While on an online forum (reddit) I ran across a user on the firearms sub that had an idea I would like to share.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Starting the year with an economic boost.
Just before the end of 2012, the President gave a speech that praised republicans for ceding ground in the negotiations prior to the dreaded "fiscal cliff". The same speech "damned by faint praise" his own party, and made mention of the need of both, to work harder to compromise. He also stated that , personally, he would have liked to address all of the issues in one broad sweeping agreement, but that this congress was not up to that task.
Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed. The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems. (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want) What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures. The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy. (which is exactly what has happened.) The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms. These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
Small business owners profit. Distributors profit. American Manufacturing profits. The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented. A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs. (for the second time, in many cases)
Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban. This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession. But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.
Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed. The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems. (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want) What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures. The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy. (which is exactly what has happened.) The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms. These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
Small business owners profit. Distributors profit. American Manufacturing profits. The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented. A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs. (for the second time, in many cases)
Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban. This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession. But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
They all need to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress
So here we are day one, 2013. Back sometime last year we were made aware of a looming "fiscal cliff". Congress, with their usual show of bravery, and willingness to address pressing issues, opted to put off making a decision until after the election season. This is so any pain that was inflicted by a tax increase, or program cut, would happen after the selfish, greedy leeches had assured themselves another term.
To be clear, I'm calling out both parties on this. Both Democrats and Republicans voted to put off making the decision. In a speech on the last day of 2012, even the President called out all members of Congress, of every party, for failing to reach a consensus of any sort. He praised the Republicans for giving ground, but stopped short of calling out his own party for failing to. The message was there though, neither side is doing their job. Mark your calendar, I agree with a sitting President whole-heartedly on something.
So here we are on the First day of 2013. The automatic cuts, and automatic tax increases have technically taken affect. Now Congress is scrambling to pass some sort of compromise so that we aren't impacted much. A job that is many months old, many years overdue, and frankly should never have been allowed to happen to this country.
So as a service to you, I have included a link above to the Wikipedia page with the names of every member of both houses. They all need to go. None of them have done their jobs. So the next opportunity you have, vote the lazy bums out. Try voting for a dentist, or a plumber, or maybe even an engineer. We have given the rich and the lawyers, and even the rich lawyers their chance, and where are we.
Coins make better decisions when flipped, from a statistical standpoint, because they land on their edge so rarely. Congress fails to decide something every time it is presented with a choice.
I know many of you were waiting for a post about the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban". I might still write one. For now though lets go back to 1994. Prior to certain politicians defining what an "Assault Weapon" was, there was no such thing. The same rifle, with one stock option was not an "assault weapon", and with another stock option, was. No mechanical parts changed. The rifle functioned the same either way.
Those same people, wholly ignorant of firearms, save for how scared an armed, law abiding populace makes them, (food for thought) have waited in the wings for an opportunity to make another attempt at removing this right. Guys, when you lose half your base (Southern Democrats), I don't want to hear how the Republicans biased the public against you.
You are doing it to yourselves.
Just like we are, by allowing any member of Congress who was sitting in 2012 to be elected another term.
So here we are day one, 2013. Back sometime last year we were made aware of a looming "fiscal cliff". Congress, with their usual show of bravery, and willingness to address pressing issues, opted to put off making a decision until after the election season. This is so any pain that was inflicted by a tax increase, or program cut, would happen after the selfish, greedy leeches had assured themselves another term.
To be clear, I'm calling out both parties on this. Both Democrats and Republicans voted to put off making the decision. In a speech on the last day of 2012, even the President called out all members of Congress, of every party, for failing to reach a consensus of any sort. He praised the Republicans for giving ground, but stopped short of calling out his own party for failing to. The message was there though, neither side is doing their job. Mark your calendar, I agree with a sitting President whole-heartedly on something.
So here we are on the First day of 2013. The automatic cuts, and automatic tax increases have technically taken affect. Now Congress is scrambling to pass some sort of compromise so that we aren't impacted much. A job that is many months old, many years overdue, and frankly should never have been allowed to happen to this country.
So as a service to you, I have included a link above to the Wikipedia page with the names of every member of both houses. They all need to go. None of them have done their jobs. So the next opportunity you have, vote the lazy bums out. Try voting for a dentist, or a plumber, or maybe even an engineer. We have given the rich and the lawyers, and even the rich lawyers their chance, and where are we.
Coins make better decisions when flipped, from a statistical standpoint, because they land on their edge so rarely. Congress fails to decide something every time it is presented with a choice.
I know many of you were waiting for a post about the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban". I might still write one. For now though lets go back to 1994. Prior to certain politicians defining what an "Assault Weapon" was, there was no such thing. The same rifle, with one stock option was not an "assault weapon", and with another stock option, was. No mechanical parts changed. The rifle functioned the same either way.
Those same people, wholly ignorant of firearms, save for how scared an armed, law abiding populace makes them, (food for thought) have waited in the wings for an opportunity to make another attempt at removing this right. Guys, when you lose half your base (Southern Democrats), I don't want to hear how the Republicans biased the public against you.
You are doing it to yourselves.
Just like we are, by allowing any member of Congress who was sitting in 2012 to be elected another term.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Governor Quinn proposed assault weapons ban.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57484162/illinois-gov-proposes-state-assault-weapons-ban/ (1)
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
Friday, July 20, 2012
Colorado Shooting.
We have all heard about the tragedy. We all know the young man with a degree in neuroscience was a little off in the head. It is a shame that someone could do something like that. But there is a worse crime happening in its wake.
There are those (mayors of L.A. and NY notably) who are using this event, before any facts are known, as a way to further their anti-gun agenda. Demanding that the President, and the man running against him immediately declare what they are going to do about this. "How do we keep this from happening again?"
They want, essentially, the cart before the horse. We don't yet even know what exactly happened, or why this young man snapped. Or even why he booby trapped his apartment (by all appearances). Yet there are those who will use any tragedy to further their own agenda.
Why not wait, find out the facts, and then, if necessary, act. I say "if necessary" because this is obviously a determined, insane, person. No law will ever stop a determined, insane person. This type of knee jerk reaction is understandable from a grieving parent, or a wounded bystander. From a politician it is unacceptably filthy politics.
I would point out to that demand tougher laws based on the action of one person invites a host of troubles. I will refrain from my normal, condescendingly simple, examples; so as not to play at the same petty politics that others so willingly foul themselves with.
First, let's find out exactly what happened. Second, we need time to heal. Third, debate whether change to the law may be needed, or whether this was just an isolated incident. (again, laws cannot be based on the actions of a determined, insane person.) Fourth, after all of this is done, and if it is determined that a change is required, we need to find the best course of action.
Any politician, journalist, blogger etc., demanding immediate action after this,or any other tragedy, is merely attempting to profiteer from it. Those people, no matter what side of the aisle they represent, should be charged with inciting a riot. (Research what that entails before disagreeing) They certainly should not be re-elected.
To any who have kept their peace, kept silent, and are waiting for the facts to be known: bravo! There is hope for you yet.
"Keep calm and carry on"
There are those (mayors of L.A. and NY notably) who are using this event, before any facts are known, as a way to further their anti-gun agenda. Demanding that the President, and the man running against him immediately declare what they are going to do about this. "How do we keep this from happening again?"
They want, essentially, the cart before the horse. We don't yet even know what exactly happened, or why this young man snapped. Or even why he booby trapped his apartment (by all appearances). Yet there are those who will use any tragedy to further their own agenda.
Why not wait, find out the facts, and then, if necessary, act. I say "if necessary" because this is obviously a determined, insane, person. No law will ever stop a determined, insane person. This type of knee jerk reaction is understandable from a grieving parent, or a wounded bystander. From a politician it is unacceptably filthy politics.
I would point out to that demand tougher laws based on the action of one person invites a host of troubles. I will refrain from my normal, condescendingly simple, examples; so as not to play at the same petty politics that others so willingly foul themselves with.
First, let's find out exactly what happened. Second, we need time to heal. Third, debate whether change to the law may be needed, or whether this was just an isolated incident. (again, laws cannot be based on the actions of a determined, insane person.) Fourth, after all of this is done, and if it is determined that a change is required, we need to find the best course of action.
Any politician, journalist, blogger etc., demanding immediate action after this,or any other tragedy, is merely attempting to profiteer from it. Those people, no matter what side of the aisle they represent, should be charged with inciting a riot. (Research what that entails before disagreeing) They certainly should not be re-elected.
To any who have kept their peace, kept silent, and are waiting for the facts to be known: bravo! There is hope for you yet.
"Keep calm and carry on"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)