Sunday, April 21, 2013
The McBlog - a couple of thoughts on the go
Is it a sign of age when you spend most of your time on the computer looking up medical ailments? The failure of gun control - conservatives would rather you have a nuclear shoulder launchpad than risk a government takeover. Lovingly from my mobile device.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What say you about Busch IV's resignation from the NRA?
ReplyDeleteEXCELLENT, 'specially love his point how the NRA has become more a lobbyist for gun manufacturers and ammo makers than the typical gun owner. Must be a RINO.
ReplyDeleteBut I have to ask Busch IV just found this out?? He acts surprised like going out with Charlie Sheen and winding up looking at a desk sergeant:)
ReplyDeleteYa think the gun lobby has a PR problem?
ReplyDelete-Bob Davis, conservative Minneapolis talk show host:
“I have something I want to say to the victims of Newtown, or any other shooting,” Davis said. “Just because a bad thing happened to you doesn’t mean that you get to put a king in charge of my life. I’m sorry that you suffered a tragedy, but you know what? Deal with it, and don’t force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I’m sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is just afraid — they’re terrified of these victims. I would stand in front of them and tell them, ‘go to hell”
I've been thinking though if something like this God forbid happened to my loved ones or people I know would I be more in favor of gun control than I am now or would I be more in favor of folks being able to defend themselves more say with guns? Dunno because it hasn't happened to me but not sure if visceral makes for good politics.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is... putting more guns out there or making them easier to get doesn't equate with folks being more able to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteIt basically just means that there are more guns floating around out there, and it makes it easier to lose your temper and shoot a guy in the fast food line or on the road or at a baseball field.
Here's a question I came up with on my way home today: why is it that the pro-gun folks keep harping on 'laws won't stop criminals'. Criminals break laws, that's why they're criminals. How does this work out to 'let's not make any laws'? I mean, criminals break all kinds of laws.... should we not have any laws at all? I mean, it breaks down in the analysis. People break all kinds of laws every day... why is it only the gun laws that we shouldn't have?
Here's another thought. We can all agree that I am NOT the person you want to have ready access to a lethal weapon. We can also all note that I frequently travel long distances from home by myself (often through seriously Godforsaken desolate places) and that as a woman in today's world it's probably not the smartest thing to be doing but that if one MUST do so it's a good idea to have some sort of personal protection.
ReplyDeleteI don't have much of what's known as 'safety awareness'. (This translates in the local vernacular as 'too stupid to be scared'.) On a normal day this is entirely true and I do a lot of things that most people would never dream of doing because they just aren't safe things to do.
However, I do have a couple of practices that I keep to when I go places. One, I have dogtags that I wear (in case someone finds my body somewhere OR if they find me babbling incoherently). I have roadside assistance on my phone. I have a Medic Alert account and I wear my bracelet 24/7. And I have this stuff in a can.. it's called Omega and you can read about it here.
The point is that it's serious stuff. I have the big can which goes like 20 feet and it IS going to put you down- hard -for at least long enough for me to get the hell out of Dodge and into the loving arms of local law enforcement. I don't even have to worry about my aim, since if I point it in the general direction of your chest that's close enough. I also don't have to worry about your sniper-quality body armor, because unless you have on a gas mask and eye protection you'll get it just as badly as anyone else. It won't kill you, but it'll protect me. Isn't that a win-win situation?
Why don't more people utilize this approach? Why don't more people look at this as a good solution for necessary protection? Why do I have to kill you when all I really need to do is incapacitate you long enough to get help? I'm not sure why there seems to be a bias against this kind of thing, but the way I see it, there's no losing here. The financial investment is miniscule compared to that of owning a firearm, there are no classes or registries or anything like that involved, it's eminently portable (even the big one that I have), and it fulfils the purpose of protection without resorting to killing anyone. I also brought up the point about being someone who's less-than-stable and not a perfect candidate for a concealed carry class, but it seems to me that this is really a better answer for something like 97% of the people out there who want a firearm for protection.
Is there something here I'm missing that makes this less than a perfect solution to personal protection?
I hear ya but let's face it, firearms are far more exciting and dramatic. Imagine Dirty Harry carrying around some mace or pepper spray - "Do you feel lucky punk!" - wouldn't have the same pizzazz.
ReplyDeleteI think you've hit the nail on the head right there....it's not very macho.
ReplyDeleteI do think it's a better way to go. If some random mass killer shows up it isn't going to protect you any LESS than having a gun (and if the killer has on body armor the spray may do what bullets can't) and even in the event of a Newtown it's entirely possible that it could have been utilized, and much more safely than someone firing off a .45.
Plus, if the kids get into it, it'll put them in the ER for a little while, but it ain't gonna kill them. And they will NEVER, EVER do it again.
The difference is that with something non-lethal, the kid gets to actually live to learn the lesson.
.."if the kids get into it"..
ReplyDeleteNot good: yesterday south of here
a mother left her 3 yr old and the baby and the family gun in the truck. Bang! Mom runs out-3 yr old had shot the baby in the face.
Hear that Lapierre?
I'm sticking with the Omega. Can you imagine how hard you have to work to commit suicide with tear gas pepper spray? I mean, I imagine it can be done, just like I imagine that it's possible to kill someone with it, but just imagine how much concerted effort you have to put in to do it?
ReplyDeleteNow, if the 3 year old had got the baby with the Omega, okay, the baby would probably have a goodly hospital stay, some eye damage, probably some big respiratory issues... but he'd still have his face.
If only.
I still wanna know why Elmer Fudd needs an assault weapon to hunt wabbits.
ReplyDeleteBecause he's not a good enough hunter to be able to get that wabbit with one bullet at a time.
ReplyDeleteI've been wondering though do people actually use these weapons to go hunting? Say shooting off 200 rounds in 2 minutes just to fell a whitetail?
ReplyDeleteWe live on the edge of the county gamelands and so we hear a lot of gunfire pretty much all through the year as it's always the season for something or other. I can't say as I've ever heard anything but a shotgun. You can sit and count off the rounds and formulate a pretty good guess at how successful a hunter the person is.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this means that my neighbors could have an argument and be killing each other and I'd think nothing of hearing all the shooting going on.
ReplyDeleteWabbit hunting-
ReplyDeleteMy northwoods cousins used a single
shot 22. A shrill whistle (wabbit
warning cry) will bring a rabbit to
a standstill. Those that want to
shoot a darting wabbit use a shotgun. The assault weapon is made
for military use, although there are similar knockoffs. If Elmer is
interested in high end toys, he could use it instead of his usual
hunting rifle, and easily get one on the internet or gunshow-no questions asked.
So basically I'd go with very few if any hunters use the AR-15 Bushmaster and yet the NRA and most conservatives are going to the mat these days to defend your right to have such. Forget about the morality I'm not getting the practical aspect of this.
ReplyDeleteYeah, sort of a hobby for wannabee
ReplyDeletepolicemen and soldiers....
The practical aspect is that the NRA's Board of Directors is full of CEOs from the firearms manufacturing industry.
ReplyDeleteBy creating all this false paranoia (which they started in 2008, mind you, the minute Obama got elected), fears of a national gun registry (forbidden by current law), and insistence that everyone needs at least half a dozen assault rifles RIGHT NOW BEFORE THEY COME AND GET THEM.... they have enjoyed record-setting profits. Since 2008.
'Practical' depends on whose point of view you look from.
Rand Paul is very concerned about gun rights, but has attacked the
ReplyDeleteconcept of security cameras. I must have missed the kindergarten
massacre by camera....
It's true, you can have a camera on every street corner and in every home but do you want that? Boston, they got their man in less than a day what with helicopters, cameras and smartphones and the lockdown...I'm thinkin' crimes should be solved a hell of alot faster now since we're so high-tech.
ReplyDelete