Supporting Starbucks

Source:
http://gunvictimsaction.org/starbucks-boycott/

I won't allow this link to be clicked to send you on to the opposition.  I don't want them getting 'hits' from me.  However, if you copy and paste that into your web browser, you can see why I'm choosing to support Starbucks.  They have the anti-rights crowd's panties in a twist.
Essentially they have decided to not ban firearms, and rather are simply following the state regulations on weapons.  They are choosing to stay neutral, and not infringe on anyone's rights, on either side.  They aren't forcing people to carry weapons into their establishments, nor are they preventing it.
Therefore, I will be visiting a Starbucks on 2/14/2012, somewhere in South-Western PA, spending my hard-earned money with them.  I would encourage all of my friends to do the same as well.

On the frustratingly-humorous side, check out this quote about a Glock:

It shot 31 bullets in 15 seconds, killed 6, and injured 14.

So, of course, the gun shot itself that often.  Not the person who pulled the trigger.  The gun chose to go commit the crime, not the criminal.  And the people were defenseless against an inanimate object.  If you listen to their arguments, you'd believe that guns were NOT inanimate objects, but beings with minds of their own, able to kill of their own volition.

Idiots.

Nothing to Add

Source:
http://www.the-minuteman.org/content/2012/January/15/Open-Response-Joan-Peterson-Barron-Barnett

Just read it.

Logic vs. Candlelight Vigils

Source:
Undisclosed.

I won't link them, they don't need any traffic from me.  But, I did make a mistake today.  I strolled (clicked?) on over to the CSGV blog to read the post where they 'out' those who had negative things to say about their candle lighting vigil.
I call this a mistake, because the quotes they pull tend to be tremendously out of context.  When I decided to post a comment to point out that obvious error, I realized that commenting is disabled.  Really?  You're going to out people, using their real names and cities of residence, but won't even extend the courtesy of having an open dialog with those people? 
OK, I can wrap my brain around the fact that they are desperate enough to be that hypocritical, they are desperate.  I can wrap my brain around their being on the wrong side of the issue, not everyone has taken the time to study various issues from a truly neutral standpoint.  I can even wrap my brain around their attempting to take a holier-than-thou stance, it IS, after all, what people tend to do when they do not have the moral high ground.
Where I have issues is with them claiming to be honoring those who have lost their lives to 'gun violence.' 
Not only is their premise a bad premise, but the very act of mocking those killed in one incident in this fashion is appalling. Yes, I say they are mocking those killed, because they are using the tragedy to further their own agenda.
Let's think about this logically:
Step 1 - Define Vigil:

1. A period of keeping awake during the time usually spent asleep, esp. to keep watch or pray.
2. A stationary, peaceful demonstration in support of a particular cause, typically without speeches.

Step 2 - Determine their usage of it. 
Clearly, they are not using the first definition, as they are not keeping watch over anything, and I have yet to hear any of them invoke the name of our Creator.  At least, not in a vain fashion.  So, let's look more closely at the second definition.  "...support of a particular cause..." 
Step 3 - Determine the intent. 
What cause?  If the 'vigil' is to 'honor' deceased, that's not a cause which needs much intentional support.  Step 4 - Apply logic to the method.
Those who loved the deceased honor them as they deserve.  Outside onlookers 'honoring' them tend to be a distraction, and a detraction, from any honor being given unto them. 
Which means that there's another motive.  Is it an attention getting motive, as Miguel suspects?  I think that's a reasonable direction to go with this.  So, really the 'cause' they are supporting here is drawing attention to themselves.
Alternatively, other motives could include, but are not limited to, the following:

Attempting to thwart their entrance into the dustbin of history.
Attempting to redirect  attention from the REAL issue (crime) and topple a straw man they have built.
Attempting to gain monies from people who are too lazy to do the research behind the 'cause.'
Attempting to force themselves into current issues in order to 'feel better' about themselves.
Attempting to use a genuine tragedy perpetrated by a pathetic individual to further their own agenda.

Please, comment below with your own ideas of what their motives or goals could have been.  I'm curious to see what we can come up with!

Personal Experience: Carwash Ambush

 This isn't the first time I've had to use a firearm in self-defense.  It's merely the first since I started blogging.  But, several things come into play which I want to emphasize to anyone who happens to be reading this.On Sunday, I was hanging out with my daughter at my fiance's house.  My future in-laws were there, the ladies doing wedding planning, my daughter and I watching a Narnia marathon, and a relaxing day being had by all.  After the snow fall of the week prior, I decided it would be a good idea to wash the salt from the car before it had any more chance to corrode my paint and undercarriage, and make me another victim of the steel buckle of the rust belt.
As such, I asked my daughter if she would like to accompany me to the car wash.  Her eyes lit up, and after the Narnia movie which was playing at the time ended, we were on our way.
Upon pulling into the parking lot, I noticed two young guys sitting on a curb along the back portion of the lot.  They didn't strike me as significantly out of place, as there is a fair amount of pedestrian traffic there.  This is not a bad part of town by any stretch of the imagination, and there are always people milling about.
As I rounded the back end of the car wash, I asked my daughter whether we should use the 'spray it yourself' or the automatic wash.  She chose the automatic, as she enjoys watching the machine do the work.  Since this particular car wash has no brushes or rollers or other 'things-which-hold-dirt-from-other-cars-and-use-it-to-scratch-mine' I conceded, and proceeded to the far end of the building, getting in line behind a dark purple Pontiac Grand Am.
At this point, I noticed that the Grand Am was a significant distance behind the next car up in line, but attributed that to the driver having the vehicle in park while waiting for others to move up, and being in no hurry, so I brushed it off.  I looked into my mirror to chat with my daughter, and noticed out of the corner of my eye movement in my passenger side-view mirror.  As I shifted focus to that mirror, I saw the aforementioned young men walking in the direction of my car,  from behind.  I then noticed that they both had their hands clutching things in such a way that I could not see what was in them.  At this point, my senses went into overdrive, and I started taking in every detail of what they were doing.
They split up behind my car, one coming to the driver, the other remaining on the passenger side.  At this point, I knew hesitation COULD prove to be a problem, and taking a simple precaution would cause no problems.  So, without interrupting my daughter (who was talking about something which for the life of me I can't remember now), I drew my firearm from my holster, and held it against my chest, with the barrel directed at the driver's window.  As the kids reached the front doors of my car, they turned to face it from both sides.  I turned to look at the one on my left, made eye contact, raised my gun ever so slightly.  His eyes widened, and he turned to run.  I then looked to my right, and saw what was in the hand of the kid on the other side of the car.  An ASP.  At this point, I started to swing my firearm in his direction, expecting to have to fire it after he broke the glass.  As soon as he saw what was in my hand, however, he also bolted.  After he ran, the car in front of me (remember that dark purple Pontiac?) turned a tight turn, and booked it around the corner.
The kid who had been by my driver's side door ran through one of the DIY carwash stalls, shoving the guy who was washing his car.  I watched him on the other side, as the other kid reached him, and then the car. They jumped in, and took off up the street.
My daughter, meanwhile, was blissfully unaware of the encounter.  As a parent, I'm exceedingly grateful that I was not only able to protect her, but I was able to do it in such a fashion that she never had to feel any fear, and was able to continue her story with only a slight pause when she noticed the guys run from the car.
The entire incident took a very short amount of time.  I couldn't begin to guess how long it did take, but even reviewing the slow-motion capture in my head, there was very little time involved.

Remember I said I wanted to point out a few things?  Well, here are they key factors:
1 - It was broad daylight.
2 - It was in what is considered to be a safe area.  A 'good part' of town.
3 - This area, on the whole, has a lower crime rate than most of the rest of the USA.
4 - I was not out looking for anything, instead trouble found me.
5 - If I did not pay attention to my surroundings, things could have gone very differently, especially if I was not already preparing as they were approaching.
6 - They did not have (that I was able to see) any firearms of their own.  That would not have prevented them from perpetrating violence upon myself and my daughter.
7 - If I had been unarmed, or prevented from owning or carrying a weapon, it would not have ended so peacefully.
8 - One person against many doesn't stand a chance, without something to balance the odds.  The threat of violence was sufficient to bring resolution to the situation without the need to follow through with the threat.
9 - I hope the thugs who sought to ambush me (or whoever happened to pull into the lot behind their getaway) will reconsider their plans, and realize that their victims may not be willing to be victimized.

This is just another reason why we have a 2nd amendment.  Personal responsibility.  Only I am able to protect myself and my family.  I cannot rely on anyone else to do so.

UPDATE:  I spoke with the police, and let them know about the event.  I provided as detailed a description of all the actors as best as I was able, and they have filed it as something for which to be alert.  No incident report, nothing else exciting.

Humbling Note

I needed something to kick-start me out of my lull in blogging. I think I found it with this article.  It's not written about blogging, but rather about the gun community. 

It really is a humbling thing, to be part of something so big, yet so small in how we treat one another.  I really do have a tremendous amount of joy for this group of people all across this country.  And while I will never be able to say it so succinctly or effectively as she already has, I will say that it is an honor to be a part of it!

Pittsburgh Post Gazette Bias

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1195751-109-0.stm?cmpid=newspanel

So, his entire premise is sexist.  Not to mention that he ignores simple, basic logic. 
My first question to the author of this article would have to be: "What about people who are legitimately weak?  If your premise is that men don't need guns to be men, what about those with infirmities, women, kids at school, and other people who are at a physical disadvantage?" 
The usage of simple logic dictates that if we do away with firearms, the people with the most ability to use force will be those with the most force available.  His goal is to return us to a day of inequality, where women were domineered by men, and other social injustices abounded. 
He also makes an enormous blunder when he references the Cullen report in Scotland.  Their logic is that if the number of gun owners is decreased, the level of gun violence will decrease.  This just makes no sense when you actually apply the logic of the real world to it.  When you look at Scotland, which is well known for it's anti-gun laws, you see an INCREASE in violence, including gun violence.  You see a higher per-capita rate of being a victim, and other things which indicate that disarming the populace serves the exact opposite purpose of it's stated intent.
He also says:

The emphasis is on resolving disputes through force -- physical force initially, lethal force ultimately.

He misunderstands the intent completely.  The emphasis is not on resolving disputes through force (if that was the case, there would be many more men in prison, businesses would contain boxing rings, and we'd see fist fights in stores over prices of goods.), rather it is on being prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones if someone else chooses to use force against us.  It has nothing to do with disputes whatsoever.  The reason I carry a gun is not to give me the upper hand in a dispute.  It is to provide the even footing required to be safe if the unthinkable happens.
Additionally he states:

Then there's the concomitant vigilante mentality and the belief that the righteous gun owner may have to fight the government itself if his Second Amendments rights (as he sees them) are not respected.

Firstly, he couldn't be further from the truth.  We won't fight the government ONLY for our Second Amendment rights.  Our founding fathers often made reference to the need to balance the government, and the only way to do that is with an armed citizenry.  Again, the goal is not to go out looking for this lack of respect, it's to respond when our rights are violated.  It's a reaction to an offense, not the initiation of offense.

Lastly, and what I find most amusing, is that he is a professor of poetry.  While I would try to avoid name-calling and such, I figure 'he started it' so I might as well make the comment demanding to be made.  That isn't the sort of profession which is very 'manly' anyway.  I think he has some pretty perverse ideas of what manhood is all about.  He chooses to ignore logical reasoning and the consequences of living in the real world to defend his own fear of inanimate objects.  Not the behavior of any real man I know.

I firmly believe that only people who have knowledge and understanding about a topic should be published addressing said topic in such a fashion, as his complete lack of understanding about the firearms community, and what it means to be a man, makes him look exceedingly foolish, and is a heavy mark against the Post Gazette's credibility.

Upcoming Posts

Amidst the business of life, the being sick, the lighting a new set at church, the getting the car back after I was hit on the highway, and everything else that has been happening, I did manage to get my hands on a new holster.
I will have a full review with pictures and such shortly.  I have one minor issue with it which I'm going to attempt to contact the maker to see what he can do about it for me.  A friend of mine ordered one, had a 'customer ordered something then realized he should have ordered it differently' moment, and this guy had the customer service priority to get it resolved for him.
So, I'm hoping he can help out with my 'Huh, because I'm built like so, and want to wear my gun here, this is awkward, can you adjust it?'
Also, first deer-hunting event in many years for me coming up on Monday, so I'm gearing up for that.  I'll write that up as well next week after it's all said and done.
In the mean time, I hope you all have a fantastic Thanksgiving, and get to spend some time relaxing with your loved ones.

Be safe, and as Weer'd says, Carry your guns!

Bullet Hit the White House

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28fB_kWmumM

So according to the Secret Service the round which hit the glass is 'not associated with Friday's incident.'  This tells me it's two different happenings.  I've been nosing around on the web, and I'm unable to find any sort of ballistic information regarding the round which was found, or casings, or anything else.  If any has any info, or knows of any useful sources, please share!

Which wrong(s) make a man guilty?

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oregon-man-found-with-gun-sniper-book-after-football-game-held-without-bail/2011/10/31/gIQA0Q8LaM_story.html

In my perusing of news reports, I came across this gem.  Clearly this individual was 'up to something' in this scenario, but what justified the move by police to intercept him in the first place?  Also, notice on which events the Washington Post places more weight.  It isn't the fact that he's already committing a crime by possessing a controlled substance.  It's not even the fact that he had a firearm on school property.  No, they mention and emphasize FIRST his activities as a 13 and 15 year old kid.

His age at time of arrest?  26.  That's 11 years.  11 years of no (mentioned) charges.  11 years of being a productive member of society.  (Or at least not being a drain on the system, from what we're able to tell.)

From the story:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke said the weapons and the books, each by themselves, did not make Amoroso a danger. But taken together — along with his arrest at age 15 for shooting a pellet gun at a passing boat filled with tourists on the Rogue River, and writing on a classroom desk at 13 that he wanted to kill teachers and students — there was enough evidence to show he posed a danger.

Is it really that difficult a concept to consider that someone participating in a sport is going to take it seriously, do research, purchase equipment, and the like?  I know hunters who consume sniper-related material like water, simply because it's a passion for them.  The challenge of learning how to make shots which seem impossible, the tricks and tools used to calculate the ballistics, and other factors readily turn this into an exciting hobby for many.  

So the magistrate judge and the post both look to this person's past.  What makes it so hard to believe that a 13 year old boy would feel anger toward other students and teachers?  Perhaps he was bullied, or had bad grades and was frustrated.  Perhaps he was just a normal kid, who made the mistake of writing what he was thinking.  And that was half his life ago.  

So let's move up a few years, find something more recent.  He was a 15 year old with a toy pellet gun.  15 year old kids aren't known for making the best choices across the board.  It might have been beneficial to him to have had somewhat 'closer adult supervision' than he had that day.  But again, once incident, shooting pellets at a boat, and years later it's being brought up as a sign of how dangerous he is.

It's not until they go through all this that they bother to discuss the crimes he was ACTUALLY COMMITTING at the time of his arrest.  These are plenty reason to lock him up for a while, and press charges.  While I absolutely understand the logic behind eliminating the war on drugs, and legalizing them for various reasons, that isn't the reality in which we live.  As such, his possession of drugs is a viable, legitimate charge.  As is his possessing a weapon on school property.  Again, I understand the reasons for wanting that foolish law repealed as well, and I whole-heartedly support that movement.  But that's not reality.  The law is still there, so it is still a crime.  But they still can't, in their biased minds, differentiate between the actual crimes, and perceived crimes:

Police found a loaded pistol, hundreds of rounds of rifle ammunition, marijuana, a camouflage jacket, and a novel about a sniper attack on a football game in his car.

What about having rifle ammo in his car is so bad, especially when the only firearm found in the vehicle is a handgun?  What about a jacket that happens to be a certain color scheme is so terrible?  Why is possessing a book so evil?  Should we burn all books that mention the word 'sniper' or 'gun' to protect people?  Are we really at that point?

I get that adding all this up, the guy looks suspicious, and frankly he's a bit of an idiot for his behavior, but let's not start a witch hunt over perceived wrongs.  Let's focus on what he ACTUALLY did, and let the justice system do it's job.  There are enough straw men around, we don't need to be building more out of excessive paranoia.

Theif or Victim to blame?

Sources:
http://snarkybytes.com/2011/10/31/just-stop-right-there/
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8367794

Alan is exactly right.  The blame for guns being stolen lies with no one but the criminal performing the act of theft.  That would be like saying someone who had their car stolen is to blame for not putting their car in a safe.  Someone who had their jewelery stolen is to blame for not wearing all of their jewelery all the time.  This makes no logical sense whatsoever.  

Anytime you hear anyone suggest that there is any fault whatsoever with a gun owner for a theft of their weapon, remind them of the first rules of logic, and direct them to understanding that the victim is the victim, and the criminal is the criminal, not the other way around.

Bear in mind this is Australia, and their numbers are different than ours.  Specifically they are more alarming, and look worse.  And that's with the excess rules, laws, and regulations regarding firearms ownership.  

Hangun Ban Support Graph - 50 Years of Positive Trending

Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

This should be obvious by now, but we are clearly making significant headway in the public realm.  Especially see the first graph. 

For the past 50 years, we have been making positive headway with people understanding that they should not infringe on the right to own firearms.  It is becoming common sense, and accepted logic that freedom is the way to go. 
Let's keep the pressure on the antis, let's keep making their jobs more difficult, and let's keep working toward more freedom, and the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones!

Treating the 1st Amendment the Same as the 2nd Amendment

Source:
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4601

I don't really have anything to add to Bob's writeup here.  It's a great read, and a great comparison of our rights. 

Thanks, Bob, keep the good stuff flowing!

Grandma is Willing to Protect her Own

Source:
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4480

Bob S. has a great write-up on this incident.  The short version is that there was a robbery, suspects were fleeing, one hid under her bushes, and regretted it.
Fortunately she did not need to actually employ deadly force to gain compliance from the suspect who made that mistake.  He immediately became polite, cooperative, and compliant when he realized that someone protecting their family is willing to do so without hesitation.  He clearly knew he was in the wrong (mentioned that 'the cops are looking for me'), and knew what he had to do to remain intact.
I would tip my hat, were I wearing one, to her, and hope she never is required to take such action again, while taking joy in the knowledge that she is willing and able if she is.
He makes this point, which is the fundamental point of self defense:

She didn’t go out looking for trouble but was ready when it came to her.

That is why we put forth the effort to arm ourselves.  Not to find trouble, but to handle it when it finds us.

My Daughter's First Magazine

So, my daughter has fired a pellet gun before today.  Allow me to clarify that.  She held it, and I pulled the trigger, because she doesn't have the strength in her hand to squeeze the obnoxious trigger on it.  However, she has no problem squeezing the triggers on the actual firearms.

That said, check out the video below.  It's the last 7 rounds of her first magazine with a real pistol.  She's still a little over-eager, squeezes them off more quickly than she needs to fire them, and she tends to flinch.  But for a young lass on her first day, she's not doing too shabbily at all!

She's got some learning to do, but she's off to a good start.

And yes, I probably am biased.

200 Murders - 1 Scandal or Is it the Fault of the Guns?

Source:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/09/20/attorney_general_in_mexico_200_murders_result_of_operation_fast_and_furious

So, the AG in Mexico has basically said that 200 (at least) murders are the result (so far) of the Fast and Furious scandal.  Now, you and I both know that murderers will murder, with whatever weapon(s) is(are) available.  Weer'd has a great pile of examples.  It's an insignificant percentage of how many actual events like it happen, but it's the exact image of what we know to be true.  Murder isn't cause by guns.

So, my question is simple.  If we hold them to the same standard they claim when arguing with us, that being 'Guns cause death!' then what is the logical conclusion?

Step 1 - They allowed guns to be illegally trafficked across the border.

Step 2 - Those guns killed people.

Step 3 - Because it was the guns which committed the crime, the supplier(s) of the guns should be held accountable.  (After all, when someone robs a bank with a gun, it's the fault of the gun store who sold him the gun, or the firearms manufacturer, or ANYONE but the actual criminal.  He's the victim of the terrible evil of being a gun owner.  Even if he illegally owns that gun.)

Step 4 - The fault lies squarely with the DOJ and ATF.  No one else to blame, they forced the dealers to sell the guns in circumstances where they would otherwise not have made the sale, they forced the situation to fall into such a place that the weapons made it to their destination.  They hold all blame.  Not even the criminals who pulled the triggers share in that blame.

At least, that's what I'd be forced to think if I bought into the lies of the antis.  Instead, I see this scandal in a different light.

Step 1 - Normally law-abiding gun dealers were forced to break the law, their own policies, and have unethical business transactions with people with whom they would prefer not to do business.  They were forced into committing commerce against their will, as it were.

 Step 2 - Firearms purchased in these circumstances were allowed to cross an international border, violating a large pile of other laws, again at the behest of those who were pushing this agenda.

 Step 3 - The firearms were sold illegally in Mexico, to the cartels, violating yet more laws.

 Step 4 - The guns were then used in the commission of various crimes, by criminals, including murder.

So this is where my logic takes a turn from what they would espouse:

Prosecute the criminals.  Charge them with what they did, and move on.  In Mexico, that means prosecuting the murderers for murder.  Oh wait, those are the cartels that their own government has allowed to get to where they are.  The police there won't cross their paths.  So, looks like the murderers are walking.

But, where does that leave the DOJ and ATF here who facilitated, and even forced, this to be an issue?

Accessory to murder, for one.  Countless other laws, and international laws, were broken in this scandal.  Those responsible need to be held 100% accountable.  To do less is to tell the rest of the world that we don't care about justice, only agenda.  There are those who say we should send those responsible to Mexico to stand trial.  

I have two problems with that:

1 - The crimes they committed happened here in the States, not in Mexico.  We should not extradite people to other countries for crimes committed here.  They should be charged and prosecuted HERE for those crimes.

2 - We need to lead on the issue of holding those in power accountable.  Sending them off to be prosecuted elsewhere in no way demonstrates to a watching world that we are serious about being an ethical, upright, just nation.

OC: Pros and Co...Well, Pros Anyway

Source (Weer'd has some fantastic posts.):
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/we-are-all-open-carry/

My first thought about any sort of carry is simple:

...The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

 Emphasis mine.
Any restriction of carrying a weapon is infringing on the right of that weapon-holder to bear his or her arm(s).  There is no twisted logic or convoluted methodology of law-making which will ever change that.  Any restriction is an infringement.
All that said, the movement for open carry has been growing.  The people who are pushing this movement are making great progress for logic and reason.  The politicized results of their carrying openly are having the desired effect overall.
I have been OCing for years off and on.  There are times I prefer it for various reasons, from having pants on which are too tight to allow proper concealed, to other garments which won't allow for concealment, to knowing I'm going to be in a neighborhood in which I'd much rather not be.  The advantages of OC are many, and with a proper understanding of those advantages it provides for the safety of all individuals.  As Weer'd said, the stakes couldn't be higher.  Those of us who carry, do so following the letter of the law, because it only takes one mistake to be unable to properly defend ourselves and our loved ones going forward.
So, without further ado, a brief list of advantages of open carry:

1. Crime-against-self reduction.  A criminal seeing that you have a firearm on your hip is less likely to attempt to make you a victim.
2. Crime-against-others reduction.  A criminal seeing that you have a firearm on your hip is less likely to attempt to victimize someone else in your vicinity.
3. Ease-of-access.  Typically drawing from concealment is slower than from open.  Obviously with proper training any timing differences can be mitigated.  However, in an 'all things equal' world, the lack of fabric between your hand and the grip of your sidearm, the faster you can bring it to bear, and put it to it's designated role.
4. Comfort level.  When I am OC, it feels far more comfortable than when I am concealed.  I'm a bigger guy, so it's difficult to find that sweet spot which causes no discomfort whatsoever.
5. Familiarity.  Allowing other people with whom you interact on a day to day basis to see that you are carrying a firearm, and at the same time you are NOT shooting people over parking spaces, or randomly shooting people, or any of the other evils the antis claim, is about the most positive press we can ever hope to have.
6. Style.  There are a tremendous number of stylish, beautiful holsters being created today.  Personally, I am unable to find one, as it seems there isn't much market for my pistol of choice.  However, many weapons have many options for carrying, and with the right accessories, it can really compliment an outfit.

There are many many many more pros than this.  Share what pros you consider to be important, or key in your decision making process.  Do you OC daily, or just occasionally?  Are you prepared to deal with accidental OC?
Share your thoughts!

The Evils of Fire(arms)

Source:
Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind (Amazon)

This is well worth the read.

   "And now, to the other part," Michael continued, "to the real suffering around us.  While we have worried about the boundaries that have not harmed a single one of us, many of our families, friends, and neighbors have suffered, and died.  Tragic and needless deaths, in accidents with fire.  Yes, that is what I said.  Fire."

    People mumbled in confusion.  Michael was starting to lose his bond with the crowd.  He seemed to expect it; he looked from face to face, letting the confusion build, and then dramatically he thrust his hand out, his finger pointing.

   At Richard.

   "There!" he screamed.  Everyone turned as one.  Hundred of eyes looked at Richard.  "There stands my beloved brother!"  Richard tried to shrink.  "My beloved brother who shares with me" - he pounded a fist into his chest - "the tragedy of losing our own mother to fire!  Fire took our mother from us when we were young, and left us to grow up alone, without her love and care, without her guidance.  It was not some imagined enemy from across a boundary that took her, but an enemy of fire!  She couldn't be there to comfort us when we hurt, when we cried in the night.  And the thing that wounds the most is that it didn't have to be."

   Tears, glistening in the sunlight, ran down Michael's cheeks.  "I am sorry, friends, please forgive me."  He wiped the tears with a handkerchief he had handy.  "It's just that only this morning I heard of another fire that took a fine young mother and father, and left their daughter an orphan.  It brought my own pain back to me and I couldn't remain silent."  Everyone was now solidly back with him.  Their tears flowed freely.  A woman put her arm around Richard's shoulder as he stood numb.  She whispered how sorry she was. 

   "I wonder how many of you have shared the pain my brother and I live with every day.  Please, those of you who have a loved one, or a friend, who has been hurt, or even killed, by fire, please, hold up your hands."  Quite a few hands went up, and there was a wailing from some in the crowd.

   "There, my friends," he said hoarsely, spreading his arms wide, "there is the suffering suffering among us.  We need look no further than this room."

   Richard tried to swallow the lump in his throat as the memory of that horror came back to him.  A man who had imagined their father had cheated him lost his temper and knocked a lamp off the table as Richard and his brother slept in the back bedroom.  While the man dragged his father outside, beating him, his mother pulled Richard and his brother from the burning house, then ran back inside to save something, they never knew what, and was burned alive.  Her screams brought the man to his senses, and he and their father tried to save her, but couldn't.  Filled with guilt and the revulsion at what he had caused, the man ran off crying and yelling that he was sorry.

   That, his father had told them fa thousand times, was the result of a man losing his temper.  Michael shrugged it off; Richard took it to heart.  It had instilled in him a dread of his own anger, and whenever it threatened to come out, he choked it off.

   Michael was wrong.  Fire had not killed their mother; anger had.

   Arms hanging limply at his side, head bowed, Michael spoke softly again.  "What can we do about the danger to our families from fire?"  He shook his head sadly.  "I do not know, my friends.

   "But, I am forming a commission on the problem, and I urge any concerned citizen to come forward with suggestions.  My door always stands open.  Together we can do something.  Together we will do something.
   "And now my friends, please excuse me, and allow me to go comfort my brother, as I am afraid bringing out our personal tragedy was a surprise to him, and I must ask his forgiveness."

Used with permission under the "fair use" tribute.
Now, re-read the entire story above, and add the word 'arms' after every instance of the word 'fire.'  Spooky, right?  Now, while doing that, focus on this line:

Michael was wrong.  Fire had not killed their mother; anger had.

Terry Goodkind is an excellent author, and I highly recommend the 'Sword of Truth' series.  Wizard's First Rule is the first book of the series.  The entire series has quite a few analogies such as this.  He brings up some fantastic questions, and uses basic, yet perfect, logic to resolve them.  Later in the series he discusses the fairness of taking what people have earned from the earners, and distributing it to those who do not earn. 
And yes, he was heavily influenced by Rand.

Chime in on your thoughts!  (Pun intended, for those who have already read the series.)

At Least He Shot Himself For Us

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/06/at-least-8-reportedly-shot-at-ihop-restaurant-in-nevada/

Yet another example of the police and law enforcement agencies being too slow to react.  After a shooter shoots people and himself, they arrive.  After the threat is neutralized, they shut down a street.  After ________ they _________.  Fill in those blanks with pretty much anything you want.  We see this in case after case, instance after instance.
If the police existed to prevent crime, this discussion would never happen.  however, they are a reactionary force, not a preemptive force.  They are unable to prevent this sort of thing.  \
I don't know anything about the shooter at this point, if he was high, if he had mental problems, if he was an escaped con out to get the world, or if he was a normal Joe who snapped, or what.  At the end of the day, that doesn't matter.  What matters is that no one there took the action to stop him.  It could be that none of them was armed, or it could be that he already shot those who were.  What will you do if you're confronted with such a situation?
This is why it's important for us to take our safety seriously, and responsibility for ourselves, and not rely on others for it.

Idiocy Begets Idiocy

Source:
http://christopherburg.com/2011/09/02/citations-and-anti-gun-stupidity/

I always enjoy reading a solid refutation of idiocy.  Simple logic, common sense, and any ability to reason more than a mouse will lead to the logical conclusion that restricting freedom does not lead to safety.  Quite frankly, it leads to the opposite.
I have always found it rather telling as well that so often their arguments are either unsupported by any statistic, or they simply repeat the same things they hear within their own circles day after day.  It's the old adage that if you tell a lit often enough you'll start to believe it.
Take a look through the post, follow the links to the data, and smile to yourself as you gain even more firepower to use in the war for freedom.

Personal Experience: Kayak Trip Gone Wrong (And how the Anti's are Wrong Again!)

On 8/20 I took a group of 14 of my friends on a kayak trip in Western PA, a place called 'The River's Edge'.  I've not worked with them in the past, but had read some good things about them.  To get the full story, we need to go back about a week prior to the trip.

I had sent an email to a different outfitter (further upstream, along the same river) that I have used in the past with a great experience, and left a voicemail to make a reservation.  Several days after both of those were sent, I received an email from them that they were booked for that day, and would be unable to meet my needs.  So, I found another outfitter (River's Edge) and made a reservation there.   I did this after reading several comments online stating that people had great experiences with them.

We arrived in time to get setup, sign the waivers, load the shuttle, etc and have plenty of time left to get to the put-in.  When my kayak ('my' meaning 'owned by me, brought from home to the outfitter) it was loaded on the bottom of the trailer.  I normally would have no issue with this, however there was a missing fender on that side.  One of my friends also pointed out the obvious issue, and I went over to inspect it.  When I asked the gentleman loading the boats onto the trailer, he said 'The straps will hold it, and it will be fine.'  I pushed my boat toward the center of the trailer, and it seemed as though he was right, I was able to push it several inches away from the exposed wheel.

Upon arriving at the put-in, we hopped out of the van, I walked around behind to the trailer, and my heart dropped.  I saw this:

I saw this hole, and realized that not only had the straps NOT held my kayak in place, but it had shifted, and laid on top of the tire.  The friction generated by the tire rubbing against the boat was sufficient to burn a hole clean through the boat.  Obviously this kayak is completely ruined.  The bodies do not lend themselves to repair of this sort of damage, and it is clearly not water-worthy as is.

I was upset.  One friend took my fiance aside immediately as she exited the second shuttle which arrived behind ours, and told her she needed to speak to me right away, and it was urgent.  She looked at me across the parking area, and realized something was wrong.  Her calming influence was sufficient to prevent me saying anything terrible, or making a total fool of myself.

One of the co-owners of the outfitter was in that second shuttle, and the fellow who had loaded my kayak so terribly pulled her aside before I was able to talk to her.  He explained what happened, and took her around to show her the damage.  Not only did the tire destroy the side of my boat, it also destroyed my bilge pump.

They returned to their store-front in order to get a boat for me to use for the day, and brought it back.  We waited about an hour for that to happen.  I had told my friends to get started, as they should not lose time on the water, and enjoying the beautiful day because of my problem.  Without exception, they all said they'd wait for me.  They are awesome people.

When the outfitter returned they had a boat for me to use, and a bilge pump as well.  I helped everyone else get into the water, loaded my loaner, and off we went for a day of floating down the river.

Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves well, and I tried to as much as I could under the circumstances.  The highlight of the day was finding a rope swing, and having a blast swimming and falling into the water.  Ironically the youngest people on the trip, and one of the oldest were the ones to enjoy it most.  I did not trust the rope, the platform, or anything else there with my weight.  The others seemed to have no problems with it.

When we returned to the shop, I went to see the owners.  They were both surprised that such a thing had happened, they'd never had a problem in their 5 years of providing livery service.  They did, however, make it right.  They offered to pay me what it would cost to replace the boat.  Without going into the details on that end, they did send me a check for the cost of the boat I had, plus shipping and tax, so I am now able to replace the kayak I had with an identical boat.

They made it right.  I received the check 1 week to the day after the incident, and while the time without a boat is going to be frustrating and aggravating, I do understand that things in life DO happen, and we have to deal with issues as they come up.  They handled themselves professionally, and provided me with fair remission for the incident.  They made it right, and I look forward to doing business with them again, probably next season at this point, as it will be some time until I'm able to receive my new kayak (3-4 weeks minimum delivery time, according to the website).

On a side note, and because I have to get politics involved, I have to point out one thing in this:  The antis are wrong.  According to those who would restrict our freedoms, and take our guns, as soon as someone becomes even slightly upset about something, and they are armed, there will be bloodshed on the streets.  People will shoot each other over parking spaces, traffic jams, and the like was something we heard often recently.  Here in PA we heard it recently because of the Castle Doctrine passing.  We heard people saying such things as a method of using fear to attempt to get their way.

When I saw what happened to my boat, that someone else destroyed it through their own ineptitude, I was angry.  The fact that my property was damaged beyond use, and that my investment of money, time, effort and everything I put into that boat was gone, because of one person's mistake, I felt angry.  I wasn't just angry, I was downright livid.  I also had one of my firearms on me.

Not once did the thought of drawing my weapon ever enter my mind.  Not once did the thought of causing injury to anyone else enter my mind.  Not once did any of the things which the left and the antis claim will happen in that scenario even enter into the mind of the person in that situation.

Not once.

Sounds to me like I had more reason to be upset than over a parking space, and it also sounds to me like they are so far off base with their ideas that gun owners are violent people looking for a reason to start killing that they can not relate with ordinary people.

The important lesson to take from all this?  Be involved when someone else is handling your property, and point out issues, and don't be afraid of expressing your concerns.  At best you avoid the headache I have had, at worst you have a falling out with whomever is handling your property, and have to find a resolution.