Politics

Who did the law serve?

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

WATSONVILLE – A Santa Cruz man was shot in the leg during an attempted robbery outside Markley’s Indoor Range and Gun Shop Sunday afternoon, police said.

My friend E passed this article to me.

I’ve been to Markley’s. Take a look at its location via Google Street View so you can see the lay of the street. Now, I can only go based upon what the article says, so who knows what information is missing or what bias is to be had. But based upon what we have, let’s examine a few things.

The 38-year-old victim was with his father-in-law when the two left the range about 2 p.m., after some recreational shooting, and had secured their firearm as required, Sgt. Brian Ridgway said.

They put the gun in the trunk of their car and were about to get in the car when a man walked up, armed with a handgun and wearing a bandana over his face, and demanded their weapon, Ridgway said.

So they were mugged as they were leaving the range. Why do you think that happened? What do you think that mugger is going to do with the obtained gun? I’m sure it’s not going to a “buyback” program. No… I’m sure the exact intent was to “put another gun ON the street”.

The father-in-law, who is 46, grabbed the suspect’s gun and struggled with him momentarily and the younger man began running south on Vic Rugh Lane, he said.

The suspect broke free and chased him, firing several shots and striking him once in the leg, Ridgway said.

The shooter then jumped in a black or dark green Acura, which was last seen heading toward Freedom Boulevard from Gardener Avenue, police said.

Why the younger man started running is curious to me. Was he leaving his father-in-law to fight alone? Did he perhaps take their gun and try to get it as far away from the mugger as possible? Is there a deeper issue here (e.g. they know each other and this isn’t just a simple mugging)? It’s curious.

Anyways….

Here’s what stood out to me.

We always talk about how crimes don’t happen in certain places, like in police stations or in gun stores or at gun ranges. This situation doesn’t change that assertion. The reason those things don’t happen is because people in those places have ready access to usable firearms — criminals don’t like to get shot either. What happened here was outside a gun range and store, and the victim’s gun was useless because it had to be locked up and disabled due to California law.

These laws were put in place under the onus of safety, to protect the public, to serve the common good. I have to ask, who exactly did the law serve here? Who exactly benefitted from this law? These laws enabled two men to be attacked, one was shot and now had medical bills, time off work, pain, suffering, and who knows what long-term effects it will have — all because they obeyed the law. Once again the criminal — people who, by definition, don’t obey the law — suffers nothing and no loss. Because of the law he realized what a fine target this place and these people would be. And guess what? He already had a gun, which wasn’t properly secured as per California law. Doesn’t look like those laws were doing much to stop the bad guys — only the good guys.

If due to a law bad people benefit and good people suffer, is that really a right and just law? If not, why are we keeping that law?

Yeah yeah… some people will say that this is some exception to the rule, that for the most part the laws work as intended. Funny thing tho… they always justify such laws by saying “if it saves just one life, then it was worth it”. Well, it looks like it almost cost one life… so I guess by that same logic, no it’s not worth it.

 

Liberty means Responsibility

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

We are not punished for our sins, but by them. Liberty means responsibility. – Michael Cloud (tweeted here)

Liberty means responsibility.

Let that sink in for a moment.

I hate to say it, but as much as I love the libertarian notion, I don’t think it will ever happen in this country because it requires people to be responsible.

The growth of our Nanny State has demonstrated people can’t and won’t take responsibility — for themselves, for those they are supposed to care for (e.g. their children), their finances, their situation in life, whatever. Or is it the other way around? Because people don’t want to be responsible, because they’d rather leech off someone else, because they’d rather be lazy yet still receive their check, because you do nothing yet still receive reward, if you don’t give a shit about X then someone else will pick it up… then we’ve started to create a Nanny State to pick up after them because they won’t pick up after themselves. Chicken or egg, they feed each other and keep the cycle going.

And so… our liberties slowly wither.

We’d rather give up liberty than encourage — nay, demand — responsibility. How infantile! How sad.

You want to see liberty return? Be responsible, take responsibility, teach others how to be responsible, encourage responsibility.

 

3 ounces isn’t very much, is it?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

TSA limits us to 3 ounces of liquid in our carry-on luggage.

I think we’ve all agreed this isn’t much, and doesn’t really provide us with enough to get the job done. Doesn’t matter what the liquid is, be it water for drinking or shampoo for your hair — it’s not enough to get the job done.

Well to be fair, maybe it gets you through; maybe some people get by alright. I know most men have short hair and 3 ounces of shampoo is perhaps enough for them. I’ve got long hair and 3 ounces doesn’t cut it; maybe one shampoo, but if I need to wash my hair a second time? Forget it.

These reduced capacity containers just don’t work for all situations. Yes perhaps it works for the statistical average, but statistics are of little comfort when you’re the anomaly (and no, I’m not going to cut my hair).

We supposedly free citizens are restricted in our liquid carrying capacity for our own safety. We acknowledge it may not get the job done, it may leave us in a lurch… but at least it’s just shampoo, nothing that’s difficult to obtain no matter where you go, and your life generally doesn’t depend upon it.

I think about other contexts where capacity is limited, and the same principles apply. That restricting the amount of ammunition law-abiding supposedly free citizens can carry or possess may not be enough to get the job done. Oh sure, statistical averages say you’ll be attacked by a single person, but that doesn’t mean your enjoyment of your Starbucks won’t be interrupted by a violent mob of 25 pipe-wielding people.

Think about applying this sort of capacity restriction across the board in your life. If all liquids could only come in 3 ounce containers. Your milk, your coffee, your soda (wait… this might give Bloomberg some more ideas), your housecleaning supplies, gasoline… we wouldn’t stand for it because we know it’s a silly restriction and causes more problems than it solves. Yes… causes more problems than it solves.

Bad guys don’t follow the rules

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Being the “bad guy”.

When we’re doing Force-on-Force scenarios, someone has to play the bad guy role. At first it’s hard for people new to FoF to be a bad guy, but after a little bit they get it and have a LOT of fun doing it. The reason is, they’re good people and now have to behave by a different set of standards — or perhaps, by no standards at all.

I recall hearing some pro wrestlers talk about playing the “heel” role… the bad guy. Many of them like playing that role because they can do anything they want. They have a great freedom, whereas the “babyface” (the good guy) has to color within the lines, play by the rules, and is rather restricted in what they can do.

Thus, we can define what it is to be a bad guy: you don’t follow the rules.

And so it goes in real life.

Gun bans are instituted through laws. Good guys will obey those laws. Bad guys won’t… because bad guys don’t follow rules.

Gun restrictions, like “gun free zones”, are instituted through laws. Good guys will obey those laws. Bad guys won’t… because bad guys don’t follow rules.

Signs on doors are something good guys pay attention to. Bad guys won’t… because bad guys don’t follow rules.

Bad guys don’t follow rules.

Not only is it useful to remember that bad guys don’t follow rules, it’s also useful to remember they won’t follow your rules, your standards, your moral code. If you were ever driven to steal, you might rob someone of their wallet but it’s not in you to senselessly and without just-cause take someone’s life. But that’s YOUR moral code. The fact someone is mugging you demonstrates they are not rational — according to your standards. What makes you think they’ll continue to adhere to your standards and not kill you just because they can? Maybe they will, maybe they won’t — you don’t know, you can’t know. All you can know is bad guys don’t follow rules.

From the speech, Citizenship in a Republic, 1910

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

If a public man tries to get your vote by saying that he will do something wrong in your interest, you can be absolutely certain that if ever it becomes worth his while he will do something wrong against your interest.

–  Theodore Roosevelt

Read it in context here.

TSRA PAC 2012 voter guide – follow up

/ hsoi

Alice Trip, TSRA Legislative Director, has always been an open and approachable person. When I wondered why only R’s and D’s were printed in the 2012 voter guide, I knew I could ask her. So I emailed her.

Here’s her reply, reprinted with her permission:

We offer information on the two major parties for several reasons but the most important is best explained by an example. In 2009 an incumbent, A rated state senator (R) lost to a known anti-gun challenger (D) by 9,000 votes.  The (L) candidate in that race took 9,000 votes.

To me, that answer comes across as “we don’t want to promote L’s because they can and do take votes away from R’s, who are generally more gun-friendly than D’s, thus we’ll lose races”.

That bugs me.

I don’t like it because it doesn’t paint a complete picture to make for fully-informed voters. It furthers the 2-party system, which just about everyone has a problem with (except those benefiting by it). And it keeps solid alternatives and better choices in the dark from voters. Granted, people are overcoming the darkness on their own, but things like this don’t help.

But I can’t really hold it against Alice. TSRA-PAC has specific goals. They do what they have to do to achieve their goals. And I’m sure if there were, in some smaller races, an L and a D running (no R) and the L was more pro-gun, they’d get the endorsement. If they put down the R and the L and the D, and the R and L were both listed with A-ratings, people will choose and votes will be split and you’ll get what Alice said above. So from her angle, I understand why it’s done.

I have different goals and ideals, and one of them is breaking away from the two-party system. I don’t like the political jockeying nor game-playing. I accept it exists and is part of the reality of it all, but it’s also part of the problem of it all.

I do not hold this against Alice nor TSRA/TSRA-PAC. I remain a Life Member of TSRA, and will continue to support them (just sent them money for the beautiful 2013 calendar that recently arrived). I do hope she’ll continue to fight her good fight (I know she will), and I’ll continue to fight mine. If you are a gun-owner or someone who cares about gun-rights in Texas, I encourage you to join and donate to the TSRA and TSRA-PAC. We don’t have to agree on everything, but that doesn’t have to stop us from being friends.

TSRA PAC 2012 voters guide

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

The TSRA-PAC 2012 voter’s guide has been posted. View the guide here.

One big gripe.

Looking down the list I see nothing but R’s and D’s.

At the end of the brochure, I see this:

Due to limited space, third-party & independent candidates are not listed

Limited space? Well, I guess these are probably still printed and there’s finite cost. I’ll grant that.

But welcome to 2000. There’s this new-fangled thing called “The Internet” and “The World Wide Web”. You might even be aware of it, given you seem to have one of those “www-dot-coms” yourself. Why can’t TSRA put ALL candidates on the website? Why can’t that subscript say “Visit http://www.tsra-pac.com for a listing of all candidates.”?

So, take the guide for what it’s worth, and do your own homework on the candidates.

Mayor Bloomberg… you are confusing

/ hsoi

“Let me ask you this Miss, if somebody pointed a gun at you and you had a gun in your pocket, what would you do? I think that answers the question,” [Mayor] Bloomberg said Tuesday at an unrelated news conference in the Bronx.

Mayor Bloomberg said the above in response to a line of questioning from a reporter regarding how 2 NYPD officers, shooting to take down a crazy man in front of the Empire State Building, did take the man down but also injured 9 innocent people in the process.

But the thing is, Mr. Bloomberg, that the law-abiding citizens of New York can’t have a gun in their pockets. So I guess what they would do is… die.

And Mr. Bloomberg, you actively campaign to make this condition so for the citizens of New York.

Glad to know you’re looking out for your fellow man.

The thing is, it seems Mayor Bloomberg gets the concept of concealed carry. I mean, he’s got armed bodyguards so he does understand the value. But… it’s just something that for some reason he wants to deny YOU from having, yet he’ll enjoy the privilege.

Ah, sweet hypocrisy.