Month: June 2010

My Take on Top Shots

So the first episode of Top Shots aired but fortunately it also appeared on Hulu so I could watch it (I don’t have cable, nor basic, my television is a fancy computer monitor). I watched the first episode last night and figured I’d post my take.

It’s obvious to me that this is a reality T.V. show. The show is definitely banking more on the drama caused by the interaction of characters than the characters’ capabilities with the various firearms. Yes I know that’s how you get ratings but alas I was disappointed in how little historical information was given on each firearm. Normally I’d expect this but being this is airing on the History Channel I was expecting some, you know, history. At the very least it would have been nice if the show would have had a short thirty second clip on each firearm. Nothing special mind you just something to justify this show being on the History Channel.

Like all reality television shows at the end of the episode somebody was “voted off the island.” This was done by having people vote for who they wanted to kick off the show by shooting targets with said person’s name on it. It was obvious to me that the creators of this show were really striving for some relevancy to firearms there.

But this show is primarily about the drama with the shooting and firearms coming in second. I guess I knew that’s how it was going to be since it was a reality T.V. show but I was expecting at least some justification for it being aired on the History Channel. Having this show on the History Channel makes about as much sense as having wrestling on the Sci-Fi channel… oh wait that actually happened.

Yeah I’m disappointed to say the least. If feel bad having to say that since the show does at least portray shooting in a positive light which I really appreciate. But it’s a reality T.V. show and I hate reality television. Likewise it’s a good overall concept, a competition where participants are expected to perform courses of fire with a vast array of different firearms. A lot could be done to appease both your average viewer and gun nuts but the creators seem exclusively focused on average viewers (I don’t really blame them it’s a good move as far as ratings go).

Needless to say I won’t be watching this show but I’m glad it’s on air just for the positive portrayal of the shooting sports. I wish Caleb at Gun Nuts Media luck in the competition. It would be great to see him win.

iPhone 4

So today is the big news day… at least in Apple circles. Apple officially announced the iPhone 4. So am I mad that I purchased an Evo 4G instead of waiting a couple days for the new iPhone announcement? Nope. I must say Apple threw some cool features into their latest phone but alas it’s still buckled down by Apple’s draconian App Store policies making it a wholly unusable device in my opinion. It’s also still locked to AT&T which is one phone company I personally never want to deal with.

But they did some cool shit. The new screen should look fantastic. I’m also impressed that Apple used the metal band running around the phone as an antena. One of the iPhone’s biggest problems has been reception and Apple appears to have found a method of correcting that in a rather clever way. They also have a video chat feature but it only works over Wi-Fi (meanwhile the video chat feature on my Evo works on 3G, 4G, or Wi-Fi but you have to pay for yet another service to used it).

Overall it’s pretty cool if you can stand AT&T and Apple’s App Store policies.

So a Police Officer Walks Into A Bar

Or in this case a cafe and is given the boot. This incident has been strumming up some controversy in some areas because a coffee shop booted a police officer out of their establishment. What few people seem to realize is the coffee house is called the Red and Black Cafe. Why is that significant? The colors represent anarcho-communism which is the political belief of the people who collectively own the cafe.

So the real story is a police officer walked into a cafe run by people who don’t like the police of any form of government at all. I’m not surprised he was shown the door in that case. What do I think about this? Well it’s their right to refuse service to anybody they want (in my opinion, not under the law’s opinion of course). If they don’t want to allow police officers into their establishment that is their right. At the same time the police are not legally obligated to protect anybody so since they are restricted from entering the business they could just as easily say they will not respond to any incidents that occur in that cafe. I think it’s a fair trade that would make everybody involved happy.

Tennessee Governor’s Veto Overridden

Well here’s some good news for anybody that’s been keeping track of the shenanigans that have been going on in Tennessee over the restraunt carry bill. Their House and Senate voted for legislation that would allow people with carry permits to carry their gun into establishments that served alcohol (they still can’t drink which is what most mass media sources forget to mention). Once the legislation hit the Governor’s desk it was vetoed. Well that veto has been overridden.

Good work people of Tennessee.

Drinking, It’ll Give You AIDS

Via No Agenda I learned that the World Health Organization has started a campaign against alcohol (because they research Prohibition in the United States and found that it worked so well). They have a page up titled Call for action to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. There are some real doozies on this page but my favorite is this:

Harmful drinking is also a major avoidable risk factor for noncommunicable diseases, in particular cardiovascular diseases, cirrhosis of the liver and various cancers. It is also associated with various infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and TB, as well as road traffic accidents, violence and suicides.

Holy shit drinking can give you AIDS!

Making Recording the Police Illegal

There is a rather frightening article about the police and their love of cameras, so long as they’re the only ones who have them:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

More or less the same group of individuals who often say nobody should fear being under surveillance unless they’re doing something wrong doesn’t like being under surveillance. This seems to imply they know they are doing something wrong using their logic. The justification for these laws is also sickening:

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

If you or I are out in public we can’t sue somebody for recording us specifically because there is no expectation of privacy under the law. Apparently since the police are better than us lowly surfs they are getting an exception in some states. This is a classic case of rules being applied differently depending on your status (in this case a police officer is a civilian but since they’re employees of the government the government is giving them special treatment). Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying all police officers are beating people on street corners but any officer supporting laws banning citizens from recording their actions while on duty makes it appear as though they have something to hide (by many officers’ own logic).

Society and technology are now at a point where a majority of people are carrying video recording devices in the form of cell phones. Coupled with the cellular Internet access we can share recorded videos with the entire world instantly. Even if the police confiscate your cell phone upon discovering you are recording them the video can already be uploaded to any number of websites making the confiscation meaningless.

This has been used quite a few times to record instances of police abuse which is later used to reprimand the recorded officers. So now the citizens can monitor the police force instead of only the police force being able to monitor the citizens. Some people join the police force because they want the authority and power that goes along with it. Of course these same people don’t want to responsibility and accountability that also goes along with it hence empowered citizens are a bad thing to them.

Banning the recording of police officers (or any public servant) while they are on duty is nothing more than government empowerment at the sacrifice of the peoples’ liberty (which is always the case). It’s one of the few methods we have at our disposal to play checks and balances with the police force. Otherwise it simply becomes a case of our word against theirs which almost always goes the way of the officer under question.

My First USPSA Match

Last night was my first USPSA match at Oakdale Gun Club. I managed to make it all the way through without getting disqualified which was my primary goal. My score was absolutely atrocious to say the least (I nailed one friendly target twice on the first stage, but I’m pretty sure he said something racist which makes it OK). In fact the scores are already posted and I have no shame so you can find them here. I shot Limited 10 and my score is under Christopher B. You’ll notice on stage four I hate a rating of 0% because of that racist friendly. I didn’t too bad with scoring points (with exception of state four which was my first) it’s just when that time thing was thrown in things didn’t look so good.

I made some observation which I hope to learn from. First adrenaline is a bitch. When it hits everything seems to be moving at a snails pace. Even when I thought I was going slow I was going far too fast. This is what really killed me (and that racist friendly target), I didn’t take it slow and easy even though I thought I did. So my not-pro tip for anybody starting the sport is this, take it dead slow and if you feel like you’re going slow you’re probably still going too fast.

My next observation was when the stage ends check the gun to make sure it’s unloaded. By this I mean really check it. One guy in my squad was disqualified because when the range officer said to drop the hammer his gun fired. When you’re done shooting that’s it you’re no longer being timed. Take a good several seconds to triple check the gun. In fact stick your finger into the chamber to ensure nothing is in there. I state this because the guy had a nice run and it was all for not due to the DQ.

Observation three was simple, have magazines. I brought seven magazines which I figured was going to be overkill but it was certainly nice not having to worry if I was reloading too often. A few guys in my squad only had two magazines and it sucked because they couldn’t perform reloads when moving from stage section to stage section which is kind of your time to get free reloads (meaning you’re not shooting and thus the time is being wasted unless you’re doing something). I had no troubles reloading on the move although I was rather slow at it. It almost always had the gun back in fighting condition by the time I arrived at the next set of targets so I wasn’t too worried.

And that’s what I learned. Either way it was a ton of fun and I can’t wait for next weeks match.

Read the Bills Act

Here’s a novel idea I stumbled upon yesterday. It’s a website proposing an idea for a bill that they title the Read the Bills Act. The idea of the bill is simple, require every bill and amendment to be read aloud before the Senate and House can vote on it:

  • Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
  • Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
  • Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.
  • Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.
  • Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.
  • Congress cannot waive these requirements.

Novel concept huh? Just imagine our representatives having to actually read bills and amendments before they pass them. Just thinking about how much this would slow down Congress makes me love this idea. Of course if introduced to the floor it would never pass since it would require those voting on it to do real work in the future (then again they may no actually read it and vote it through anyways, that would be irony).