1. George Zimmerman was part of an organized and recognized
Neighborhood Watch. He had had some training this capacity. The Neighborhood Watch had been
legally formed in response to real crime problems. George Zimmerman was legally
authorized to carry a gun for his own self-protection. He was the Captain of
the neighborhood watch. He observed someone whom he did not recognize, whom he
felt was out of place, and whom he felt was behaving suspiciously. This person
was wearing a hoodie, which reminded Zimmerman of those criminals who had been
causing problems in the community. So Zimmerman followed him. Zimmerman called
the police dispatcher, who rightly told Zimmerman to disengage from following,
because a police car had been dispatched.
2. If Zimmerman did NOT stop following this young man, then
he made a major error. Was it criminal? Maybe. Was it malicious? I don't think
so. Was it racially motivated? I cannot see that it was. Was race a factor.
Probably, in that this young man fit the description of those who had
purportedly been wreaking havoc upon this neighborhood. Was it a poor judgment?
Obviously. Was it stupid? Absolutely--in hindsight.
3. Trayvon Martin was in an unfamiliar neighborhood. But he
had every right to be doing what he was doing while crossing through the
neighborhood. He was doing nothing wrong. He had been to the store to buy a
soft drink and candy. He saw a white guy following him. Likely because he was
afraid and suspicious of the motives of this older fat white or Hispanic guy
following him, he was hiding along the side of the building and had his hoodie
up. It is not illegal to wear a hoodie, it was afteral said to be raining.
Placing myself in this young man's shoes, I can understand how he may have felt
that having his hoodie up could have been advantageous while assessing the
perceived threat of being followed by this unknown man. He man have felt that
his youth was a disadvantage and concealing himself would make him a more
formidable victim to a potential assault. Or he may have simply been aggravated
that Zimmerman was following him--for whatever reason. He was doing nothing
illegal. Even if he had suspected that the guy was part of a neighborhood watch
and have been aggravated by being wrongly suspected of wrongdoing--it would be
understandable--bur really, how could he have known this? Indications are that
he did not.
4. At this point, with George Zimmerman being the only
surviving witness, only HE knows what happened during the confrontation. He
claimed, with some authority as the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch, that
Martin ambushed him while he was on his way back to his car, as I understand
it. The only part of this that I find to be suspect, is whether or not he had truly disengaged from following
this kid. To me, it is pretty apparent that the kid did indeed attack him and
was apparently kicking his ass.
5. Much has been said about self-defense in this case. In my
personal estimation, having taught self-defense classes, I can see how this
mere teenager, who had apparently been in confrontations before and had some
sense of how to preserve oneself, chose to confront his perceived nemesis on
his own terms, which is often strategically advantageous. If Zimmerman was
still following him, I can fully understand how Martin would have felt
compelled and justified in jumping him. I mean, what right did the this fat guy
have to be bothering this kid at all? Had he identified himself as the Captain
of the Neighborhood Watch? No, not according to what I have heard. So when we
invoke self-defense, we would almost be splitting hairs to say that Martin did
not have a right to confront Zimmerman--a fat-ass over-zealous white guy--if
indeed he was still pursuing him. It was dark and no one else was around. For
crying out loud, if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force and kill this
kid because he felt his life or limb was in danger--did not Trayvon Martin have
a similar right to physically confront, smack, or constrain this unknown fat
potential assailant--for the same reasons. If a reasonable person had been in
the place of this kid, armed only with a beverage and candy, in an unfamiliar
neighborhood, would he not have reasonably felt that his own life and limb was
in danger? In my estimation, although it was obviously, again in hindsight, the
wrong thing to do--was it not a reasonable reaction to resort to physically
protection--albeit, proactively? What would you have done? The wrong thing, or
something else?
In most self-defense instruction, we are taught to never
allow yourself to become a victim, to not hesitate, to act decisively and
harshly when it comes to protecting yourself. Martin may have learned this
precept on the streets. He may have learned it in a self-defense class. He may
have learned it on TV. He may have acted instinctively. But if he reasonably
thought that his life or limb was in danger--his own self-defensive actions
would be condoned by many self-defense instructors. However, in this case, it
led to his death.
6. Local Law-Enforcement examined the evidence. They quickly
came to the conclusion that according to the evidence available and according
to the law, that they had no choice but to release George Zimmerman. It is
likely that Zimmerman's reputation as a good and solid citizen with evident
good intent figured into this equation. But the available facts are what they
based their decision to release Zimmerman on. Undoubtedly, they recognized the
terrible tragedy that had occurred, but by simply following and interpreting
the laws, they did not have sufficient evidence--none that is--to indicate that
Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense. They let him go. My guess is that
Zimmerman's life had already been ruined by this terrible event--but there is
no indication other that Zimmerman MAY have made a bad decision. He had not
acted hatefully. He had not acted unreasonably. He had screwed up big time. He
had killed an innocent kid. But the law recognizes that such things can happen.
It was a big tragic mistake. Local Law Enforcement acted correctly. This is now
more clear than ever.
7. Trayvon Martin's family was understandably upset. They had
every right to be; as parents, they had
every right to question and delve into the circumstances of the case. They
should have. To not have done so would have been negligent.
8. The media jumped all over this. They intentionally
distorted the facts and misrepresented the circumstances. Why? I can only
speculate. Maybe the Liberal Media mindset caused them to see sinister motives
where none existed. Maybe they simply wanted a story. Maybe they felt that it
was their duty as the press to merely call this to the public's attention so
that a possible injustice could be more closely examined. But they were
dishonest about it. they misreported it. So often I see that thosw with such a
biased crusader mindset somehow finds it okay to ignore time-tested laws of honesty
because they feel that honorable ends justify dishonorable means. Once again,
this post-modern Liberal rethinking of the basic laws of decency upon which civilization
is founded, have proven to be incorrect. The arrogance of this mind-set is once
again shown to be absurd.
9. The
politicians piled on, fanned by the medias dishonest representation of the
facts. Al Sharpton, for one, who calls
himself a Christian Reverend, fanned the fires of racial hatred--because this
is wha t Al Sharpton does. Al Sharpton assumed to know things that he had no
way of knowing about the case. He assumed the worst possible case scenario and
further distorted the facts because this is what he does. He divides. He plays
the race card even where none exists. Sharpton and others have made careers of
fanning the fires of racial hatred. If they taught the true tenants of
Christianity, he would not have a job. Al Sharpton thrives on divisive hatred
based on race. I cannot even hod this against him. Sharpton, charlatan reverend
though he is, serves a purpose. He is a racially-motivated political activist.
His hatred of white people is evident. This is the role he plays in life. This
is what he does. If there is a hint of an opportunity to sew racial hatred, Al
Sharpton is there. This is more-or-less the same role that many others play who
piled on in this case. But what about those who are supposed to be racially neutral?
Such as the President of the United States. Or the Attorney General of the
United States--who by the way--had no business weighing i n on this local
matter at all. If it is not evident that these men are racially biased--are
themselves racists as reflected by their actions regarding this case--then
those failing to see this are simply blind.
10. President
Obama has an obligation to represent all Americans. he should not have assuaged
himself into this case as an African American. He should not have assuaged his
influence as the Chief Executive of this nation in this local case at all. It does not matter if
he feels that Trayvon Martin looked like a son if he had had one. He does not
have a son. President Obama, revealed himself as the racist hat he is, by
weighing in on this case. He did not know the facts. he spoke--just as so many
others have spoken in this case--out his ass--without the benefit of the facts.
Never mind that he may have a deserved racial chip on his shoulder that caused
him to feel a personal emotional involvement in this case. A President of the
United States of America does not have this power or right. He overstepped his
bounds and unjustly sought to influence the outcome of a local matter where he
should not have. He used his power, not to try to find the truth, but to
further divide the races of or already racially divided country. How dare him
even that he could compare himself to President Abraham Lincoln. How dare him.
11. So what has
been served by the Attorney General of the USA or The Attorney General of
Florida, or local prosecutors, or all the others who piled onto this case for
political advantage and assuaged their influence where it was unneeded,
unsought, unwanted, unwarranted, unjust, and unusual. What? Millions of dollars, more
hatred, more racial division, more dishonesty, more disengenuosity , more
misuse, and more injustice?
13. Do the
parents of Trayon Martin have the basis for a civil case against Zimmerman for
his reckless, albeit "legal" behavior that led to the unjustified death
of their son? I am not an attorney, but I am a reasonable and rationale person.
I think they do have a good case against him. That appears to me all that they
ever had. Does he have any money to serve as reparations? Has Zimmerman not already paid considerably
for his mistake? Should they pursue a
civil case against him? It is a costly thing to do. He has no money. Would a
jury rule differently? Who knows. Would a reasonable persons in similar
circumstances pursue a Civil Case Against Zimmerman. I think not. Would I if I
were in their shoes. Probably--maybe--or maybe I would just let it go at this
point as another one of those tragic mindless life events that inevitably
happens to each of us. Life is too short.
14. When my
daughter youngest daughter attended high school in the community where we then
lived, a nice young man whom she knew
and went to classes with, was driving down a main street near where we lived a
random limb feel from a giant old oak tree and smashed his car and killed him. I
don't recall whether the family sought any kind of reparations from the city or
the property owner or anyone else. I
suppose fault could have been found that someone under some definition of something
was to blame for this tragic thing that happened. It was surely awful. It
undoubtedly disrupted his parents and siblings and classmates lives and changed
them forever. This young man was unable to fulfill any measure of his hopes and
dreams. It was awful. No doubt about it.
The boy chose to
go wherever it was that he was going at the particular moment that placed him
under the falling tree limb. Was he at fault? It was his choice. but he did not
know that this course of action would place him in a situation that would end
his life. The city or the property owner
might well have been inclined--especially in retrospect to have done something
to have prevented this from happening. The parents might well have felt that
they should not have allowed him to drive their car when they did, moved to
this wonderful little town when they did, or have made any number of other
choices. Someone could have been blamed for the young man's tragic demise. It
is tragic.
No, it is not
exactly the same, with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin's situation and
choices. But the fact remains that neither of these people set out to hate or
harm or even encounter the other that fateful night. If there could be an
instant life replay where one or the other or any number of other people could
change the events leading up to this tragedy, they would do so. Don't think for
a minute that George Zimmerman has not been held to account for his actions--however
malignant or benign they may have been. He has, and he will, continue to pay
for his actions forever--as did Trayvon Martin. But why does it have to be
anything more than it was--an unfortunate set of choices and circumstances that
ended as it did--much as did those that placed my daughter's classmate under a
falling limb.
15. Was Trayvon Martin's civil rights violated? Did George
Zimmerman commit a hate crime? Everyone's civil rights are violated in some way
daily. It is unfortunate, but these kinds of crimes against humanity will never be eliminated by laws. They can only be affected by changing men's hearts. Well, after the press weighed in, and the politicians weighed in, and
the President of the United States weighed in, and a publicity-seeking
prosecutor weighed in, and the entire judicial system was skewed in favor of
finding George Zimmerman guilty of a crime--and after years of legal wrangling
and expense and discussion, a jury of peers was approved by all parties and
seated. They were women, mothers, black and white. After a public trial was
held on TV, and after a Judge made many concessions to the prosecution down to
the last day--providing an opportunity for the jury to consist on a lesser
charge that was not even asked for by the prosecution initially--but which they
had apparently scrambled to have approved at the last hour--the jury found
George Zimmerman Not Guilty of the crimes for which he had been charged. It
took them a short time and was apparently unanimous very quickly.
Still, throngs of people are protesting. Racial prejudice
and inequality is being accused, foul is being cried. Racial division is being promulgated. Racism
is being fueled. I am sorry. The law may be screwed up--may be, maybe. But it is the law--until it is changed. No law is perfect. Most laws have undesirable side effects in some cases. The overall net net positive affect has to be considered.
George Zimmerman was found Not Guilty of violating the Law of the Land. This
was a very public, very media monitored, very media biased case. The outcome is
what it is. It is also the same outcome as the local system arrived at initially.
Yet this case has and is being leveraged as a race crime. I don't get it. What
else can be done? Are we supposed to try this man over and over and over again
until the outcome is what the media and race-based politicians want it to be?
That ain't the way America is supposed to work. All I can consistently say is that this entire event and the circus that has surrounded it was, is, and will continue to be a terrible tragedy--just as was the tragedy of the tree killing my daughters young friend.
Several people have complimented me lately aobut some FB posts. I wanted to thank them, but decided it would be too self-indulgent to do so on fb. I mean, they were jsut simple compliments. They don't really warrant a big response. Still, I had these thoughts. Part of the reason I write, whether on social media or on my blogs, is that my parents thoughts have come to mean a lot to me, and I want to capture some of my own for the benefit of my kids and grandkids in the event they are similarly affect after I am gone. Here is my response to the FB compliments:
Btw, I did leave a couple of more textured surfaces as ways for Froggy to escape. He was not there this morning so I guess it worked. Thanks for the compliments, but everyone has word skills if they'd just write them down. I learned typing on my own and incorrectly, but I can roll pretty good if I look at the keys. Stories are everywhere around us--just reg'r ole stuff. My Momma was a writer and she encouraged me to write early and I did. I write pretty much the way I talk. I just don't talk much. I usually use the first words that occur to me and try to use the most common words that most closely match what I want to say. I don't revise enough. Spell-checks help catch spelling mistakes. Punctuation represents pauses, near stops, full stops, inflection, and other changes in cadence. I don't know many rules, but I use my ear. I am a bit OCD so the rules I do know, I find hard to break. Fortunately, my parents spoke fairly correct English. And I have plenty of time on my hands when I am not able to do much else. I know all that was not called for, but that's what happens. ;-)
Btw, what does "FUTURE FUNCTIONALITY" mean??? Does it mean for me? The web site? What? I am only guessing that this is the correct selection from the pull-down menu.
I am a veteran using the VA Healthcare system; I am now disabled and can no longer work, but when I did, I was deeply involved with computers and the Internet. I have designed websites and was among the first of my peers to become computer and then Internet savvy. I have remained updated on Internet issues and use the Internet daily. I was excited when it was first announced that VA services would be made available and was among the first to sign up and use this site. I became authenticated early-on as per the requirements at the time. I have never been able to use the full extent of this site because it was either not yet available or was too user-unfriendly to wade through. Just now, I attempted to go through the process to further authenticate myself so that I can know when my appointments are--since the VA has apparently quit sending notices of appointments or calling to remind. The automated phone system is cumbersome and time-consuming, so I would prefer using the Internet as I do for most things in life. After filling out a lot of cryptic Identification answers, I was told that I failed to identify myself properly (like I don't know who I am), because I did not fill the information out "correctly". This was after I was cautioned to be extra careful to be absolutely correct in the information or I would not be allowed to try again--that I would only be given two tries. It is not that hard for me to answer the questions correctly--but as it said my information had to match "readily-available public records"--I can guess the information that was supposedly "wrong". It wanted me to select the name of a geographical area that I have supposedly used as my address recently. The selection did not have the correct place to select. It had one which is fairly close to where I live (and in retrospect, pops up sometimes in unsolicited Internet ads as if it is my CORRECT address--but it is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN.) Oh, far be it to think that the Internet could have me confused with someone else or have my residence incorrect. Well, they obviously have. It is a sad state of affairs when I can walk into an ACE Hardware that i have never been to and upon providing my phone number they can retrieve a full dossier regarding my existence that I have never provided to them. This so-called public information was never provided to anyone but has been gleaned from various illegal sources on the Internet. But because the algorithms and cross-references that have illegally attempted to peg who I am have it incorrect--I have to suffer by not being properly identified by a government web site sufficiently to retrieve my VA appointment information as if anyone else would even want it. I CAN order controlled substances and have them sent through the mail where anyone can access them en-route or from my mailbox--without any problem--but I cannot find out if I have any VA appointments. If I miss any of those appointments I can be kicked out of the system, according to the rules--which I hope they will not enforce until I figure out if or when I have an appointment and where and with whom. The phone system will tell me IF I have an appointment and when--but not where or with whom I have it. The authentication process and related sites and instructions are so complex--using acronyms and unfamiliar more-recent-than-my-service governmental esoteric jargon--that I can only guess as to what they are referring to. I have actually TAUGHT Internet design from a marketing stand-point, which HAS to be user friendly to get results. This governmental VA related Internet experience is worthy of being cited as the very antithesis of what is user-friendly. Even as dated as my own experience is--I could very quickly convert his site to a USER-FRIENDLY site by observing just a few basic principles. But do I have any hopes that this will ever happen? Not a breath of a hope! It is obviously designed by a bunch of undoubtedly intelligent propeller-heads (that's a compliment)--who seem to take pride in there excellence in geekism without any sense of actually trying to make their site useful and easy. I wondered recently why a VA rep was walking around the waiting rooms of the VA hospital offering to explain how to get on the Internet and use the available services (btw, I asked him to help me figure out how to retrieve my appointment schedule; he said he'd help me and then promptly had to leave the premises without helping me at all) . Now I understand WHY NO ONE UNDERSTANDS AND SO FEW PEOPLE ARE USING THE INTERNET. It is NOT because they are stupid. It is just that it is too darned difficult to wade through. I am hopeful that I will eventually be able to have myself properly identified to the system to where I can use it for such top-secret appointment info. But not without adding to an already burdensome marathon of activities I already have to endure when I go to the VA hospital. Never-mind that I am chronically ill and can barely find the wherewithal to go at all. But now I have to walk no-telling how far within the hospital corridors and be referred to the wrong place, as I was recently--twice--and have to retrace my steps and wait in line each time only to be told that I am at the wrong place. Everyone--especially the doctors--are obviously under such duress now that they spend most of their time while you are there--trying to computer document their own actions and cover their own butts that you barely even know if they hear your health concerns. Simple emails are answered with an obvious slant more toward documenting things to deflect any criticism of themselves that their attitude of disdain is about all that even comes through. As you may guess, I am not very pleased with my just-defeated attempt to check my appointments. I truly fear that I will be now labeled as a trouble-maker and get even worse treatment. I hope not. It would really be nice if someone would hear the pain and defeat behind the complaint and someone try to help me, but I ain't holding MY breath for this. It is apparent that everyone there hates their jobs AND vets like me. I will probably figure this out before I die. Maybe not. But I feel for the poor old guys who have not a clue about computers and the internet. If I, a former computer/Internet professional, am having this much trouble--there is no hope at all for the rest of us old guys. Sincerely, Douglas p. Wright (and no, I do not live in Cordova--nor have I EVER lived in Cordova!!!!)
What an Ugly word. What an ugly concept. Prior to Facebook who would have imagined a word that sounds so casually mean-spirited? But Unfriending is a more than a word, it is a phenomenon that anyone using social media is aware of. Opinions vary as to when it is okay to Unfriend someone on Facebook. The general online concensus as refereced in a few of my links is that there really is no concensus governing when it is okay to unfriend someon on social media. Opinions range from, It's your page, you can do whatever you want to, better think twice before you do it, to there are very few good reasons to Unfriend anyone.
Obviously, the context from which the source is offering their opinion makes a big difference. But do you really need to be told what is right when it comes to Unfriending? Okay, I have a simple rule to help you mkae these decisons. Simple use your middle finger--that's right--your BAD FINGER, when clicking the Unfriend command on Facebook. Because this is really what you are saying.
Those who appear to qualify as experts on social media and social networking seem to take the stance that nothing is gained from unfriending someone unless they are intentionally trying tocause you a harm. There are less-terminal to ways keep annoying posts out of your face, without risking any negative fallout from Unfriending someone. Some seem to feel that it should not matter how a person is treated on Facebook. Others say that Facebook is a reflection of real life and that you should never behave any differently than you would in real life. Niether of these positions guides us much because people behave differently in real life too. Some people tend to be courteous and sensitive to the feelings of others while some people are not. People from certain geographies tend to use a more defined sense of manners and some people think such conventions are nonsense.
I am from the Southern United States, but I have lived in and traveled to a lot of different places. I do understand that manners governing Southern Gentilism are somehow considered sexist or racist by some supposed antrhopologists who think they understand them but who obviously don't--or they may just be felt too cumbersome by others. I can tell you this, that my generally reserved and perhaps overly considerate Southern Ettiquette has never failed to get me through some of the most tenuos social situations in every place in the world I have used them. Such manners were after-all carefully developed as alternatives to duels to the death with fancy black-powder pistols.
I have taught self-defense classes from time to time. In these classes I have always taught that the best self-defense is avoiding situations that require any further self-defense. This may not always be possible, but common sense tells us that if you are not intentionally rude or confrontational and if you treat all people with respect and dignity--a great many situations requiring self-defense can be avoided. Simply put, if you are nice to people, they are not as inclined to kill you. Wa-la! Isn't it odd how this works.
I had a doctor friend, one of my doctors with whom I became friends, who told me that he had once been prone to impatience while driving--you know--we sometimes call it road-rage. He told about how he routinely drove agressively and often mouthed oaths and flipped people off while driving. He didn't behave this way in other situations, but he told me that his sports car seemed to change his normal personality and unleashed some inner beast while driving. He told me that he was miraculously cured of this condition one day when he pulled to the shoulder to check for a low tire-- just a few moments after cutting in front of someone, causing a scene, and finally flipping them off.
He said he had not paid much attention to the car that had also pulled to the should a good bit behind him. My doctor said that he was kneeling to check the pressure with a tire guage when he heard footsteps and saw a shadow. Just as he turned he saw a guy who he recognized as the other driver from minutes before--bearing down on him with a malicious grin and a tire iron. My doctor had apparently met his match when it came to roadrage. You hear of homicides that start with roadrage incidents. People are emotional. people have pride and all of its associated emotional trimmings. When people feel that they have been dissed in some way--bad things can happen.
So why would anyone think tha the Internet or social media is any different? Of course there are always going to be people and groups of people who want to place themselves above others--who want to belong to an exclusive class of the elite--to make themselves feel that they are better somehow. There are those people born and bred to one class or another who think nothing of this tendency toward elitism. They think nothing of it, because they genuinely fancy themselves as better than others. This is real life elitism and of course it is going to pervade any medium where it is allowed.
There have been a few times when I have asked to be friends with someone on Facebook, whom I felt completely unreserved about asking--whom I legitimately thought there was no problem with doing so. Maybe I had not seen them for a many years, but I felt that as I built my social network they would certainly gain as much or more from sharing a Facebook Friendship as I would. But I would at some point realized that my friendship was never confirmed. I might have first thought, oh, well, they must not be on Facebook much, or that they had merely overlooked the Friend Request, or that some Facebook glitch prevented them from either getting the request or responding. Fat chance!
A few times, early on, I have even been so bold as to send a second friend request. In these instances when you get no response, I start thinking, is this person mad at me? Did I unknowingly do something that offended this person? Has this person become so arrogant as to feel they so far out-class me that they are actually snubbing me. Whaaaaa? A person can be very secure in their own self-confidence and self-image and still feel emotionally hurt when another person appears to snub them. Snubbing someone is an intentional put-down that has long been used to tell someone that they are of no worth to the other--that they are not important or desirable or good enough to deserve the other person's attention.
Historically, the human group has used exclusion to confer punishment upon those whom they did not approve of. Organizations have black-balled such people. Intitutions have withheld or revoked membership of people who didn't measure up. Religions have shunned or excommunicated wayward members who have behaved badly in order to whip them into line or let them know that they were no longer part of the approved body main. And even families have disowned members who failed to obey the family rules or live up to their expectations. Snobbery in one form or another is a basic to the human nature as is the desire for acceptance.
Nothing hurts worse than approval withheld by those from whom it is desired. Disapproval has been at the root of all human conflict surely since way before the beginnin gof human history. Snubbing has always been intended to devide from the group or to devide a group or to hurt those toward whom it is directed. Exclusion is among the cruelist and most universally understood human action. Even monkeys routinely use it. It is the difference between an outstretched hand and a smile--as opposed to a clinched fist and a frown. Exclusion and disapproval--or even tacit failure to approve--is the root cause of war and human hatred at the most guteral level.
The interseting thing about being a exclusionary on Facebook is that before you can exclude anyone, you must first either request to be someone elses Facebook Friend or you must confirm someone elses's Friend Request. If you don't, you find yourself excluded from Facebook, which is okay, maybe even advisable--but it is becoming less likely for every day that passes. Ours is a digitally connected world. It is possible to be exclusionary by yourself, but you are then probalby the only one who knows or cares or suffers from a loss is you. People who use their typical methods of social ostracism to keep people in their places socially, academically, or economically are finding that they don't work so well on Facebook. It would seem that the whole purpose for being on Facebook is to be as socially inclusive as possible. Anything less is a losing strategy and mostly a waste of time.
Friending someone on Facebook is not much like actually becoming their friend. You are not making any commitments to them; you are not risking anything more by becoming friends with one person than you are with another. If you are careful about your privacy settings and at least make a cursory effort to identify who is asking to be your friend your exposure to identity theft and privacy invasion, friending someone on Facebook is no more nor less than anywhere on the Internet. It is not a very high risk and there are basic things you can and should do to minimize your your exposure to such security and privacy concerns.
Children should be guided by their parents, although they usually aren't, but among adults, the rules of engagement are no more mysterious than what is acceptable in real life in real person in the real world. You will also find that the occasional sleezeball who stumbles in from Non-Christian-Bungle Dating sites--quickly get's the message. These idiots will find themselves Unfriended in a heartbeat, so don't even bother. Let someone else do it. But even if you do Unfriend them, they had to expect it.
Employeed in the fields of sales and marketing for a lot of my life, I have often heard how problematic getting on the outs with customers can be by various unscientific citations--whether saying for one of every ten or one-hundred or one-thousand happy customers it takes only one unhappy customer to undo the goodwill of all of the happy ones. It seems that almost no amount of good will can ever completely overcome the ill will of just one percieveed injustice. People are prone to remember the bad and forget the good.
These maxims come to me anytime that it crosses my mind to Unfriend someone on Facebook. There are mentally-ill, or emotionally disraught, or temporarily unhinged, or uncommonly distressed people every day who take offense where not so much offense is intended. You never know when your little straw of heaped upon unpleasantry becomes the final straw that breaks a proverbial unfriended uncamel back--maybe theirs or maybe yours. You never know when your little spark of unrest or agitation may become the spark that ignites a fuse leading to long-smouldering dynamite.
Of course we should not fear retaliation from those whom we have unintentionally offended, because we likely can do nothing to prevent such misunderstandings. But we are at least a little accountable when we ever are intentionally reckless with another feelings--however justified we may feel. I have had a few people Unfriend me on Facebook. I think. What gets me most is why did they either confirm my Facebook Friend Request or Request my Friending--if they are then going to Unfriend me?
But when it has happens, thankfully rarely, I would like to play it off as something else--that maybe they felt to end one account and begin another and just have not got around to Friending me. Or that it was merely a glitch or a mistake. I may even have Unfriended one or more people o Facebook. I can't think of any offhand, but Facebook has been at least as new to me as it is to others--and protocols and purposes has been being similarly worked out for us all.
I do know that once I have even a hint that someone has either failed to acknowledge or confirm a friendship or once they disappear from my Friends list I am more reluctant to friend anyone else for fear of a repeat. I will absolutely NOT expose myself to a repeat of this minor sting of my feelings. And I will wonder forever or until resolved why such things happened. And although I like to think of myself as a very fair and unprejudiced person, I fear that I may one day let myself and my principles down when I find myself in a position of being or even just knowing some mutual someone whereby I might exert just a whisper of a hint of influence that might rob a person who has Unfriended me of gaining favor.
I sometimes reflect on leaving a place where I worked one time with another employee owing me money. It was a gentleman's agreement to split a commission. I let the sale accrue to the other guys advantage, out of the fancied goodness of my heart in order that he might achieve some quota or contest or such thing, with the understanding that he would pay me out of his own commission. Having no official record of the agreement or even of the transaction, it was merely the gentlemenness of the agreement that was put to the test.
This person, for whatever reason, chose to not honor our agreement. It was a significant amount of money. I let it go with the heartfelt belief that what goes around comes around. I suppose it could have been some fifteen or so years later when I was set to team interview a candidate for a job for which he was applying. I did not have a name or even a good description of the applicants work history and qualifications. All I know was that a familiar face older and a little more pained with angst and age appeared in the glass office that flanked mine, where the first interview was to occur.
I tried to hold back emotions, and had determined that I would not allow our previous history to keep me from approving this guy's employment if indeed he turned out to be the best candidate. But when I arose upon his entry for my interview, I observed the guys face turn a little ashen when he recognized me. I was about to extend my hand when my old unfriend's face fell and he seemed to almost shrink in my presence, and he sort of half giggled and half-choked as he said my name, and then cursed under his breath and turned on his heels without further fanfare and departed without ever saying anything else. His own conscience and his own consciousness of his guilt had convicted him in my presence before I had even interviewed him. I had been already forgiven him and justified his actions to myself--but he did not allow himself to proceed with the interview.
All I am saying is don't hide behind some Dear Abby article you have read or some justification that says it is okay for you to knowingly push a button in an act that is actually called UNFRIENDING someone, and ever think that this person will not be offended at some level, let alone irreparably hurt. That they may even come to hate you. And if they have any other friend--with increasing likelihood if they have lots of friends--that your failure to be kind or your willingness to be unkind or to even be hurtful--will not have a chance of coming back to bite you. Even if they forgive you--you are likely to always remember your disloyal, mean or simply thoughtless action. Your own conscience will condemn you.
There are worthy reasons for Unfriending people on Facebook. Although in most cases, you should have probably just have blocked them. There may be stalkers or bullies who are threatening to harm you. Ex's and old romantic interests who have become abusive or taunting or otherwise challenging may truly warrant the final Finger. But I have heard a lot of other reasons that really should not qualify in a civil society. Here are a few of the apparent most popular.
1) Too many posts or shares or pictures or status updates. Unless these posts are intentionally inflammatory and geared to insulting you, how much of an intrusion can these be. How long does it take to scroll down past such gang posts. Apparently this Friend feels something is important enough to say or to share with you and others. If it is not posted to your page, either ignore it or officially block it. You can also block others from seeing your posts if desired. It is my opinion that any kind of friend is valuable enough to keep as long as they are not hurting anyone.
2) You do not agree with their politics or religion. Do you withhold association with those with whom you do not agree with politically or those who hold different religious views? Do you refuse to associate with those of different races or different socioeconomic standing? Don't limit yourself too much in your social networking.
3) Too many negative posts about how lousy they feel. Maybe you have no time for them. But maybe these folks need your attention and help if you care any tiny bit about them as mere humans. Most people will go through some kind of emotionally difficult time in their lives. If you haven't you likely will. Is it really that big a burden on you to share another person's burdens for a second. Maybe you should try a friendly uplifting comment. If you just can't stand any whiners scroll past their posts and don't respond. If these people are in the depths of despair or in Major Depression, Unfriending them might just kill them.
4) Too many pictures of their ugly kids. maybe you don't have any kids.To many parents, their children are their lives. They are wrapped up in their children but the have not yet adjusted to how to socialize while having kids or they have not yet figured out that everyone's kids are just as precious as their own. It could be worse--they could be adding to the social mess and abusing their kids. Just scroll on past them. These folks are likely isolated by their circumstances and really need outside social contact.
5) Stupid or mundane status updates. Think about it. If you had such an exciting and grand life, you would probably be on Facebook less. Those who are on Facebook a lot, have a lot of tie on their hands. If you want high drama, rent a movie--or at least turn on the news. Facebook is a pretty also-ran mundane activity. Not everyone has circumstances conducive to high adventure. I personally would have no social life at all during times of greatly compromised health. That I am on Facebook at all, is a pretty pathetic statement of my own circumstances.
6) Game requests or requested participation with certain applications--with seldom any other live contact. I admit that this has sometimes gotten my goat in the past. Once I realized that these are automated and are generally the fault of the games or applications themselves and that sometimes people's Friends lists are compromised or used without their express knowledge--it became less obnoxious. I just scroll past them. Most Facebook gamers and those who seem to fall into this category are becoming more savvy to this kind of intrusion. I am seeing less of this. If we each remember that Facebook and all social media is relatively new to all of us and that the rules of acceptability are still being defined, the less prone we'll be to giving the finger to a newbie or someone who has not yet caught on.
7) Advertising and promotion used too blatantly and abundantly. I am hoping that the within the spaces of Social Media, that some social mistakes will not be repeated. I use social media as one way to post links to my blogs. At this juncture, all of my blogs are noncommercial and advertising free. I work hard on them. I am offering something that I consider worthwhile when I provide these links. Facebook provides the least referrals to my blogs of all other means. I would not suffer if I took these links off, but some people have expressed that they enjoy them. I feel like those who may not can just ignore and roll past them. Odd are that every Friend has imposed some link upon me that I did not necessarily want.
But I also take the tack that if I am surrounded only by like-minded people that I am missing opportunities to learn and to grow. so you may not think this way. so my stuff is just garbage to you. Then by all means--scroll past me without a second thought. Or Unfriend me, but if you Unfriend me remember not to bother me the next time you need advice bout such and such--which I may happen to be an expert in. Everyone is an expert in something. The ability to access so many experts whom are by the way your Friends has never be greater. Enjoy.
And if you Unfriend me, the next time we meet on the street, don't be surprised if I give you the finger and walk away. Turn about is fair play. But no, this will never happen. My Mom and Dad carefully taught me basic good manners. I will likely just smile and play it off and everything will be cool. And I will never hold a grudge, for my own peace of mind--dear unfriend.
The AR15 semiautomatic civilian rifle is the target of those who want to ban guns; it was used in part in some high-profile horrific crimes, although it is one of the fireams least used by criminals. It you wonder why it has become the target of gun-ban efforts, it is simple; if gun-banners can get this rifle banned, they will have outlawed the most popular multipurpose gun in America, while setting a precedent for banning virtually any others. Before blindly lending your support to the effort to ban those rifles that have been called military-style assault weaons in order to defame them in the eyes of those who don't know any better, please take time to educate yourself about them.
In 1959, shortly after Armalite Corporation presented the winning design for the military rifle bound to replace several other battle rifles in the US military arsenal, well-known military arms manufacturer Colt, aquired manufacture rights for the fully automatic version of the AR15. This new rifle would be known in the military as the M16. Armalite retained production rights for the semi-automatic version of this refile and retained the designation AR15. After a somewhat tenuous beginning the M16 was embraced by the US military and and became one of the most produced military rifles in the history of the world. Meanwhile the AR15 became one of the most popular and copied sporting rifle designs in the history of the world.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
The AR15 is the most popular all around sporting rifle in America with many millions having been sold since its inception. Although some of the same features that made the M16 and its later variants such a popular military rifle--also made the AR15 such a popular sporting rifle--one major difference makes them radically different. The AR15 is semi-automatic, while the M16 is a fully-automatic machine-gun. This one difference is the difference between a military rifle and a civilian rifle. It has been this way from the beginning and it is still.
Although the rfiles look alike, it is the fully-automatic featue that has made one legal only for military use from the beginning, while the other has been legal for civilan use since the beginning. Civilians have not been able to legally purchase or own new machine guns since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1933. The NFA was passed in the heat of the fight against prohibition gangland America and such colorful characters as John Dillenger and Pretty Boy Floyd--who made the distinctive-looking Thompson Sub-machine-gun, with its .45 caliber drum magazine, a famous picture of Chicago's early firearms infamy.
Prior to the misbehavior of these criminals in Chicago, any law-abiding citizen could legally own any military weapon including the Thompson sub-machine-gun. Not only did the high-profile prosecution of these prohibition-era organized crime figures reslut in the formation and progression of the FBI as a respected national law-enforecment agency, it also resulted in the Illinoise State Legislature passing the most restrictive gun laws in America and the restrictive provisions of the National Firearms Act becoming law. New York City, with its history of organized crime also followed similar legislation that actually had begun in 1911 as it was proposed by a popular senator of the day, Timothy Sullivan.
While some some historical sources have written that the legislation was born of Senator Sullivans heart-felt concern for reducing violent crime, while at least one recent biographers maintains that taking pistols out of the hands of ordinary citizens was motivated by gangland complaints that some of their victims were shooting back. Regardless, the NY Gun Laws dating from 1911 were among the earliest and strictest. These laws were only strengthened by the later Federal Legislation and the resulting National Firearms Act essentially sponsored by the FBI crackdowns on organized crime. 1933 was the earmark year for this event. Thus, in these areas, firearms and crime long ago became indelibly linked in the eyes of the local citizens who so abhored the open terror of organized crime.
There are certainly other factors that made Chicago and NYC the exceptions to American support of private gun-ownership--such as the large population of Irish imigrants and their almost stereo-typical gratitation to police and law-enfrocement professions. Ireland has a long history of preventing its citizens from privately owning guns. All of these conditions have made for a citizen mind-set in those particular locales that depart from those in the remainder of America. That esidents of these areas generally embrace such measures as right nad normal neither makes them so for the rest of the nation, nor does it prove them in any way superior to less restrictive laws in the rest of the nation. to the contrary, these specific locales that have the most restrictive gun-control laws continue to have higher violent crime rates than those with less restrictive gun laws.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Although even in the rest of the United States, since the passage of the NFA in 1933, it has been illegal for ordinary citizens to own machineguns--except by special control provisions of the act and by paying a special excise tax. The net effect has been that private citizens seldom own machine guns and other weapons of war. Subseqent legislation has absolutely forbidden private citizens from owning newly manufactured machine-guns and other such weapons of war. This is yet another reason to help casual observers to understand that no one who truly know firearms really considers those semi-automatic rifles now being eroneously dubbed as assault weapons--as real weapons of war.
Nearly ten years before WWII, the semi-automatic M1 Garand Rifle was beginning to replace previous bolt-action 30.06 rifles in the US military. It was the first military infantry rifle that offered semi-automatic repeating fire. This rifle is thought by some to have decided the outcome of WWII; it was credited with providing the edge the American forces needed to help swing the tide toward victory. Although much of this edge may have been psycohological, General George Patton, always quick to seize upon any real or perceived edge in combat, called the M1 Garand 30.06 rifle the greatest battle instrument in history.
The M1 Carbine came into service during the end of WWII. It was a much smaller rifle that was intended to meet the needs of jungle warfare and as used by special forces such as paratroopers who required a more compact rifle than the M1 Garand. Although the M1 Carbine used a much smaller 30 caliber cartidge, it provided more knock-down at short ranges than did the the alterantive 1911 .45 military pistol. The M2 and M3 variants of this carbine offered full-auto operation. Used during Korea and early Viet Nam, the M1 Carbine co-existed with the M14 Rifle that essentially replaced the M1 Garand rifle.
The M14 was a fully-automatic rifle intended to replace the M1 Garand rifle, but due to the scaled down 30.06 308 cartridge, it was too hard to control to be very effective in combat when used in fully-automatic fire. It did prove to be an excellent longer range battle weapon where a heavy bullet was desired to cut through jungle branches and twigs in the line of fire. The rifle was also highly accurate. The M14 was both revered and cursed by troops using it, who were up against enemies wieilding SKS's and AK47's, which was more ideally suited to jungle warfare.
The M1 Garand was also effectively used in Korea. An updated semi-automatic battle rifle, called the M14 was commissioned during the time over-lapping Korea and Viet Nam. The M14 increased the semi-automatic capacity from the M1 Garands 8 rounds, to X rounds. During this same time, field requests began to see an increased demand for a lighter infantry rifle that was shorter and easier to carry. With this came the demand for a smaller rifle that was more conducive to close-in jungle combat in smaller calibers in order to facilitate each soldier carrying more rounds with reduced weight and space reqirements.
During this time, the Chinese had adopted the popular Soviet Kolishnikov fully-automatic infantry machine-gun carbine rifle--the AK-47 as well as the semi-automatic SKS left over from WWII. The stage was set for a new American answer to the Kolishnikov. The Kolishnikov AK-47 and all of its variantsand the earlier Soviet designed SKS rifle used the very potent but shorter 30 caliber (7.62x39) round. cartidge. Previous wars were fought using longer 30 caliber cartridges such as those used by the M1 Garand and the M14 (7.62x51 and 7.62x54). These cartridges had remarkable distance capabilities and were accurate out to 1000 yeards or more in the hands of a trained sniper using a finely tuned rifle. There was a much greater case for this capacity during the open warfare seen during the first two world wars.
But in the jungles of Viet Nam distance became less important than mobility and rate of fire heaters. During competitive presentations to the US military apparatus, a configuration of carbine with a more compact synthetic stock was rolled out by Armorlite Corp. The original configuation was the AR10 in the heavier 308 cartridge. An alternative offerein ga much smaller though potent cartridge was presented as well. This was the AR15 in a completely new cartridge 5.56x45. The caliber is .22 (223) but it was much longer and pointed than a common 22 caliber rimfire cartridge, and it was backed by a powdered load that was able to propell it to previously unheard of battlefield velocities. Muzzle velocity is one measure of a round's destructive power.
The main reason that made the civilian counterpart to the M16 popular among American sportsmen is the rifle's versatility. Firearms can be expensive. There are many different kinds of firearms that were designed for specific purposes. But few firearms fit the bill for all of them. As it turns out, the AR15 comes about as close to a universa rifle firearm as doe any. The composite (plastic) black furniture (stock and forearm) is relatively light, durable, and inexpenisve to make. while hunting the rifle with its pistol grip is easy to carry long distances while held at the ready tracking game or still-hunting.
Although not every sportsman's ideal, the rifle's cartridge is not too big for medium-sized or even small game. It is potent enough for hunting virtually any large game--especially given the capacity of multiple detachable magazines and semi-automatic fire. The AR15 shoots long enough and accurate enough that it is often the first choice of muance predators and varments. It can easily accommodate a scope for such distances as well. The AR15 is often recommended as a home defense weapon. The types of bullets available can be chosen specifically for any of these variable tasks. The standard AR15 rifle is very accurate, but it can be accuratized further for competitive shooting. I has become the standard for many competitive shooting sports, including some in the Olympics. Oh, and with all of this, the aammunnition is plentiful and cheap.
It is no wonder that this weapon has been used in some of the recent tragedies, due to its wide availability and popularity. They are everywhere. Even so, FBI facts and statstics indicate that fewer than 6% of all gun crimes commited in the USA involved the use of AR15's and similarly designed rifles. Given their huge numbers, these rifles are amon gthose least used to commit violent crime. Those few highly visible and publicized tradgedies nothwithstanding, these rifles are not very often misused--this as determined by the FBI's numbers. They just are not.
http://www.wnd.com/2007/06/41950/
It is no wonder that those who wnat to ban guns, want to target AR15 and similarly styled rifles. But it is not for the reasons they so often present. If one wants to erode the rights of individuals to own guns in America, it makes sense to target those firarms that are most popular. If those who detest the rights as offered by the Second Amendement to the Constitution want to make a dent in private firearm ownership--it is a good plan to try to villify and malign those rifles that are the most used, most owned, most versatile, and most popular to the most American citizens.
Although it appears unlikely to succeed at this time, the willingness of these people to exploit tragic news events--allowing no crisis to go to waste--and to play upon our love of innocent children, and to use textbook techniques of propaganda such as making up ugly names and terms for the express purpose of misleading people into thinking that these most popular types of firearms are somehow only useful to the military--these people may eventually be able to have their way in disarming law-abiding American citizens. They have certainly succeded in perpetuating these lies in dividing well-meaning people who, because of the geography in wheich they live, or ofther group affiliation, from those who merely want to quietly remain safe in their homes in a time when law-enforcement cannot defend them against armed bully predators.
Who was Senator Timmothy Sulivan? How did his actions a hundred years ago lead to NY being the first and most fanatical gun-control jurisdiction in the nation? This is aninteresting, though oft ignored part of American history.
This is not objective, but it is one view: http://www.sunray22b.net/sullivan_act.htm
OR http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7932
Here is another which is a little nicer: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/justice-story/1911-shooting-led-ny-gun-law-article-1.1240721
I beleive that many of those who would ban guns and destroy the Second Amendment and what it has come to stand for even in the rulings throughout American history --even by the most recent Supreme Court cases--are victims themselves. They are victims of propaganda as were decent German people during Hitler's reign of propaganda-driven terror and death. Good people are the victims of distorted facts, half truths, and outright lies when it comes to the wide campaing to disarm Americans. Though many of those whe perpetuate these lies do so unwittingly, there are those ideologs who feel that any means justifies the end-- of America as we know it.
The following link provides additional historical context to what is and what is not a military-style assault weapon.
Why do so many pro-gun owners get indignant when people want to ban
certain so-called military-style guns? Obviously, because they are evil
rednecks who care nada about kids being gunned down, right?
I am a life-long pro-gun gun owner. I hate for anyone to make a fool of themselves while talking about guns and gun nomenclature. Using incorrect gun terms, or gun arguments that have been proved baseless only broadens the divide between pro-gun and anti-gun groups and individuals. Use this information as you will; it is a factual presentation that provides anyone who wants to discuss guns intelligently, a basic primer for so doing. Some anti-gun arguments make more sense than others. But some are entirely bogus. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to know the difference.
This treatise will help you speak intelligently about guns even among pro-gun people. It is not likely to change your ideology, but it might keep you from repeating lies. Telling lies, whether intentional or not, is one thing that upsets pro-gun people. You'll do best to not repeat these lies. You will still have plenty of ideological arguments against owning guns, but you will make more sense if you use the right terms and show a basic knowledge of the facts and terms regarding firearms. You might even begin to realize that not all pro-gun arguments are the exclusive dominion of dumb redneck haters. Prolly not! But I can hope.
This is a test. If you think you already know the answer, you can still take the test. You may be surprised at the results. Most people who actually understand guns and their differences don't feel that they are as bad as those who don't understand, so be careful. Knowledge is a terrible thing. It may change your mind about guns. But then again, knowing the true nomenclature and facts and differences concerning guns, may make you an even more formidable advocate for banning guns or limiting the ownership of some types. If this happens, then you have something else going on, and whatever it is, I respect your right to have your opinions. This too is provided for by our Constitution.
To the test. Label the guns in order of their relative danger to society. I can tell you that there truly is no absolutely factual and objective answer, and this is part of the point that I want to make. Even among gun experts, opinions vary, but there seems to be a degree of consensus both from Liberal gun experts and Conservative gun experts, and just unbiased gun experts.
This gun is an entirely legal modified Remington 870 hunting shotgun. I bought the stock gun at a pawn shop for less than one-hundred-fifty bucks. The conversion parts cost me about twenty bucks. You and I are allowed by law to do this or work on my own guns as long as I don't sell them. This is the federal law if it does not conflict with lcoal law. My local laws do not. Not currently, anywasy. this is part of the rub, gun laws are in a constant state of flux. I am even allowed to build my own guns from scratch. Many hobbyists do this.
This is my self-defense shotgun. It can hold and fire in rapid succession eight 12 gauge rounds. I mix buck-shot, bird-shot, and slugs in a particular rational order. The purpose of this weapon is to stop any home invasion if someone with ill-intentions of personal harm gains access to my home. It is for up-close encounters. It is just a little longer than the law allows. I do not want to round a corner while checking out an unexplained noise and have some bad guy grab the barrel and snatch it out of my hand. Preferably, one would wait under such circumstances for the bad guys to come to him, but in practicality, I need my sleep.this has happened a few times in m life. Interestingly, my garange adn out-building wasseriously robbed once whaile I was asleep inside.
It has a bight white light on the end of the barrel that both spotlights and temporarily blinds an intruder in the dark. It has a red-dot sight on it that is designed to hit anywhere the red dot can be seen. All of these features are specifically designed to scare off an intruder without having to shoot him. this would be my best hope in an encounter.
The sling bandoleer carries extra rounds and helps control the shotgun when pointed, and not conventionally aimed from the shoulder. I have forfeited the ability to aim from the shoulder with the gun configured this way, as I would want it configured to be fired at longer distances in order to have greater maneuverability at close ranges using only a pistol grip. I have no business shooting anyone from a distance. If he is not close enough for me to instinctively aim at and hit, he is probably not close enough for me to identify or to be an immediate threat to me. If he is fleeing, I am not allowed by law to shoot him in the back, because he is not posing any imminent danger to me. If he is running away, I will not shoot him, unless he is turning and shooting at me.
This shotgun is NOT semi-automatic in its action. It is what is called pump-action repeater. It requires a fairly major physical action to make it shoot each time. It makes a distinctive noise each time a round is chambered. A pump action is less prone to jam than a semi-automatic action. Some of the other intentionally mean-looking features include a heat shield to keep from burning my hand if I must shoot several times, causing the barrel to heat up.
I also have a night-vision scope that is easily attached to this shotgun that enables me to see, with the help of an otherwise invisible infra-red illumination, in total darkness, thereby providing the cover of darkness to my advantage, if I am required to investigate a noise and then fully identify an intruder. A responsible gun-owner, bent on protecting his family while in his home, must resolve to never shoot blindly at a noise. This is how teens sneaking out to meet their girlfriends or boyfriends and such get shot. This should never happen and it does not have to.
With gun ownership comes responsibility. My guns are all easily accessible to me but are never out of my control. Each gun owner should take all reasonable steps to both hide and secure his guns, so that under normal circumstances they do not fall into the hands of those they should not. This does not necessarily imply standard gun-locks.
But it does provide contest to the recent publication of the list of gun owners in NY. Such action was mean and spiteful and did not contribute to public safety. It may have actually caused guns to be stolen that would not have been stolen--thereby fallin ginto criminal hands. In one of two cases reported within the same jurisdiction since the publication of the list, an entire gun safe was found and drug away. For now, at least in the said jurisdiction, the state legislators have made this kind of outing illegal.
But this irresponsible action by the NYJ, possibly well-intended, has surely strengthened the case for NOT ALLOWING A FEDERAL GUN REGISTRY. BTW, many people do not know that there currently is no federal gun registry--due to fears of just such actions--or worse. The gun registry in this instance was strictly a local and quite rare local law. But people from NY, from whence many, if not most, national media talking heads hale.
There are many creative and easy ways to secure guns without having cumbersome gun locks. If your gun is not required for quick access, locks are fine. Steel safes bolted to something are better. Hidden and locked safes that are bolted down are even better. Any hidden and/or reasonably locked box that is not easily ransacked is a reasonable way to secure your firearms. You should also check regularly to make sure hidden guns have not been accessed without your knowledge. Make sure that they are. Models and serial numbers should be recorded and made available to law enforcement upon them being stolen.With the ease of digital photography today, it is a good idea to photograph your guns and their serial numbers. But even with all this, it is possible, at least theroetically, that even Fort Knox could be breached. As with anything else, you do your best to secure your arms.
However, laws requiring guns to be reported stolen when discovered by their owners may be counter-productive, as they create reluctance on the part of their owners to comply with other more-vital gun control laws. The more restrictive the laws become, the more confusion surrounds what the laws are. In a free society, we rely upon law-abiding and responsible citizens to take it upon themselves to behave responsibly with their guns. Creating cumbersome and unnecessary laws has always proven to create an adversarial relationship with the government and makes citizens suspicious of government motives--and may lead to irresponsible actions if deemed unreasonable by individuals. The more difficult and unreasonable gun laws become, especially when changed in mid-stream, the less they will be honored by otherwise good citizens. There will also always be a criminal element who refuses to obey the law for their now nefarious reasons. No laws will change the behavior of criminals. But more than anything else, new and additional laws are hard to keep up with and they become confusing. So, we should be sure of all the consequences of new laws are known to be of a good and positive nature before they are passed.
A case in point is the NY lawjust passed in the wake of the CT tragedy limiting hand-gun magazines to a capacity of seven rounds. The unintended consequences and fall-out is now becoming apparent, a couple of days after it was hastily passed--in specific response, according to a number of these law-makers as well as the governor of NY. They did not intend to make all their cops handgun magazines illegal--but they did. This will require additonal legislation to fix. Did they mean to make virtually all of the safest and most modern handguns unusable. They do not even MAKE seven-round magazines for most of these ahndguns.
So we immediately have a lot of unintended criminals--anyone who owns a new handgun--which is already limited by their local laws to people with an obvious strong burden of proof to justify their need for a handgun--like judges, and jewelers, and politicians and others with highly compelling reasons to carry a gun. To comply, they will have to destroy their existing magazines. They will have to wait for seven-round magazines to be manufactured and made available. (We should look into becoming a manufacturer of these. Ohhh, some NY legistlature already has this covered)))).
The worst part is this: limiting these magazines does not help prevent public shootings. It is not illegal to have multiple magazines in your pocket. It does not make these handguns any less lethal. It may, in fact reduce jamming. The more rounds fed by the same spring in a magazine, the greater the chance of jamming. It takes one-second for me to change mags in my glocks. My cousin just reminded me that in Viet Nam, although soldiers carried only twenty-round magazines for their fully-automatic M16's (much higher capacity mags were available, but they become less reliable and they become cumbersome to use), they carried twenty of these twenty-round mags--giving each soldier the capacity to fire 400 rounds wtihout having to reload one magazine. To shoot any faster would have caused over-heating problems. So please understand that this action has done nothing to make these guns any less lethal or make our kids and my grandkids any safer. But to see the crowing of these state politicians--they have cured all ails regarding crazos killing kids.
many other ecent efforts to make certain actions illegal, are silly because they are already illegal. Is there a word illegal-er? Does making a crime illegal-er make it more effective? As with any laws, gun laws are no better than their enforcement. It is already highly criminal to buy a gun for someone else in a straw purchase or to knowingly sell a gun to someone who is not legally able to buy a gun. Enforcing these laws is what should be done. This is one major failure in our current efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals--but it actually accounts for very few if any school-shooting incidents.
Our president and others routinely refer to the dangers of "military-style assault weapons". I honestly don't know if these people have been schooled so little regarding guns, or if they are steeped too deeply in incorrect information, or if they have something else going on regarding their opposition. Pick out the military style assault weapons from the picture. They are not hard to spot. They are the ones that LOOK BAD! These are the second and the fourth guns from the long-guns from the top. Long-guns mean that they are not short--they are not pistols or handguns. There are two broad categories of long-guns--shotguns and rifles. Shotguns use a type of ammunition that is typically used for short-range purposes. Shotguns also are know for their ability to shoot out more than one projectile at once, that is in one charge.
A cartridge refers to the entire weaponized package that a gun shoots. Bullet is generally what a single projectile is called, and it usually is referring to the projectile fired by a rifle. This is largely what makes a rifle a rifle--they type of weaponized projectile that it fires. Rifle cartridges are usually slimmer than are shotguns cartridges and they are usually mad out of a brass-colored metal alloy or actually from brass.
Shotgun shells are usually made from cardboard or plastic. Although the term shell can also refer to the brass part of a rifle cartridge, it usually describes the non-metallic part of a shotgun cartridge. Shells are just that, they are shells that are filled with the powered and the projectiles and the other stuff that hold them together. Shotgun projectiles are usually small ball-bearing type pieces of metal or BBs, much like those singular little projectiles shot by BB guns.
But there are usually many more of these BBs in shotgun shells; they can vary from large enough to take up the whole allotted space in the shell, or they can be small enough to contain numerous smaller BBs. These BBs are also refereed to as shot, thus they are "shot" guns. Modern shotguns are capable of shooting bullets as well if they are configured to do so inside the shell. These shotgun bullets are called slugs and they are quite potent at ranges shorter than the ranges achieved by rifle projectiles.
But again, the original idea for a shotgun was to shoot numerous small bb shot at short distances in such a way that they would spread out and cover a larger area. These were designed to increase th enhances of hitting running game animals or bird in flight. This is still the primary purpose of a shotgun. Shotguns are also used in self defense, law enforcement, and in war scenarios, although their use is fairly limited in such cases.
In the old Western movies the stagecoach driver was accompanied by a man riding shotgun. Of course the guy riding shotgun on a stagecoach was intended to discourage robberies. He is often depicted carrying a double-barreled shotgun with each barrel containing one charge. These could be fired simultaneously or singularly by pulling both or only one of the triggers. To provide even greater discouragement, the double-barreled shotgun often was sawed off. As a general rule, the shorter the barrel, the more the numerous shot will spread out.
With a a sawed-off shotgun, the shot would not travel very far, but they would spread out. If both barrels were fired simultaneously, the numerous shot might spread out to cover a ten foot area at the point of intended impact. This huge lethal pattern could kill, maim, blind, or otherwise injure a bunch of would-be stagecoach robbers in one fell swoop. If the robbers were numerous qand stupid, they might well prevail, but it would likely be at a cost of death, pain and suffering. Sort of a mutual annihilation, if you will. The robbers might kill the stagecoach drivers and the shotgun rider, but it would be at a human cost. Or that was the idea.
For the same reason that made sawed-off shotguns attractive to the Old West stagecoach riders, they have been ruled illegal in modern day usage. The widely spreading shot might also cause friendly fire casualties because of the difficulty controlling the wide blast pattern.It is generally considered that the only practical use for a sawed off double-barreled shotgun is for killing and hurting people.
Had I been a savvy stagecoach robber, and if the real stagecoach drivers and shotgun riders had played by the rules and only carried shotguns, as opposed to rifles, I would have kept my distance and used a rifle to take out the stagecoach personnel. A rifle will invariably exceed the range of shotguns. The downside is that it is that it becomes much harder to direct the single bullet fired from a rifle accurately. This becomes even more difficult if the target is moving. Unlike the old and new Hollywood depiction of a rifle shot, it takes a lot of uncommon skill and even some luck to hit a moving target from a distance. In war, the way this problem is overcome is by shooting numerous consecutive shots in very rapid succession. This is one main reason that machine-guns are used in combat. Machine guns are fully-automatic rifles. The shooter can actually see the bullets in air, especially while using special tracer ammo, or they can see the points of impact of the stream of bullets and can thereby easily adjust their aim. If a controlled fully automatic burst, and experienced shooter can eventually hit a moving target. None of the firearms pictured are fully-automatic--thus they are not military guns.
If you are pretty good at identifying guns, you may think that you see an AK-47 among the guns pictured. However you do not. There are several reasons for this. First, an AK-47, properly called after the Russian army officer and gun-design hero by the name of Kalashnikov, necessarily has fully-automatic capabilities. The gun pictured does not have fully-automatic capabilities. It began life as a semi-automatic weapon. It is very similar in the way it was made, except in the most defining way. It is NOT a military weapon. It looks like one. this is this guns only sin. The man was convicted because he was black, or he looked rough, or he looked different from those peers who ere judging him. Actually it is not even styled after an AK47. It is styled to look like an AK74. An AK 74 is a failed riflemodel that used a rifle caliber intended to be the Soviet answer to the US, and later NATO M16 caliber. The bullet looks similar to an M16 bullet. The cartridge is almost as large, as an M16, although nowhere near as large as an AK47 bullet.
The AK47 bullet was feared when it was deployed for use in Afghanistan . On the receiving end of this round, the Freedom Fighters called it their language equivalent of "poison bullet"--presumably because it seldom killed outright. The skinny high-velocity bullet apparently caused severe wounds, which with the limited field treatment options often led to much suffering--infection and gangrene poisoning. But in actual ballistic tests on ballistics gel post Cold war, the AK74 bullet was deemed inferior to both our M16 round and their AK47 round. So, this AK47 look alike is not even close to being what it appears to be. It may be called an assault weapon by Hollywood and by gun-banners, but it was never and would never be used by a military in an assault. Go figure.
And of course once the range is determined by one or more several seconds long bursts, an entire horizontal target area can be hit in very rapid succession. Fully-automatic weapons fire is highly destructive. This is why full-auto weapons are desirable in combat. But there are drawbacks to shooting fully-automatic rifles. One is that they are hard to control; another is that you can expend all of your ammunition in a few seconds; and yet another, is that the barrels will quickly over-heat with very much continuous fire. Machine-gun barrels can actually melt in combat. They also start to operate less-reliably due to the heat, causing feed and other friction problems due to expansion and the breakdown of lubricants.
To keep this from happening, some machine-guns offer selective fire, which enables full-automatic operation or semi-automatic operation by throwing a switch on the weapon's receiver. (The receiver is the main working part of any firearm.) Others are designed to only fire a limited number of rounds for each time the trigger is pulled--like three shots per trigger pull. Either of these design strategies solves some of the problems associated with full-automatic small arms fire. But fully-automatic small arms fire is still problematic in combat.
In spite of the operational problems presented by fully-automatic rifles (the term is interchangeble with machine-guns), the advantages of fully-automatic smal combat rifles are still considered so advantageous on the battlefield, that all standard infantry small arms used by modern armies are fully-automatic to one degree or another. The lethality of such firearms cannot be denied.
Let me repeat, virtually all rifles used in modern warfare have the capability to shoot full-auto. This feature is the very definition of a military rifle as used by infantry today. Any soilder who does not have this full-auto capability, is at a serious disadvantage on the battlefield. Although the term assault rifle was coined by civillians and perpetuated by Hollywood until it became part of popular firearms vernacular--any true military rifle used as implied by the term assault would necessarily be fully-automatic or enhanced in some other way than mere cosmetic features. This is why gun-owners find the media and gun-banners assault upon so-called assault weapons, while referring to them as if they are the same as actual military weapons. They certainlt are NOT true military-weapons.
Just as misleading is the term so often used of late by those proposing anti-gun measures--even by the President of the United States--is the term military-style weapons. While it may be argued that some legally-owned civilian weapons may indeed be styled, as in cosmetically resembling some fully-automatic military weapons--they provide absolutely none of the functionality that makes a military weapon a military weapon. They are not machine-guns. This is the ONLY feature that seperates common ordinary everyday vanilla available-for-a-hundred-years sporting rifles.
While they may LOOK like military rifles, there is nothng that makes them any different than any other semi-automatic sporting rifle. The implication intended by using terms like military-style rifles by misnaming them with carefully selected names has to be intentional. It makes me crazy--mostly because it works. You can exlpian it ten times to someone who is not familiar with guns, and their eyes will glaze over. They don't get it. But this is HUGE!
Oh, as a marketer, I recognize the nefarious genious of it. But it is a lie. It is the blatant use of propaganda right out of Goebles manuals on propaganda. I don't know if our president knows the difference between ture military weapons and the things he is dubbing military-style assault weapons. Being our Commander in Chief you would think that he does. But it is possible that he does not. Why would he? Our current President is and has always been surrounded by similar-minded people who are from the same anti-gun geographies as he is. Hawaii, Chicago, DC (and NYC/California via the media, and Hollywood by proximity and political association) are the primary anti-gun political geographies in the Uninted States. Why would he know any better.
The design of fully-automatic rifles have features incorporated into them to take full advantage of the already-inherent advantages offered by full-auto fire. Some of these are meant to help direct the lethal stream of consecutive bullets. When a fully-automatic small infantry rifle is fired on full auto, the recoil forces the rifle back and up. The operator has to fight this climbing tendency. In order to help facilitate this climbing tendency, the rifle often has a stock with an alternate pistol grip built into it that extends downward from the should part of the rifle stock and butt.
This pistol grip offers a more sure right-angle brace to provide leverage to help hold the climbing rifle down and on target. This psitol grip is also useful when firing from the hip which is sometimes done rather than actually aiming the rifle with the available sights as one normally would with a rifle. This is not the most efficient or accurate a to shoot a rifle, but it does help throw out a lot of lead in a general direction which can be useful when providing cover and moving in order to keep the enemy form shooting back. A pistol grip may also help when blindly shooting from cover, without having to expose body parts above a covering barrier. These are all elements of control associated with a pistol grip on a rifle that only becomes useful if a rifle is fully-automatic. Otherwise the pistol grip merely makes a hunting rifle more comfortable to carry. It in no way adds to the lethality, danger, or functionality of a semi-automatic rifle whether it is called an assault-rifle.
This little revolver in 38 Special caliber is my choice for personal carry--year round. It will hold five rounds, but for personal safety purposes, I leave the chamber hole under the hammer empty. This leaves four rounds--hardly the best recommendation from many personal defense instructors. I also carry a five round speed-loader, which takes me about five seconds to swap out.
I could carry more speed-loaders, but I am comfortable enough with my marksmanship, practiced calm demeanor, and the reliability of this weapon that it will likely serve me under any circumstances. The revolver looks a little funky and worn because I carry it everywhere that I am legally and morally allowed to. Few people, including some of my kids and all of my grand-kids, know that I am always armed. It is not something that I advertise.
A revolver is a tried and proved design that can be counted upon to fire when you pull the trigger. I change the ammo out now and then, and I keep the gun oiled and clean inside. I would prefer to have more firepower, but I have chosen this compromise as my standard for all seasons. In the summer, I do not always like to wear the clothing necessary to keep the gun concealed on my person.
Although open carry is legal in my state, for those having carry permits, it is seldom done by anyone. I feel that it is strategically and tactically best to keep my carry weapon concealed. Firstly, you don't want to freak people out who don't know or understand or agree with the local gun laws. They will do nothing but cause you problems.
[About ten years ago, I drove a couple of hours away, to a competitive practical league shooting meet of the IDPA. On the way back, after six hours of shooting out in the july heat of the local gravel pit, I was looking sunburned and grissled and pretty rough. I was wearing a light shooting vest when I went inside a fast-food place to grab a bite to eat. while in the restroom washing up, a store employee evidently saw the big ole cutomized Colt .45 sticking out from under my competitive shooting vest. In competition, you want every advantage you can get to decrease your time while drawing "from concealment" meaning that while the vest was competition legal, it did not provide the level of concealment that I normally would have used while in public.]
[Longer story shorter, the fast-food employees cleared the store as I sat waitin gfor my food--while a bunch of local sheriff's deputies surrounde me with guns, and "checked me out", until they learned that I was returning from the shooting competition about a half-hour away from that little town. After that it was all shop talk. They were impressed wiht my placing in the competition. But this is the kind of thing that can turn ugly in a heartbeat, if one is not discrete. It has been my experience that many LEO folks don't really know what is legal and what is not. During those moments, you keep your mouth shut and hands visible while you answer yes sir and no sir. The ones who are right under such circumstances are the cops--right or wrong.]
Secondly, why would you want to tip a criminal off that you have a weapon? The fact that people can and do go armed routinely in my state should keep would-be assailants guessing and provide some level of deterrence. A savvy person can often pretty much tell by looking if another is armed anyway, but they can never be sure. Law enorcemnent officers are usually able to tell by the way your belt hangs, the clothing you wear or your body language telegraphing unintntional little saftey checks done unconsciously as you stay aware of your weapon.
If a criminal or druggie needing a fix or what-have-you sees your gun, he may lie in wait and pop you from afar and take your gun away to sell for cash. Why tempt fate? I keep my gun readily accessible and can have it in my hand and shooting within a few seconds. I have practiced this in league competition and for drill at home many times. I am probably as safe as a person can be with my gun. The biggest dangers of carrying a gun is making sure that it is under your control at all times. You have to be careful that it does not fall out when you go to the bathroom, or into your chair and what-not. After a while, you keep a constant mental check on it. You will immediately sense if it is not where it is supposed to be. Carrying a gun is not something to be taken lightly. But this old argument that a criminal might take your gun and shoot you with is is just silly. I suppose this could or maybe has even happened, rarely, but it is not likely to happen. Criminals are just not that skilled.
The third reason military gun designs started adding pistol grips is that as any hunter knows, it gets very tiring to carry a gun around in the ready position. If you don't though, the rabbit jumps up and is gone before you can ever get your gun sights on it. In the combat field, that rabbit will shoot you dead instead, so it is important to have a rifle that is easy to carry in the ready position, oriented in an upright manner so that it is not even possible to hold without knowing where all the controls are--the safety, the sights, the rapid-fire selector, the magazine well, the magazine, and of course the trigger. You cannot hold a rifle with your hand around a pistol grip, without it being instinctively at the ready. This is important to a hunter--but it is life or death with a soldier on patrol.
These reasons are the only reasons to my knowledge that pistol grips exist. Two of these reasons are of no advantage unless your rifle is fully-automatic. The other reason is a great advantage to a hunter. But none of these reasons make a pistol grip more advantageous or dangerous to a criminal. The idea that a pistol grip makes a semi-automatic rifle more lethal is just silly. And yet this is one of the features that gun-banners is targeting as being "military-style". Most features posed by hunting firearms were first developed in war. This does not make them exclusively military features.
The thumb-hole stock is another targeted feature of gun banners. The thumb-hole stock first appeared on Russian sniper rifles with stocks made out of wood. The offer some of the advantages of a pistol grip, but are easier to make in mass production. In practice a thumb-hole stock does not work nearly as well. Your thumb gets caught and is likely to get twisted. I know this first-hand. The thumb-hole stock is for sure not an advantage to an infantryman--or a criminal--unless his gun is a machine-gun--or maybe an assassin who wants additional bracing for shooting sniper shops from very long distances. Even this is arguable. The most successful and popular military sniper rifles is a standard bolt action Mauser-style rifle now the standard for big game hunters with large calibers and competitive distance shooters. In no way will a thumb-hole stock make a semi-automatic rifle more lethal or dangerous.
The general idea behind a shot-gun is to shoot a bunch of BBs which are designed to spread out, more or less, literally, more or less. Some shells used in conjunction with some shotguns, are designed to keep the BBs fairly close together, but the farther they travel after being shot out of the gun, the more they tend to spread out.
These three handguns are normal handguns. One is a Browning design that dates to the first part of the last century. It is said to have been among John Moses Browning's favorites of his own firearm designs. It's the one with the cherry wood grips in this picture. I hand-carved these grips from a limb of an old wild black-cherry tree that came down in a storm. The gun usually resides in my safe, but I do use it as my carry-weaons at times, just to stay familiar with its feel. It is a formidable weapon. It is called the Browning Hi-Power. It was among the first semi-automatic weapons that offered a clip with fifteen rounds. This was unheard of at the time, thus lending aptly to the name. It is a medium caliber--9 mm--in terms of knock-down and penetration it offered a lot of relative high power; the magazine can be changed in about a second. You can carry any number of additional preloaded magazines.
So in this way the Browning Hi-Power is as devastating as any handgun can be, for inflicting death and pain and injury. This model handgun has been available for a hundred years. There are a gazillion of these in circulation. And yet, the kind of abuse that we have seen beginning with Columbine and several times since, did not happen until then. The capability has been there, but the abusive mind-set was not there until recently. What has changed?
The short black polymer (plastic) handgun is a model of the now well-known Glock handguns. It is semi-automatic. It is one of the larger framed models, but it is still not so large, relatively. This Glock shoots a .45 caliber bullet. This is a large diameter bullet. The history of this bullet dates back to the beginning of the last century with a Browning semiautomatic design called the Model 1911. The 1911 has enjoyed a long history. The reason it was designed to shoot the large .45 caliber to provide the military the ability to shoot a charging enemy with a bayonet or spear--as was happening in the PI at the time--and physically knock them backward, so that they could not stab you.The simplicity of the operation of Glock handguns has made them highly popular. The felt recoil is not too uncontrollable in the hands of even a small person, and yet the power is almost inconceivable.
This Glock .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun holds ten rounds with the standard magazine. You can have a bunch of magazines which can be changed in one second. Although the Glock version of this handgun is creatively new, the .45 has been available by the millions for a hundred years. This handgun is often recommended as the first choice in home defense. There is a case to be had for this notion and I don't necessarily disagree, but it is not MY first choice. It might be a close second or third or fourth because of its portability and its sheer power for the size. However, it doesn't even come close to a shotgun for terrible power to devestate.
Glocks are most popular in 9 mm. These guns have received negative publicity recently because they have been used in the Arizona shooting. But this kind of fire-power has been available for a hundred years. This does not make this gun any more vicious or ugly or evil than any other of thousands of popular handguns. It just so happens that they are very popular and the odds were in favor of it turning up in some of these terrible events.
But again--there is nothing inherently evil about these weapons. What has changed is not the availability of these kinds of weapons. Something else has changed in society. Just as a point of clarification regarding handguns, handguns are way less powerful than rifles or shotguns in similar calibers. This .45 caliber handgun does not even come close to the destructive power of the defensive 12 guage shotgun pictured, but they are still capable of wreaking mind-boggling destruction upon people. They are not toys. But not one of these guns has ever killed anyone. This would requires the thoughtful aciton and willful decision of a living person. These weapons are not nearly as destructive, potentially, as any automobile driven at 40 mph into a crowd of kids at a bus stop--or a thousand other things we deal with every day.A car accident can happen accidentally. But a public shooting cannot.
The long-barreled black handgun is a .22 caliber target pistol. It has a heavy steel barrel and is about as accurate as is any gun. It has no recoil. It is not hard to control. It shoots common .22 caliber ammo used for inexpensive plinking and target practice. It could be easily used for hunting small game. Rifles and shotguns are usually used for hunting because they are easier to shoot accurately. As a rule of thumb, the longer the firearm barrel, the easier it is to shoot accurately. Many people, even those who are familiar with handguns, would rate this handgun as among the least dangerous firearms in terms of lethality.
This target handgun, although semi-automatic and magazine fed, will never make the list of military-style handguns. And yes, there are millions of this and similar benign-ish handguns in circulation. No one is much concerned about people owning this type of handgun. However, arguably, the most efficient military special ops in the world use this handgun as their weapon of choice for individual members while performing their near- impossible covert missions .
Why? This weapon is highly accurate. Although very misunderstood, the common .22 caliber cartridge and bullet, will kill virtually anything that walks on earth or swims in water. One shot from a hollow-point .22 bullet delivered to the head or heart or other vital area of the human body from point-blank to maybe fifteen or twenty feet out is as likely to be fatal as a similar shot from a .45 caliber handgun or a AR15 semi-automatic so-called assault rifle. For the Navy SEALs deadly is good enough. Thgis pistol can be shot as fast as any other semi-automatic handgun. Therefore, this handgun is just as deadly as is any of the others.
Why do so many pro-gun owners get indignant when people want to ban certain so-called military-style guns? Obviously, because they are evil rednecks who care nada about kids being gunned down, right? Maybe there are a few nutcases like that. I've never met any. If I ever do, I will stay clear of them and I will report any suspicious or untoward or dangerous activities to the authorities. At least I will report any illegal activities of which I am suspicious. I will know what is legal or what is suspicious because I know guns. They are not foreign to me. I have been around them for all of my life. I am not uncomfortable with them. I handle them very safely. They won't fire by themselves.
Four safety rules will prevent any tragic firearm accidents from happening. It is this simple. Guns don't just shoot by themselves. Before one uses a gun, it is essential to be thoroughly familiar with it. Each model is different and requires familiarization. I recommend having an expert gun-safety professional providing personal instruction and range time before ever using a firearm on your own.
Here are the Four Safety Rules
1. All guns are always loaded. Of course they are NOT, but one must make a habit of treating them as if they are--even if we think we may know that they are not. There mus be no exceptions, if we re to be safe.
2. Never point a gun at anything you are not prepared to destroy. Never!
3. Do not place your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Identify your target and everything else in your line of fire before pulling the trigger. [You don't shoot at shadows that go bumb in the night.]
In my own mind, I also embrace one rule that encompasses everything: Maintain control of your weapon. If it is in my own control, I know that it will never be abused.
I observe a few safety rules that prevent me from ever unintentionally harming anyone of anything. I used to hunt, judiciously, never strictly for sport. I used to shoot for sport. We call it plinking. It is just to see if you can hit cans ans stuff. And I used to enjoy shooting competitively in shooting sports leagues. It is a major sport still today, but it is not as popular as it once was. Shooting sports were once the most popular sport in America, up until shortly after WWII.
I have been taught, and I have taught, and I still teach and write about guns. I have collected guns, I enjoy owning guns, I have owned many guns. I enjoy the ingenious mechanical working and the precision marksmanship of any guns. I have a hobby machine shop and I fix guns for myself. I even build guns. I cannot fix guns for others even though I am pretty good at doing it, because I do not have a Federal Firearms Salience. I could apply one and there would be no reason for being denied one, but I just don't want the headaches of having to keep detailed and careful records that are required by the Feds from those who DO have their FFL's, as they are called for short. Guns are probably the most regulated mechanical devices in America. I am afraid that with an anti-gun administration in office that I would be subject to harassment or possibly be required to do things such as those gun dealers who were required to allow guns to be sold to criminals in Mexico that wound up killing Americans.
It is a shame that I am afraid of the government so much that I fear pursuing a respected age-old gun-smithing profession that would help me provide for my wife and in my current health limitation. because I have spent a lot of my life learning how to fix guns. I know that my skills could make guns safer for people. Someone has to fix law enforcement guns. But I cannot take the chance of being targeted for harassment--and risk a huge fine or imprisonment because I got a date wrong by one day or spelled something wrong. I have never been that good about details. I am confident that I would never do anything significantly or intentionally wrong that would actually be a danger to anyone. I am just afraid that with an anti-gun administration that I might be chose for retaliation for exercising some of my other Constitutional rights and speaking out about things that I feel the administration is behaving badly about. These things happen and I know that they happen. So I must be careful, at least until a less vengeful and more pro-gun administration gains office. I hope I live to see that, but this too is doubtful.
I don't own so many guns now because I don't want to leave a bunch of things my wife doesn't know much about, and risk her getting rooked by some unscrupulous person. If the current administration has its way, I may not be able to sell the remainder of my firearms at all. They have historically been a great investment--better than gold. They still are on paper, but even the mere threat that these guns will be outlawed could devalue them. for now I have a few guns that I would leave as keepsakes for my children or grandchildren. But even this possibility is at risk. Any guns that I now have are at risk of never being able to be transferred to anyone else--if some Liberals have their way. Senator Feinstein is open ly dedicated to confiscating and destroying ever privately owned gun. It's declared on her website.
Senator Feinstein claims that she know all about guns. If she does, she sure doesn't seem to understand many things about guns and gun owners. But if she truly does know about guns, it makes me question her motives. Why is it so important that citizens of America be disarmed? The obvious answers to such questions disturb me, but they are not so surprising. Sen Feinstein is the daughter of an extremely Liberal Socialist. Some have even accused her of being a Communist in her sympathies. Communists and Socialists believe that a central government has the supreme rights over individual citizens in every aspect of life. they believe that individuals are not inclined to do what is best for the whole group and that the government is better equipped to make life-decisions for individuals.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC fame, hates guns. He doesn't believe in an individual rights to own guns. Just as he believes that he must make the decision for individuals in his city to drink sugary drinks, that he must also protect people from their own evil passion for owning guns. Those who were born and raised in NYC do not realize what a confining paradigm that they believe it because this is what the y have been taught for a hundred years or more. They don't know anything else. They do not realize that they live in areas of higher crime than those who live in less-restrictive areas. They can't seem to conceive of any other reality. The fact is that MOST of the rest of America is enjoying an ever-decreasing violent crime rate because gun ownership for defensive purposes is proliferating. This is easy enough to verify by looking at crime stat overlays compared to gun ownership overlays.
There is a famous, or infamous, CNN program wherein novice shooters were given guns and an hour or so of instruction and then run through the paces with mock real-life scenarios. The program supposedly proved that regular people cannot properly defend themselves. Bad results included having their guns turned upon themselves and other innocents, losing the ability to think and act safely under the stress of fear-induced adrenaline or to focus under the tunnel-vision under that results from fear, pressure, and duress. The results of this CNN program were clearly determined before the program was begun.
While there is some truth to the emotional-physical effects of fear--all policemen and soldiers experience fear while in combat. Adrenaline is intended to sharpen one's senses and direct all energy to fight or flight. Any firearms instructor observes the transformation that takes place as a student advances from a complete firearms neophyte to an experienced gun handler in a matter of hours. With a modicum of good instruction and a lot of mental and physical role-playing, virtually any person who is competent in day-to-day tasks can prepare themselves for any circumstances where they may have to use firearms to protect themselves or loved ones. As is the case with any other skill, experience can be synthesized by rehearsing. Shooting leagues that meet at any firing range provide this kind of synthesized experience all the time. They also add the pressure of competition, which can be as stressful as real-life experiences. Skills can become so honed that skills are reflexive and are certainly preferable to not being armed at all.
The media is mostly based in NYC and Chicago and LA and San Francisco. These are the most anti-gun areas in America. Consequently, they perpetuate the myths that they have been taught in their institutions all of their lives. This is the very definition of brainwashing. it has been done over time and it has worked. You tell someone something over and over again until they finally believe it is true, even though it is not. But it is still doesn't make it the truth. it is very sad and it is very alarming. But the rest of America does not yet believe this. About forty-percent of the population does believe all the anti-bun propaganda, but it still does not make it true.
Again I ask, why is it so important that Americans be disarmed. It is simple. And it is the reason that the framers of our government sought to protect against a government who wants to have dictatorial powers over its citizens. Socialism and Communism cannot exist under with these provisions; it is as simple as that. This must be what underlies the real reasons Liberals want so hard to take away American's guns. And it appears that it is going to work. The government is going to get our guns. Then what? People historically have been too trusting of their governments. This has happened enough times that we should know better. But maybe not.
The guns in this picture are all lethal and otherwise potentially
dangerous in the hands of someone who knows how to use them--whether
they are using them for good or for bad. However, none of these weapons
are military weapons. Some of them look more dangerous than the others.
The little rifle in the middle, called a mini-14 carbine (A carbine is a
short short rifle). It is capable of greater sheer firepower and
numbers of rounds quickly deliverable as seen and configured here than
any of the other rifles pictured. None of these are military weapons,
even though some of them look like military weapons.
The rifle shown at the bottom of the picture is a common and popular
all around small-game and recreational hunting rifle. It looks a bit
like a pellet gun or BB gun. Although now discontinued in preference for
newer designs, millions upon millions were sold here in the the USA.
This little rifle will shoot fifteen times as fast as the trigger can be
pulled. This is useful while hunting small game, but it could also be
used just as readily to inflict horrible carnage in a school or public
place. Few people who know guns would ever consider that this weapon is
in itself evil. It is certainly no more or less dangerous than any of
the other guns. Guns similar to the ones pictured here have been so much
a part of our American culture that it would be impossible to
eliminate. But it should also be noted that most of these models were
manufactured long before anyone even heard of a school or other kind of
public shooting. Something has changed in America other than the
availability of guns that has made these awful events happen. To blame
these events on guns or even the availability of guns is simply not rational. It is a cop-out. It is seeking an easy solution that does not exist. It is an
intentional distraction. And it will not create a safer society in any
way. This is a fact.
Okay, this leave one gun to be further described. It is the one on top. It is a semiautomatic shotgun. It is in a somewhat lighter gauge than the most common 12 gauge shotgun. This is a 16 gauge. The shotgun shells have less powder and fewer BBs. These guns are not being made much anymore, but back in the day they were popular because they had slightly less recoil or kick as recoil is sometimes called. The recoil of a shotgun and some rifles of larger gauges and calibers is an unpleasant by-product of shooting. It can bruise a shoulder if not held right. Heck, it can bruise a shoulder when the firearm IS held right. The 16 gauge used to be very popular for people of slight frame such as youth and women and smaller men. Notice the rubber recoil pad on the butt of the stock. this is intended to make the kick less bruising. This is also a reason why non-military so-called assault rifles that look much like military rifles are popular among the shooting public. There design and their caliber makes them easier to handle while hunting. simply put, they don't kick as bad as this shotgun. This is desirable when hunting. AR and AK rifle calibers are potent enough to easily take small, and medium sized game without the painful recoil of some other hunting guns. The fact that they can fire semi-automatically multiple times--means that if the first shot does not kill the deer or coyote or other game, humane follow-up shots will kill them. It is important to hunters that they not merely injure and animal and leave it suffering. It is important to sportsmen to cleanly kill their game. The ability to shoot many times helps ensure that this happens. The idea that a hunter needs just a few shots to effectively hunt, is silly. You need as many shots as it takes to humanely kill game. There are also instances where wild animals attack hunters. Bears and moose with cubs or calves are notorious for attacking humans. Although wolves have been largely maligned as being evil marauders it is a fact that a pack of wolves may target a human, especially if he is injured and the smell of blood is in the air. How many shots is too many when a hunter is facing down a bear or a pack of wolves. Obviously, Diane Feinstein has not ventured too far out into the wilderness if she thinks ten rounds is sufficient for hunting.
On the other-hand, if a crazo nutcase really wants to do some damage. Let him take a real gun into a classroom and shoot it semi-automatically with a shotgun loaded up with bird-shot or buckshot. Either of these will kill and maim with each round, an incredible number of kids. One blast at close range will blow a kids head off. Talk about carnage. we haven't even seen a shotgun used in one of these school shooting yet. Or in a mall, or in a crowed movie theater. My old 16 gauge semi-automatic shotgun, similar to the one given to me for my twelfth birthday by my dad to hunt with (not the first gun I owned by a long shot) would really cause human blood and destruction heretofore unseen nor imagined. And there are so many of these out there going back generations that they will never be counted. Not once id I or any other person ever use one of these guns to shoot people or to do any other mischief with until recently. So tell me--what changed? I don't know, but it is irrefutable fact that guns with awful destructive power have been available and accessible and legal to own even by kids since before the foundation of our country--but nobody went out shooting people with them--except criminals. And back when it was considered smart and normal to own guns and to know how to use them, criminals did not come home-invading. They knew better. Criminal firearms activity has done nothing but get worse since it fell out of favor within a certain Liberal segment of the population in America--in certain geographies.
Still today, violent gun crime is lowest in areas where it is not unusual nor illegal for people to own guns. How hard is this to understand? Why do smart people fail to understand this simple concept? Who do you call to help you after your home is invaded--if you survive? The police, who have guns. But at that point they can't help you. What is so unimaginable about citizens being armed and keeping armed criminals from running rough-shod over them? Isn't he answer obvious? Some people in a few high-population geographies have been brainwashed by Liberal politicians and the media to believe that they are safer without guns. But it is so not true. Liberals--what became of the old Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young warning, "Ten Soldiers and Nixon Coming, we're finally on our own." Sold out, bought in. It is happening and too many people are frogs in water being slowly warmed up. But they can't see or feel it. They are gonna get burned.
I don't know if this conversation is contrived as a method of presention or if it really happened. But I have had similar ocnversation over the years that were very real. If you seek the truth regarding the gun debate, you should read it.
The following was excerpted from a gun-banner who was clearly disappointed with the Supreme Court Ruling in Washington, DC versus Heller. But after all of his observations and discussions, he honorably concludes that this Supreme Court Decision is what it is. And as a matter fact it is a lot.
Although taken as a license, so to speak, in many states to permit the possession of firearms in settings and circumstances far different from those the court considered in Heller, this case, in spite of being the court’s “first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment” in 223 years, is still not “exhaustive.”
So, far from being entitled to confidence that our Second Amendment rights extend to the possession of firearms in bars, schools, churches, parks, government buildings and the array of other places where some gun rights advocates want to see them, we don’t even know yet whether we have a Second Amendment right to carry guns in public. We’ll find that out if the state of Illinois appeals to the United States Supreme Court the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidating an Illinois prohibition against the possession of guns in public.
As Congress considers its response to Newtown, it’s worth keeping in mind that our Second Amendment rights aren’t what various state legislatures, the National Rifle Association or ghostly anonymous Internet voices say they are.
Until the United States Supreme Court rules otherwise, they’re what District of Columbia v. Heller said they are.
There is no national gun registry. There are a few state registries. President Clinton attempted to have the FBI maintain a defacto registry nationally, even though to do so was illegal. The Bush Administration rightly had it destroyed. Those who do not undertand gun ownership issues, even among supporters of the Second Amendment, often do not readily see the dangers inherent in maintaining such a registry. Constitutionalists from the earliest times who understood the primary purpose of the Second Amendment have also readily understood that maintaining such a registry would provide a list for the kinds of tyrantical governments from which the USA was fleeing at the time of declaring independence realized then and those who understand gun ownership issues today, whether on the side for or against gun ownership, also recognize that a gun registry is the first step toward confiscation of all guns. On the one hand it is the fears of gun-owners, on the other it is the goal of gun-banners. Gun ownership was intended to be a deterent to heavy-handed government. It is.
So those who favor the government having ultimate rule over individual rights--dictating what is good and correct and right for its citizens necessarily favor abolishing the right for individuals to own guns. It is in fact considered a prerequisite to consolidating such governmental powers. There are many other pitfalls to having a central or even a local gun registry. An irresponsible action by a Liberal New York Newspaper in the wake of the heinous school shooting event in CT more-fully underlined some of the dangers of maintaining such a registry.
The New York Journal rightly or wrongly (it was up to county officials) obtained a gun registry for those who had gun permits for handguns. These were mostly law-enforcement officials in one capacity or another (unsupposed by the NYJ), or others who were able to meet the rather tall bar for obtaining such a permit in those gun-controlled locales. Such people might include those in imminent danger of stalking as ruled upon in the case of domestic violence, jewelers or others at high-risk due to their jobs requiring them to deal in valuables or large sums of cash, private investigators who are not at odds with the local law officials, and in some cases bail-bondsmen and private security guards. Also, military police, and some politicians mgiht wualify. It is actually a pretty limited and esoteric group within those jurisdictions--unlike jurisdictions that allow any private citizens to qualify and carry a handgun or possess them routinely I their homes.
In typical failure-to-understand gun ownership mode, the editors and owners of the New York Journal took it upon themselves to publish this list--without really thinking through the reprecussions. Their said intent was to embarass or intimidate and expose the gun owners in an effort to pressure them into geting rid of their guns. Such is the gulf of understanding between gun owners and non-gun owners. Note that gun ownership as permitted even in this very anti-gun jurisdiction is legal and perfectly sanctioned by the judicial system. But these idiots at the NYJ were taking it upon themselves to, at least in their own minds, to punish these legal gun owners. This is typical.
Gun owners don't generally think this way. It has been my experience that with gun ownership comes a sense of self-sufficiency that trascends merely owning guns. We tend to believe that we not only have individual rights as citizens, but that we have even greater individual responsibilities as citizens to look after ourselves, our families, our neighbors, our communities, our nation, and our world. And although there is no one profile of a gun-owner we tend to be very good citizens. We believe in one another. We recognize a predatory criminal fringe of society; we don't ignore them, but neither do we fear them. We face this reality as we face others--with preparation and tempered sanity.
But we for sure will not respond to antics by those unlike us who have no clue for understanding such individual responsibilities--to hold our legal actions of owning guns in contempt, as if it is a dirty thing. We share the spirit of those who founded this great country. We do not believe in a nanny-state. To them, it was u.nthinkable to consider dependence upon our government for the maintenance of our basic needs, nor of our basic rights.
People who lived at the time our country determined its own historical course unlike any country ever--through their views--these wise, strong, intelligent people. They held a vision for a country that embraced the Liberal views of the time, which included self-determinism and unalienable rights. Although it was a bold and novel view, it worked out. This view changed the world. There are those who languish as if this too was their destiny--to languish and depend upon others, upon the government, to make their every life-choice--and to except what the state doles out to them. They count themselves void of responsibilities that include individual participation. They believe in government, self, family, intellectualism, and God if at all, a god of tin who apeases them, but requires nothing of them. They scoff at any idea of accountability to God, to family, to community, to others, and most of all they do not believe in self-accountability.
Our United States Supreme Court has most recently reaffirmed the rights of individuals to own and to bear arms. This should be intuitive, given the nature of the times when the Second Amendment became one of the first provisions of the United States Constitution. Although this right was undoubtedly intuitive and implied by the state of the world in context with the times--those Constitutional framers found it necessary to underline these individual rights of citizens to own and bear arms in a specific amendment. This is not hard to understand when taken in context of the tyranny and oppressive yoke which they had chosen to shed by their own blood and arms.
Evil is not a new thing. It was with us from the start. Ugliness is as much a part of life as is beauty. In fact we cannot recognize the light without the darkness. But it is the light that guides those who open their eyes rather than hiding their heads. For those who hope and believe as do I, there will come a time, though no one knows exactly when, that the human race will first confront once and for all, and though struggling, light will triumph over darkness and light will prevail. But those who believe as I do, understand that this time has not yet arrived. To pronounce it prematurely so would be--is-- foolish. It would allow the ugly realities to disguise themselves as wolves in sheep's clothing until the lambs were, are, ensnared and slaughtered. It would betray the beautiful realities.
Until the time appointed for a greater human condition, there is no Utopia. There is no deliverer. There is no banishment of evil. Until that time appointed by the almighty, it is requisite that good men stand against bad men. And until God grants us that promised future, good men and women with guns must be vigilant against bad men and women with guns.
Until a future time frees us all from the oppression of evil in this world, we must not allow men in positions of power who command armies with guns to oppress us. They will try. Historically, these forces of evil have used sophistry of words and laws to disarm good citizens. Historians estimate that since the Turks disarmed then killed Armenians during the early parts of the last century, in the first modern act of genocide, that between two-hundred and five-hundred million people around the world have met similar fates. Nothing has changed. Until it does, men and governments will exhibit their inherent dispositions to control and oppress others.
A gun registry has long been recognized as the first step toward disarming Americans. Never have we been closer to having a gun registry--all in the name of greater safety for our children. Before good citizens ignorantly give in to legislation that could lead to the ultimate destruction of the American way of life, each must examine the greatness of America and speak NO to those voices who tear us down and tell us that we are worse than we are. We must acknowledge the bad but we must embrace the good. We need to shake off the propaganda-enduced confusion and think clearly. We must use common sense once more. We must not allow the sophistry of politicans, nor the self-proclaimed infallibilities of academics, nor man-made theories couched as facts, nor artificial religions posed as saviors--to falsely earn our collectively trust without substantial demonstration of theri true intentions.
Thankfully, evil tends to unveil itself through its own actions. Often evil does not even know of its own inherent evilness. Maybe those powers that be at he New York Journal have noble intentions in their ill-advised publication of lists of gun owners. I am suspicious of their own motives as mere sensationalism with a profit motive--but maybe I am wrong. Still, they have exposed themselves as being wrong. As sound thinking prevails, it becomes apparent how wrong they are at so many levels. In their attempt to paint legal gun owners as bad citizens--they have outed themselves and more importantly--they have demonstrated how a Federal Gun registry cna be abused.
A national gun registry must not be allowed. If it exists it will be abused sooner or later. Thank you NYJ for so clearly showing us how such a gun registry can be abused.
