Ambivalent Skeptic

February 23, 2011

It’s called “punking” for a reason

Filed under: Human behavior,Philosophy — Clint1911 @ 9:51 am

Because “punks” (criminals, in this case) like to play/trick/con their victims.

Jay G. has a news story of a guy who robbed a gun store….

with an unloaded gun….

The perp even survived!

I commented there but it’s something I’ve been wanting to share for awhile. So in response to the universal question, was he stupid:

Not dumb per se, more of an attitude thing (mixed with desperation)..

Stay with me here for a moment. See, human beings have a inherent mental flaw. We ALL think that everyone (yes, everyone) thinks exactly like we do BY DEFAULT! It is only if we are taught differently that we understand otherwise. Frankly some people never learn or else they “know” but they never act on said knowledge. This is why the more asinine a person’s ideas are the more he expects you to agree with them. Like gun control…

Now, watch the first few minutes of the movie The Crow. It’s fiction but it has a very realistic portrayal of criminal behavior. The thugs have a pissing contest and long story short, they “bluff” each other with their guns. It’s similar to dogs growling at each other for dominance. There is a large amount of “facing off” and looking dominant prevents people from challenging your dominance.

So if you have a low level thug who “gets by” via bluffing, well his ignorant ass will naturally believe that a gun in plain sight is a bluff. A way to look tough so no one messes with ya’.

Thus, the store clerk with an openly carried gun? All for show, he’ll never reach for it. I mean, NO ONE is going to call a buff when you have YOUR gun pointed at them. Right?? Bueller? Bueller?

BTW, this explains why some thugs are so very violent to compliant or unassuming victims. After all, the less a threat you are, the less the other person needs to hurt you (right??) To avoid being threatening, the victims look weak. So they are treated as the weak are treated in that morally bankrupt culture; savagely. In short, the easier it is to hit you the harder they hit you.

Yes, violent criminals are really just bullies with guns.

Advertisements

February 18, 2011

I’ve come to learn

Filed under: Daily Wisdom,Philosophy — Clint1911 @ 4:08 am

That one of the Greatest, if not the Greatest, skills to learn in life is how to effectively and honestly praise others.

February 14, 2011

Concealed carry in bars and “ThatGuy”

Filed under: politics — Clint1911 @ 9:34 am

Ohio is close to passing legislation to allow people carrying guns in bars. That freaks some people out.

First, let ‘s understand you need a license to carry a handgun concealed in Ohio. That means you need to take a class on safety and the law about self-defense and carrying a gun. Then you need to apply at the Sheriff’s office and pay for a background check and fingerprinting. Then you can have an Ohio “Concealed Handgun license.” (CHL)

Second, it is illegal to have a gun on you if you have any alcohol in your system.

Third, you can’t enter a building that serves alcohol if you have your gun with you. You cannot go to a nice restaurant (wine) or eat at a pizza place (beer) or go to a bar. Even if you are the DD.

But you can’t drink anyway.

Sounds redundant, doesn’t it?

So the state government might possibly remove the last part. You still cannot drink, remember that, but you can carry in bars if you are the DD or just to meet friends or whatnot.

So this is NOT about being drunk with a gun. That is illegal and will continue to be. So this isn’t about drunks.

Or is it?

Let’s face it, we all have dealt with or know someone who dealt with, the dreaded “ThatGuy.” You know, as in That Guy who shouldn’t be drinking in the first place…

There is nothing to stop ThatGuy, who has no CHL, from dropping a gun in his pocket and then walking out his front door. (Felony 1)
And then going to a bar (Felony 2)
And then drinking. (Felony 3)

Then when he becomes belligerent toward your loved one and as you both turn to leave, he feel insulted so he then
Pulls out the gun, (Felony 4)
Shoots it, (Felony 5)
Into your chest. (Felony 6)

I see a pattern.

So “no one” wants guns in bars because of “thatguy.”

But it’s already illegal for thatguy to do so.

Stating the Obvious: If a homicide creep wants to shoot you in a crowded place, you have two choices. A) get shot in the back or B) try to take the gun away. Without getting shot. FYI, this is iffy even for those who practice long and often.

So now we have a case of only the bad guys have guns. And yes, they are “Bad Guys,” They are not misunderstood, there is no look-at-it-from-their-point-of-view, no they just feel bad about themselves.

Nonsense.

They hurt others for NO, good, reason.

They are bad people

And if you are in a bar, they are the only ones with guns. Because the good guys who believe in live and let live DON’T BREAK THE LAW. Even if the law is arbitrary, useless, and Redundant.

But won’t more guns in bars just mean more drunks with guns?

How? The law abiding people with guns don’t drink. Nor will they. The jerk, the idiot, and “thatguy” already sneak guns in. The belligerents have their guns. They know how not to get caught.

Here is a suggestion.

Help the good guys win.

No, a firearm is not an Aegis ref that immunizes you to all harm.

But it gives you a chance.

The critics will wonder how can we guarantee that we won’t miss and hurt a bystander.

First, there are no guarantees in life. Second, why don’t you wonder about the bad guy’s bullets hitting random victims in addition to the intended ones?

Also the situation poses two realities. First, if the bar, or anywhere is that crowded, then the shots will be fired from arms length, often at a target that is coming towards you. Second, the presence of your gun will likely have a deterrent effect. The threat, once realizing that he no longer has an overwhelming advantage, may decide that living is more important then killing and thus, run away.

Remember, as soon as the threat disengages he is no longer a threat. And you can only shoot people if they are an immediate threat.

I want honest people carrying firearms in bars, in restaurants and other public place specificity Because of all the “ThatGuy’s” in the world. They are still a threat even if you leave your gun at home. In fact they are MORE of a threat because they shouldn’t be drinking.

The best part of the (hopefully soon) new law is it enables people, vetted and trained, to have their guns with them as they go out and go home. No firearms left locked in the car. Just good people willing to stand up to bad people.

No guarantees, but as least you have a chance. Otherwise, you just die.

February 13, 2011

words matter

Filed under: Philosophy — Clint1911 @ 11:13 pm

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

He who controls the language controls the means of debate.
Frank Herbert, Dune IIRC

February 6, 2011

Ronald Reagan and Absolute Power

Filed under: History,Philosophy — Clint1911 @ 6:00 pm

Ronald Reagan was born 100 years ago today.

Now here is something I’ve often wondered about; you know the saying “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I don’t think it is true, and I’ll use Reagan as an example. Oh, he was far from prefect as a man and a president but that don’t matter. No one is perfect. But was he corrupted?

First the origin of the saying:

“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did not wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Letter to Mandell Creighton (April [3? or 5?], 1887) — some normally reliable sources indicate April 3, and others indicate April 5.
source:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton

Now look at Reagan and look at the 2-4 Presidents before and after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Does “absolute power corrupt absolutely”? I do not think so. I see men who all held the same office, the same power and some were more competent than others; some were more corrupt.

The corrupt men were corrupt BEFORE they took office.

Frank Herbet, Sci Fi author, once wrote in his novel Chapterhouse: Dune:

Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it.

And

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

I ask you: who among office became more corrupt after gaining power?

I think Herbert got it right.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.