When I sit down to make a decision, the thought "What would be the best for me" isn't always at the top of the list. Often it comes down to "What would my family think", "How would my family feel" "how would my parents react". Yeah I know these are a bit strange for a 27 year old man to have, but my family are still factored into my decisions.
When I say family I naturally mean my parents, grandparents, siblings and so on, not a wife and kids. In my Supertramp post I talk a little bit about the "wish for adventure" that every young man has, its kind of grown into us through the stories we read. Me, I grew up on "The Hardy Boys", "Bill and Ben", "Morgan Kane". I read other books like the futuristic stories of Jules Verne, I'm not going to list them because I don't know the English titles of all of them. "Treasure Island" by Robert Louis Stevenson. I still on occasion have dreams of discovery, and adventure, sure not in the exact same way as when I was 10ish but the urge is similar.
Society isn't equipped for this anymore though, for most their great adventure is a 2 - 3 month trip spent backpacking in Europe. Think about a 15 year old boy/man signing on a ship to sail to Asia, America, Africa about 30 - 40 years ago in Norway this was almost commonplace.
The dream of the great white north, for Supertramp, regardless of his mental state at the time (I think he was in the middle of a serious psychological breakdown) was something alien to him, that should be so much nearer to us.
The more technologically advanced we get, the further away from our nature do we go, the more "subdued" our instincts become. Now I'm not saying that everyone needs to strip nekkid and run into the woods, I'm saying that the urge to explore the unknown is human. The need to discover new things is human, but they do not fit into todays society as much. "A High school diploma is the key to the future" oh wait its useless since you pretty much need a bachelor these days, oh wait no maybe a Master.
Sure there are stories of some guy dropping out at 15 and then becoming a multimillionaire but those are rather rare. The level of education leads to people getting out into life later, with more student loans, more responsibilities and so on.
When a person spends from age 6 - 18 in school, then becomes "an adult" and passes into 3 - 4 years of college, then perhaps graduate studies, and a person is in their late 20s before they finish their schooling. At this point the pressure to find a significant other and procreate increases because after all "By the time I was x I had 3 kids".
Sure its possible to have kids until you die as a man but quite frankly I would like to be young enough to still actively take part in my children's life.
I don't want to be the grayhaired dad with the potbelly stretched out beyond the bleachers, who goes out of breath screaming at the ref. Or the guy sitting halfway down the slope drinking hot chocolate while his kids are having the time of their life.
But by the time I have children if I do, I would like to have things relatively well set up for them to be born. I'd like my life to be stable, to have the financial means and time to be there in their lives, and not some dad who has to spend 60 - 80 hours a week at work.
So if I finish school at 27, get a job right away, it will take a few years before I can build up the financial "power" to build or buy a home big enough for my future family. I also need to find a suitable mate, and make sure that relationship is suitable for a child. So time is of the essence if you're looking to sort everything out.
Now sure thinking that far ahead is just distracting, but for someone getting bombarded by suggestion every day, from parents, media, society and so on its a whirlwind of WTF. So many expectations, so many thoughts and options, so little time.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Mental health and modern life
Despite all the progress of modern life, there are a few things that still carry heavy stigma. You can be gay, a tranny, you can be a flaky bohemian, provided you don't have mental health problems. You see despite our progress, mental illness still carries a heavy stigma.
The thing is people with mental health problems can still make huge contributions to humanity as a species. The story of John Forbes Nash is an example, despite the producers and writers of "A Beautiful Mind" taking huge liberties with the story, it does show that a person with mental illness can make a huge difference in their field.
The truth is that a lot of people currently living in our modern world could use a few hours to a few months on a therapists couch, I've even spent some time there.
All of us, rich or poor, smart or dumb, tall or short, thin and fat, from every religion, every walk of life could benefit from a little while of self exploration, and having a professional as a mirror, or as a magnifying glass. It's very interesting how even the most down to earth of us have issues that bubble to the surface once in a while.
Van Gogh without a doubt had some issues, Einstein the same, Napoleon, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy. All of them clearly disturbed on some level. Greatness requires that one is disturbed to a certain level, in order to obtain the vision of what one seeks to do. Why do you think so many of our prime artists have died to drugs in the last 30 years, some of them great while alive some not appreciated until after their death?
I think that in order to create something great one has to be a little bit crazy. Not Norman Bates in psycho crazy, but a few connections in your head need to be a little different.
The thing is people with mental health problems can still make huge contributions to humanity as a species. The story of John Forbes Nash is an example, despite the producers and writers of "A Beautiful Mind" taking huge liberties with the story, it does show that a person with mental illness can make a huge difference in their field.
The truth is that a lot of people currently living in our modern world could use a few hours to a few months on a therapists couch, I've even spent some time there.
All of us, rich or poor, smart or dumb, tall or short, thin and fat, from every religion, every walk of life could benefit from a little while of self exploration, and having a professional as a mirror, or as a magnifying glass. It's very interesting how even the most down to earth of us have issues that bubble to the surface once in a while.
Van Gogh without a doubt had some issues, Einstein the same, Napoleon, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy. All of them clearly disturbed on some level. Greatness requires that one is disturbed to a certain level, in order to obtain the vision of what one seeks to do. Why do you think so many of our prime artists have died to drugs in the last 30 years, some of them great while alive some not appreciated until after their death?
I think that in order to create something great one has to be a little bit crazy. Not Norman Bates in psycho crazy, but a few connections in your head need to be a little different.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Supertramp
I recently learned the story of Christopher McCandless and while I do understand his need to search for something beyond the fairly easy life of the 21st century, some things are a bit weird. The need to go back in time is something I've dreamed of quite frequently. Not because I think it was a simpler life, but because I think the modern world tend to throw a bit too much at us. Life in the older times was more about primary survival needs than luxury goods and cravings for things we don't need. So living off the land and separating oneself from being owned by possessions is noble, I wouldn't want to go without most of my shit thought.
However at some point you have to take a look at what is idealism and what is just plain stupid. McCandless or Alexander Supertramp as he called himself on his journey, went into the Alaskan wilderness with a .22 calliber rifle, 400 rounds of hollowpoints and 10 lbs of rice.
No map, no compass, no axe, no decent knife. At the very least anyone heading "into the wild" should bring sufficient equipment. Now for the shotbus fuckers that means; Knife, first aid kit, axe, sharpening stone/iron, clothes suited for the climate and clothing repair kit, a flint or another reliable tool to make a fire. Weapon (s) suitable for what he or she may come across. This means that in an area where you may run into this fellow you might want to bring something with a bit more punch than this peashooter. Shooting a grizzly with that is the equivalent of shooting Fat Albert at 20 paces with a BB gun. Unless you get a direct eye hit that bear will keep coming at you, and now he/she is pissed!
Maybe something like a proper hunting rifle and a second rifle for small game, perhaps a fishing pole or some form of nets since the rivers tend to have quite a bit of fish in them, you know in case you get hungry. I mean you wouldn't want to starve to death right by a river full of fish, after you try to preserve meat in a way unsuited for the area in effect spoiling it.
Am I calling Chris McCandless a moron, I guess I am. Sure he's portrayed as someone who rejected the life his parents wanted for him, he's not the first nor will he be the last to do that. In the movie we get a picture of charming, intelligent young man, and I'm sure he was. however he cannot possibly have been of sound mind when he went into the wild.
At one point his behavior started to show way to many signs of being reckless rather than on an adventure. I might feel this way since I've grown up among people who frequently go into nature to hunt, fish and whatever else they feel like. None of them would voluntarily go into the wilderness unprepared. My uncle who used to spend weeks in the mountains hunting would do laps where he placed dry goods depots around where he would be hunting later, so that if shit happens he knew where he could find food.
Now am I saying that people shouldn't try to live off the land for long periods of time? No I'm not, I'm saying that if you insist on doing this shit, prepare first. Get a map, get a compass, you don't have to look at either, just have them with you. Spend a little time speaking to people who are used to living in the same type of terrain, the best ways to preserve meat isn't always the same.
Get a fucking first aid kit, with a few bandages and such. Even the great adventurers of history didn't go out completely unprepared. If Christopher Columbus had done what Supertramp did he would have sunk before he left harbor. If Lewis and Clark pulled this shit they would have died before hitting the halfway mark.
Being an adventurer isn't the same as being reckless and having no regard for your own life.
However at some point you have to take a look at what is idealism and what is just plain stupid. McCandless or Alexander Supertramp as he called himself on his journey, went into the Alaskan wilderness with a .22 calliber rifle, 400 rounds of hollowpoints and 10 lbs of rice.
No map, no compass, no axe, no decent knife. At the very least anyone heading "into the wild" should bring sufficient equipment. Now for the shotbus fuckers that means; Knife, first aid kit, axe, sharpening stone/iron, clothes suited for the climate and clothing repair kit, a flint or another reliable tool to make a fire. Weapon (s) suitable for what he or she may come across. This means that in an area where you may run into this fellow you might want to bring something with a bit more punch than this peashooter. Shooting a grizzly with that is the equivalent of shooting Fat Albert at 20 paces with a BB gun. Unless you get a direct eye hit that bear will keep coming at you, and now he/she is pissed!
Maybe something like a proper hunting rifle and a second rifle for small game, perhaps a fishing pole or some form of nets since the rivers tend to have quite a bit of fish in them, you know in case you get hungry. I mean you wouldn't want to starve to death right by a river full of fish, after you try to preserve meat in a way unsuited for the area in effect spoiling it.
Am I calling Chris McCandless a moron, I guess I am. Sure he's portrayed as someone who rejected the life his parents wanted for him, he's not the first nor will he be the last to do that. In the movie we get a picture of charming, intelligent young man, and I'm sure he was. however he cannot possibly have been of sound mind when he went into the wild.
At one point his behavior started to show way to many signs of being reckless rather than on an adventure. I might feel this way since I've grown up among people who frequently go into nature to hunt, fish and whatever else they feel like. None of them would voluntarily go into the wilderness unprepared. My uncle who used to spend weeks in the mountains hunting would do laps where he placed dry goods depots around where he would be hunting later, so that if shit happens he knew where he could find food.
Now am I saying that people shouldn't try to live off the land for long periods of time? No I'm not, I'm saying that if you insist on doing this shit, prepare first. Get a map, get a compass, you don't have to look at either, just have them with you. Spend a little time speaking to people who are used to living in the same type of terrain, the best ways to preserve meat isn't always the same.
Get a fucking first aid kit, with a few bandages and such. Even the great adventurers of history didn't go out completely unprepared. If Christopher Columbus had done what Supertramp did he would have sunk before he left harbor. If Lewis and Clark pulled this shit they would have died before hitting the halfway mark.
Being an adventurer isn't the same as being reckless and having no regard for your own life.
This week's pick for Most entertaining show
The winner is NBC's "The Marriage ref" a semi reality show where celebrities and the host solves the silly squabbles couples get into. The couples are hysterical, the arguments even more so.
This week we have a guy who looks like a biker extra from Police Academy, or a drugdealer from Miami Vice with a love for waxing his harley and watching Mariah Carey.
A husband who's bitch doesn't like his dog, because it keeps trying to eat her.
Finally a 37 year old white, businessman rapper known as "Krispy" who's wife wants to push her head into the sand rather than be seen with him in public.
This week we have a guy who looks like a biker extra from Police Academy, or a drugdealer from Miami Vice with a love for waxing his harley and watching Mariah Carey.
A husband who's bitch doesn't like his dog, because it keeps trying to eat her.
Finally a 37 year old white, businessman rapper known as "Krispy" who's wife wants to push her head into the sand rather than be seen with him in public.
When I sat down to write todays thoughts, I was psyched to do a take on religion in schools but I'm feeling a bit empty today in terms of writing about that issue. I don't really know what this ramble is going to end up being about. Quite frankly I can't think of anything I feel like sharing, there is a lot brewing beneath the surface but supreficial issues are starting to get boring.
I couldn't care less about religion in schools, gun control or half these issues just because to me they are not worth fighitng over and in the end draw away from the important issues.
To me the future is what is important, my future more than yours to be honest, but that's more or less because all people are self centered to a degree. Wanting your own genes to live is natural and so is doing everything you can to make that happen. However as we move along there are different ways to go about everything,.
Some people thrive in peace, some thrive on conflict, some fall outside the boundaries of society and as a result run off. There cannot be a place for everyone, because we're all a bit different. Sure we may fit into personality types as according to Jung, or be overly motivated by the sexual as according to Freud, or both but it's not just DNA, and electrical impulses or arbitrary boxes we place ourselves and others in.
But regardless of what boring subject I could bore the like 3 people who read this, I want to talk about TV. I fucking love TV, I was raised mostly by it, I spent quite a few years laying on the livingroom floor staring at the boob-tube. But lately I don't get to spend as much time with it as I used to, not that I don't have time, more that there isn't shit worth watching.
I mean sure there are shows I follow but 1 episode everyother week on average that lasts from 20 - 40 minutes isn't much. Especially when they decide to air 13 episodes then not air a single one for months. While I'm sitting waiting patiently for my SCRIPTED entertainment provided by decent ACTORS I have to watch a bunch of over the top, over the hill, and preferably 6 feet under housewives of new york. You know I don't give a shit how "real" they are, if I wanted to see how a housewife lives I'd go next door.
The only thing good that can have "housewife" or "housewives" in the title are porno movies.
Mike Rowe and "Dirty Jobs" was fun for a while, but quite frankly there are only so many times you can watch a dude be knee deep in manure or covered in grease. It's entertaining in a sort of "atleast my life doesn't suck that bad" sort of way, but still there isn't really anywhere to go after you've castrated bulls and cleaned out grease from a tank engine. If he wants me to keep watching, he better get himself set on fire. I mean Rowe has beaten this concept so hard that if it was a stingray it would have stabbed him in the chest by now.
American Truckers, American Choppers, American Pickers, Sure choppers was funny for a little bit, but only until you realized that a full on cagefight between SR and JR was never going to happen. However if something breaks out in court I have a 20 on Sr.
American Pickers, are you kidding me? The only thing that could make this show entertaining would be a show about a guy spending 13 hours a day in a fucking semi... oh wait.
It's not that I have issues with reality TV, I enjoyed "Jersey Shore" mostly because I wanted to watch Ronnie kick the shit out of "The situation" which never happened of course.It was entertaining in the same way watching a kid take a piss at an electric fence is funny, or watching retards fuck is funny.
It's that it's not entertaining, its not an escape from reality, it is ... reality! I watch movies, TV and play videogames to escape to reality and what's the point of that if I have to watch it?
I know networks love these shitty shows because they cost hardly anything to make and fill up airtime very nicely, especially since you get to easily plug crappy products during the action as well as during the commercials. It's the equivalent of having Jay Leno wear a Gatorade cap and Exxon mobile cap during his show, and a huge f'ing "MARLBORO" stucker on his chin.
But then they also air the same shitty sit-com plots that they have for the last 10 years. The bitchy wife and the lazy, clueless husband. The overly stressed wife and absent minded husband. The only manly guy in a sitcom is played by Neil Patrick Harris, who is a broadway acting openly gay man, who bleaches his fucking hair! They are either neurotic, overly sensitive, overly metrosexual, stupid, clueless or all of the above. The wife is usually a ballbusting bitch, who between emasculating her husband for wanting to not live in a pink barbie dreamhouse.
If sitcoms are any indication of what goes on in American life I understand fully why people cheat. Because they aren't getting laid at home.
I couldn't care less about religion in schools, gun control or half these issues just because to me they are not worth fighitng over and in the end draw away from the important issues.
To me the future is what is important, my future more than yours to be honest, but that's more or less because all people are self centered to a degree. Wanting your own genes to live is natural and so is doing everything you can to make that happen. However as we move along there are different ways to go about everything,.
Some people thrive in peace, some thrive on conflict, some fall outside the boundaries of society and as a result run off. There cannot be a place for everyone, because we're all a bit different. Sure we may fit into personality types as according to Jung, or be overly motivated by the sexual as according to Freud, or both but it's not just DNA, and electrical impulses or arbitrary boxes we place ourselves and others in.
But regardless of what boring subject I could bore the like 3 people who read this, I want to talk about TV. I fucking love TV, I was raised mostly by it, I spent quite a few years laying on the livingroom floor staring at the boob-tube. But lately I don't get to spend as much time with it as I used to, not that I don't have time, more that there isn't shit worth watching.
I mean sure there are shows I follow but 1 episode everyother week on average that lasts from 20 - 40 minutes isn't much. Especially when they decide to air 13 episodes then not air a single one for months. While I'm sitting waiting patiently for my SCRIPTED entertainment provided by decent ACTORS I have to watch a bunch of over the top, over the hill, and preferably 6 feet under housewives of new york. You know I don't give a shit how "real" they are, if I wanted to see how a housewife lives I'd go next door.
The only thing good that can have "housewife" or "housewives" in the title are porno movies.
Mike Rowe and "Dirty Jobs" was fun for a while, but quite frankly there are only so many times you can watch a dude be knee deep in manure or covered in grease. It's entertaining in a sort of "atleast my life doesn't suck that bad" sort of way, but still there isn't really anywhere to go after you've castrated bulls and cleaned out grease from a tank engine. If he wants me to keep watching, he better get himself set on fire. I mean Rowe has beaten this concept so hard that if it was a stingray it would have stabbed him in the chest by now.
American Truckers, American Choppers, American Pickers, Sure choppers was funny for a little bit, but only until you realized that a full on cagefight between SR and JR was never going to happen. However if something breaks out in court I have a 20 on Sr.
American Pickers, are you kidding me? The only thing that could make this show entertaining would be a show about a guy spending 13 hours a day in a fucking semi... oh wait.
It's not that I have issues with reality TV, I enjoyed "Jersey Shore" mostly because I wanted to watch Ronnie kick the shit out of "The situation" which never happened of course.It was entertaining in the same way watching a kid take a piss at an electric fence is funny, or watching retards fuck is funny.
It's that it's not entertaining, its not an escape from reality, it is ... reality! I watch movies, TV and play videogames to escape to reality and what's the point of that if I have to watch it?
I know networks love these shitty shows because they cost hardly anything to make and fill up airtime very nicely, especially since you get to easily plug crappy products during the action as well as during the commercials. It's the equivalent of having Jay Leno wear a Gatorade cap and Exxon mobile cap during his show, and a huge f'ing "MARLBORO" stucker on his chin.
But then they also air the same shitty sit-com plots that they have for the last 10 years. The bitchy wife and the lazy, clueless husband. The overly stressed wife and absent minded husband. The only manly guy in a sitcom is played by Neil Patrick Harris, who is a broadway acting openly gay man, who bleaches his fucking hair! They are either neurotic, overly sensitive, overly metrosexual, stupid, clueless or all of the above. The wife is usually a ballbusting bitch, who between emasculating her husband for wanting to not live in a pink barbie dreamhouse.
If sitcoms are any indication of what goes on in American life I understand fully why people cheat. Because they aren't getting laid at home.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Stupid issues: Gun Control
Gun control is a much debated issue but one that is pretty easy to solve. Of course there is the right to bear arms, but I somehow doubt that the founding fathers imagined people filling their basements and gun cabinets with fully automatic assault rifles and so on. Unless Aliens invade or something this seems rather pointless. I grew up around guns, I've got a hunting license and I've been shooting guns since I was about 7.
If I was to get weapons for home defense it would be 2 weapons. A nice scoped single action rifle, 10 shot magazine or so, loaded with hollow points.. The second one a shotgun, I'm thinking Mossberg 505, 12 gauge , with "magnum" shells.
My choices are rationalized as follows; The longer range single action rifle as my primary "ranged" weapon, and the shotgun as a close to medium range weapon. If a 3rd one was to be added I would go with an over/under (Rifle/shotgun combination weapon) with different ammunition. Probably 12g slugs or something along those lines.
The reasons for leaving out semi and full auto weapons is fairly simple.
1. They tend to be less accurate and thus lead to a higher ammunition consumption per target.
2. They tend to be overkill for most situations.
3. They are less "useful" in moderately trained hands.
My reason for leaving out handguns is even simpler. They are shit for home defense compared to a shotgun. If you are "defending" yourself inside a house, a relatively short barreled shotgun loaded with "magnum" shells or even regular 12g will turn most things into minced meat at close range.
You can also mount a bayonet on most Mossberg brand shotguns, making them into a rather effective melee weapon should it come to that.
Even for a smaller person such as a woman or small man, by going with a higher gauge shotgun such as a 20 gauge is also possible, this does result in a loss in stopping power of course, but I think the difference between a 12g and a 20g is fairly negligible in terms of destruction at 10 - 25m range.
With the exception of "urban" warfare or mass battles I really see little use for automatic weapons. Handguns make sense as "sidearms" for police, soldiers and so on because they are light, and in a lot of cases offer interchangeable ammo with submachine guns. Assault rifles are really a pure warfare weapon, in a situation where a group works together they make sense since their combined rate of fire create a field of destruction. In urban warefare it makes sense due to the frequent switches from close range to medium range combat in some cases even long range.
That's where the benefit of a weapon like an M16, or AK47 comes into play as they are fairly viable used at long range. Nowhere near a proper hunting rifle but usable. An M4 outfitted with a scope also somewhat fills this role, even though the shorter barrel compared to the M16 does hamper accuracy a little bit.
Since most "I need to defend my home" type activity tend to be stressful, adrenaline pumping action, where you don't really have a steady aim, and where you have to shoot another human being, the drawback of accuracy/ease of defense comes into play. A handgun is "easier" to deflect completely and the odds of missing are higher than with a cloud of pellets flying.
Magazine capacity doesn't really come into play at all, since I doubt that unless the crips are storming your crib you won't need a full magazine. Well situations like Jason Voorhies or Michael Myers showing up not withstanding.
It's also a bit harder for a small child to "play" with a full size rifle or shotgun, of course me not being a moron would prefer to keep the ammunition in a lockbox similar to this one just because I prefer the small children in my family not to be able to get live ammo!
Trust me on this, if you don't have 30 seconds to retrieve and load your weapon, you are most likely dead or immobilized already. The average person is not a highly trained operative who can more or less fire on instinct, hell most people who own a handgun for self defense have little to no training in using or maintaining it.
So here is how we "fix" the gun issue.
1. In order to purchase a gun you need to belong to a gun club, that owns or rents firing ranges.
2. In order to own a gun of any kind you need to have logged at least 40 hours on the firing range in the last 6 months, and have completed a course on weapon safety.
3. Weapons are to be kept separate from their ammunition at all times, so your gun can't be kept loaded under your pillow sorry.
4. Weapons can only be modified by licensed gunsmiths.
I think that's a good way to start, and lets get rid of concealed weapons permits while we're at it, if people want to be cowboys they can carry their gun on their hip.
If I was to get weapons for home defense it would be 2 weapons. A nice scoped single action rifle, 10 shot magazine or so, loaded with hollow points.. The second one a shotgun, I'm thinking Mossberg 505, 12 gauge , with "magnum" shells.
My choices are rationalized as follows; The longer range single action rifle as my primary "ranged" weapon, and the shotgun as a close to medium range weapon. If a 3rd one was to be added I would go with an over/under (Rifle/shotgun combination weapon) with different ammunition. Probably 12g slugs or something along those lines.
The reasons for leaving out semi and full auto weapons is fairly simple.
1. They tend to be less accurate and thus lead to a higher ammunition consumption per target.
2. They tend to be overkill for most situations.
3. They are less "useful" in moderately trained hands.
My reason for leaving out handguns is even simpler. They are shit for home defense compared to a shotgun. If you are "defending" yourself inside a house, a relatively short barreled shotgun loaded with "magnum" shells or even regular 12g will turn most things into minced meat at close range.
You can also mount a bayonet on most Mossberg brand shotguns, making them into a rather effective melee weapon should it come to that.
Even for a smaller person such as a woman or small man, by going with a higher gauge shotgun such as a 20 gauge is also possible, this does result in a loss in stopping power of course, but I think the difference between a 12g and a 20g is fairly negligible in terms of destruction at 10 - 25m range.
With the exception of "urban" warfare or mass battles I really see little use for automatic weapons. Handguns make sense as "sidearms" for police, soldiers and so on because they are light, and in a lot of cases offer interchangeable ammo with submachine guns. Assault rifles are really a pure warfare weapon, in a situation where a group works together they make sense since their combined rate of fire create a field of destruction. In urban warefare it makes sense due to the frequent switches from close range to medium range combat in some cases even long range.
That's where the benefit of a weapon like an M16, or AK47 comes into play as they are fairly viable used at long range. Nowhere near a proper hunting rifle but usable. An M4 outfitted with a scope also somewhat fills this role, even though the shorter barrel compared to the M16 does hamper accuracy a little bit.
Since most "I need to defend my home" type activity tend to be stressful, adrenaline pumping action, where you don't really have a steady aim, and where you have to shoot another human being, the drawback of accuracy/ease of defense comes into play. A handgun is "easier" to deflect completely and the odds of missing are higher than with a cloud of pellets flying.
Magazine capacity doesn't really come into play at all, since I doubt that unless the crips are storming your crib you won't need a full magazine. Well situations like Jason Voorhies or Michael Myers showing up not withstanding.
It's also a bit harder for a small child to "play" with a full size rifle or shotgun, of course me not being a moron would prefer to keep the ammunition in a lockbox similar to this one just because I prefer the small children in my family not to be able to get live ammo!
Trust me on this, if you don't have 30 seconds to retrieve and load your weapon, you are most likely dead or immobilized already. The average person is not a highly trained operative who can more or less fire on instinct, hell most people who own a handgun for self defense have little to no training in using or maintaining it.
So here is how we "fix" the gun issue.
1. In order to purchase a gun you need to belong to a gun club, that owns or rents firing ranges.
2. In order to own a gun of any kind you need to have logged at least 40 hours on the firing range in the last 6 months, and have completed a course on weapon safety.
3. Weapons are to be kept separate from their ammunition at all times, so your gun can't be kept loaded under your pillow sorry.
4. Weapons can only be modified by licensed gunsmiths.
I think that's a good way to start, and lets get rid of concealed weapons permits while we're at it, if people want to be cowboys they can carry their gun on their hip.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
American Politics
As I sit here in my chair and watch American politics, the expression "If only we had a government as good as the people" comes to mind, because quite frankly a government is as good as the people who vote for it. If your population has a large amount of non literate morons, then a lot of your politicians will appeal to barely literate morons.
This is what frustrates the hell out of me with the teabagger movement. They spout slogans without knowing what they mean. They protest single payer healthcare systems because they feel they are socialistic yet also protests big corporations. The thing is you have to make a choice, big business or big government, you can't have none of the above.
If you want small government you need big business to cover the gaps, and if you want small business then you need the government to cover the gaps. Let's take postal service for instance, FED-EX, UPS and so on can deliver a hell of a lot faster around the globe, but they cost a lot more, I would love to see a private company try to deliver a letter halfway across the world for under a dollar.
When it comes to healthcare I will always prefer the government over big business, simply because the government has a lot less motivation in letting me die. A private insurance company make their money off clients that pay their premiums and never need to use their insurance for anything, so any client they have to pay for, is a loss in profit.
When a large part of your population votes against their own best interest, protest their own best interest and so on, democracy is not working in your fucking country. Democracy is based on voting for your own best interest, but a way to large amount of Americans do not know what they are, democracy fails.
John Edwards was without a doubt the strongest voice on poverty in the democratic party, but he gets drummed out for cheating on his wife... and my thinking is "Who gives a shit". Being a manwhore and being a good politician are hardly mutually exclusive, John F Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson just to name a few who pulled off both.
The teabagger movement strikes me as being this strange mass of everything, with no cohesive thought behind. They protest health reform, throw money at and degrade people who have been left for dead by their insurance companies, yet think they are the good guys.
Sarah Palin is the prime example of a teabagger, a person who knows more or less nothing about what she speaks of. Watching Joe Biden's face during the debate was like watching Patrick Stewart's face when Number 1 asked "Captain what's wrong?" and his entire face spoke "I am a fucking classically trained Shakespearian actor sitting here talking to the ambassador from the worm people!"
However she is very very good at tugging at the gunstrings of the "digestive tract is better than brain" people. The thing is a person who is uninformed will always react more viciously to "easy" topics rather than complex, multilayered issues.
The Gay marriage thing, the gun thing, the prayer in school thing, all very easy issues that tug at the biblestrings of an unimformed person. In the end very easy to solve issues to be honest, they will be explored in detail in a series I'm doing called "Stupid non issues"
This is what frustrates the hell out of me with the teabagger movement. They spout slogans without knowing what they mean. They protest single payer healthcare systems because they feel they are socialistic yet also protests big corporations. The thing is you have to make a choice, big business or big government, you can't have none of the above.
If you want small government you need big business to cover the gaps, and if you want small business then you need the government to cover the gaps. Let's take postal service for instance, FED-EX, UPS and so on can deliver a hell of a lot faster around the globe, but they cost a lot more, I would love to see a private company try to deliver a letter halfway across the world for under a dollar.
When it comes to healthcare I will always prefer the government over big business, simply because the government has a lot less motivation in letting me die. A private insurance company make their money off clients that pay their premiums and never need to use their insurance for anything, so any client they have to pay for, is a loss in profit.
When a large part of your population votes against their own best interest, protest their own best interest and so on, democracy is not working in your fucking country. Democracy is based on voting for your own best interest, but a way to large amount of Americans do not know what they are, democracy fails.
John Edwards was without a doubt the strongest voice on poverty in the democratic party, but he gets drummed out for cheating on his wife... and my thinking is "Who gives a shit". Being a manwhore and being a good politician are hardly mutually exclusive, John F Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson just to name a few who pulled off both.
The teabagger movement strikes me as being this strange mass of everything, with no cohesive thought behind. They protest health reform, throw money at and degrade people who have been left for dead by their insurance companies, yet think they are the good guys.
Sarah Palin is the prime example of a teabagger, a person who knows more or less nothing about what she speaks of. Watching Joe Biden's face during the debate was like watching Patrick Stewart's face when Number 1 asked "Captain what's wrong?" and his entire face spoke "I am a fucking classically trained Shakespearian actor sitting here talking to the ambassador from the worm people!"
However she is very very good at tugging at the gunstrings of the "digestive tract is better than brain" people. The thing is a person who is uninformed will always react more viciously to "easy" topics rather than complex, multilayered issues.
The Gay marriage thing, the gun thing, the prayer in school thing, all very easy issues that tug at the biblestrings of an unimformed person. In the end very easy to solve issues to be honest, they will be explored in detail in a series I'm doing called "Stupid non issues"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)