Month: April 2011

This May Comes As a Shock

The BBC has an article about the movement here in the United States to enact laws allowing people with legally recognized ability to carry a firearm to do so on college campuses. Like most issues involving guns you have those who are for the right of the people to carry and thus defend themselves and then you have the side that is wrong. The article interviews David Burnett, the president of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, as well as some Brady Campaign shill show should know better. What interested me was the following quote by the Brady Campaign shill (literally in this case):

“You think you know what you would do. But, honestly, you will lose your mind if you are involved in something like that.”

Colin took four bullets from the Virginia Tech shooter back in 2007. “One above my left knee,” he explained, “in both my hips, and through my right shoulder.”

Colin was a defenseless victim of the Virgina Tech shooter and still advocates that he and every other student remain defenseless. If I believed he had malicious intent instead of just being stupid I’d almost think he believed that everybody else should get shot because he was shot.

The fact of the matter is had somebody at Virginia Tech had access to a firearm they could have stopped that scumbag shooter before he murdered those 10 people in Colin’s French class.

“These people are afraid. I totally understand that. I was there. But their fear is misdirected.

“If that idea (that carrying a gun makes you safer) was true, we’d already be the safest place in the world.

This is a false type of logic. What Colin just implied was because A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. I can point out that there has been no case of liberalized (using the classical definition of liberal) carry laws leading to an increase in violent crime. On the other hand I can point to states such as Florida where liberalized carry laws were following immediately by a lowering of the violent crime rate. Thus it can be said that liberalized carry laws imply either lower or no change in violent crime rates but not an increase in violent crime rates. The implication is not causality though as there could be any number of other factors that lead to the lower violent crime rates. What can be stated though is liberalized carry laws do not cause higher violent crime rates.

The other mistake Colin makes is trying to imply liberalized carry laws are for the safety of society. I’ve already explained how liberalized carry laws don’t lead to an increase in violent crime but these laws also aren’t meant to benefit all of society but to benefit individuals. Liberalized carry laws allow individuals to carry a means of defending themselves. This individual benefit, like most individual benefits, can end up positively effecting society as a whole but the basis of this benefit is to help individual people.

Since everybody isn’t carrying a gun liberalized carry laws don’t make all of society safer. Since I carry a gun liberalized carry laws have made me safer though. This increase in my safety has lead to no negative impact to the safety and quality of life of other people around me. Thus the law has a net positive effect as in benefits somebody and doesn’t negatively impact anybody (besides the criminals who are trying to negatively impact individuals of course).

Due to these statements I put forth the fact that anti-gunners like Colin have absolutely no leg to stand one.

Legislation Moving to Ban Firearms from the Minnesota State Capitol

Well that worthless piece of shit Paymar is at it again and has introduced yet another pointless anti-gun bill. This time he’s introduced a bill to ban those of us with carry permits from carrying at the state capitol building.

As it currently sits people with Minnesota carry permits are able to carry at the capitol building if they submit a letter of notification. In the years since Minnesota passed right to carry legislation not a single incident has been raised because of this yet Paymar is willing to waste our time trying to ban it because he’s an asshole. What’s his reasoning? Well he’s jumping on the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords bandwagon (rather late I might add):

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Michael Paymar, comes on the heels of a report last month that found potential threats lurking around the Capitol Complex.

That report, which did not recommend barring guns, was spurred by the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson this January.

“Back when Tucson happened … I just thought if we do nothing, I just think that’s unconscionable,” said Paymar, DFL-St. Paul.

Let me get this straight. You are worried somebody might come to the capitol building to shoot a “representative.” Somehow you believe if a law is passed that prohibits people with issued carry permits from carrying there this kind of scenario is impossible. You believe this even though the number of shootings committed by permit holders in Minnesota is almost non-existent. You also appear to believe somebody willing to commit murder is just going to ignore a law prohibiting them from legally carrying a firearm. In other words you’re an idiot.

Oh, by the way Tony Cornish is a pretty stand up guy:

One of them is Public Safety Committee Chairman Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, who called the bill a “terrible idea” and “dead on arrival” during an interview on the House floor Monday.

“It’s a longstanding practice to carry guns at the Capitol,” said an armed Cornish, who is also a police chief. “And we’ve never had any problems with it.”

He has a brain, unlike Paymar. Oh, did also I mention this bill presented by Paymar is going to cost Minnesota more money even though we’re already in debt up to our eyeballs?

The bill appropriates $6 million in bonding money for tunnel improvements and an unspecified amount for metal detectors. The report said the state should consider metal detectors at the Capitol, but did not explicitly recommend them.

Yeah because that’s a good idea. Let’s spend money we don’t have to fix a problem we don’t have. That’s your government at work.

What I Did This Weekend

Yeah I usually don’t waste time posting about my personal life on this site because I realize nobody gives two shits. With that said I believe I did do something relevant to the interests of my readers; I took a new person shooting.

A friend and me took another friend for her first trip to the range. Even though the conditions were less than ideal (it was cold, wet, and we only had the 50 yard range available to us which isn’t a good range for your first time shooting) she did very well and enjoyed herself. In fact she said she wants to get a gun now.

Thanks Nicole for joining Brian and me and being and awesome first-time shooter.

This is why we win ladies and gentlemen, because range trips are fun and “let’s sit around and talk about banning guns” parties are lame and boring.

A Contradiction of Thought

This is really a post that has nothing to do with anything but is a thought I had. How can somebody complain about the police but then turn around and demand more laws be enacted? It seems to be a popular opinion of many people I know; they complain about how terrible the police are but later talk about wanting more laws and regulations put into place which would require more enforcement agents be hired.

Trying to make sense of it only causes my head to hurt.

Tax Day

Oh before I forget today is that day of the year where you have to submit the government’s paperwork for them so they know how much of your money they need to take by force. I already have my tax returns in and cashed (cash those checks immediately, you never know when the government is going to go all California and not be able to cash sent checks).

If you’re one to wait until the last minute to mail the paperwork I give you some credit for withholding your money from the government’s greedy hands as long as you can. On the other hand if you haven’t had the paperwork itself filled out… well congratulations you win the procrastination award.

Just Doing Their Job

It often surprises me when anti-gunners claim us mere civilians shouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms because we lack the skill and training possessed by the police. Why does this argument surprise me? Because most police officers receive lackluster training with firearms which makes shit like this happen:

Sherronda Aycox was devastated over the loss of her 8-month old blue pit bull Capone, and for what she and her neighbors believe was dangerous and irresponsible behavior by Camden Police.
…
Aycox says Capone darted out of the partially opened door and toward the officers several houses down, who, according to residents, shot and killed the dog.

Aycox says police investigators told her 33 rounds were fired.

It took the police 33 rounds to hit a dog. I guess this is why the Brady Campaign believes they need 33-round magazines while you and I don’t, it appears to be an attempt to compensate for the polices’ apparent lack of training. The problem with being inaccurate with a firearm in a populated area is the fact those stray bullets have to go somewhere:

The dog was hit and fell in one area, but the bullets sprayed elsewhere, shooting out the window of a van that several women were getting ready to get into. The women say there were children everywhere.

Neighbors say several other vehicles were hit, and the bullets pierced a nearby home, hitting a window and a wall inside.

In this case they went into home and vehicles. It sounds to me like those officers need to be fired and the remainder of the staff should be taking lessons on handling a firearm in a high stress situation.

My Review of Atlas Shrugged Part I

This weekend marked the opener for Atlas Shrugged Part I. You’re probably not surprised to learn that several crazy libertarians and me attended the movie Friday. So here are my thoughts on it.

Before I begin I should state that I went into this movie fairly blind. I’ve never actually made it all the way through the book Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand’s writing style doesn’t appeal greatly to me as she’s too verbose with descriptions of scenes. With fiction I prefer to fill in most of the blanks myself but I’ve always liked the base story of Atlas Shrugged (thanks Wikipedia for your wonderful plot summaries). Likewise due to the budget and the fact the movie was based off of a book who’s story appealed to my economic and political senses I figured it would be abysmal. Needless to say I don’t have much faith in movie producers making a product that reflects kindly upon my political beliefs.

Overall I thought the movie was pretty good. Obviously the main draw for me was the actual story itself. Part I covered most of what I had read of the book so I feel somewhat qualified to make a statement on how well the movie followed its source material. This movie is pretty faithful to Ayn Rand’s magnum opus. Much of the dialog is ripped straight from the book and the characters weren’t changed in any real dramatic ways. A quick thumbnail explanation about how trains became such popular modes of transportation was tossed in as to adopt the movie to our time but that was the only really major changed that jumped out at me.

Speaking of faithful to the books let me talk about the actors. None of the actors in Atlas Shrugged are well known although I recognized some of them from television shows. The actors portray almost completely one dimensional characters. What I mean to say is the actors stayed very true to the source material as Atlas Shrugged appeared to be composed entirely of single dimensional characters which isn’t surprising considering the story and Ayn Rand’s beliefs in life.

I found this movie certainly had a “made for T.V.” feel to it. The budget combined with the selected actors are probably the cause of this but that’s not really a hit against the movie itself. What I will hit it with is the fact the movie also had a very rushed feeling to it. It felt to me as thought several scenes should have been re-shot but the director decided against it which I’m attributing to time constraints without really knowing for sure. Either way this movie isn’t going to win any prestigious movie awards (which is fine by me since most movies that do I find to be rubbish anyway).

When all was said and done I have to say I found the movie enjoyable. This is entirely due to the story itself which I’m guessing is going to be the main draw for most people. If you really enjoy the story found in Atlas Shrugged I feel there will be much for you to enjoy in this movie and it is certainly worth a watch. If you hated the book and Ayn Rand you’re going to hate this movie so don’t bother wasting your money. On the Christopher Burg scale of arbitrary movie rating I give this movie a libertarian rating. If you’re a libertarian you’ll probably find much to like about this movie while a statist is going to have nothing but rage issues as the movie proceeds to demonstrate why you’re ideas suck.

I’m going to close by stating I hope this movie does well enough for parts II and III to be made. The budget seems to be low enough where this is a possibility but I’m unsure if enough momentum will be continue to exist past opening weekend to make enough money for two more parts. The theater was packed Friday night but that was mostly the hardcore Rand fans. I’m doubting anybody else will really enjoy this movie so it’s almost solely up to them to fund this endeavor.

Monday Metal: Dead Man’s Reel by Suidakra

Here I am again hoping to help you get your week off to a good start. This weeks entry into Monday Metal is the instrumental song Dead Man’s Reel by Suidakra. We’re back to folk metal again and this time the strange folk instrument tossed in is a set of bagpipes. Heavy metal bagpipes rule and anybody who disagrees can feel free to keep their opinion to themselves.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3SXa0hnJrE]

Important Self-Defense Bill Introduced in Minnesota

I guess it’s my turn to utilized the activism page. The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance has just dropped word that H.F. 1467 has been introduced into the Minnesota House. The bill is a sweeping reform to Minnesota’s self-defense laws and would enact the following changes:

Enacts Stand Your Ground – Stand your ground legislation removes the requirement for an intended victim of a violent crime to flee the area where you have a right to be.

Enacts Castle Doctrine – Similar to the above except this applies specifically to your own property. As it currently stands if somebody breaks into your home you have a legal obligation to attempt to flee before using force to defend yourself. A person should not be required to flee their own home because a malicious person has illegal broken in.

Prohibits the Confiscation of Firearms in a State of Emergency – This would prohibit the government from confiscating the firearms of gun owners when a state of emergency has been declared. During Hurricane Katrina the National Guard confiscated the firearms on New Orleans residents leaving them defenseless. A time of emergency is one of the most important times to have access to a means of self-defense.

Extends the Validity of Purchase Permits to Five Years – In Minnesota you are required to get either a permit to purchase or a permit to carry in order to buy a handgun or a military style semi-automatic rifle. A permit to purchase is only valid for one year while a carry permit is valid for five. This would make a permit to purchase valid for the same period of time as a carry permit.

Recognition of All Out of State Carry Permits – This would make the state of Minnesota recognize carry permits from all other states. A person shouldn’t be barred their right to self-defense just because they entered our fine state.

The members of the House Public Safety committee need to be contacted and asked to support this bill. This numbers and e-mail addresses are located on the first link.

Interior Design is Serious Business

I didn’t realize interior design was such a serious business. Did you know that Florida, Nevada, and Louisiana require a state license to practice interior design. That seems like pointless licensure requirements if I’ve ever heard of them. It seems as though Florida is getting smart about this and are moving to deregulate the interior design market but abolishing the need to get a state license in order to work as an interior designer.

As with any government protected cartel the interior designers are fighting back with some very interesting claims. My favorite on? That improper interior would contribute to 88,000 deaths every year. How did they come to that number? No idea but it sure sounds scary if not completely far fetched. Maybe all those deaths come from people not having enough “zen” in their living room because a couch is 0.05cm too far to the left.

Government licensure is nothing more than a means of creating cartels. In order to protect themselves from competition people working in a specific field will make up a reason why there needs to be a requirement for government oversight and licensure of their field. This creates a barrier against entry for new employees and thus reduces the potential competition they may be facing. These licenses usually carry an arbitrary number of pointless restrictions that make the barrier to entry even higher.