Freedom

Suppressors for hunting? Yes, please!

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Texas Park and Wildlife Department is considering a rule change regarding hunting, specifically with suppressors.

Here’s the text from the agenda:

         The proposed amendment to §65.11, concerning Lawful Means, would allow the use of firearm silencers to hunt alligators, game animals and game birds. Under current rule, the use of sound-suppressing devices to hunt alligators, game animals or game birds is unlawful. The department has determined that there is no resource- or enforcement-related reason to prohibit the use of firearm silencers for the take of alligators, game animals or game birds, and therefore proposes to eliminate the current prohibition. The department notes that if the proposed is adopted, it will not relieve any person of the obligation to otherwise comply with any applicable state, federal, or local law governing the possession or use of firearm silencers. The proposed amendment also alters §65.11(3) to include additional counties to the applicability of the provisions governing the use of crossbows. This change is necessary to ensure consistency with the changes to §65.42 discussed elsewhere in this preamble.

Yes please!

Why? Well, first consider their own wording: “The department has determined there is no resource- or enforcement-related reason to prohibit the use….”  So on the one hand, I like this because they see no sound reason to keep a rule around, so they’re going to discard it. This is how things should work! Simplification. Enhancing freedom. Enabling choice. Plus, it also frees up the department and those bound to enforce the rules from work that serves no gain, thus enabling them to focus on work that matters.

Here’s an article with more reasons for suppressors.

But to me, this hits closer to home.

On this last deer hunting trip, Daughter got her ears rung pretty bad. Yes I know, I should have had hearing protection on her — I do know better, but I often don’t while hunting so I can hear what’s going on around me. Plus, the muzzle is out the blind window and due to the structure of things it usually works out ok. But this past one? Not so much. I regret it and do feel awful for it. But this is the trade-off that we have to deal with: to hear the game, but then to not hear the gunshot. I do have electronic muffs, but while they work great for me on the range, I find in the woods, not so much. Different dynamic.

But if we could have suppressors? What a world of difference it would make!

I can legally own a suppressor here in Texas, but I can’t use it for deer or game hunting. I could use it to take exotic deer, I have gone on hog hunts with suppressed rifles. And so why if we can take those with it, why can’t we take game animals? What’s the difference? Apparently none, and it’s great to see TPWD recognizing that and moving on the item.

So what to do?

Well, right now we wait. TPWD will have their meeting on January 25, 2012. After that we’ll know more about how to proceed. It will be a matter of public comment, and you’ll want to be sure to add your comment in favor of suppressor use.

Elephant Repellaphant

/ hsoi

In her usual style, Tam’s commentary nails it:

[The TSA] come out and admit that they haven’t foiled any terrorist plots of which they’re aware, but they “argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolster public confidence.”

In other words, you don’t see any elephants around here, do you? So the elephant repellant must be working! Also left unexplained is how the public’s confidence is supposed to be bolstered by getting their crotch randomly sniffed by that noted Fourth Amendment legal expert, Fluffy the Uberhund.

The kicker? There are a fair number of people who believe security theater actually works and is doing good at keeping this country and its citizens safe.

The sad part is, those people keep getting elected.

The sadder part is, there are people who keep electing the first group of people.

 

Some of us already knew this

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

It’s Christmastime.

People travel to see family and friends.

And of course, that means being violated by the TSA.

All in the name of safety, of course.

Do you really think any of those measures actually improve safety and security? Vanity Fair has a revealing article on the security theater. (h/t Slashdot)

To a large number of security analysts, this expenditure makes no sense. The vast cost is not worth the infinitesimal benefit. Not only has the actual threat from terror been exaggerated, they say, but the great bulk of the post-9/11 measures to contain it are little more than what Schneier mocks as “security theater”: actions that accomplish nothing but are designed to make the government look like it is on the job. In fact, the continuing expenditure on security may actually have made the United States less safe.

[…]

Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: “We are doing everything possible to protect you.” When 9/11 shattered the public’s confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public’s dread, because the measures can’t really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, “Have confidence in Uncle Sam,” when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense. Over time, though, the value of the message changes. At first the policeman in the train station reassures you. Later, the uniform sends a message: train travel is dangerous. “The show gets less effective, and sometimes it becomes counterproductive.”

I was at a credit union today. While waiting for the teller I saw a placard discussing their measures regarding identity theft. I forget the exact wording, but one word stood out to me: “feel”. It spoke about how difficult it is to “feel safe” (in a post-9/11 world, referencing the PATRIOT Act and how it changed banking regulations). And you see, that’s what it’s all about: trying to feel safe. Not actually doing anything that actually will make us safe, just a feeling of safety, even if it’s a lie.