that make me question everyone's right to own a gun. Obviously the parents are the blame for not teaching him and not keeping the gun locked up, but honestly, some parents are as irresponsible as 3-year old, and I wish we could say "alright, all the responsible citizens can have guns, and all the stupid ones can't" but that isn't what people on this forum are advocating.
When you say "everyone should have the right to own a gun" I get confused, because time and time again, we are shown that some people just can't handle it.
How do we differentiate between the people who should have the right and the people who shouldn't?
Sent in a later email...
Second of all, I agree that everyone should have the right, but its just a hard problem to fix ya know? Obviously if innocent people get killed, and cops get shot while trying to defend themselves, there is a problem with our current setup. If the guys on the forums don't believe the system is flawed, then maybe that is where our different paths of thinking emerge from.
You can post it if you want, but obviously I didn't expect to change minds, I just wanted my questions answered, and no one has been able to tell me how to give everyone guns, but keep cops and 4 year olds from being shot to death.
If people on the forum don't think that those deaths are a problem, and that there isn't a problem with guns in this country, then that is where we differ.
Let's keep this topic going. Come on everyone!
I think its an infringement of my rights to tell me that I NEED to carry a gun to protect myself, I am supposed to be paying people like the police to do that for me. If everyone should have guns, then I should save some tax money shouldn't I?. If I told Fox news that, they would call me "soft on crime."
Ah, the conundrum....
See if your blog followers will support that idea :)
So what have you, fellow readers? What do you think of this idea? Most of you all know my viewpoint on the matter but I (more so, my cousin) am interested in seeing your viewpoints.
Post comments here or on the calguns.net thread referring to this blog post!
UPDATE FROM ANDREW (the cousin)
I have re-read the documents and would like you to post this new quote from me.
"The previous cases you informed me about more than prove your point, and you've convinced me. I agree that police have no duty to protect you as an individual. I need some questions answered though...
How do we stop 4 and 5 year olds from being caught in the crossfire of gang shootings? Obviously they cannot carry guns or protect themselves, and I think we'll all agree that even if these kids are safely in their houses, sometimes stray bullets come through windows and kill them, obviously this cannot be completely blamed on their parents. I would like a solution from the people on this forum that address this problem.
Thanks man,
Talk to you later.
Lets all comment on this one now!
UPDATE: More argument fodder
There is some serious logic missing from the discussion. I'm just asking questions here, and they seem to be crucifying me. Also, I don't live in downtown Chicago. I live in a nice neighborhood with virtually zero crime, and I'm sure not every household has a gun. I love guns, I love the technology, I love the history, I'm not anti-gun by any means.
I'm sure everyone heard the story about the 8 year old who killed his parents and his neighbor with a .22 rifle 2-3 weeks ago. I'm sure that if he didn't have access to that rifle, they would still be alive right now (its a lot harder for an 8 year old to kill his parents with a knife then it is with a gun). Obviously that kid was messed up, and mentally unstable people will always find a way to kill each other, but seriously... it was pretty easy for that 8 year old. I don't think it should be that easy... this is where my questions come from. Incidents like that make me question everyone's right to own a gun. Obviously the parents are the blame for not teaching him and not keeping the gun locked up, but honestly, some parents are as irresponsible as 3-year old, and I wish we could say "alright, all the responsible citizens can have guns, and all the stupid ones can't" but that isn't what people on this forum are advocating.
When you say "everyone should have the right to own a gun" I get confused, because time and time again, we are shown that some people just can't handle it.
How do we differentiate between the people who should have the right and the people who shouldn't?
Sent in a later email...
Second of all, I agree that everyone should have the right, but its just a hard problem to fix ya know? Obviously if innocent people get killed, and cops get shot while trying to defend themselves, there is a problem with our current setup. If the guys on the forums don't believe the system is flawed, then maybe that is where our different paths of thinking emerge from.
You can post it if you want, but obviously I didn't expect to change minds, I just wanted my questions answered, and no one has been able to tell me how to give everyone guns, but keep cops and 4 year olds from being shot to death.
If people on the forum don't think that those deaths are a problem, and that there isn't a problem with guns in this country, then that is where we differ.
Let's keep this topic going. Come on everyone!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Chili's Oceanside
I stopped by Chili's Oceanside on my way to Iron Sights with a friend to get some food and I carried while there. Place was packed with people for the football game and there was no commotion. I did get eyed by one guy that was at eye-level with my sidearm but he didn't freak. Server was cute and nice and no one complained. Overall, a nice experience.
Also, please don't eat the Habanero Crispers, it makes OC spray look like green salsa ;)
-N8
Also, please don't eat the Habanero Crispers, it makes OC spray look like green salsa ;)
-N8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
