Thursday, October 30, 2008

8-Year-Old Killed in Uzi Accident

Boston.com reports on the tragic accident that resulted in the death of an 8-year-old.

As his father raised his camera, an 8-year-old boy aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin set up at a shooting event. Before his father could focus, the third-grader from Connecticut squeezed the trigger, and the high-powered weapon recoiled and fatally shot the boy in the head.

The tragic death of Christopher Bizilj has raised a furor in the gun blogging world. Bryan Miller, who you may remember was involved with the infiltrator Mary McFate, has written an article which describes the incident as "unconscionable, selfish, stupid." Not much to argue with there. But he goes on to question whether the real motivation for this "sport like any other" might not be psycho-sexual. I guess this is what gets people upset.

On the Snowflakes in Hell blog, which I like very much and often read, Sebastian says about Bryan, "He’s shown himself to be hysterical, and not interested in rational discussion." To me that doesn't seem like a fair criticism. Then Sebastian's commenters really go over the top, accusing Bryan of dancing in the blood of the little boy.

I say, it's perfectly reasonable to use a real life example to illustrate one's point. It's perfectly fair to ask questions like, what kind of sport is that? Is it really like any other, boating for example? Bryan's point seems to be that it isn't; that something's wrong with people who like guns. I can certainly understand why gun lovers would get defensive about this kind of questioning, but their anger and name-calling just obscures their answers.

Is there something to the theory that men who like to shoot guns are compensating for some kind of inadequacy in themselves? Is it so offensive to even ask the question? Isn't it possible that some gun enthusiasts are enthusiastic because of low self esteem, inordinate fear, feelings of inadequacy or paranoia? If so, how many, what percentage?

Another question arises in this case. A weapon like the Uzi seems to be outside the normal description of something needed for self defense or home protection. Or is it? Are these so-called assault weapons required for these purposes? If so, where do we draw the line? Should people be allowed surface to air missiles, hand grenades, land mines? For the very affluent gun enthusiast, the sky's the limit, I guess.

I say there should be some limits, but I honestly don't know where that line should be drawn. What do you think? What's your opinion.

17 comments:

  1. "Is there something to the theory that men who like to shoot guns are compensating for some kind of inadequacy in themselves? Is it so offensive to even ask the question? Isn't it possible that some gun enthusiasts are enthusiastic because of low self esteem, inordinate fear, feelings of inadequacy or paranoia? If so, how many, what percentage?"

    Why do you even want to discuss the percentage if there is no way the data can be collected?

    Of course to retort I go to a writer better than myself.
    http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/i-dont-carry-a-gun/
    "I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come."
    and
    "I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate."

    On this (and frankly EVERY) issue Bryan is 100% full of shit.

    NEXT!
    "Another question arises in this case. A weapon like the Uzi seems to be outside the normal description of something needed for self defense or home protection. Or is it? Are these so-called assault weapons required for these purposes? If so, where do we draw the line? Should people be allowed surface to air missiles, hand grenades, land mines? For the very affluent gun enthusiast, the sky's the limit, I guess."

    REALLY ignorant statement Mike, but I'll help you.

    First up, ballistically SMG like the UZI are more-or-less on par fire-power wise with a 12 guage shotgun (Pump or semi-auto) The 12 guage is the #1 choice for home defence weapons world-wide. I personally prefer the shotgun as the delivery of ordiance is more instant (9-12 pellits of #00 Buckshot *ie 80 grain FMJ 9mm bullets travling at 1200-1300 FPS* delivered simultaniously, rather than in a cyclic rate of fire, with follow-up shots on tap)

    I personally prefer semi-auto rifles to full-auto, as I feel they better and more precicely deliver shots fired, but I know some people who are DAMN good with full-auto weapons. They do not offer MORE firepower, just DIFFERENT firepower.

    You use the term "Assault Weapon" in conjunction with talk of the Uzi, which is a Submachine gun. The two are NOT interchangable, nor are they at ALL related.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

    "Assault Weapons" under current definetions are IDEAL weapons for personal defence, and also are heavily used in the sporting world.

    As for people being allowed hand grenades, land mines, and ballistic missles. Guess what? THEY ARE, under very similar restrictions to people owning Uzis, and other full-auto weapons. You need to submit to an ATF anal probe, as well as gain permission from your local police.

    Do I think they're ideal weapons for home defence? Nope, If I land mine my yard I risk collateral damage AND I fuck up my property. Still if we suddenly find ourselfs in a position like many other nations under military martial law, a tank-buster shoulder-fired missle would be nice to have.

    But no worry, that shit is EASY to make
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

    I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

    I hope you'll attempt to educate yourself a little on this issue.

    Also another fact I'd like to add is somthing I hear a lot. Why was a young boy firing an automatic weapon?

    Charity. While obviously negligence was involved to lead to this death, there were many MANY young children at this shoot. I've personally hosted a Machine Gun shoot (Sadly I lost money on the event, but if I did turn a profit all money would have gone to my shooting club and our local NRA affliate) They had it again this year, I missed it because of a schedal conflict
    http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=45257
    They made about $1000 for Charity, and the club president gains several new members every year. No injuries now, and its been 5 years running.

    The shoot where the accident occored was to keep the public club running with low membership dues and high services. These happen ALL THE TIME.

    But why full-auto? Simple, availability. In 1986, (dispite not a single crime being commited since Full-auto weapons were restricted 50 years prior) Ronald Regan signed into law that no new Full-auto firearms could be transfered to private citizens. Essentially a full-ban, with prior weapons grandfathered in as "Transferable Class III Firearms".

    A cheap Mac-10 (Probably $300 production cost, New) run about $3,000 for a USED one pre-'86 transferable. I found an ad for a Micro-Uzi on gunbroker for $9,000. The Machine Gun shoot I hosted featured a 1950s era M1919 Machine gun that set the owner back somthing to the tune of $20,000. WWII collectors peices are just silly-expensive.

    So to shoot one of these guns you either need to be REALLY (as in REALLY FUCKING) rich, or you need to pay admission and ammo fees at a hosted event (most often where club memebers donate the use of their pieces and time to the good cause)

    That place in Vegas was doing it as a profitable enterprize (I dare you to find such an accident there)

    As for limets, again this strikes me as another ignorant statement.

    To fire a full-auto firearm, first you need a legal class III firearm. That requires a person to be at least 21, have a perfectly clean background, a signature from the ATF AND their local police cheif, and a $200 tax stamp on a legally transferable full-auto.

    THEN you need a place where the gun is legal to fire.

    ANY minor children need to be supervised by a legal shooter at all times (I belive this will be part of the criminal finding)

    FURTHERMORE in Mass all legal shooters need to have at LEAST a class A LTC permit, be 21 years old, and have compleated a safety course.

    The supervisor was not paying attention, a law was broken. What more do you want?

    There is talk on not allowing minor-children to even HANDLE class III arms. This is rediculous for the SOLE reason that this story is an INTERNATIONAL story! One kid dies in a gun club in Mass it makes international news. Two kids Shot on the streets of boston, it doesn't go outside of the state.

    I think this should be pretty obvious, and I hope you work to get your facts straight, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike,

    +1 to what Weer'd said.

    I'll address a different aspect

    Is there something to the theory that men who like to shoot guns are compensating for some kind of inadequacy in themselves?

    How about all the women shooters? My wife enjoys target practice, is she making up for some inadequacy? (by the way for your sake, ask that question to her long distance and be prepared to blush if you ask if I'm making up for some inadequacy)

    How about reading some of the blogs of female shooters, like these:
    Breda from the Breda Fallacy
    Tam at View from the Porch
    Roberta X at Two Wheel Madwoman
    Bitter at the Bitch Girls
    Brigid at Home on the Range
    Holly at Holly's Hystronics
    Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum
    Mrs. Ahab


    Leave a comment like the ones you've made here on their blogs and see what happens.

    As far as limits, Mike again, let's talk about limits on other protected rights.
    Can you use speech to commit crimes?
    Should you have to get a permit to speak from the government(own a firearm), another to speak in public(carry a firearm), etc?

    When you are ready to talk about applying your common sense restrictions to every constitutionally protected right, then I'll talk about those on the 2nd amendment

    ReplyDelete
  3. you're late to the party; i've said most of my piece over here.

    one thing, though:

    Is there something to the theory that men who like to shoot guns are compensating for some kind of inadequacy in themselves? Is it so offensive to even ask the question?

    is there something to the theory that people who don't want to take up weapons are just a bunch of cowardly wimps who are afraid to grow up and take on the responsibilities of adults? is there something to the theory that people who would enact weapons control laws to keep others from going armed are just projecting their own inadequacies and untrustworthiness onto others?

    of course it's insulting to ask such questions, mike! it's bigoted and prejudiced, and obviously so! are you really so tone-deaf as to have to be told this?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Add Mrs. Weer'd (Sorry, no blog) To the list Bob supplied.

    And Mike, if you don't think you were being rude or insulting, make your statements over on those fine women's blogs.

    Oh and a few more off the top of my head
    http://secretlivesofscientists.wordpress.com/
    http://lookingforlissa.wordpress.com/
    http://www.atomicnerds.com/
    http://www.rachellucas.com/

    I look forward to reading your un-bigoted comments there!

    ReplyDelete
  5. WOW Nomen, I was just over at that other place!

    WOW Good work fending off the swarms of ignorati!

    That swamp is a little too deep for me to tread!

    Just the sheer number of comments containing variations of "Dad let his son go play with an Uzi"

    Wow, a lie repeated often enugh. Dad let his son go with a range officer to shoot an Uzi. Dad SHOULD have fired the Uzi first given that he obviously had no idea what a beast the Micro-Uzi is, and the Instructor OBVIOUSLY fucked up by allowing the boy to discharge the weapon when he did not have at least partial control over the muzzle (and that guy DEFINETLY needed to know what a beast a Micro-Uzi is)

    But it makes their argument easier to paint a picture of an American Dad (Fat and white, for obvious reasons!) just tossing a micro-uzi into the sandbox with his kid.

    Also I had to comment on this bit of tripe:
    "Comparing a drain cleaner to an uzi is stupid for one simple reason. The drain cleaner, if used as designed by the manufacturer will not kill someone. An uzi will."

    hehheh, So the Israelies designed a gun that shoots the operator in the head?

    If you have to make a straw-man argument, you've already lost!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, guys, for not finessing the question about why some men are into guns better. But, do you really have to be so defensive about it?

    About the percentages we so often talk about. I think it was Weer'd who asked why am I asking since it's not possible to come up with stats. Well, I think that's no reason to NOT talk about something. It's by talking that people come to know how they feel about things, if they keep an open mind.

    I've been thinking about this stuff a lot from several different angles, thanks to all of you. That article Nomen linked us to was the final piece that made up my mind about the extremely low percentage of people, kids or anyone else, who are killed by accidents at shooting ranges. I totally agree with you gun guys who find arguments for gun control based on the tragic death of Christopher Bizilj, or people like him, ridiculous.

    I'd like to continue discussing some of my other questions with you, if that's all right. Please know that I never mean to offend. If you'd step back a bit and consider my questions objectively, I think you'll see they're not offensive at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike,

    Most of your questions aren't offensive and I don't take them that way. The sexual aspect of shooting is offensive. Nomen addressed it quite well.

    Would you not be quick to react if we addressed the sexual reasons why a person is an Ex-pat? Could it be you are a pedophile? See how offensive even suggesting it is.

    I'm sure you are aware how propaganda works, repeating a lie over and over again can have it take on a life of of it's own. That is why we address those issues so quickly.

    I'm glad to hear you understand how rare the tragic accident was and how safe the sport usually is. But are you saying that it was percentages, STATISTICS, that changed your mind? :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "About the percentages we so often talk about. I think it was Weer'd who asked why am I asking since it's not possible to come up with stats. Well, I think that's no reason to NOT talk about something. It's by talking that people come to know how they feel about things, if they keep an open mind."

    Are you claiming to have an open mind on this issue?

    -You won't talk statistics
    - You won't talk solutions
    - You don't appear to be learning much about what laws and restrictions are actually in place
    - You don't seem to care if your generalities are blatantly false, offensive, or of such a small sample set to be easily considered an anomoly.
    - And claim any protest about the above of us "Being Defensive"

    And with the one exception of the Grand'Ma who had a robber call the cops on himself at pistol-point (which was an international story of its outlandish nature) All of your gun reports are of guns being used for bad things, and despite crimes being committed, and punishments pending to the perpetrator, you ubiquitously call for "more restrictions"...and get upset if we attempt to infer what you might be implying with such a nebulous claim.

    Oh and you also ONLY report on crimes committed with a gun, and appear to have zero concern for any other implements of mayhem.

    And finally if questioning gets too direct you simply avoid the questions.

    I won't lie, Mike, I fully understand why Thomas no longer bothers with your blog anymore. You are in no danger of loosing me as a reader because there are dozens of liberal blogs that I read because I like to not live in an echo chamber, but this is one of the only left-leaning blogs I comment on.

    Why? Because unlike most of the liberal bloggers, you don't treat dissent with blatant disrespect, or shower non-like-minded posters with insults.

    Still I won't lie and tell you that the above bullet-points do make your "debate" of the issue seem vaguely disrespectful, and the repetitive, predictable nature of the above is just a little bit insulting....

    ReplyDelete
  9. You know what I think? I think this is just a little blog and we're having a discussion among friends. This is not a vehicle for propaganda nor is it an ethical forum. So, why don't you guys lighten up on that stuff?

    I would imagine that the term psycho-sexual has a lot more to do with emotional health than penis size. To me it seems reasonable to question if a person needs a gun to feel like a man. Don't you know guys like that? Are all your gun buddies so level-headed and emotionally secure that you find the question itself insulting?

    Weer'd, I miss Thomas too. I enjoyed his input very much and hope he returns. But the reason he stopped commenting is not completely clear. It could very well be that he finally got tired of flinging nasty crap at me that was not returned in kind. Some of his words were insulting and offensive, so with him as an example, I don't know how you can say that about my questions.

    Here's what I say to your bullet points (that's a good pun, by the way).
    -You won't talk statistics
    I do, but I take them with a grain of salt.
    - You won't talk solutions
    I do when solutions exist. If they don't, what should we do stop talking? I don't think so. Some of the best discussions are about difficult situations for which there are no solutions
    - You don't appear to be learning much about what laws and restrictions are actually in place
    Actually I am learning a lot from you guys, and I appreciate it. I'm not studying and researching as much as I could, partly due to time constraints and partly because I'm not the gun lover, you are.
    - You don't seem to care if your generalities are blatantly false, offensive, or of such a small sample set to be easily considered an anomoly.
    Just yesterday I admitted to the rare occurrence of shooting range accidents and how ridiculous it would be to base gun restrictions upon them. The blatantly false and offensive comments are not intentional. Some of them are judgment calls, things which you and I see differently.
    - And claim any protest about the above of us "Being Defensive"
    Not any protest, but some of your protesting seems to be defensive, another judgment call, I realize.

    ReplyDelete
  10. First up I have never met anybody, or actually heard of anybody (as in AT ALL) who "Needs a gun to feel like a man". All instances of that I have ever seen have been people who don't like guns applying labels to people who disagree with them.

    I'm armed right now, and I don't feel any more manley than I did when I was writing the above post in my PJs having my first cup of tea with my guns locked up in the safe. If such a person existis that would be troubling. I have seen no evedence it does. How does this effect my wife? She's wairing her gun today....is she more of a man (and less of a woman) or more of a woman....or just more prepared if somthing bad happens?

    It strikes me as a foolish argument, and it does get me a little worked up, if only because it strikes me as the old addage "A lie repeated often enugh becomes truth"

    as for your "grain of Salt" as far as I can tell, you dismiss any assessments as "biased" and don't look at any cited data. FYI if I can put a grain of salt on my tongue I can taste it....this isn't a "grain of salt" this is dismissal.

    As for offensive comments and your retention of information pertenant to this issue, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt. It is frustrating to have to repeat the same things over-and-over again tho, and it does give a certain appearence of ignoring the facts.

    As for your "No Solution", yeah, if you have nothing to add to the subject, and dismiss much of the data presented, as well as dismiss solutions given to you by us, yeah, maybe you should stop talking. I fail to see how endless repition at all resembles "discussion". Tho we're here to help you break down any walls you have built for yourself.

    Since I notice you've been reading Robb's site you probably saw this story.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081029/ap_en_ce/chicago_bodies_hudson

    What we have is multiple gun murders of a poor black family (wouldn't be reported outside of local news if this poor black family didn't have a TV star for a relative. I think there is something VERY wrong with that)

    Still shooter has a criminal record and was in a town with a full handgun ban, as well as a heavy licensing system to require training, background checks and fees just to OBTAIN the RIGHT to BUY a gun.

    He got a gun anyway. But here's the big kicker, just a few months before the murder he was on parole and found near a crime scene with crack...he wasn't charged.

    A violent criminal with a thick record (His parole was for Car-Jacking and attempted murder) has no respect for the law (violating the law after a prison sentence AND while on parole) and he is let free by the system. He uses said freedom to commit THREE acts of Murder, and god knows what other crimes.

    This is hardly an isolated case, as you have at least seen (and hopefully read) the DOZENS of news stories of criminals being let onto the streets only to commit murders.

    To stick to the gun issue there are HUGE numbers of LEGAl gun owners and with only a few exceptions commit NO "Gun Crime".

    There really isn't a difference in the guns. Hell Chicago PD could give me the VERY gun this monster used to kill three people, I'd clean it up and take it to the range, lock it in my safe and the gun would NEVER commit another crime again.

    Meanwhile if you put Mr. Balfour back in society, I think history shows good evedence he WILL re-offend and commit MORE acts of violent crime.

    I'd say there IS a solution, and the gun variable has NOTHING to do with it.

    You may disagree with me Mike. I have no problem with that, but if you have an open mind about this issue, why discuss why you disagree, rather than repeating the same-old-same old.

    BTW thanks for your very candid responce. As I made clear, I didn't agree with all of it, but at least its a very good start on open discussion of this issue here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike,

    I glad to hear you view this as a discussion among friends, I do too.

    It's just frustrating not to get a response to a comment then have the same issue pop up on a top post, with the same points that weren't addressed before.

    A great example of that is this statement
    To me it seems reasonable to question if a person needs a gun to feel like a man

    Have you gone to any of the blogs that Weer'd or I mentioned and asked that question?

    The question would be less offensive it was phrased as to why a person needs a gun, that allows a variety of responses, not just emotional denials of sexual inadequacy.
    My reason for wanting to carry? Recognizing the truth of my physical condition, that simple. I'm mid 40s, asthmatic with arthritic knees. Combine that with the fact I have a family to protect and make sure I go home to every night. I have to admit that I am not in the shape to physically fight off one person much less more then one.

    Now does that fit your definition or concept of making up for psycho-sexual deficit?

    I recognize that you aren't a "gun lover", I don't consider myself one either. What I do love is our rights, don't you?
    Didn't you get a little perturbed when your right to vote was questioned? That is exactly what you are doing with our right to protect ourselves, our right to enjoy a hobby.


    It's not the gun that I enjoy, but the skill and discipline that it takes to punch holes in a piece of paper consistently.

    I pointed to a story of a lady that was denied permission to purchase a firearm in Delaware. Even saying that makes me want to go into rant mode, thinking about the violations of the rights we should enjoy. Did you read the story?

    ReplyDelete
  12. To me it seems reasonable to question if a person needs a gun to feel like a man. Don't you know guys like that?

    no, i don't, and i think i would avoid such people socially if i did.

    (FWIW, speaking for myself, i'm having a bit of trouble imagining what the mindset you're asking about would even be like. i've never particularly "felt like a man", or even felt like i ought to, as long as i can remember; i've only ever felt like me.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "You know what I think? I think this is just a little blog and we're having a discussion among friends. This is not a vehicle for propaganda nor is it an ethical forum. So, why don't you guys lighten up on that stuff?"

    I forgot to add, that like the others I totally agree this is a really friendly site, and I love comming here. Still if you want "lighten up" do more posts on Movies and Music (I definetly think we could use a LOT more Movie posts)

    Death Penalty, Criminal Justice, Guns, and Politics deserve quite a bit more respect IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You guys are right. It's an offensive question about the gun making you feel like a man. The problem is it would take a long post to express my ideas in such a way that they didn't offend, so I took the liberty to just blurt it out.

    On other threads, you all, I think it was unanimous, resisted my suggestion that using a gun is "exhilarating." If you won't agree with that then of course you won't be able to agree with the stronger suggestion about feeling more "manly." And, by the way I agree with Nomen about it being an inadequate expression. I only used it for brevity's sake.

    I really think you guys know what I'm getting at both with the "exhilarating" idea and with the "manly" idea, but you're giving me the hard wall as a sort of debating technique, not wanting to give in to anything lest I take it further. I think you're defensive, yes, what else would you call it?, for fear that the argument is leading to gun bans and all that stuff. I assure you it's not.

    What's wrong with admitting that you feel safer, stronger, less fearful when you carry? Is it unacceptable to recognize that fear is a motivator in your wanting to be armed? Isn't carrying a gun partly in answer to that mistaken information most of us were fed as young boys about what it means to be a man. Don't be afraid, don't cry, all that stuff.

    I know, there are women shooters too. But, percentage-wise, aren't they exceptions to the rule?

    Anyway, does any of this "fear" business make sense to you? I've been meaning to get into this ever since Thomas said I was afraid of guns and that's what's motivating me. Ironically, I'm now saying you're afraid of not having guns and that's what's motivating you. Make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike,

    You raise some valid points when express more tactfully.

    What's wrong with admitting that you feel safer, stronger, less fearful when you carry?

    I don't carry yet, but I have firearms at home. I don't feel safer with them at home, I don't feel less fearful either. I'm not particularly fearful now. I am aware of the relative levels danger in life. That isn't fear just acknowledging reality.



    Is it unacceptable to recognize that fear is a motivator in your wanting to be armed?

    I don't think it is unacceptable to recognize fear as a motivator but unless people are under threats, live in really bad areas; most people don't have fear as a motivator. What I have in my life is responsibility. I have a wife and 3 kids that I need to be able to provide for. In order to do that I have to be around, in my opinion. My wife say the insurance policy can do nicely (she is joking) but that brings up a point. Do you have a life insurance policy? Is it because you fear death or because it is the responsible thing to do?

    Isn't carrying a gun partly in answer to that mistaken information most of us were fed as young boys about what it means to be a man. Don't be afraid, don't cry, all that stuff.

    I don't what the "typical" man is fed as a child, but that wasn't my diet. What I was taught was that you look after yourself, don't depend on others to do it for you.
    That you take responsibility for your actions.
    That if you are going to do something do it right. This one is why I've applied for a CHL instead of just carrying a firearm. This is why I go to the range to practice. If I was afraid, wouldn't I be reluctant to apply for a license, they might turn me down? I wouldn't want to wait the 3-5 months for the "permission" to protect my life, I would just do it.

    Sorry to make a long post, but here is an essay that really covers it. From Front Sight blog.


    I don’t carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

    I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

    I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

    I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.

    I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

    I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

    I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

    I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. +1. Mike do you ware a safety-belt in the car out of fear? I don't know if you have a fire extinguisher in your home (if you don't you REALLY should...the Wife and I bought two more for the house the other day for something like $25) Would you buy or keep one out of fear?

    I can see fearful people doing these things...but fear isn't really a part of my actions in these things. Its a very logical thing. What's the harm in wearing a safety belt? Owning fire extinguishers? Guns? What's the practical application of said tool, and the payoff?

    Some might pick-and-choose what is worth it and what isn't. Our house has a security system installed by the previous owners. I don't know if the wife and I would see the fairly pricey installation fee as worthwhile, but now that its installed we pay the service fee and LOVE it. Some people don't like guns, or don't think they're responsible enough to own one, or think that the price is too high. I won't argue with them, but for me personally the possibility of my guns doing any harm are next to nothing, and the payoff if I or my wife EVER need a gun makes owning firearms an easy choice for us.

    Oh and FYI Women shooters are still a minority, but they are also a VERY rapidly growing demographic.
    http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/09/08/promising-statistics/

    Won't be long before sex of a shooter is on par with standard population dynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My opinion is that you still have no right to vote in US elections as you are an ex-pat for life, most likely (trips to vegas don't count) and you're polluting the American political system that's f*cked up enough without people like you around who don't even live here.

    Regards and I hope a Spanish Donkey finds you before you expire.

    Just figured I'd drop in and remind people what a Pétain/Quisling interloper looks like.

    ReplyDelete