|
Rocky’s Reloading Room |
|
The Gray Hair Syndrome
Many shooters are distinguished by a copious amount of gray hair. Many are also afflicted by what might be called CRS Disease: Can’t Remember Stuff. I’ve long suspected that the two are closely related but I couldn’t quite figure out how. Perhaps that’s because I have some gray hair. Hmmm……
Anyway, I knew that age is a factor. I’ve never seen a teenager with gray hair, and I’ve never met one who didn’t know everything. So the appearance of gray hair and the disappearance of memory are surely linked. But how? I was stumped.
Then, one evening, I was watching PBS. (That’s another thing that starts with age, but it falls outside this particular theory.) The famous detective Hercule Poirot was involved in some crime or other, and he mused that the mystery would be solved by his “little gray cells.” As he spoke, he tapped his temple. I thought, ”What gray cells, your hair is as black as coal?” Just as suddenly, I realized that Poirot wasn’t talking about his hair. He meant his brain cells. In the same moment, the flashbulb of genius illuminated my own brain with the whole theory.
The factor that dims both hair and memory is…storage space. It works like this: As we age, our brain stores every memory and every fact in our gray cells. Sooner or later though, it runs completely out of room. Everything we’ve ever known is stored away. (OK, the brain may misfile a few things now and again, but it’s all there somewhere.) But eventually, there simply is no place to store anything else. That’s why old dogs don’t learn new tricks. There’s just no place to put ‘em.
So the brain does a very smart thing. It cleans out the attic and moves some stuff to the garage. In this case, to our hair. As the brain stuffs names, addresses, phone numbers, birthdays and such into our hair, the hair takes on the color of brain cells…gray. As each one is filled, it turns gray. Pretty soon there are millions of them, some with old memories and some with brand new stuff.
It’s an elegant solution to our storage problem, but it causes problems of its own. Recovery of stored stuff takes longer. It’s like finding a floppy disk with the right data instead of getting it straight from our computer’s hard drive. Worse, if that hair gets cut or pulled out, the memories it held are gone forever! That may be why we can remember everything about our first bike, but not where we put the remote. The “overflow” stuff got shoved out into a hair and it takes a while to recall it. Unless that hair fell out onto the Lazy-Boy headrest and we never do find the TV remote. But our bike memory is safe inside the brain where it got stored in the first place.
What about those knobs with no hair? Did you ever see a bald guy that didn’t have hair sprouting out almost everywhere else? Eyebrows, beard, ear hair, nose hair, back hair, chest hair and who knows what other hair? That’s the brain again, creating remote storage sites.
Granted, this theory is hard to test. If you stand at the mirror watching for hairs to turn gray, you may never see it happen. After all, you can’t see them all. Besides, staring into a mirror doesn’t exactly generate a storm of mental activity, if you know what I mean. Plucking out a gray hair might not prove anything, either. How would you know what you’ve lost if you now can’t remember it?
It takes a lifetime to accumulate enough memories to cause gray hair. But that silver mop represents a lot of stored knowledge. In a way, it oughta make you proud.
|
|
Editorials, Humor And Stuff
Starting on this page are a number of my short articles, newspaper pieces, editorials and just plain random thoughts. You may have to scroll through the lot to find one that’s even remotely entertaining or enlightening—if there are any at all. But please enjoy them anyway. |
|
Save the Environment - Hunt!
It's happened to all of us. You're chit-chatting at a social gathering when somebody suddenly goes wide-eyed and says, "You hunt!?!? How can you do such an awful thing?" Like many of us, I used to feel at a loss for a response. But now I've found an answer that hits them where they breathe: "Of course I hunt, I'm trying to stop global warming!"
Usually this causes a visible double take and a stunned, "Huh?" "Just think," I explain. "Deer, elk, rabbits and such all eat plants, right? But plants are the only things on this planet that consume dangerous carbon dioxide and give off precious oxygen. Animals not only devour tons of oxygen-making plants every day but they compound the matter by giving off CO2, which adds to the greenhouse effect. By hunting animals, I'm just doing my part to stop more global warming."
"Not only that," I add delicately, "but because animals consume large quantities of fibrous plants, they also produce tremendous amounts of methane, which is harmful to the ozone layer. Do you realize that there was no such thing as an ozone hole when most humans hunted? Is it just a coincidence that the hole appeared right after the anti-hunting movement started? I think not."
“Nope, it's clear to me. All these critters are competing with us for precious oxygen. In fact, hunting may be the only way we can save humanity from global warming. Instead of anti-hunting, maybe we should have some anti-vegetarian laws. Say, you're not one of those irresponsible, earth-endangering vegetarians, are you?"
With my adversary now confused and vulnerable, I press my attack on another front. "Then there's fake fur. Surely everyone realizes that fake fur is made from toxic crude oil. And the ever-increasing demand for oil is driven in part by the demand for more fake fur. Which leads to oil spills, which kill millions of - can you guess? – fur bearers. No sir, instead of using fake fur that results in the horrible death of millions of wild and free animals, it's much more responsible to use real fur. As a selfless hunter, I'm prepared to do my full share to advance this worthy and beneficial cause."
At this point, my former accuser is usually struck open-mouthed but speechless by the irrefutable logic and power of my attack. But I press on mercilessly.
"And the same thing goes for synthetic leather. For the sake of the environment, I only use real leather. If more people did likewise, we'd lessen oil spills and simultaneously thin the ranks of all those insatiable, grass-eating, methane-making, oxygen-consuming, CO2-producing bovines."
Dazed but able to offer one final, feeble query, my self-righteous adversary replies, "But ... but what about animal rights? After all, you can't kill creatures that have the same rights the same as us." Smirking slightly, I first feint: "Well, if you truly believe that animals and humans are equals, I guess we will have to change some things.” Then I deliver the knockout blow.
"First, we'll have to arrest them all. After all, predators murder other animals on a daily basis, and even commit cannibalism. All those browsers are out there willfully destroying private property without payment. And none of them has ever filed a tax return or become a legal citizen. Heck, I guess we'll have to try every single animal on the planet for some kind of felony or other. Of course, you're the one insisting on this equality with humans thing, so you won't mind having your taxes raised to pay for all this -- will you?"
"Oh, and taxes remind me of welfare, too. Every single female animal is an unwed mother, so there's billions more in child support you'll have to pay. And they're all homeless and poverty-level, too. So, to maintain their rights, we'll have to give them all Social Security, and free education, and legal services, and lots more. That'll mean increasing the size of the government bureaucracy by a thousand-fold at least. That's going to cost you trillions in new taxes."
"And there's another aspect of this equality thing: We'll have to arrest vou for murder, too. Surely at some point in your life you've killed a rat or run over a rabbit. If animals are the same as humans, that’s first-degree murder and vehicular homicide, buster.“
"Of course, if all this isn’t what you anti-hunters had in mind when you made your demands, I guess you'll want to think about it some more, won't you?"
"Maybe you're right," my antagonist admits, then faints dead away. |
|
First Rifle = First Scope
In the years I worked in a gun store, I had the pleasure of selling many “first” rifles to parents who wanted their youngsters to learn shooting. When asked for a recommendation, I invariably suggested a bolt-action .22 with a scope. Often, the response was, “A scope on a .22? Shouldn’t he learn with iron sights first?” To which the answer was always “No.”
Very few rifles today are sold with any iron sights at all. All are drilled and taped for easy scope mounting. Why? Because the gun makers know that owners will mount a scope anyway. Even lever-action woods rifles are drilled a tapped, and virtually every one that I’ve seen traded in was wearing a scope. About the only rifles sold with iron sights today are .22s, usually the cheaper semi-autos. It’s as if even the gun makers know that these guns are often fired as fast as the trigger can be pulled and actual aiming is superfluous. But such shooting, though fun, doesn’t do much towards teaching marksmanship.
Take a look in your own gun safe. How many rifles in there wear just iron sights? None? I thought so. What do you think the chances are that a new shooter today will ever own and use a rifle with iron sights? Unless she’s going to get involved with certain types of competitive shooting, it’s not very likely. So why teach her to shoot a sight system she’ll never use again?
Now put yourself in the kid’s place for a bit. You’re a little nervous at your first range session. You may already know that guns are dangerous, and are perhaps a bit intimidated by your new rifle. It certainly is heavy, awkward and difficult to hold properly. It seems to wobble around and it’s impossible to hold it steady. You have no real idea where the thing is actually pointed. The adult says to focus on the front sight, center it in the rear sight, line both up on the target, then control your breathing and squeeze the trigger. Huh? Can you do all that while trying to hold the gun steady? Can you even remember all that under this kind of pressure? And what the heck does it mean to center the front sight in the rear one? The usual response, unfortunately, is for the kid to look up at the target, point the gun in the general direction and jerk the trigger, hoping for the best. The shot, of course, goes nowhere near. Both of you are frustrated and embarrassed, perhaps even a bit angry. Hardly fun, is it? The chances either of you will want to do this again are slim.
Let’s face it, accurate shooting is really hard, a challenge even to someone who’s been doing it for decades. That’s why it’s so enjoyable when we occasionally manage it. But do iron sights make it any easier? No, it’s just the opposite. That’s why adults use scopes. There are probably no two people who see or align iron sights in the same way. And there are darned few who can clearly explain how to do it. What is a fine bead, or a coarse one? What’s the difference between a center hold and a six o’clock hold? Confusing? Yes.
Some of the principals of teaching are to move from the simple to the complex, from the obvious to the unknown. If it’s to be effective, the teaching of shooting skills should be approached the same way. Iron sights are only mechanically simple. Their use is a complex skill and their correct use is far from obvious to the beginner. To start with such a difficult handicap is to invite disappointment and failure. I’ll say it again: avoid iron sights for new shooters. They’re too hard.
The crosshairs of a scope, on the other had, are instinctive. No one has to explain what to focus on or how it should aligned with the target. The target is even magnified so that it appears closer and clearer. The visual tunnel created by a scope allows us to concentrate on the movement of the rifle. All we have to think about is our breathing, and to squeeze the trigger only when the crosshair is on the target.
Now put yourself back in the place of that young shooter once more, but this time your rifle wears a good, clear low-power scope. You see the target clearly. The gun is awkward, and it weaves around, but the crosshairs show you just how much and where. You focus on the crosshairs and the target. When the crosshairs get near the target, you squeeze the trigger and hold that pressure when it moves away. Every time it wobbles near you squeeze a bit more…Bang! Hey! I hit it! This is fun! Let me do that again…please! The only person prouder and happier is that adult behind you, but you won’t know that for another 35 years or so… when it’s you back there.
Ok, so maybe a scope is a good idea. How do you mount a scope to a .22, and what kind should you get? First of all, don’t even think about one of the awful ten-dollar soda straws marketed as “.22 scopes.” You know: those things with a half-inch diameter body tube and built-in sheet metal clamps for bases. They’re not even worth considering. Concentrate on a regular one-inch diameter scope with separate rings. I recommend a fixed power scope, just because kids are kids and they’ll soon have a variable scope twisted into pieces just trying to see how it works. Besides, you don’t want a lot of magnification at this point. A wide field of view is vital to a beginner, and that only comes with low power. A 2.5X is wonderful, and no more than a 4X is fine.
There are a zillion brands and models of such scopes. Most are intended for big game, centerfire rifles. That’s no problem as long as the scope can be sharply focussed on objects from 10 to 25 yards away. It doesn’t have to be expensive, but don’t buy junk, either. Plan on spending about $50 dollars or so and you’ll be getting a decent model. Companies that make decent quality, affordable scopes include Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons, Swift, BSA and others. Until you’re sure that your young shooter is past the “drop it in the rocks while daydreaming” stage, you might want to put off buying a premium scope from Leupold, Burris, Nikon and the like. They’re certainly better scopes, but they’re also much better than you need at this stage. Leave them for someday special.
All currently made .22 rifles are equipped for scope mounting one way or another. Some are drilled and tapped, but most use a system of grooves 3/8” apart on the receiver. These are called “tipoff” grooves, and rings of the same type are called for. These attach by simply tightening tapered feet into those grooves. The only drawback is that they can in fact be tipped off without too much force. The cheaper the rings, the more likely the installation won’t be secure. My recommendation here is to get rings by Weaver or Millett. Both are superb. They’ll set you back only about $10, and that’s cheap insurance against a dropped and broken scope.
Unless you’re adept at scope work, let your gun shop mount and boresight the scope. They’ll have parts or other rings on hand if there’s some incompatibility between the scope and rifle you’ve picked. (It’s not common, but it does happen.) You can head from there straight to the range, knowing that only minor sighting-in is required. Sight a beginner’s rifle to be dead on at no more than 25 yards. He or she won’t be shooting farther away than that for a while, and it’s very encouraging when bullet holes appear exactly where the crosshairs were!
For ammo, stay away from high-speed stuff for a while. Standard-speed ammunition is sometimes less expensive, but most importantly is less noisy. Even though you’ll make sure he or she never shoots without good eye and ear protection, less muzzle blast is better. The best training targets I’ve ever found are charcoal briquettes. They’re cheap, just the right size for close plinking, they explode into a puff of black dust when hit, they’re completely biodegradable, and if you don’t shoot ‘em all up, you can use ‘em to grill a hot dog right there at the range! Nothing would be more fun for a kid with a short attention span.
The only item I haven’t mentioned yet is the rifle itself. That’s because I can’t see the youngster in question. Some kids are level-headed enough to start shooting at age six and some shouldn’t be trusted with a gun when they’re 18. Fit is important because holding a gun for the first time is awkward. Still, for the smallest shooters, a rifle like the Chipmunk (www.chipmunkrifle.com) is ideal. These guns are as cute as a ladybug, weigh no more than three pounds and have stocks short and thin enough for the smallest of shooters. Just slightly larger is the Marlin Model 25Y. It is based on the regular Model 25 bolt gun, but with a reduced-scale stock. It’d be perfect for most new shooters. For the nearly adult-sized shooter (or for you!), Marlin, Savage and others make standard bolt rifles in every budget range.
Here’s one final hint. About the time that young shooter is starting to wipe your eye on tiny targets, you are justified to put him or her in their place. When that time comes, pull out that old iron-sighted rifle and let ‘em shoot that! You may regain your hit advantage for quite a while. At least, until they figure out how to do five things at once. Now that’s learning marksmanship! |
|
Shooting Your Hearing
If you shoot, you’re probably shooting your hearing.
It’s a fact that shooting is by far the worst recreational pursuit with regards to hearing loss. How bad? Do you know that one shot from a .357 Magnum revolver may cause as much hearing damage as working 40 hours in a noisy factory? Surveys show that the majority of all shooters report some loss of hearing.
I myself am no stranger to hearing loss. I’ve had ringing in my ears since my dad accidentally fired a 12-gauge shotgun in our living room some 40 years ago. I’ve been a shooter all my life, and I spent almost a decade flying military jets. I not only have first-person experience with hearing loss, but my wife is a teacher of the deaf; so I have what you might call in-house counseling about it, as well.
When I was a teenage trap shooter, hardly anyone used ear protection. Furthermore, what few kinds of protection were available then were next to worthless. I sometimes used plugs, but not always. It was simply assumed that everyone grew hard of hearing with age. Indeed, some of the “old guys” I shot with had the auditory acuity of a fence post. After “Pull,” the most common word among trap shooters was “Huh?” Before I knew it, I was the same age as those old guys. And I was starting to say huh.
My search for better ear protection included all the common methods. I tried cotton balls, rubber plugs, foam plugs, wax plugs, plugs with mechanical valves and various kinds of muffs. I never found anything that I thought was good enough. The best was a combination of soft foam plugs worn under muffs. That combo worked, but was uncomfortable, hot, and made it impossible to wear a hat. Worse, wearing shooting glasses or cheeking a rifle broke the vital seal so that the muffs lost effectiveness.
The problem was - and is - fit. Ear protection must seal to the skin to work. Nothing I’d tried fit perfectly or reliably. Nothing, that is, until I had a set of Insta-Mold custom earplugs made. Formed in my ears of a special silicone, they were the quietest earplugs I’d ever experienced. Insta-Mold plugs fit the wearer perfectly, and no one else. No two ears are alike, and so no mass-produced earplug can fit properly. As they say at Insta-Mold, “Any earplugs made in a machine…fit a machine. Insta-Mold earplugs fit YOU.” Because they don’t have to swell up, be wedged in or depend on barbed ridges to stay in, they are supremely comfortable, too.
I was so impressed with my Insta-Mold plugs that, like the electric shaver guy, I joined the company. First, though, my wife put on her professional hat. She took Insta-Mold’s ANSI test results to her workplace, the Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind. There, the school’s head audiologist reviewed the findings and judged that Insta-Mold custom earplugs gave the best protection of any earplugs he’d ever seen. My wife and I have been Insta-Mold dealers ever since.
That’s been almost ten years now, and we’ve made over 5,000 pairs of Insta-Mold earplugs. We make them for shooters, industrial workers, swimmers, sleepers, spouses of snorers, musicians and more. It’s almost unheard of (pun intended) to have a dissatisfied customer. Insta-Mold earplugs are that good.
So what’s the bottom line? If you shoot, you probably will experience gradual hearing loss. The best you can do is to minimize the loss and extend the period over which the loss occurs. To do that, you have to use the best hearing protection available. That, according to the experts, means custom-fitted earplugs.
|
Letter to the Editor
An open letter to my Legislators:
In the current rush to enact additional gun laws, the catchphrase "modest and reasonable" is habitually applied to any and all gun control proposals. In that vein, I propose a few additional gun laws that are in fact reasonable and modest.
First, it is postulated that viewing sexual entertainment invariably leads to sexual crime. If that is true, then viewing violent entertainment invariably leads to violent crime. It is therefore imperative to immediately ban all firearms from entertainment. Except for occasional and non-violent depiction in the hands of the police or military, no firearms should be displayed in movies, television or video games.
Second, it has been demanded that concealed weapons be banned from schools, churches and some private property. To have any benefit, such a law must be coupled with a requirement to conspicuously identify such gun-free zones. Anyone wishing to prohibit guns from their property will be required to post a large, clearly visible sign. This requirement is no different than those in existing "No Trespassing" laws. Unless public facilities or residences are posted with large "No Guns" signs, criminals would not know that occupants were unarmed and incapable of unseemly resistance to violence.
Third, it is argued that gun owners should be licensed. But a system that identifies gun owners only is seriously flawed and doomed to failure. In fairness therefore, persons who do not to own a gun will be required to obtain a non-gun license. This could be a simple registration, similar to Selective Service or voting requirements. To prevent dangerous misidentification and allay public concern, individuals possessing a non-gun license would display an "Unarmed" button or label on their outer clothing.
Fourth, it is known that the vast majority of police officers never fire their weapon except in practice. Further, many police are killed with their own weapons. Police guns are obviously both unneeded and an unnecessary danger. It is therefore prudent to disarm the police. With the police disarmed, the public would be protected from innocent-bystander shootings and other horrific police accidents. No more police officers would be tragically shot with their own gun. To set an example, President Clinton should immediately and publicly disarm the Secret Service. Failure to do so would be the height of hypocrisy in light of his overwhelmingly enthusiastic support for any and all other gun control schemes.
These proposals are clearly logical extensions of existing claims or beliefs about gun ownership. They merely augment or improve existing and proposed gun legislation. Further, they are modest and reasonable guidelines which impose no onerous obligations on the general public. None infringes on the Bill of Rights any more than the 20,000 existing gun laws infringe on the Second Amendment. All should be adopted before any other gun related legislation.
Stop Burglary - Ban Door Locks
For the past fifty years, the public has responded to crime with one simple-minded demand: more gun laws. And for the most part, the public has gotten every gun law it has wanted. The result, unfortunately, has always been more crime, not less.
Funny thing, that. It's just what pro-gun people have been predicting: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Who would've thought that by taking the guns away from the good guys, only the bad guys would have guns? Who'd have thought that the bad guys would keep using them? Evidently not the anti-gun zealots..
To their credit, most anti-gun people aren't mindless zealots. Nor are they part of some vast conspiracy to topple what used to be a free country. They simply are afraid of crime and violence and want to minimize it as much and as quickly as possible. They aren't gun owners themselves, so they won't be inconvenienced by gun laws. They respond by wanting gun laws. It's a case of "Let's do something - anything - even if it doesn't work."
Such feelings are perhaps understandable, but they have no basis in reality. Imagine a rancher losing lambs to coyotes. Would banning sheep dogs help? If we want to reduce the mayhem on our highways, do we ban ambulances? Of course not. It makes no sense to ban the things that can ameliorate tragedy. There are times when it is best to fight fire with fire. Even at Columbine High School, did they ban armed personnel on school grounds? No. They hired THREE armed guards instead of one. Why? Because trained, armed people deter crime better than anything else. That's why we have armed police, and that's why we need armed citizens.
Wherever there are legally armed citizens, crime lessens. Where the people are stripped of their defenses, crime escalates. It's that simple. Mass killers don't attack police stations or firearms training schools. They attack churches, schools, libraries, restaurants, subways and anywhere else people have been deprived of the means to defend themselves. Incidentally, that's as true in England, Australia and Japan as it is in the U.S. Take the guns from the good guys and the bad guys rampage withour fear.
If we continue to create target-rich, defenseless environments for killers, there will be more mass killings. Good people with guns prevent crime. Good people without guns are victims. If you believe otherwise, you may as well try to stop burglars by banning door locks.
Stop Crime - Disarm The Police?
The media and some highly vocal groups are fond of blaming guns for crime. They conclude that guns are so inherently evil they should be banned, especially from schools, churches and similar places. Invariably, however, they add the line, "except for police officers." Let's examine those ideas.
There are only three entities involved in a violent crime: the perpetrator, the weapon and the victim. Unless we claim that the victim is responsible, that leaves only the weapon or the perpetrator as possible causes for crime. If weapons commit crimes, then we should try, convict and incarcerate the weapons. If all weapons are inherently evil, we should ban all weapons. That means all weapons without exception.
Unless there is some mystical force that neutralizes a weapon's evil influence when it is worn by a police officer, then police guns are just as liable to commit violent crime as non-police guns. No gun ban proponent has yet claimed such a mystic immunity force, so to stop crime we must ban guns from the police as well as from the average citizen. Does anyone think that disarming the police will stop crime? Then why does anyone think that disarming the citizens will stop crime?
The reverse of that argument is that there is no inherent evil nature in weapons and that they are merely inanimate objects that sometimes get used in crimes. Being inanimate objects, they exert no sinister force on their owners, be they police or citizen. Neither citizen guns nor police guns are in themselves responsible for crime, and therefore there is no reason to ban guns from either population.
If neither the victim nor the weapon is responsible for crime, there remains only the perpetrator. If the perpetrator is responsible for crime, it matters not what tool is used. Nor does it help to make things or actions illegal. If that were true, drugs, murder, robbery and even traffic speeding would no longer exist. To stop crime then, we must focus on the one controllable factor in crime. Catch perpetrators, try them fairly but without coddling and then remove them from the society they threaten. We must allow society to defend itself from these predators. Responsible individuals who choose to own and carry a gun must be allowed that on-the-spot form of self defense. For those who choose not to defend themselves personally, let society as a whole defend itself after the fact through rigorous incarceration.
Crime: Placing The Blame
It seems that hardly a week goes by without another city suing gun manufacturers. In large part, these suits seem to be copycat actions based on past lawsuits against tobacco companies. If I understand correctly, the essence of the argument is that guns are used in crimes and crimes cost cities money to mitigate. Therefore, gun makers should be held responsible for those costs.
But lawsuits against gun makers may be difficult to support. There are many reasons for this, both legal and logical. I am not qualified to address the legal aspects, and so will confine myself to more prosaic topics.
First, tobacco and guns have very little in common beyond being consumer products. Guns are not addictive, are not freely available to anyone, and are not government subsidized. Cities forbid their employees from using tobacco, but require some of them to have and use guns. Cities allow tobacco to be sold literally anywhere, but strictly regulate gun sales and businesses. Not a single life has ever been saved by tobacco, but guns protect individual citizens as many as a million times every year. In fact, studies show that guns in the hands of private citizens prevent and stop more crimes than the police do.
Second, if gun makers are forced to pay huge settlements, where will the money come from? The gun industry itself is not huge. Their pockets are not deep. The only way they could recoup or even pay such penalties would be either to sell still more guns or go out of business. Foreign manufacturers would, of course, still be willing and able to provide guns to the market, so the supply of guns would be undiminished. The lawsuits would be fruitless, pointless and ineffective. A Pyrrhic victory at best for the cities.
Third, guns are not the only objects used in crime. If everything involved in a crime is in part responsible for that crime, then nearly every manufacturer is in turn liable as well. Auto manufacturers provide transport to and from crimes. Ditto for the petroleum industry. Clothing manufacturers provide garb for crimes. More importantly, might not the cities themselves be at least as liable? After all they provide the streets used in crime. Cities attract and encourage the businesses hit by crime. Cities ultimately provide the motive, means and even the victims of crime. Furthermore, cities establish police departments specifically to prevent crime. That they have completely failed to do so should be the direct responsibility of the cities.
Finally, one more thought in that same vein. There is one item that is involved in every crime. Indeed it is the very root, essence and basis of crime. Should we not follow the lead of the cities and blame crime on those that make that item? If so, the ones responsible for crime are the ones who manufacture...money. |
|
What's Worse - Terrorists or Teachers?
One of the points being debated once again in the Utah Legislature is the idea of concealed weapons in schools. Those in favor of banning lawfully licensed individuals from carrying concealed weapons often point out that Utah is one of the few states that do not specifically ban weapons from schools. They say "Utah should be like the other states." They should think before they talk. Almost all other states have lotteries. Most allow open sale of alcoholic beverages. Several Western states have no income tax. Many do not tax food. No other state legislates according to the wishes of a dominant religion. In short, most states allow more and tax less than Utah. If anti-gun zealots want Utah to be more like other states, they should start by eliminating laws that set Utah apart. When Utahns are no more regulated and taxed than the citizens of other states, only then might it be appropriate to address other issues. But does it make sense to ban legally carried guns from schools? Legally carried but undetectable guns are a deterrent to crime, as has been conclusively proven. Where citizens legally carry hidden guns, crime decreases. Where every citizen is defenseless, crime soars. Shouldn't we make schools a place where violent attacks decrease? It is a simple matter to leave the laws as they are and allow an undetermined number of anonymous teachers to wear concealed guns. School terrorists would think twice about shooting students if any nearby teacher could kill them. Remember airline hijackings? Terrorists were quick to hijack plane loads of defenseless passengers. But when air marshals with concealed weapons began posing as passengers, the terrorists abruptly switched to other targets. If I had to choose between two schools for my children, with all things equal except for armed teachers, the choice would be an easy one. If even one teacher has a hidden gun, the chances of an armed attack are drastically lowered. If one did occur, the teacher might have a chance to stop the attack. In an unarmed school, as we have so tragically seen, there is no deterrence. Attacks are frequent, and the only thing that limits the carnage is the terrorists' ammunition supply. Who are these anti-gun zealots afraid of: terrorists or teachers?
More Gun Laws = More Crime
It has become mandatory of late to look back over the past century and reflect on various changes. Some of the most dramatic changes in American society involve the relationship between crime and gun control.
In the first half of the twentieth century, violent crime was a relatively uncommon activity. Certainly there were highly publicized crime events and the beginnings of organized crime. But organized crime mainly fought with itself. Violence was directed against other crime families or groups for the most part. Crime involving the general public usually involved theft, fraud and other material crimes. Most Americans could feel safe in their own homes even if the doors were left unlocked. Most Americans households also owned and used guns.
Then in the 1960s came a wave of gun-related crimes, riots and other violent events. A President, an Attorney General and several civil rights leaders were assassinated by gunfire. Congress responded with what was thought to be a quick fix and began to delve into national gun control. The Gun Control Act of 1968, billed as a “compromise” and as a “first step” came into being.
Since then, literally tens of thousands of additional Federal, state and local gun laws have attempted to stop human violence by regulating inanimate objects. No reduction of violence has accrued from these efforts. Instead, gun violence has increased with every law that proponents claimed would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Indeed, the only tangible effect of these laws has been to keep guns out of the hands of the victims.
In every city or area where the public has been disarmed, crime and violent crime in particular has soared. It is no accident that crime rates are highest where legal gun ownership is lowest. No law has yet kept guns out of the hands of those who disregard laws. The bumper sticker of the 60s was and is still correct: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Today, when any deranged teen or terrorist can achieve media stardom by shooting up a school or a public place, there are still more calls for gun control. Those like Handgun Control Incorporated who would disarm the victims should be made to accept responsibility for the inevitable results of such cockeyed ideas. If the liberal ideal is to make anyone and everyone responsible for crime except the criminal, then those who espouse gun control should share the major portion of the ethical and moral burden. Perhaps the chant should be, “Hey, hey HCI, how many more will you make die?”
|
|
All We Have To Do Is…
An astute observer of mankind once observed that any idea that begins “All we have to do…” is doomed to failure. Few human problems are simple enough to be cured with a simple fix. But that’s not what gun control people believe. One example is gun registration. An idea that’s been bandied about for decades, and has always been soundly rejected by lawmakers and the public, gun registration is still ardently sought by some. The claim is that crimes will be more easily solved because guns will be easy to trace. Let’s see. For the sake of argument, let us assume that every gun in the US is now registered. There are no exceptions. Even criminals have registered their guns with the police. (Yes, we all know criminals wouldn’t do that, but hey, gun control is a dream world anyway.) Now, here is a murder victim, killed by gunshot. Okay, who did it? Well? Now tell me how gun registration helped. Let’s go even farther. The murder gun is found next to the body. Now who did it? We still don’t know. Even the registered owner can’t be accused without additional evidence, evidence that the police would have to gather with or without gun registration. After all, the gun may have been stolen or lost or used without the owner’s knowledge. Or some bureaucrat may have copied the wrong serial number. Would you risk your freedom or your life on the efficiency of a civil servant? Another idea being pushed very recently is licensing of handgun owners. No one could buy a handgun unless he or she had an official government handgun license. Of course, if someone didn’t have such a license, they could always steal a gun. And it would be easy to learn who has guns. Just hack into the government’s computer list of license holders and get the address of the nearest soon-to-be-burglarized gun owner. Such a license scheme is reminiscent of a plan once tried in Utah. Remember drug stamps? You couldn’t buy or sell illegal drugs unless you first bought a drug stamp. Boy that program sure cut down on drug crime, didn’t it? I can just see it now: two figures huddled in a dark alley. One says, “I need a gun to do a job. I’ll give ya a hundred bucks for one.” The other guy says, “OK buddy, I got a hot one right here. Just show me your handgun license.” Right. If they passed a handgun license law, who would get the licenses? The bodyguards of the lawmakers who voted for it would certainly be issued licenses. Would you? If a citizen couldn’t buy a gun without a license, and a gun-control-happy government can arbitrarily decide who gets the licenses, what do think would happen? No licenses, no sales, no guns. No more citizens defending their lives with guns. After all, good citizens obey laws. Or die trying. So you see, gun control can eliminate crime. All we have to do is…
Carry a gun – or chalk
Michigan – A man argues with residents than returns to a senior center with a gun. He kills two and injures several, then escapes
Ohio – A man starts shooting outside an apartment building, then moves to two crowded fast food restaurants killing and wounding several.
New York – A man suddenly begins shooting people at random on a crowded subway, pausing only to reload and stalk new victims.
Texas – A man plows his pickup into a busy cafeteria, then stands on a table shooting and killing people. He reloads several times and continues unopposed until he runs out of ammunition.
Each time, headlines and television reports trumpet the event for days. Each time, innocent people are involved in shooting incidents not of their own making. Each incident takes place in a city or a facility where legally carried guns are forbidden. In each case the police arrive only in time to draw chalk lines around the victims.
Arizona – After raping and shooting one victim, a man breaks into another woman’s home. The man threatens to kill her and her family. Instead, she kills him with one shot from her handgun.
Florida – Two men attempt to rob a convenience store at knifepoint. The owner draws his legally carried handgun and holds the pair for authorities.
North Carolina – A woman storeowner arrives to discover a career criminal removing office equipment. He attacks her with a crowbar. She draws her legally concealed firearm and fires once, killing him.
Tennessee – A man barges into a hardware store and rushes into a back room. When the suspicious owner follows him in, the man reaches into his pocket. The owner pulls his own pistol and holds the man, who had been running from police after a shooting only minutes before.
In each of these incidents, there is virtually no media coverage. No innocent people are killed or wounded. Each incident takes place where lawful citizens are allowed to take responsibility for their own safety by carrying guns. In each case the police arrive to find the criminal stopped or subdued.
The police are essential. But their job is to investigate crime after it occurs. They cannot prevent it, and they certainly cannot be there when it happens. In fact, violent crime occurs only where the police aren’t. The truth is that where lawful citizens carry concealed guns, crime is lowered. Armed citizens therefore represent a crime deterrent at least as potent as the police. Perhaps more so, because armed citizens are indistinguishable from other citizens, whereas police are easily recognized and avoided by criminals.
Each of us must decide how we will deal with violent crime. We can take responsibility for our own safety – and insure that we have the right to make that decision. Or we can place our trust in fate and hope for the best. If and when the unthinkable happens, some of us will be carrying a gun. The rest of you might as well carry your own chalk.
And Who Will Be The Wolf?
MSNBC News – “President Clinton pushed for stricter gun controls at every opportunity this week, but announced that he would not address the Million Mom March for stricter gun laws scheduled for Mother’s Day out of security concerns.”
Security concerns? Why would he have security concerns in what should be, by his own reasoning, the safest city on the globe?
The highly orchestrated Million Mom March (which actually drew a crowd of only ) took place in the heart of Washington DC, the city with the most strict gun control laws in the nation. It is absolutely illegal to possess even a completely disassembled handgun in the nation’s capital. That being the case, the question that begs to be asked is: If gun control works so well, what was the President afraid of?
By its very nature, this crowd of gun protesters should be unarmed, right? How many moms protesting guns does Bill think were wearing guns? Wouldn’t that crowd be the safest place he could be? Or is there something we are missing?
Yes, friends, there is. Bill Clinton knows that gun control doesn’t work. Indeed, he knows in his heart that it cannot work. He also knows that where gun control is strictest, violence is many times more likely to happen. He knows that this crowd of defenseless men and women were the likeliest, juiciest target for violent criminals ever assembled. And you can bet your hide that he had no intention of risking his. That’s why the most anti-gun President in history, living in the city with the strictest gun controls in the nation, wouldn’t go out in public.
Now, ask another question. If Washington DC’s draconian gun control laws did work as claimed, would Bill Clinton have to surround himself with the heavily armed and highly trained bodyguards of the Secret Service? Or ask this: If guns are dangerous, if guns do cause violence simply by their presence, and if guns are more likely to injure than protect (all of which Clinton often claims) then why doesn’t he disarm the Secret Service? Is it true that in a land of sheep, the wolf is king? Is this Bill Clinton’s view of gun control? YES!!
Bill Clinton (and many others – you know their names) only wants the citizens to be disarmed. That means you. Not the Secret Service, not the FBI, not the legions of ninja-hooded, black-suited, sub-machinegun-waving enforcers of government fiat like those who were at Waco and Ruby Ridge and most recently, Miami. Not them; only you, only the people. Now ask just one more question. If you let that happen, who will be the sheep, and who will be the wolf?
|