A Case for Firearm Safety Education

That’s what this article by the Red Star Tribune should be making an argument for. As is the usual the Tribune did a scare piece about guns and once again the hysteria doesn’t add up to the truth. The article is trying to make a case that too many kids are injured by accidents involving firearms and the best way to lower this number is through stricter gun control. The actual answer of course is far different and much of what this story states is bogus and misleading.

There are a lot of facets to this particular article. First the Star Tribune provides the statistical data they are using which brings up two facts. First the data does a breakdown of 15 to 19 meaning child is being defined as anybody from a new born to 19 years of age. This is significant because a child is legally defined as being anywhere from a newborn baby to 17 years of age. Once you turn 18 you are an adult and capable of doing things like purchasing long arms. Thus it’s not until your turn 18 that you can legally ensure an exposure to firearms.

The other major item to note are the two counties with the highest rate of accidents involving firearms. They are Hennepin and Ramsey. For those of your outside of Minnesota these are the counties containing Minneapolis and St. Paul our two largest cities. The other top counties are Anoka, Dakota, Washington, and St. Louis. The first three are all part of the Twin Cities area and the last is the country with Duluth our third largest city. So this seems to be an issue with urban areas as opposed to rural areas.

Likewise Hennepin country is home to Northern Minneapolis. The saying here is, “We don’t go there.” It’s a inner city area and contains by far our highest amount of crime in the state. It’s kind of like our Chicago (if you remove Chicago from Illinois’s crime statistics the state is actually pretty safe).

What I derive from this is kids who are more likely to be educated on the proper use of firearms are less likely to have accidents (gee really?). Most kids in rural areas will go hunting at some point in their life or at least be exposed to firearms in some other way (shooting sports). This usually isn’t the case with kids who grow up in the big city (I know a lot of people from the Twin Cities area who never even seen a real gun before). This leads me to believe education is the main problem here.

In a country where firearms are so ubiquitous it doesn’t seem unreasonable to require firearm safety classes in public schools. Especially considering a few of the examples stated in the Star Tribune article. Speaking of examples some of the examples aren’t so much accidents as actual crime:

Bobby Brown uses his own pain to make that point to young people in Minneapolis. In 1997 in south Minneapolis, a few miles from where Montrell Wade was shot, a drive-by shooter’s bullet struck Brown’s spine, paralyzing him. Brown was 15. Now 28, Brown continues his battle to keep kids away from guns — or to at least respect their potential for horrible, unintended consequences.

If you are shot in a drive-by that doesn’t mean you were involved in an accident it means you were a victim in a crime. An accident generally means somebody did something they didn’t intend to. A drive-by shooting is intentional and thus not an accident. Mr. Brown was a victim of a drive-by and hence this example is not a valid one when discussing kids involved in accidents involving firearms.

Also stating the consequences of illegally or otherwise improperly using a firearm are unintended is moronic. The intent of a firearm is to be a weapon just like the intent of our freeway system in the United States is for national defense. If you are shot and injured by a firearm it’s not an unintended consequence it’s actually the consequence intended by the design of the device.

Carter regularly tries to help teens with gun troubles. He works with Cody Nelson, a 17-year-old from St. Paul who accidentally killed 16-year-old Daron Smith in December in a misbegotten game of Russian roulette.

Russian roulette isn’t an accident. You are intentionally placing a firearm to your head and pulling the trigger while hoping for an empty chamber. You’re still intentionally loading a gun, putting it to your head, and pulling the trigger.

Carter talked about 17-year-old Alisha Neeley who died when struck by a stray bullet outside a teen party in north Minneapolis.

Once again most likely a crime not an accident. If this article would have been titled kids and guns at least some legitimacy could be derived from these examples. But once again the claim is a focus on accidents. If these types of examples are listed in the statistical data used by the article than the data is flawed and thus no valid conclusion can be derived from it.

Now one of the quotes in this article both irritate me and make my case for firearm education:

“It’s like a game of chess,” McGonigal said of teens understanding actions and consequences. “As an amateur, you can see one step ahead. An expert sees six steps ahead. Expecting kids to put two plus two plus two plus two together on their own isn’t realistic. Parents or schools have to help them make the decisions.”

So apparently children are too stupid to add 2 + 2 + 2? Shit I could do that before I started school. Yeah I know that’s not what he meant but I needed to insert a little humor into this article. Beyond bad examples that have nothing to do with accidents the article also contains some other points to note:

In a culture that not only makes guns easily available, but celebrates the possession of weapons, young people cannot distinguish between being cool and the risk of being wounded or killed accidentally, said Phelps Boys and Girls Club director Mark Graves.

In other words the kids need to be educated. A simple firearm safety class shows you what happens if you are shot. Likewise it would teach proper firearm handling.

That means the number of accidental shootings of young people remain stubbornly consistent in urban and rural areas, said the U’s Resnick.

Consistent and low in rural areas where firearm education is practically a given.

The teenager who killed Matis’ son pointed what he thought was an unloaded handgun at Brandon’s face and pulled the trigger.

Rule one of firearm safety. Also a violation of rule two. Again education.

Finally the article contains one completely irrelevant statistic:

The Star Tribune also found that in 2008, Minnesota children ages 10 to 14 had a greater chance of being accidentally wounded by firearms than being hit by cars.

Considering kids don’t get driver licenses until they turn 16 it seems very plausible. Likewise the definition of hit by a car has two meanings. The first means they are physically hit by a vehicle and the other means they are inside of a car when it is hit by another car. In the latter case generally speaking only the driver is considered to be hit by a car. Either way the exposure to vehicles is much less for youths and thus they are less likely to be involved in such an accident.

Exposure to firearms on the other hand is higher being kids spend much of their time at home where parents generally have firearms. This is where education matters. If you’re a parent with young children you should have your firearms securely stored (for instance your carry piece should be on your hip so you know where it is and thus have control over it at all times). When your children are old enough to grasp concepts you should teach them the rules of firearm safety as well as the consequences of disobeying those rules.

Another thing that is important is getting kids over the mysticism of firearms. Kids are always curious about things they’ve had no exposure to. For instances many kids are fascinated by automobiles right up to the point they’ve been driving for a while. So beyond education it is smart to expose your children to firearms in a safe environment so you get rid of that curiosity. Take your children shooting when they want to go shooting.

A combination of education and exposure would probably eliminate a majority of accidents involving firearms and youth. Guns aren’t scary bogeymen who will kill your children if left unattended. No guns are tools without a mind nor conscious of their own. They have no ability to think, no desire, and no ability to make decisions. If used properly firearms are perfectly safe tools. It’s only when used improperly that they become dangerous devices (do note I don’t consider self defense shootings a dangerous use of firearms by a safe use by virtue they keep the user of the gun safe).

Nice try Star Tribune but your article falls to pieces in seconds along with your “argument.”

The Top of the Bad Idea Mountain

What would you say if you enrolled in a college and they asked for a DNA sample? If you would say “OK here’s the sample” then you get to go into the room for those who can’t think ahead. If you would say “Fuck off” congratulations you are a far more intelligent human being.

UC Berkley is asking all students to voluntarily submit DNA samples as part of enrollment:

The students will be asked to voluntarily submit a DNA sample. The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students own records.

Now it’s no surprise to anybody that getting a DNA sample from somebody is fairly easy and if somebody wants it they can get it with a little work. But volunteering such information to any government entity (UC Berkley is a state college) is just stupid. The UK has established a DNA database which they claim is used for the following reasons:

* quickly identify offenders
* make earlier arrests
* secure more convictions
* provide critical investigative leads for police investigations

In other words they have it so they can fuck you over easier. Sure an innocent person will say they have nothing to fear from such a database but the second some legal becomes illegal you are in a position to face charges or at least public scrutiny. Of course at the time only people arrested are added to their database but alas some want everybody in it.

But the big question I really have is why the fuck is a college asking for DNA samples? Well:

The confidential process is being overseen by Jasper Rine, a campus professor of Genetics and Development Biology, who says the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle.

Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student’s ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose.

Oh I see make it sound fun and exciting so students will be suckered into it. The best way to establish a database is to sucker people into volunteering their information for it. Also the easiest way to find out your alcohol tolerance is to drink alcohol until you can notice side effects. It’s cheap, easy, and fun. But here is the icing on the cake:

The results of the test will be put in a secure online database where students will be able to retrieve their results by using their bar code.

I just love the term “secure online database.” Without knowing how the security is implemented how can you know it’s actually secure? I bet money within the first year of this database being online (so a year from today) some bright student will find a way to break into it.

The bottom line is you should never volunteer any information you don’t have to, especially something that could be used to nail you for something ten years down the road. The main thing to remember is you never know when you could be caught up in something that is under investigation and if your DNA shows up you could face massive public scrutiny even if you didn’t actually do anything.

That’s Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, and Bigoted

Wow one article nailed all four of those. Yes apparently Iron Man 2 was sexits, racist, homophobic, and bigoted all in one movie (how do they get all of that done in such a short time span). Larry Correia, author of Monster Hunters International, took the accuser to task.

Seriously it’s hilarious (Mr. Correia’s commentary not the original writer of the dribble).

Also if you go to a super hero movie realize two things: it’s going to be over the top unbelievable and shit will blow up. It’s entertainment, try to enjoy yourself instead of be angry.

Some Facts about the Ground-Zero Mosque

The latest event everybody has their knickers in a bunch over is a group of Muslims who want to build a giant mosque and cultural center near ground-zero of the 9/11 attacks. If you want to spark up heated and emotional debates over something this is the way to do it. Everybody I know is pissed as Hell about this. Personally I decided to look into the matter a bit before making a comment and there are a couple of things I found. First:

.”This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in the attack on the Pentagon that day.

This is the first thing to note, it’s not being build at ground-zero just near it. Another thing to note is:

The 13-story mosque and cultural center will be built on the site of a four-story building that was a Burlington Coat Factory retail store until 9/11, when part of a plane’s landing gear crashed through the roof. The building, which will be razed, currently houses a mosque.

So the building that is being demolished to make room for this giant mosque housed… a mosque. This isn’t a new establishment, just a much larger version of what was already there. And then we have:

The New York City Mayor’s office says “It’s private property, and the area is zoned for uses that include this one.”

I bring up this point because most of the people I know who are pissed off about this are also huge believers in property rights and the right to do what you want on your own property. If you want the absolute right to do whatever you want on your property you should extend the same courtesy to others (otherwise it’s not a right it’s a privilege that you enjoy). Personally I think this is the biggest and most important point of this entire story.

But let’s ask an unbiased and neutral source about this:

Pamela Gellar, executive director of Stop Islamization of America, blasted the organization behind the plans, Cordoba Initiative, and its leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, saying the project is “an insulting flag of conquest of Islamic supremacism.”

Um… never mind.

Let me be fair and ask the man who heads the organization that is going to build this facility:

Though the Cordoba Initiative’s website calls part of the $100 million-plus project a mosque, its founder, Imam Rauf, says the project is not a mosque but a community center for all faiths that will include recreational facilities, a prayer space and a 500-seat theater that can be a part of the neighborhood’s trendy Tribeca Film Festival.

Rauf insists the effort is meant to help heal the wounds of 9/11, “We’ve approached the community because we want this to be an example of how we are cooperating with the members of the community, not only to provide services but also to build a new discourse on how Muslims and non-Muslims can cooperate together to push back against the voices of extremism.”

I’m sorry that seems way too much like political speak. Maybe a better idea would to be use that money to fund programs that could help fightback extremism and thus enhance the overall American perception of the religion. Heck I’m not the only one who thinks that:

But Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says there are more productive ways to fight Islamic extremism.

“Even when they have the resources, they are using it for a place of worship, a cultural center for organizations,” he said. They are not using it for a counterterrorism research center.

“They are not using it to lead the war like Americans need to see us do and they are wasting our resources, not to mention that being close to the hallowed ground that is so sensitive in the souls of the families of 9/11. I think it is extremely poor judgment.”

I agree with that. It seems this is really a waste of resources as far as trying to increase the public perception of Islam in America. Likewise it won’t do anything to help fight extremism either (it’s akin to holding hands around a fire and singing in my opinion). And you can say it’s insensitive due to the fact anybody with a brain could see it would piss off a lot of people, but frankly I don’t give two shits about that.

The fact of the matter is there was already a mosque on the property in question which was shutdown after the 9/11 attacks. Further the property is privately held and hence the owner has the right to do whatever the Hell they want. If they want to build a giant monument of a middle finger with a sign that says “Fuck you New York!” that’s their right in my not so humble opinion.

This does seem like a poor move politically. It sure isn’t going to gain anybody points in popular opinion field. But they have a right to build it and what I think is irrelevant.

EDIT 2010-08-16 21:25: I forgot to add in a link to where I got my information. Sorry about that, it’s corrected now.

Stupid Threats

So Arizona passed a piece of legislation that has pissed a good chunk of the country off. Needless to say Los Angeles voted on a boycott of all goods and services coming from Arizona to make a point. Of course as Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce points out it seems that Los Angeles is insinsere in that threat [PDF]:

In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

Very well played Mr. Peirce.

I Don’t Like this One Bit

Joe Huffman brings up a scary decision that just made it’s way out of the Supreme Court. The case that was just decided pretty much gives the government power to incarserate you indefinably. Of course this case involved a sex offender which is why speaking against the ruling will automatically get you hatred from your peers but alas I could care less so here we go:

In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

Yes that’s right even though you’ve completed your sentence handed down by a judge after conviction by a jury the federal government can chose to extend your punishment after the fact. The very scary part here is the fact the extension of punishment doesn’t even have to pass muster with a jury but only a judge:

The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

We all know phrases like “beyond a reasonable double” and “clear and convincing” translate into “whatever the fuck we want” when spoken by the federal government so neither of those two clauses fill me with confidence. Likewise a single judge could very well decide that you stay in jail for life even if you were only sentenced to 10 years.

So now we come to the big problem what to do with people in prison whom are still deemed a potential threat to society? In essence in order to keep such a person in prison we have to give up some of our liberty to the government. I’m a big believer in Benjamin Franklin’s quote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally I don’t believe the risk of losing any liberty could possibly outweigh the potential danger of releasing a prisoner even if they are dangerous.

Of course I’m not one to just complain without offering some kind of potential solution so here it is. If a person is charged with a sex offense (a real one not a bullshit one like taking a piss in public) make part of the punishment committing the offender to a mental facility where he or she can receive treatment and can not be let loose until a psychological evaluation has been passed (and by passed I mean judged by a board of psychologists chosen in a similar manner to a jury not a single doctor). Obviously it’s not a perfect solution but it would offer two things: a method of ensuring a dangerous person is not released into society and the said dangerous person can get treatment for their problem which simply imprisoning them doesn’t accomplish.

But simply stating somebody is a possible danger to society and keeping them locked up indefinably even though that goes beyond the handed down punishment is a violation of essential liberties. This type of power is far too dangerous to hand to the federal government, an entity that has proven itself time and time again they don’t give a shit about your rights.

Who Remembers The Old VHS

No not that VHS, this VHS. Well the Croats puts out a video demonostrating their new assault rifle which can be found over on The Firearm Blog.

Overall it looks cool although doesn’t seem to bring anything too revolutionary to the table. Of course that is until you realize it’s being produced by a nation who generally had more experience in combloc weapons than NATO weapons so this is a completely new endeavor.

For those of you who don’t know much about the VHS it’s a rifle being produced by the same company who gave us the HS 2000, better known in America as the XD, handgun. As an owner of a said handgun I must say if they can make a rifle even half as good as the HS 2000 I will be very impressed. Of course I’m doubting anybody is going to import a semi-automatic version of this new rifle since it’s mostly a clone of other things already on the market.

Oh My God Signs Kill

Apparently advertising can cause suicide! Every Day, No Days Off brought up a quote from a hack individuals claiming to be a counselor that really struck me as well researched and reasonable:

Year after year, I have been disgusted with the blaring and offensive gun show billboards that show no respect to women and millions of victims of violence. I have been disturbed by the plethora of “Buy & Sell Guns” signs littering our streets when the gun show comes to town.

And now the offending stupidity:

It’s a lot easier to pull a trigger than it is to use alternative, and often less successful, means. Putting “guns, knives, and machine guns for sale” advertisements in people’s faces – especially those who are feeling hopeless, or worse yet, angry – is a recipe for death. So stop the suggestive selling because the bottom line is, you don’t know who’s responding to your advertising and what your ads may “trigger.” Or alternatively, expect that people will die, and don’t be surprised by it.

Yes obviously my last statement was sarcasm. I like how this individuals said it’s easier to pull a trigger than to use alternative methods. You know there are a lot of drugs you can take that will kill you silently and with far less room for error (no I’m not talking Tylenol, if you want to kill yourself using that be prepared for a very painful and lingering death). So by this person’s “logic” we should ban all pharmaceutical advertisements because people can kill themselves via overdosing on drugs. Fuck we need to pan automobile advertisements to because some suicidal person may decide to buy one and ram it into a wall (of a school containing teh childrenz of course) at 100 miles per hour.

What this really comes down to is the moron who wrote this doesn’t like guns shows and therefore believes they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise (and I’m sure if you ask the individuals will state they should be outright banned as well).

3D Printers

There are several technologies I absolutely adore and 3D printers are one of them. 3D printers are devices that can make objects from a design file using a series of printer heads to slowly piece the object together from raw material. For instance you could make a Glock pistol frame from strings of plastic by melting the plastic which would be ejected from the printer heads in the desired form. I didn’t realize how far this technology had come along until I found out the made Robert Downy Jr.’s Iron Man armor for Iron Man 2 using such a device.

The suit parts were constructed using 3D printers which made fabrication as simple as designing them on a computer. Likewise they were made to fit Downy’s body making them more comfortable to wear on set.

I got excited about this technology when it was used in Daemon and Freedom(TM) by agents of the Daemon to construct pretty much everything they used. Of course the 3D printers used by Daemon agents were able to use metal dust to construct objects that plastic just wouldn’t work for (such as machine parts for their automated vehicles). Having such devices in your household would be a huge boon. Just imagine being able to construct a 1911 frame out of metal dust (Oh that would make the anti-gunners shit themselves endlessly). Or maybe construct replacement parts for your vehicle. So long as you have raw materials around you could conceivably create anything you want or need.

Currently this technology is pretty pricey although there is a project called MakerBot which is an open specification for creating such machines. MakerBots can currently made almost anything that is within 4″x4″x6″. Obviously that’s not very practical yet but it most certainly will become more advanced and cheaper as time goes on, that’s the benefit of technology.

Frankly this technology is practically limitless in it’s potential. I’m glad to see it’s advancing pretty fast.