Instilling Values or Preventing Free-Thinking?

This will start some fires:

Religious upbringing of children... We're talking Christian, Muslim, Judaism, etc, etc...

When parents have a certain religious view that they believe is truth, want their children to believe is truth, and raise their children in that atmosphere of absolutes with no regard to the level of understanding the child possesses.... is it brainwashing?

STOP. This is a philosophical argument, not a religious one... so chill out.

When a child is confronted with "facts" over and over again the entire time they are growing up, they will, more often than not, accept these "facts" as truth. 

At no point was the child asked to think critically on what was being said since at young ages, we all utterly lack the ability to do so. 

So, now, we're confronted with young adults that believe something because they were told it, grew up with it, and just accepted it. They may not understand why they believe it or how they came to believe it, but they believe it all the same. 

The Nazis used this to extremes with the Hitler youth. Religion has used it since the dawn of time. 

Consider the attached picture...

A banana is placed at the top of a ladder. Whenever a monkey attempted to retrieve the banana, they were sprayed with water. Eventually, none of the monkeys would attempt to retrieve the banana.

Then, new monkeys began to replace old monkeys one-by-one. When the new monkeys would go to retrieve the banana, the old monkeys would beat him back from the ladder to prevent him from getting sprayed.

New monkeys continued to replace the old monkeys until there were only new monkeys in the group. However, none of them would go to retrieve the banana.

None of them knew why they shouldn't get the banana, but they knew that they couldn't.

Please share your thoughts.

Guns and Republicans vs. Democrats

Guns and Republicans vs. Democrats

Why does it seem that democrats hate guns?

Exposure.  

It's about exposure.  

When radical Muslims flew two planes into the World Trade Center, Muslims were quickly targeted by hateful resentment, as though they were partly responsible because of their beliefs.  For a lot of Americans, this was the first time they were confronted with Islam.  Their first encounter with this faith was in such a negative light, that it severely biased their view on the Islamic faith and those who practiced it.  For those who knew true Muslims, this was seen as the act of mentally deranged individuals, and not a reflection on the whole of Islam.

It is the same with guns.  It is true that a vast majority of those who want to further restrict gun rights are democratically aligned.  But why is that?  The fact is, the majority of democrats grow-up and/or live in or near the large cities; cities like Miami, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. 

In these large urban cities gun crime is rampant.  We have poor, uneducated masses living closely together and violence invariably ensues.  For these populations, their first encounter with firearms is almost always negative.  Guns are violent things that hurt people.  Guns killed their brother/dad/mother/sister.  

In contrast, think of where republicans are more prominent: larger rural areas.  In these areas, guns have a different connotation.  For the farmer, it may just be a tool used to keep hogs from tearing up his fields and destroying parts of his crops.  For the children, it may mean memories with their dad when he took them hunting or target shooting when they were younger.  Their first encounters with firearms carried no fear or hurt with it.  Guns kept/put food on the table.  Guns were surrounded by warm memories of growing up.  

It is because of this that I believe we have such a party divide on this topic.  Those who have been around murders and shootings while they grew up cannot differentiate between a criminal with a gun and a law-abiding citizen with a gun.  They feel the gun is the evil-doer and if guns didn't exist, we would all be safer.  

But...

Not all democrats are anti-gun.  This is a very important fact.  The majority do seem to be--or at least they value their party alignment more than the second amendment, so whatever their party wants is what they want (both sides are guilty of this line of thinking).  

Someone I respect very much happens to be an absolute liberal democrat.  No doubt about it.  He is a democrat.  But he is also a strong supporter of second amendment rights.  During a conversation we had, he said that he feels the second amendment allows someone the right to own a tank if they so choose; I'm not sure even I am willing to go that far with it.  But there you have it.  They do exist.  There are liberal democrats that support our gun rights.  

Stop turning this into a us vs. them... democrat vs. republican argument. 

Things like the above picture are not helping.  It may be a little clever and funny, but it only proves to further divide the argument on gun rights along party lines (where it has no business being).

I see this type of thing as extremely childish.  And if you dare point out how childish it is, you're met with some variation of "well, they started it."

Anti-gunners are just anti-gunners.  They aren't "lib-tards" any more than a republican is a bible thumping, gun nut, redneck (though some are).

So?

So, why does any of this matter?  We know that the majority of democrats seem to be anti-gun.  We know that their interpretation of the second amendment is often just wrong, to put it mildly.  What's the point of this analysis?

The point is that we need to not exasperate the divide.  We should attempt to heal the crack rather than shoving a wedge in it to make it bigger.

Stop referring to democrats as "lib-tards."  Stop referring to anyone who is anti-gun as a democrat.  There are anti-gun republicans, too.  Focus on educating.  Focus on being welcoming to those who may have a different political viewpoint than you do.  

For the Anti-Gunners

In the same way that people began "seeing the light" after 9/11 that not all Muslims were evil and bent on hurting anyone that didn't agree with them, I ask that you begin looking at the majority of gun-owners and seeing what they are.  

Advocating that gun rights be taken away or infringed upon for an entire country of people because of the actions of a severe minority is akin to restricting the rights of all religious groups when a minority decide to do evil in the name of religion.  

GUNS-- Some Facts

The recent atrocities in Colorado and Connecticut have really brought the gun control argument to the forefront of our minds.  The argument is extremely polarized.  The media is seems to like to portray the issue as left versus right, but that should not be the focus for anyone.  No matter one's affiliation, they are entirely capable of making up their own minds when presented with the facts.  Left or right; male or female; black or white; gay or straight: doesn't and shouldn't matter in any decision in our modern world.

All one needs are the facts.  Once acquired, their own experiences can help them make up their minds.  One would hope they remove any prejudices and inaccuracies from the equation and really take a moment to think about the issue.

It is my hope that what I provide here may help in that endeavor.


Let's begin:

The main focus of the gun control argument is on three key aspects: semi-automatic "assault" styled weapons, "high" capacity magazines, and background checks.  Let's look at each of these individually and separately:


Assault-Styled Weapons

Or just "assault weapons" as generally termed by the media.  The military introduced the M16 pattern rifle to its troops during Vietnam in 1963.  As with anything, there were growing pains, and many of our troops lost their lives due to failures of the gun during firefights.  However, changes were implemented and it attained widespread acceptance in the military.

The M16 and other military variants are rifles capable of semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire.  Fully-automatic fire is when the user is able to pull the trigger once and fire more than one round.  Semi-automatic fire means that for every pull of the trigger you only get one round fired.

In 1934 the National Firearms Act was passed and fully automatic weapons (machine guns) were illegal to own without express permission from the US Treasury Department.  Each time a fully-automatic weapon transfers ownership a $200 tax must be paid as well as a lengthy registration process for the new owner through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).

In 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed.  Further limitation was placed on the civilian ownership of machine guns by making it illegal for new machine guns to be sold to civilians; this did not affect law enforcement or the military.

Yes, this does mean that machine guns manufactured prior to the 1986 are legal to sell and transfer (provided the sale follows the rules and guidelines put for by the 1934 National Firearms Act).  However, due to the 1986 ban on "new" machine gun sales, existing machine guns are prohibitively expensive.  If one decides they want a real machine gun, they should expect to pay tens of thousands of dollars and wait eight or more months while their paperwork is settled before they're able to actually take ownership.

So, how does this all play in to the current discussion on assault-styled weapons?  It doesn't-- or at least it shouldn't.  The only similarities the two have in common are that they are both center-fire rifles that look the same.

The term "assault weapon" was coined in the early 1990's as an ingenious way to confuse the misinformed about the capabilities of the rifles being legally sold.  Actual M16's and their variants used in the military are actual assault rifles capable of fully automatic fire.  AR-15's and the like are just sporting rifles, but they started calling them assault weapons to borrow the connotations from assault rifles about being fully automatic, military grade weapons.

Truly, it was an ingenious ploy and has been amazingly successful.  I can't say how many times I've heard "machine guns should be illegal" in the wake of the recent shootings.  Well, my friend... they are.

What is truly being talked about right now is the banning of any semi-automatic rifle.  Unfortunately for the AR-15, it looks like something scary, so therefore must be the root of all gun crime.  This is statistically untrue and there are thousands of documents a Google click away to show it: search "Assault weapons used in crimes" if your interest is piqued.

So, to reiterate, AR-15's are not fully-automatic; they are not military-grade weapons; and they account for such a small amount of actual gun crimes, that the attack on them specifically is asinine.

"High" Capacity Magazines

Now, this one is interesting because it applies to more than just semi-automatic rifles.  This again comes down to nomenclature.  A Glock 19 or an M&P 9 that holds 15 or 17 rounds respectively, is not a high-capacity magazine [historically].  The grips of those guns are a certain size.  Logic dictates, that one uses all available space to increase the functionality and use of any machine.  The magazine is placed within the grip.  Manufacturers were only using the space available within the grip of the firearm-- thus, 15 or 17-round magazines for those platforms are standard capacity.  To think logically, reducing the the rounds available in a magazine to lower than what the space allows for would make it a reduced-capacity magazine; not the other way around.

I know one is not supposed to think of it like that, though.  They're supposed to think that 10 rounds and lower is the magical realm where crime doesn't exist and that anyone who has or wants a magazine with a normal capacity is a maniac on the verge of committing murder.

One must, of course, also consider the millions of magazines already in existence that hold more than 10 rounds.  If you make them illegal, law-abiding citizens will, of course, make the necessary changes.  Criminals won't, though; and I thought the whole idea here was to decrease the amount of crimes committed by criminals?

New York just passed legislation that has made it illegal for anyone to buy/sell/own a magazine capable of holding more than 7 rounds.  Why 7 rounds is the magic number for New Yorkers is uncertain to me, but they believe it will help.

I should point out that Mayor Bloomberg has made guns illegal in his city for some time (and large soft drinks!).  This has guaranteed two things:

1. Law-abiding citizens do not carry guns in New York City
2. They ingest fewer calories through soft drinks (not considering refills)

Oh, just some nomenclature that bugs me:

A magazine is not a clip.  The two terms are not interchangeable.  A gun that uses a magazine, will not accept a clip.  This image should help:

Background Checks and the So Called "Gun Show Loophole"

This is common sense to me.  Felons cannot buy firearms.  The only way to know if someone is a felon is to put them through a background check.  

This is why whenever one buys a firearm from a store or at a gun show from a dealer, they have to call in a NICS check.  NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  Every firearm purchased from a dealer (gun show or not!) goes through this background check.  All of them.  Every single one.

The process goes like this:

• Someone decides what firearm they'd like to buy.  
• The dealer gives them a form to fill out.  
• They fill out the form.  
• The dealer uses that form and calls in a NICS check.  
• They will get a "proceed" or a "wait" (wait means they have to wait X number of days for further investigation... proceed means you can take it home now.  Some states have required wait times no matter what)
• In every instance.

Here's a copy of the existing form:

There is no "Gun Show Loophole."   Sorry.  I know the media has harped on it and many have probably assumed that meant that they can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want no matter their criminal background.  False.  Completely and utterly false.  Once again, it is just words used to confuse those who don't know better.  

"Well, what about online sales?  You just give them your credit card and you've bought the gun!"  Yes, that's true.  You've bought the gun.  However, that gun HAS to be shipped to a licensed dealer.  They cannot ship a gun to any private citizen that is not a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder.  Once the gun arrives at their local dealer, they have to go there in person, pay a transfer fee, sign the paperwork, and do a... a... what?  Yep... a background check!  

There is ONE way to avoid a background check: private sales.  Private sales are not made to do a background check.  Yes, one can go to a gun show and do a private sale with someone there who is not a dealer, but they can also do it at their house, in a parking lot, on an empty road, or in the middle of a swimming pool.  It is not a gun show loophole.  

There is one big reason no private sale background check requirement: complete unenforceability (I needed this word to exist... so it now does).  Unless one owns a National Firearms Act (NFA) weapon (such as a short-barelled rifle or the aforementioned machine guns), there is no gun registry.  There would have to be a national gun registry put into place before you could ever enforce a requirement for private sellers to do background checks during private sales.  Why?  Because that is the only way they would be able to tell if a gun transferred ownership at some point.   

Even if such a law existed, how would it affect criminals?  Law-abiding citizens would go through the required bureaucracy to stay within the law, but criminals?  You're saying that this is meant to prevent murders and other crimes committed with firearms by criminals.  Do you think that this criminal cares about calling in a NICS check?  

Background checks already exist in every enforceable way.  Adding the requirement to private sales is not enforceable without a national registry-- and good luck even bringing that up.

So... There Are Some Facts

So, an AR-15 is a semi-automatic sporting rifle shaped like a very popular military rifle.  It is not a machine gun designed to be used in combat.  

"High" capacity magazines are just standard sized magazines.  There isn't a magic number of rounds that make them less lethal in the wrong hands.  A criminal bent on a mass shooting will either have regular magazines or carry multiple reduced-capacity magazines.  Unless each magazine is going to weigh ten pounds, the fact that one has to carry a few more will not matter.

Background checks already exist.  There is no "gun show loophole."  There is no "online" loophole.  

I apologize for being a little long-winded with this.  There's a lot of misinformation running around the airways.  I listen to NPR a lot and about 90% of the people that have spoken on this issue are anti-gun and spoken one or more of these inaccuracies.  I welcome feedback and comments, but let's remain civil.  There's enough childish arguments going on about this that we can act like adults here.  

Women in Combat

Women in combat...

Alright... on the way to work this morning I was listening to the radio and they were discussing women in combat.  The two major sides of this issue are:

1) Women are equal, but physically different.  Thus, they should have jobs where their physical differences are not an issue

and

2) Women should be able to do anything a man does

Of course, opinions are as diverse as the people that hold them.  I agree with both of these points..  There is one major distinction though: some believe that women should be allowed to do anything a man does in the military, but not be held to the same physical standard.

Let's analyze that thought.  As it stands in the Army, a woman's perfect PFT (Physical Fitness Test) score is considered the minimum required scored for a man to pass.  So at the very start of women's inclusion in the military, they are held to a lower physical standard than men.

This would not be, and historically hasn't been, an issue when women are not in combat roles.  However, when a woman takes the place of a man in a combat role, very serious concerns should be raised.

This woman, through no fault of her own, is physically weaker than her male counterparts-- I'm speaking generally as there are always exceptions.

If I'm in a firefight, and receive a wound to the leg, the members of my platoon/squad/etc. should be able to pull me to cover.  If I'm a 180lb man, with a 100lb pack, do I expect a 120lb woman (wearing her own pack) to be able to help me as well as a man?  Of course not.  And upon reflection of the PFT standards, the Army doesn't believe they will do it as well either.

Next consider hygiene.  Women are very physically different than men in one specific area.  There are times when our soldiers are going without showers for weeks and months at a time.  Other than some horrible smells, there is little else to be worried about from a man's perspective.  A woman on the other hand can have serious health consequences when not allowed proper hygiene habits.

Again, none of this is a woman's fault.  It is simply how she is made.  The idea that they have to be allowed to do everything a man does, but that they should be held to the same standards is ludicrous.

One thing I think those who agree with me should be careful of is using any type of psychological excuse to say women are not fit for combat roles.  Combat is very high-stress and life-or-death for everyone involved.  Men and women can both cower in fear.  I don't believe a woman's psyche makes her more susceptible to fear.    

In closing, I'd just like to say if women want the same job, fine.  But women should then be held to the exact same standards as the men they will be fighting along side with.  There should not be male standards and female standards.  There should simply be "Job Standards."  And as long as you fill the standards, you can have the job. 

Introduction

Alright... so, like many others, I'm arrogant enough to think that anything I have to say is important enough to write down in a blog for a lucky few to happen upon and read.  This blog will have no real point other than to call out things that I think are stupid.  Politics, religion, technology, etc... if it's stupid, I want a place to say so.

Thus, the creation of this blog.  I appreciate logical and civilized discussion on matters, but, of course, I have topics that I can get quite heated about.  So come on in, grab a seat, and listen to the truth be told.