Violent video games are back in the news again. Wasn't that long ago Jack Thompson's anti-game jihad got him disbarred. Our old friend, and known constitutional butt-wiper (someone who repeatedly wipes their ass with the Constitution) Leland Yee also got smacked down by the Supreme Court for his own crusade against video games.
As much noise as politicians and people like Thompson make about video games and what ever perceived societal ills they cause, they, as usual, miss the core issue. Parenting.
Parenting is quite possibly the greatest of all social responsibilities. Simply put if you're going to abdicate this responsibility to politicians like Leland Yee, than well, don't have kids.
Video games aren't a problem for society, and never have been. I say society since they can be problematic if your child lacks discipline or has a short attention span. but again that goes right back to parents. If there is something I've noticed it's that politicians like Leland Yee aren't interested in solving the deep core issues, that would take real, hard, work. Instead politicians like Leland Yee, present their red herrings to the public. Present a feel good measure, make everyone feel warm and fuzzy, do no real work, get re-elected, rinse and repeat. Video games are nothing more than the 21st century comic book.
It has always been the responsibilities of parents to teach their kids and equip them with the things they need to know to function in an ordered society. Yes there are public schools, but their job isn't to teach kids how to behave. In terms of teaching reality and fantasy, it seems like for the most part parents are rather successful in that regard. Millions of people play video games, and the vest majority of these people aren't driven to violence over these games. Sure there are the unadjusted sore losers who are driven into a rage because they die too much in a death match or zombie survival mode, but very rarely even these people don't carry out acts of violence over the game. I myself have been playing games like Doom since 1993. I also own a semi-auto civilian variant of the AK-103 (an update of the venerable AK-47) rifle. According to Leland Yee, I'm a mass murder waiting to happen, not another law abiding citizens who's never been in trouble with the law.
Naturally the responsibility of parenting go beyond video games. But extends to just about every facet of life, including sex. It isn't just Democrats who are trying to ursurpe the responsibility of parenting. Republicans are just as guilty, where as Democrats like Leland Yee want to usher in a People's Republic of China-esque nanny state, Republicans want to usurp this responsibility in the area of personal morals. Case in point, abstinence only "education" and crusty old white men wanting to legislate personal decisions for women.
These politicians can say all they want but at the end of the day it's all meaningless if no one bothers to listen to them. And that's sort of the issue. It's the parent's jobs to raise their kids not politicians. Also parents shouldn't listen to politicians. Leland Yee, nor Todd Atkin give a damn about you or your kids, they want to be re/elected. That's all they care about. A politician is the last person anyone should take parenting tips from. Every time one starts talking about "for the children" a parent should always think, "what is s/he getting at?"
There's a phrase that I believe it was President Harry Truman who coined it, "the buck stops here". And that's how it is with raising your kids. It's all on you, it's a responsibility you can't abdicate to the state.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Social Responsibilities: Self-Defense
With all the talk going around today regarding what to do about guns, it's pretty impossible to not to hear "self-defense" brought up at some point. But like just about any/everything related to guns today, even the concept of self-defense has be politicized.
But for now lets push everything the law makers and talking heads have been saying. It certainly is a right, under both criminal and civil law you have a right to use force, even lethal force in some instances to protect yourselves and others. But more than that, it is a social responsibility.
One might say, "but that's what the police are for." Well the response to that is yes, and no.
"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." - Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Even setting this aside, police resources are finite. Individual officers can only be at one place at any given moment, and there certainly aren't enough officers to respond to every crime. In short that means when one officer responds to delinquents vandalizing private property, that's one officer who's not responding to a home invasion.
There's also the whole matter of response time. A crime can happen in a matter of seconds, where are police will arrive in a matter of minutes.
But people aren't entirely powerless. The law at the very least has given people the right to protect themselves. A person making use of that right, and using the tools necessary can actually prevent the crime, reducing the finite amount of time and resources police need to spend on the crime. A crime that could have been prevented frees up an officer to respond to another. More often than not, many of these criminals are armed in some form of another.
You can probably already see where I am going with this, but lets stroll down this road because it's necessary to get a good look at the scenery.
Say you are confronted and over powered, what then? You might think that surely someone will come to help. Well, no one came to help Kitty Genovese.
Here's a summary of the Bystander Effect/Genovese Syndrome:
The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others hinders an individual from intervening in an emergency situation. Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley popularized the concept following the infamous 1964 Kitty Genovese murder in Kew Gardens, New York. Genovese was stabbed to death outside her apartment three times, while bystanders who reportedly observed the crime did not step in to assist or call the police. Latane and Darley attributed the bystander effect to the diffusion of responsibility (onlookers are more likely to intervene if there are few or no other witnesses) and social influence (individuals in a group monitor the behavior of those around them to determine how to act). In Genovese's case, each onlooker concluded from their neighbors' inaction that their own help was not needed.
In light of this, the sad truth is, for one reason or another, you can't count on someone comming to help you. People who don't take responsibility for protecting themselves or their families, instead relying on the state/police or others to come and help, have effectively abdicated this responsibility. They have abdicated a key social responsibility in living in an ordered society.
The fact is there is evil in the world. That just isn't going to go away, no amount of "positive thinking" will change that. Refusing to acknowledge that is akin to burying your head in the sand. We all need to take a serious approach to this responsibility, take realistic steps to protect ourselves. Criminals will take any and all means to complete their crimes, therefore each and every one of us needs to take an and all means to protect ourselves. The impact of abdicating this responsibility is that you place others in danger that in some cases may not need to be placed in that danger. Those that come to help you because of this abdication, and those who have no one to help them because police officers have come to help you because of your abdication. If you have a family, your spouse and children are put at risk by this abdication as well. Encouraging, or out right forcing, others to abdicate this responsibility as well though legislation is just as socially irresponsible, if not more so.
Now it might not seem that someone abdicating this responsibility is not a big deal, but we can think of responsibilities like this as like social matter. In chemistry you learn that you cannot destroy matter, only change it's phase. Well these responsibilities are sort of the same way, just because you abdicate it, doesn't make it go away. What it does is it transfers that responsibility to keep yourself and your family protected to some other party. Be it the State, or a good Samaritan who assumes that responsibility by stepping in your behalf. So what this does is for the State it adds yet another burden on it's finite resources, and for the Samaritan it adds the responsibility of protecting you one top of their responsibility to protect themselves. Not only is abdicating this responsibility socially irresponsible, but it is also unfair to the rest of society.
Now I'm not saying everyone should be strapped, but everyone should take what ever measures available to be able to protect themselves and their families. Be it martial arts, or firearms training.
In the end we all have responsibilities if we're going to live in an ordered society. One of those is a responsibility to protect ourselves.
But for now lets push everything the law makers and talking heads have been saying. It certainly is a right, under both criminal and civil law you have a right to use force, even lethal force in some instances to protect yourselves and others. But more than that, it is a social responsibility.
One might say, "but that's what the police are for." Well the response to that is yes, and no.
"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." - Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Even setting this aside, police resources are finite. Individual officers can only be at one place at any given moment, and there certainly aren't enough officers to respond to every crime. In short that means when one officer responds to delinquents vandalizing private property, that's one officer who's not responding to a home invasion.
There's also the whole matter of response time. A crime can happen in a matter of seconds, where are police will arrive in a matter of minutes.
But people aren't entirely powerless. The law at the very least has given people the right to protect themselves. A person making use of that right, and using the tools necessary can actually prevent the crime, reducing the finite amount of time and resources police need to spend on the crime. A crime that could have been prevented frees up an officer to respond to another. More often than not, many of these criminals are armed in some form of another.
You can probably already see where I am going with this, but lets stroll down this road because it's necessary to get a good look at the scenery.
Say you are confronted and over powered, what then? You might think that surely someone will come to help. Well, no one came to help Kitty Genovese.
Here's a summary of the Bystander Effect/Genovese Syndrome:
The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others hinders an individual from intervening in an emergency situation. Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley popularized the concept following the infamous 1964 Kitty Genovese murder in Kew Gardens, New York. Genovese was stabbed to death outside her apartment three times, while bystanders who reportedly observed the crime did not step in to assist or call the police. Latane and Darley attributed the bystander effect to the diffusion of responsibility (onlookers are more likely to intervene if there are few or no other witnesses) and social influence (individuals in a group monitor the behavior of those around them to determine how to act). In Genovese's case, each onlooker concluded from their neighbors' inaction that their own help was not needed.
In light of this, the sad truth is, for one reason or another, you can't count on someone comming to help you. People who don't take responsibility for protecting themselves or their families, instead relying on the state/police or others to come and help, have effectively abdicated this responsibility. They have abdicated a key social responsibility in living in an ordered society.
The fact is there is evil in the world. That just isn't going to go away, no amount of "positive thinking" will change that. Refusing to acknowledge that is akin to burying your head in the sand. We all need to take a serious approach to this responsibility, take realistic steps to protect ourselves. Criminals will take any and all means to complete their crimes, therefore each and every one of us needs to take an and all means to protect ourselves. The impact of abdicating this responsibility is that you place others in danger that in some cases may not need to be placed in that danger. Those that come to help you because of this abdication, and those who have no one to help them because police officers have come to help you because of your abdication. If you have a family, your spouse and children are put at risk by this abdication as well. Encouraging, or out right forcing, others to abdicate this responsibility as well though legislation is just as socially irresponsible, if not more so.
Now it might not seem that someone abdicating this responsibility is not a big deal, but we can think of responsibilities like this as like social matter. In chemistry you learn that you cannot destroy matter, only change it's phase. Well these responsibilities are sort of the same way, just because you abdicate it, doesn't make it go away. What it does is it transfers that responsibility to keep yourself and your family protected to some other party. Be it the State, or a good Samaritan who assumes that responsibility by stepping in your behalf. So what this does is for the State it adds yet another burden on it's finite resources, and for the Samaritan it adds the responsibility of protecting you one top of their responsibility to protect themselves. Not only is abdicating this responsibility socially irresponsible, but it is also unfair to the rest of society.
Now I'm not saying everyone should be strapped, but everyone should take what ever measures available to be able to protect themselves and their families. Be it martial arts, or firearms training.
In the end we all have responsibilities if we're going to live in an ordered society. One of those is a responsibility to protect ourselves.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Mass Shooters: The American Hikikomori
Well ok maybe "hikikomori" isn't quite an accurate term for the problem plaguing America, but where a hikikomori goes on a killing rampage, the common thread is a disturbed individual in the center of it.
In light of the tragedy that happened in Connecticut, it's natural for humans to become extremely fearful and held in fear's iron fisted grip. Thing is though, emotions rarely, if ever, lead to a good decision. It's easy to go right for the obvious, "BAN GUNS!" or "ARM TEACHERS!" but while being fueled by emotions, while essentially running scared, people fail to take a deeper look at the matter.
We, as a people, have a problem. What is needed to solve problems is logical thinking. One cannot be emotional and logical at the same time.
That said, the time to feel is over, and the time to think is now.
These kinds of rampages aren't exclusive to America, they've happened in Europe and they've happened in Asia. Tools of destruction ranged from guns, to knifes, to a car driven into a crowd. Excluding the acts of terrorism, at the center of these rampages was a disturbed individual. The common thread isn't guns, but mental illness.
In the case of what has been going on in America, many frighted people are calling for the banning of semi-automatic firearms. However there is something to consider here. Semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old. The Colt Model 1911 .45 caliber handgun, is the "Model 1911" because it was adopted by the U.S. Army in 1911. Other repeating firearms such as the revolver and the lever-action rifle, aka the "Winchester rifle" are even older, having been in service with the Union Army in the Civil War. These shooting rampages happening on practically a yearly basis are a relatively recent thing. Yes there have been disturbed individuals going on rampages for quite some time, but not at these numbers we're seeing now.
First, let us define "rampage", here I will define "rampage" as a killing spree conducted soley for the sake of killing. Excluding acts of suppression/war, terrorism, crimes where the goal was something other than the killing, and assassinations.
When I reffer to "rampage" I refer to purely a killing spree, not connected to another crime such a bank robbery, where the main goal was to rob the bank and not just kill as many people as possible. I'll also differentiate "rampage" from terrorist incidents where there was a political agenda. In fact, most of the weapons out there are based upon designs that are decades old. The infamous AR-15, which seems to have surpassed the AK-47 in notoriety, stems from a design conceived in the 1950s.
Before we can ask the question of "How can we prevent another rampage?", we need to ask the question "What happened from 1900 (around the time semi-automatic technology was developing) to now, in our culture/society?
Let's set 1900 as year zero.
The world is, quite frankly a pretty fucked up place, we'll be here all month if we looked at ever rampage world wide, so lets focus on the United States. The LA Times has an interactive timeline of the deadliest shootings and Real Clear Politics has a list of early rampage shooters.
The bloody legacy starts with Gilbert Twig in 1903 who used a 12 gauge shotgun and killed 9 people.
45 years later Howard Unrah went on his rampage killing 13 people with a German 9mm Luger semi-auto pistol. Unrah was said to be unemployed and became reclusive, living with his mother. He had been teased and harrassed and called a "mama's boy".
18 years later was when Charlie Whitman went up a tower. He was having troubles with family and had been on meds such as valium.
Another 18 years later James Oliver Huberty took an Uzi, a shotgun and a pistol and mowed down roughly 40 people at a McDonald's in 1984. He was a paranoid conspiracy theorist who called a mental health center prior to his rampage, however the center never returned his call.Hurberty left the house clad in fatigues and told his wife he was going out to hunt humans.
25 years later in 1991 we have George Hennard, who killed 23 people. Hennard was described as angry, unemployed, and hated women.
1999 saw the infamous Columbine Shooting.
Now picking up from this Think Progess timeline.
Eight years later saw Virginia Tech.
Now things start "ramping up"...
2008 saw two shootings.
2009 saw three.
2011 saw four shootings
Finally 2012, saw eight... EIGHT! Prior to 2008, there was never more than one shooting rampage in a year. From 1900 to 2008, 108 years, there were only 6 shooting rampages, each up to 1999 were at least a decade apart going by the info these timelines provide. There were more shootings in this one year than there were in the entire 20th century America.
What is going on here, why the exponential increase in violence? If guns, and specifically semi-auto guns are the problem, then the number of shootings over the course of the past 112 years should be relatively consistent. This shows that something with society is changing, there is a deeper matter beneath all this. Some sort of threshold was crossed in 2008. Aside from 2010, 2007 was the last year to have only one rampage, and 2006 was the last year to not see one.
It may just be a coincidence, but I'll also point out that 2008 was the same year the economy took a dive.
As I've mentioned earlier a common thread is some kind of mental stress or illness. The two from Columbine were repeatedly bullied and ostracized.
Doug Williams had anger issues and gone though a bitter divorce.
Seung-hui Cho was ordered by the court to seek mental health treatment.
In light of the tragedy that happened in Connecticut, it's natural for humans to become extremely fearful and held in fear's iron fisted grip. Thing is though, emotions rarely, if ever, lead to a good decision. It's easy to go right for the obvious, "BAN GUNS!" or "ARM TEACHERS!" but while being fueled by emotions, while essentially running scared, people fail to take a deeper look at the matter.
We, as a people, have a problem. What is needed to solve problems is logical thinking. One cannot be emotional and logical at the same time.
That said, the time to feel is over, and the time to think is now.
These kinds of rampages aren't exclusive to America, they've happened in Europe and they've happened in Asia. Tools of destruction ranged from guns, to knifes, to a car driven into a crowd. Excluding the acts of terrorism, at the center of these rampages was a disturbed individual. The common thread isn't guns, but mental illness.
In the case of what has been going on in America, many frighted people are calling for the banning of semi-automatic firearms. However there is something to consider here. Semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old. The Colt Model 1911 .45 caliber handgun, is the "Model 1911" because it was adopted by the U.S. Army in 1911. Other repeating firearms such as the revolver and the lever-action rifle, aka the "Winchester rifle" are even older, having been in service with the Union Army in the Civil War. These shooting rampages happening on practically a yearly basis are a relatively recent thing. Yes there have been disturbed individuals going on rampages for quite some time, but not at these numbers we're seeing now.
First, let us define "rampage", here I will define "rampage" as a killing spree conducted soley for the sake of killing. Excluding acts of suppression/war, terrorism, crimes where the goal was something other than the killing, and assassinations.
When I reffer to "rampage" I refer to purely a killing spree, not connected to another crime such a bank robbery, where the main goal was to rob the bank and not just kill as many people as possible. I'll also differentiate "rampage" from terrorist incidents where there was a political agenda. In fact, most of the weapons out there are based upon designs that are decades old. The infamous AR-15, which seems to have surpassed the AK-47 in notoriety, stems from a design conceived in the 1950s.
Before we can ask the question of "How can we prevent another rampage?", we need to ask the question "What happened from 1900 (around the time semi-automatic technology was developing) to now, in our culture/society?
Let's set 1900 as year zero.
The world is, quite frankly a pretty fucked up place, we'll be here all month if we looked at ever rampage world wide, so lets focus on the United States. The LA Times has an interactive timeline of the deadliest shootings and Real Clear Politics has a list of early rampage shooters.
The bloody legacy starts with Gilbert Twig in 1903 who used a 12 gauge shotgun and killed 9 people.
45 years later Howard Unrah went on his rampage killing 13 people with a German 9mm Luger semi-auto pistol. Unrah was said to be unemployed and became reclusive, living with his mother. He had been teased and harrassed and called a "mama's boy".
18 years later was when Charlie Whitman went up a tower. He was having troubles with family and had been on meds such as valium.
Another 18 years later James Oliver Huberty took an Uzi, a shotgun and a pistol and mowed down roughly 40 people at a McDonald's in 1984. He was a paranoid conspiracy theorist who called a mental health center prior to his rampage, however the center never returned his call.Hurberty left the house clad in fatigues and told his wife he was going out to hunt humans.
25 years later in 1991 we have George Hennard, who killed 23 people. Hennard was described as angry, unemployed, and hated women.
1999 saw the infamous Columbine Shooting.
Now picking up from this Think Progess timeline.
Eight years later saw Virginia Tech.
Now things start "ramping up"...
2008 saw two shootings.
2009 saw three.
2011 saw four shootings
Finally 2012, saw eight... EIGHT! Prior to 2008, there was never more than one shooting rampage in a year. From 1900 to 2008, 108 years, there were only 6 shooting rampages, each up to 1999 were at least a decade apart going by the info these timelines provide. There were more shootings in this one year than there were in the entire 20th century America.
What is going on here, why the exponential increase in violence? If guns, and specifically semi-auto guns are the problem, then the number of shootings over the course of the past 112 years should be relatively consistent. This shows that something with society is changing, there is a deeper matter beneath all this. Some sort of threshold was crossed in 2008. Aside from 2010, 2007 was the last year to have only one rampage, and 2006 was the last year to not see one.
It may just be a coincidence, but I'll also point out that 2008 was the same year the economy took a dive.
As I've mentioned earlier a common thread is some kind of mental stress or illness. The two from Columbine were repeatedly bullied and ostracized.
Doug Williams had anger issues and gone though a bitter divorce.
Seung-hui Cho was ordered by the court to seek mental health treatment.
Jiverly Voong was said to have been frustrated at losing his job and being unable to find employment.
James Holmes had seen at least three mental health professionals.
The core of this problem, illness if you will, is a mental health problem. None of these rampages happened without a depraved mind at the core. It's that sick mind at the center of things that need to be addressed. If guns were the problem then Japan wouldn't have their stabbings, nor would David Attias have driven his car into a crowd and stumbled out yelling "I am the Angel of Death".
If we were to take the depraved mind out of the equation, then it wouldn't matter what is around be it an axe from a hardware store, a shotgun from the sporting goods store, a general purpose machine gun from a military armory, an F-15E from an air base, or the fucking battleship USS Iowa. There would be no will to use those things against another party.
But aren't there already places people can go to, to find mental health services? There are, but lets put aside the question of if there's enough. Lets say for now that there is enough to go around.
We're not left with the problem in America of how mental heath is viewed coupled with how masculinity is viewed. Men are supposed to be tough and stoic and a mental health issue is seen as some kind of weakness. That a person "can't hang" or "can't deal with life". There is a stigma behind it. Going to a mental health professional isn't viewed the same as going to the dentist or going to the doctor. If you're already ostracized to begin with, why would you go somewhere that might cause you to be ostracized even more?
In Switzerland and Israel the majority of households have an assault rifle, that is, a rifle with a detachable magazine, pistol grip, chambered for a medium powered cartridge and full-auto/burst fire capable. And yet they don't have the kind of shooting rampages that happen here. Why? What that tells me is that it isn't the gun, it's the culture.
This American culture/society itself is broken. It's a culture that would go as far to say as one that no longer has any empathy. "Fuck you, I got mine!" When you can't keep up for one reason or another, and it may not even be directly your fault, the requirements to be "accepted" grow even higher. Is it any wonder that people keep to themselves and later can't deal with the pressure anymore and snap?
Now if we add in the variable of expensive health care, and that some people can't afford to see a mental health professional, the number of possible perpetrators increases.
There's an insane level of what this culture expects from you. Women are expected to be super thin, with large breasts, anything else is fat or flat. Men are expected to be strong, tough and stoic, anything else is a "fag". Having a mental illness is something to be embarrassed of.
The mentally ill, the ostracized, the forgotten, they are America's hikikomori.
James Holmes had seen at least three mental health professionals.
The core of this problem, illness if you will, is a mental health problem. None of these rampages happened without a depraved mind at the core. It's that sick mind at the center of things that need to be addressed. If guns were the problem then Japan wouldn't have their stabbings, nor would David Attias have driven his car into a crowd and stumbled out yelling "I am the Angel of Death".
If we were to take the depraved mind out of the equation, then it wouldn't matter what is around be it an axe from a hardware store, a shotgun from the sporting goods store, a general purpose machine gun from a military armory, an F-15E from an air base, or the fucking battleship USS Iowa. There would be no will to use those things against another party.
But aren't there already places people can go to, to find mental health services? There are, but lets put aside the question of if there's enough. Lets say for now that there is enough to go around.
We're not left with the problem in America of how mental heath is viewed coupled with how masculinity is viewed. Men are supposed to be tough and stoic and a mental health issue is seen as some kind of weakness. That a person "can't hang" or "can't deal with life". There is a stigma behind it. Going to a mental health professional isn't viewed the same as going to the dentist or going to the doctor. If you're already ostracized to begin with, why would you go somewhere that might cause you to be ostracized even more?
In Switzerland and Israel the majority of households have an assault rifle, that is, a rifle with a detachable magazine, pistol grip, chambered for a medium powered cartridge and full-auto/burst fire capable. And yet they don't have the kind of shooting rampages that happen here. Why? What that tells me is that it isn't the gun, it's the culture.
This American culture/society itself is broken. It's a culture that would go as far to say as one that no longer has any empathy. "Fuck you, I got mine!" When you can't keep up for one reason or another, and it may not even be directly your fault, the requirements to be "accepted" grow even higher. Is it any wonder that people keep to themselves and later can't deal with the pressure anymore and snap?
Now if we add in the variable of expensive health care, and that some people can't afford to see a mental health professional, the number of possible perpetrators increases.
There's an insane level of what this culture expects from you. Women are expected to be super thin, with large breasts, anything else is fat or flat. Men are expected to be strong, tough and stoic, anything else is a "fag". Having a mental illness is something to be embarrassed of.
The mentally ill, the ostracized, the forgotten, they are America's hikikomori.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
The religion of proffessional sports
Alright a little bit of a detour here, going away from the legal aspect of things for a little here.
One of the things I will never understand is the religious fanaticism that some sports fans have. To tell these people that "their" team sucks or their favorite player sucks is the equivalent of blaspheming God or something. And I put "their" in quotes because they have no ownership in these teams. Beyond bets with friends they have no financial stake if the team wins or loses. Simply put, who cares if "your" team wins or loses.
I especially don't get the point of getting belligerent on someone simply because they like another team. We see this taken to the level of insanity with European soccer fans... and to the level of stupidity with Josh "Tank" Watts, who hence fourth shall be known as Septic Tank.
So what did this guy do to earn the title of King Douchebag? Why is the internet becoming aflame with pure hatred for this guy? Why is an unassuming bar and grill quite possibly on the verge of closing down?
Read on...
Deadspin also covered the Incident.
Never mind the fact that Garrett Carnes is a Marine and lost his legs in Afghanistan. You just have to have some serious problems to pick a fight with a guy WITH NO LEGS over something as asinine and petty as sports. There is just no reason to ever start something with someone just minding their own business over something like sports, let alone a guy with no legs. Septic Tank is probably one of the worst kinds of bullies, even in high school I never saw any of the usual bullies picking on the retarded and cripple kids.
On a side note, I have friends and family who were in combat, some didn't go into the military with any reasons loftier than having nothing else better to do with their life at the time. So I'm not going to get into the "fighting for freedom" thing. But they did their job under some tough circumstances, they signed up for a job that doesn't hide that fact that it's a tough job and followed though. He took on a tough job, knowing full well he might come home in pieces, if he comes home at all. And that's worthy of respect. Garrett Carnes certainly didn't deserve to come home just to have this waste of organic and genetic material harass him try to start a fight with him for nothing deeper than a brand name. I hope him the best and that he can get a set of prosthetic that'll let him walk again.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so instead of going though a full blown psycho analysis and dissecting this guy on a psychological level, I'll just post up these pictures and let them speak for themselves as to the sort of person Septic Tank is. I'm confident we've all seen and know this kind of person somewhere. They have different ethnicities, but they all seem to look the same. I don't even need to break things down since you probably are already familiar with one incarnation of Tank or another.
At the end of the day though I'll just never understand the extent of stupidity that some people take their fanaticism to. I know I know, not everyone is like this, and I'm not talking about those people. But for someone like Septic Tank here it reaches the level of religious fanaticism. I'm not going to say I wish violence upon these people, because I don't, they're just not worth that kind of effort. I'm only pointing out just how far people take their sports and this is just the pinnacle of stupidity. I mean really, what has anyone's "team" done for them that they would be willing to get into legal trouble for them? What has the Panthers done for Josh Watts that made him instigate this whole situation for the sole reason that Garrett Carnes's jersey had another team's name on it. I seriously doubt any of the Panthers players, support staff, or owners know Josh "Tank" Watts personally. My family might be huge Lakers fans, and I might have a huge amount of respect for Kareem Abdul Jabar, but the fact is, the Lakers haven't done a damn thing for me to care whether or not they win or lose, let alone start something with someone who likes whom ever their rival happens to be that season.
One of the things I will never understand is the religious fanaticism that some sports fans have. To tell these people that "their" team sucks or their favorite player sucks is the equivalent of blaspheming God or something. And I put "their" in quotes because they have no ownership in these teams. Beyond bets with friends they have no financial stake if the team wins or loses. Simply put, who cares if "your" team wins or loses.
I especially don't get the point of getting belligerent on someone simply because they like another team. We see this taken to the level of insanity with European soccer fans... and to the level of stupidity with Josh "Tank" Watts, who hence fourth shall be known as Septic Tank.
Read on...
Deadspin also covered the Incident.
"Courtney was the first one out of the vehicle, and while she was getting Garrett's wheelchair, one guy immediately started yelling at her," said Brett Coburn, who described the man's comments as "taunts."
Coburn said that when the group reached the front door, the fan, who other patrons called Tank, was waiting for them.
"He was standing at the door, and he started harassing us because of the Cowboys jerseys," Coburn said.
He said Tank told Garrett Carnes, "Don't use your wheelchair as a crutch."
According to multiple accounts of the incident, Carnes told the patron – and others who were ridiculing the group for being Cowboys' fans – that he was a veteran and had lost his legs in Afghanistan.
Members of the Carnes-Coburn party tried to "defend ourselves verbally," Brett Coburn said.
He said Tank walked toward Carnes in a threatening way, and some other patrons stepped in to break it up.
So now Marines are pissed at him, servicemen from other braches and even other national militaries are pissed at him, and even random civilians are pissed at him.
Never mind the fact that Garrett Carnes is a Marine and lost his legs in Afghanistan. You just have to have some serious problems to pick a fight with a guy WITH NO LEGS over something as asinine and petty as sports. There is just no reason to ever start something with someone just minding their own business over something like sports, let alone a guy with no legs. Septic Tank is probably one of the worst kinds of bullies, even in high school I never saw any of the usual bullies picking on the retarded and cripple kids.
On a side note, I have friends and family who were in combat, some didn't go into the military with any reasons loftier than having nothing else better to do with their life at the time. So I'm not going to get into the "fighting for freedom" thing. But they did their job under some tough circumstances, they signed up for a job that doesn't hide that fact that it's a tough job and followed though. He took on a tough job, knowing full well he might come home in pieces, if he comes home at all. And that's worthy of respect. Garrett Carnes certainly didn't deserve to come home just to have this waste of organic and genetic material harass him try to start a fight with him for nothing deeper than a brand name. I hope him the best and that he can get a set of prosthetic that'll let him walk again.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so instead of going though a full blown psycho analysis and dissecting this guy on a psychological level, I'll just post up these pictures and let them speak for themselves as to the sort of person Septic Tank is. I'm confident we've all seen and know this kind of person somewhere. They have different ethnicities, but they all seem to look the same. I don't even need to break things down since you probably are already familiar with one incarnation of Tank or another.
At the end of the day though I'll just never understand the extent of stupidity that some people take their fanaticism to. I know I know, not everyone is like this, and I'm not talking about those people. But for someone like Septic Tank here it reaches the level of religious fanaticism. I'm not going to say I wish violence upon these people, because I don't, they're just not worth that kind of effort. I'm only pointing out just how far people take their sports and this is just the pinnacle of stupidity. I mean really, what has anyone's "team" done for them that they would be willing to get into legal trouble for them? What has the Panthers done for Josh Watts that made him instigate this whole situation for the sole reason that Garrett Carnes's jersey had another team's name on it. I seriously doubt any of the Panthers players, support staff, or owners know Josh "Tank" Watts personally. My family might be huge Lakers fans, and I might have a huge amount of respect for Kareem Abdul Jabar, but the fact is, the Lakers haven't done a damn thing for me to care whether or not they win or lose, let alone start something with someone who likes whom ever their rival happens to be that season.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
The Aurora shooting
This without a doubt is a tragic event, and no doubt one that'll kick up a lot of emotions.
But before emotions get the better of us, lets step back a moment and really take a look at what happened. I've seen many people arguing that "assault weapons" should be banned. But would stricter gun laws have prevented this? This is a guy who had his apartment booby trapped with homemade bombs. He was set on killing and hurting as many people as he could regardless of the method. Just because guns are banned doesn't mean rampages don't happen. In Japan, people can't own guns the same way they can in the U.S. and yet instead they have people going on rampages with a knife. In Akihabara one guy stabbed and killed 7 people. Another Japanese knife rampage saw a guy get on a bus and stab 12 students. In 2001, in Santa Barbara California, David Attias drove his car into a group of people and killed 4.
But before emotions get the better of us, lets step back a moment and really take a look at what happened. I've seen many people arguing that "assault weapons" should be banned. But would stricter gun laws have prevented this? This is a guy who had his apartment booby trapped with homemade bombs. He was set on killing and hurting as many people as he could regardless of the method. Just because guns are banned doesn't mean rampages don't happen. In Japan, people can't own guns the same way they can in the U.S. and yet instead they have people going on rampages with a knife. In Akihabara one guy stabbed and killed 7 people. Another Japanese knife rampage saw a guy get on a bus and stab 12 students. In 2001, in Santa Barbara California, David Attias drove his car into a group of people and killed 4.
There is something going on here far beyond gun ownership. The real issue isn't gun control, but why this happened to begin with. James Holmes is clearly a disturbed individual. And that is where the focus should be, on the perpetrator, not the means. What would drive someone to such acts. What would drive Holmes and Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech infamy) to carry out these acts?
To prevent these kinds of rampages, we need to deeper, much deeper than just gun control. Is there something broken in our culture?
I don't have an answer for this one, but I can point out the direction where we need to go to answer the question of why did this happen and how can it be prevented. It's easy to become overcome with emotion in tragedies like this, but acting upon knee-jerk emotions won't prevent it from happening again.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Unions, what are they good for?
Well unions brought us the weekend, 40 work weeks, and a whole host of other things.
But today Unions are catching a lot of heat, and a lot of blame, plus all this talk of "right to work", and during all this, people are forgetting their history. What was it like working without a Union. Well it isn't really history since it's still going on.
Years before the Manx Cat went to law school he worked as software tester for two of the big titans of the video game industry. There were no Unions for the Quality Assurance department. QA is a very strange monster, because of this fact.
Many companies will hire QA workers as temps because California requires several things to be provided for permanent employees. So typically a worker will get a job for about 9 or so months, then get laid off, take unemployment and reapply for their job again in three or so months. Sure at first it sounds like a sweet set up with 3 months "vacation" but on the other hand there's no guaruntee you'll get your job back.
The next issue is forget about upward mobility. You can also forget about getting a raise. You could get fired for next to no reason. When the project shipped, other departments like those (in the opinion of the Manx Cat) assholes in marketing get a bonus while we got the pink slip. If there were any issues with the project, the QA dept always, always got the blame. Essentially you were at the mercy of the management, which on more than one occasion was somewhat incompetent.
Most of all you are expendable, if they get rid of you there is always someone else there to replace you. Job security is really non-existant, you slack off too much, you get canned. You work super efficient and get the project out early, you still might get canned. The only hope for job security is getting into a different department.
It's almost like something out of a Charles Dicken's novel, just without ghosts of Christmas and beat downs by Pinkertons. On the plus side though the wages are good for what it is, one company paid $12 and hour, while another paid $11 and hour.
Nature of the beast? Maybe. But the beast would certainly be much different if there was a Union. If you think "right to work" is great, if you think Unions are bad, go work as a Quality Assurance tester in the video game industry, where you have no Unions to represent you.
But today Unions are catching a lot of heat, and a lot of blame, plus all this talk of "right to work", and during all this, people are forgetting their history. What was it like working without a Union. Well it isn't really history since it's still going on.
Years before the Manx Cat went to law school he worked as software tester for two of the big titans of the video game industry. There were no Unions for the Quality Assurance department. QA is a very strange monster, because of this fact.
Many companies will hire QA workers as temps because California requires several things to be provided for permanent employees. So typically a worker will get a job for about 9 or so months, then get laid off, take unemployment and reapply for their job again in three or so months. Sure at first it sounds like a sweet set up with 3 months "vacation" but on the other hand there's no guaruntee you'll get your job back.
The next issue is forget about upward mobility. You can also forget about getting a raise. You could get fired for next to no reason. When the project shipped, other departments like those (in the opinion of the Manx Cat) assholes in marketing get a bonus while we got the pink slip. If there were any issues with the project, the QA dept always, always got the blame. Essentially you were at the mercy of the management, which on more than one occasion was somewhat incompetent.
Most of all you are expendable, if they get rid of you there is always someone else there to replace you. Job security is really non-existant, you slack off too much, you get canned. You work super efficient and get the project out early, you still might get canned. The only hope for job security is getting into a different department.
It's almost like something out of a Charles Dicken's novel, just without ghosts of Christmas and beat downs by Pinkertons. On the plus side though the wages are good for what it is, one company paid $12 and hour, while another paid $11 and hour.
Nature of the beast? Maybe. But the beast would certainly be much different if there was a Union. If you think "right to work" is great, if you think Unions are bad, go work as a Quality Assurance tester in the video game industry, where you have no Unions to represent you.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Assault Rifle, Assault Weapon, Assault... What?
I'm going to take a slight detour here to take a little time to clear some stuff up. With another piece of feel good but won't make you any safer piece of legislation floating around in California, it's important to know what terms and what's what. The "what" here being assault rifles and a "assault weapons".
To sum it up, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" it a made up media term. But yes there is such thing as an "assault rifle".
The term assault rifle is derived from the German term Sturgewehr which translates into "storm rifle". Its a nickname that Adolf Hitler coined for the StG-44/MP-44. The StG-44 was a revolutionary new rifle. It combined the characteristics of several different gun classes into one package. It featured a detachable magazine like the MP-40 and the BAR, along with a select fire feature that allowed semi-auto (on pull of the trigger only gets you one shot) or full-auto (machine gun). One of the biggest innovations was that it fired a medium powered rifle cartridge (ammo). At the time the rifle cartridges were power rounds like the 7.62x54R (Soviet Union), the .303 British, the .30-06 (United States) 7.7x58 (Japan) and the 7.92x57 (Germany), these were powerful rounds with long range. BUT, they also had strong recoil, if you had this round fireing out of a fully automatic weapon like the German's FG-42 or the BAR the gun would "jitter like a crackhead". So what the Germans did was cut the 7.92x57 down to 7.92x33. What this did was reduce the recoil down to a much more controlable recoil while still retaining the power of a rifle (albeit much weaker than the full-sized, full-powered round).
So then the term assault rifle began being applied to rifles with these characteristics. Pistol grip, select-fire, detachable magazine, and firing a medium powered cartridge. That last point is what makes the difference between and assault rifle and a battle rifle, with the battle rifle fireing the larger rounds I mentioned, examples of battle rifles are the M-14 and the U.S. Navy's Mk.17.
But things in California start to get weird. Precisely because of definitions and a lack of understanding of capabilities. Here, lets use the M-1A as an example.
Kind of looks like grandpa's deer rifle don't it? Anyway, by the criteria we had earlier, by definition this is not an assault rifle. No pistol grip, lacks full-auto capability, and fires a full powered round (7.62x51). By California law this isn't an "assault weapon".
Now let's dress our M-1A up a little bit, change around the furniture. New stock and the like.
Looks a bit different now don't it, almost like a completely different rifle. BUT, the basic workings of the rifle remain the same. It's more like car that's been "pimped out" but has had no engine work and the engine remains in it's factory configuration. Alright so lets break this thing down according to our criteria. Pistol grip? Yes. Detachable magazine? Yes. Select fire? No. Chambered for a medium powered cartridge? No. So therefore this rifle is not an assault rifle in the traditional sense. But California law doesn't see it that way, California law sees this as an "assault weapon" because it features a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. This can be made legal in California with a magazine lock + bullet button modifacation.
For some odd reason California decided to use a different set of characteristics to define "assault weapon". Courtesy of Calguns.(If it comes out hard to read, highlight the text, couldn't get the formatting fixed.)
▪ a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing
bearer to fire weapon without burning his/her hand, except for a slide enclosing
the barrel;
Notice there under the section for rifles, it deviates from the military definition by not requiring full-auto capabilities? California essentially expanded the term "assault rifle" to go beyond the rifle class. So while the military wouldn't consider the dressed up M-1A up there as an assault type weapon, California legislature did for what ever reason.
Also the definition there that California uses for an "assault pistol" (I guess it would be called) you usually see on a sub-machine gun. Maybe California is using the German characteristics for Maschinenpistole (machine pistol). Either way, the military generally only applies the "assault" descriptor to rifles.
So that's what's what. If you pay attention you'll notice a lot of people in the media will call something an "assault rifle" when it isn't. Or they'll just use that big blanket term "assault weapon" which has no real military definition. No real definition PERIOD. I say that because of the fact that "assault weapon" doesn't take into account the gun's functioning. As I've pointed out with the M-1A. We can change around the stock of the rifle, while not touching the working parts and turn it from a simple rifle to "assault weapon" despite the fact that the mechanism, remains the same. The rifle will still use the same magazine, not some 30 rounder, and it remains semi-auto. The core performance has not changed. No more than dropping a 6 CD changer into a car changes the engine's performance. Changing the stock does not make it go from 4 cylinder to V-6.
To sum it up, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" it a made up media term. But yes there is such thing as an "assault rifle".
The term assault rifle is derived from the German term Sturgewehr which translates into "storm rifle". Its a nickname that Adolf Hitler coined for the StG-44/MP-44. The StG-44 was a revolutionary new rifle. It combined the characteristics of several different gun classes into one package. It featured a detachable magazine like the MP-40 and the BAR, along with a select fire feature that allowed semi-auto (on pull of the trigger only gets you one shot) or full-auto (machine gun). One of the biggest innovations was that it fired a medium powered rifle cartridge (ammo). At the time the rifle cartridges were power rounds like the 7.62x54R (Soviet Union), the .303 British, the .30-06 (United States) 7.7x58 (Japan) and the 7.92x57 (Germany), these were powerful rounds with long range. BUT, they also had strong recoil, if you had this round fireing out of a fully automatic weapon like the German's FG-42 or the BAR the gun would "jitter like a crackhead". So what the Germans did was cut the 7.92x57 down to 7.92x33. What this did was reduce the recoil down to a much more controlable recoil while still retaining the power of a rifle (albeit much weaker than the full-sized, full-powered round).
So then the term assault rifle began being applied to rifles with these characteristics. Pistol grip, select-fire, detachable magazine, and firing a medium powered cartridge. That last point is what makes the difference between and assault rifle and a battle rifle, with the battle rifle fireing the larger rounds I mentioned, examples of battle rifles are the M-14 and the U.S. Navy's Mk.17.
But things in California start to get weird. Precisely because of definitions and a lack of understanding of capabilities. Here, lets use the M-1A as an example.
Now let's dress our M-1A up a little bit, change around the furniture. New stock and the like.
For some odd reason California decided to use a different set of characteristics to define "assault weapon". Courtesy of Calguns.(If it comes out hard to read, highlight the text, couldn't get the formatting fixed.)
Category
I
assault weapons
are those specifically named by make and model in
Penal Code §12276 (and echoed in California Code of Regulation
§979.10). These
firearms are assault weapons at even the bare receiver/frame level
– regardless of any particular characteristic
features.
Thus an Uzi receiver would be banned by name, but a similar Group
Industries receiver would be legal (as long as offending Category III
features were not added).
Category
II
assault
weapons consist of the AR15 and AK “series” of
firearms. While AR and AK series were named in the original
Roberti-Roos laws, due to various key court decisions about
“series”
membership it’s
useful to refer to them as their own category, those these guns really
have just fallen back into the Roberti-Roos list once listed by DOJ.
Category
III
assault weapons
are defined by characteristic features listed in PC 12276.1:
RIFLES:
A
semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable
magazines and any of:
▪ a pistol grip
protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action
▪ a thumbhole stock
or folding or telescopic stock;
▪ a flash
suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;
▪ a
forward pistol grip.
A
semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30
inches;
A
semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10
rounds.
PISTOLS:
A
semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting detachable magazines and any
of the following:
▪
a threaded barrel;
▪ a second
handgrip;
▪ capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside the pistol grip;
▪ a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing
bearer to fire weapon without burning his/her hand, except for a slide enclosing
the barrel;
A
semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine having capacity to
accept over 10 rounds.
SHOTGUNS:
A
semiautomatic shotgun having both of the following:
▪ a
folding or telescoping stock;
▪ a pistol
grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
a thumbhole stock, or a vertical handgrip.
A
semiautomatic shotgun with the ability to accept detachable magazines;
Any
shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Notice there under the section for rifles, it deviates from the military definition by not requiring full-auto capabilities? California essentially expanded the term "assault rifle" to go beyond the rifle class. So while the military wouldn't consider the dressed up M-1A up there as an assault type weapon, California legislature did for what ever reason.
Also the definition there that California uses for an "assault pistol" (I guess it would be called) you usually see on a sub-machine gun. Maybe California is using the German characteristics for Maschinenpistole (machine pistol). Either way, the military generally only applies the "assault" descriptor to rifles.
So that's what's what. If you pay attention you'll notice a lot of people in the media will call something an "assault rifle" when it isn't. Or they'll just use that big blanket term "assault weapon" which has no real military definition. No real definition PERIOD. I say that because of the fact that "assault weapon" doesn't take into account the gun's functioning. As I've pointed out with the M-1A. We can change around the stock of the rifle, while not touching the working parts and turn it from a simple rifle to "assault weapon" despite the fact that the mechanism, remains the same. The rifle will still use the same magazine, not some 30 rounder, and it remains semi-auto. The core performance has not changed. No more than dropping a 6 CD changer into a car changes the engine's performance. Changing the stock does not make it go from 4 cylinder to V-6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)