Monthly Archives: December 2012

Grown Men Playing Dungeons And Dragons

Everyone wants to save the damsel in distress.  Everyone wants to slay the dragon.  Everyone wants to be the one to save the world from a great evil.  This desire can be seen in our movies.  It can be seen in our books.  And it can be seen in our gun culture.

I have a gun in my house so I can protect my family.  I carry a gun with me to protect myself from killers.  I will be able to use this gun to stop that mall shooter.  These are all the thoughts of an individual living out a Dungeons and Dragons fantasy.  Every single one of those scenarios only has a slightly greater chance of happening than you having the opportunity to slay a dragon.

That stranger in your house is not there to kill you.  That person robbing you on the street does not want to kill you.  You will never see a mall shooter.  Statistically speaking, those statements are all true.  If you confront and kill a burglar, chances are you’re killing someone who had no intention of killing you.  If you confront and kill a mugger, chances are you’re killing someone who had no intention of killing you.  You will never see a mall shooter.

It isn’t that you shouldn’t have these fantasies.  They are good fantasies to have.  I have them too.  It’s fun to imagine saving the day, protecting your family, routing evil.  But please, for the love of all that is good in this world, please recognize them for what they are.  And that’s fantasies!  Using these scenarios to justify owning a gun just shows you as a person who can’t escape from their fantasies.  And that makes you much more dangerous than the pretend person who is going to kill you.

What Part Of “Well Regulated” Don’t We Understand?

The 2nd Amendment is one sentence long.  One measly sentence.  Yet it causes so much conflict between people who want guns and people who don’t want people to have guns.  Let’s review:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone seems to focus on the second part of the sentence while conveniently ignoring the first.  These are not two distinct ideas, but one entwined within the other.  Yes, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.  Yes, there is no limitation as to what defines an “arm”.  But all this is only relevant in the context of a well regulated militia.

If you want to keep and bear arms, you must belong to a well regulated militia in your state.  That militia can say who gets to keep and bear arms.  That militia can say what kind of arms you are allowed to keep and bear.    That militia is set up by the state.  The state can decide who keeps and bears arms.  The only limit that I can see is that the state must allow some class of citizen to keep and bear arms.  We normally call that class of citizens police officers.

Disagree with me?  Ok, do you think people who have already killed should be able to own a gun?  By your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, shouldn’t they be able to?  What about that schizophrenic?  Should he be able to own a gun?  Given the 2nd Amendment, why not?

Now, I’m not saying that only police officers should be able to carry guns.  Far from it.  What I am saying, though, is that it is the state’s right to decide for themselves who gets to own a gun.  If a state decides that only police should own a gun, fine.  If a state decides that individuals should be able to own tanks, fine.  If a state decides that individuals should be able to own tactical nuclear weapons, fine.

I believe that individuals should be able to own whatever the heck kind of arm they want.  But they should be well regulated.  Psychological tests should be mandatory.  Regular, state approved, safety classes should be mandatory.  Regular, state approved, proficiency exams should be mandatory.  Permits should be issued for each arm only after a safety and proficiency exam is passed.  Insurance to cover potential damages should be mandatory.

We’ve lost our way on the 2nd Amendment.  Regulation of arms is necessary and proper for the functioning of a free state.  That regulation should be decided by the state, though, and not the federal government.

Sentences I Wish I Had A Use For

If you’re like me, first off I’m sorry; second, you have sentences that come to you that are just perfect but you have no particular use for.  If you’re not a writer, they are quickly forgotten.  I imagine writers have notebooks full of random sentences just waiting for a home in a story.  If you’re a blogger, they go onto your blog.  I present to you my first (of I hope many) sentence I wish I had a use for:

He was the kind of guy that could quote Leviticus while eating shellfish.

Bah, Humbug

My friend Katie is at it again in her quixotic quest to make sure everyone’s happy all the time.  It’s an admirable goal and I can’t fault her methods.  If there’s anyone who can achieve that goal, it’s probably her.  You’re right, Katie, the world certainly SHOULD jump up and down in excitement a whole lot more than it does.

As anytime there is too much happiness and common sense in one post, though, my thoughts turn to the darker side.  You must be happy at Christmas.  You.  Yes, you.  Why aren’t you happy?  It’s Christmas!  Oh, you’re not a Christian?  Well, you don’t have to be Christian to celebrate Christmas!  Anyway, Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a philosophy!  What, still not happy?  But look at all you have to be thankful for!  Still not happy?  I don’t understand.  You must be one of those people that just gives off negative energy.  My therapist told me to avoid people like you.  Merry Christmas!

I exaggerate for effect.  There really is a pressure on people to be happy during the holidays, though. This is not good for the psyche.  If you aren’t happy and you think you should be happy, you are much more likely to make choices you think will make you happy instead of choices that are good for you.  I am convinced that somewhere out there is a psychological report that says the best time to fire employees is during the Christmas holidays because studies show that people will be more accepting of the result because of the pressure to be thankful for all that you have during the holidays.

There is no reason to be happy during Christmas in particular.  If you’re not happy, don’t be!  Just as much shit happens in our lives during the Christmas holiday as any other time in our lives.  Just as many babies are born.  Just as many friends die.  Just as many hearts are broken.  Just as many loves are found.

Be happy because there are things to be happy about.  Be sad because there are things to be sad about.  Don’t be happy because people tell you you should be happy.  And don’t be sad because you can’t currently think of anything to be happy about.  Be who you are and apologize to no one.  Unless you’re an asshole.  No one likes an asshole.

Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Ratings for reviews will appear above the fold, while the review itself will appear below the fold to avoid spoilers for anyone that wants to go into it with a blank slate.

Jean-Paul’s rating: 3/5 stars

Continue reading →

The Climate Is Changing, Unreasonable People Disagree

Phil Plait, the Baddest Astronomer in the whole damn town and one of the people I would like in my neighborhood, points to something that should be pretty obvious at this point, but is certainly worth repeating.  The climate is changing.  We are causing a lot of it.  There is a lot of research on this.  99.8% of all articles agree with this.  Even Richard Muller, the man who doubted climate change and was hired by the Koch brothers to investigate the evidence,  came to the same conclusion.

The best way for a scientist to become known is to prove another scientist wrong.  To believe that there is a giant cabal of scientists that are silencing dissent is to completely misunderstand how the scientific process works.  There is more money in proving that climate change isn’t happening than in proving that climate change is happening.  Scientists that work for the government don’t make a lot of money.  Scientists that work for big business do.  Big business pays a lot of money to try to disprove climate change.  How many scientists do you think would be lining up to make more money and make a name for themselves if they thought there was actually a chance that climate change theories were wrong?  A lot.  That’s how many.

The scientific method: proving people wrong since 1600 BC.

For You Racists Who Think All Dwarves Look Alike

In anticipation of the deluge of dwarves in the new “The Hobbit” movie, The Lord of the Rings Project has released a handy flowchart to identify each of the main dwarven characters.  And yes, you do want to check out the rest of their site.

I’ll definitely be seeing “The Hobbit” this weekend.  I’ve heard nothing but great things about it from various Tolkein fetishist friends.  I will say that the way some of the dwarves look almost human and how others look so cartoonish was a little off-putting in the trailers.  I hope it doesn’t distract in the actual movie.

Things You Never Think Of

What do trains do in the winter in places where snow can be piled as high as the cab?  Why, attach a snow blower to the front, of course!  Bonus Dune reference by PZ Myers included.

No, The Government Shouldn’t Legislate Morality

A gay student at Princeton University recently asked Justice Antonin Scalia to defend his comments  in the brief for Lawrence v. Texas which made sodomy laws illegal.  In his dissent in the case, Scalia compared laws against sodomy to laws against bestiality.

Scalia’s point, he claims, is that governments have an obligation to legislate morality, otherwise they also don’t have a right to have laws against murder.  This is absolute preposterous thinking.  Sure, it’s easy enough to think of murder as morally wrong, but we’re not legislating the morality of the action.  We legislate the act of taking away someone else’s right to live.  Any law that is worth a damn isn’t about defining an act as moral or immoral.  It is about preventing one individual from infringing on the rights of another individual.

If two or more people freely choose to perform acts on each other, we have no business enacting laws restricting those acts whatever they may be.  If you think that act is immoral, you’re free to think so.  You can even pass judgement on them if you so choose.  What you should never be able to do is create a law that prevents those people from performing said acts unless those acts can be substantially proven to infringe on the rights of someone who is unwilling.

And please note that being able to “freely choose” is a pretty high bar to set.  Bestiality laws exist because animals can not freely choose to participate.  (Side note, animals can’t freely choose to be killed either so it really should be legal to outlaw killing animals.)  Rape laws exist because one person did not consent to the act.  Murder laws exist because the person that was killed did not choose to die.  On the other hand, assisted suicide should be legal, but with high bars in place to prove that the individual is freely choosing to die.  And attempted suicides aren’t prosecuted as attempted murders because of that free choice.

So, Justice Scalia and all you other law makers who want to push your brand of “morality” on everyone through laws, back off.  You choose to live your life in a way that doesn’t infringe on my rights and I’ll continue to live my life in a way that doesn’t infringe on yours.

Illinois Stands Alone…For Now

A federal court ruled today that Illinois’ concealed weapon ban is unconstitutional.  I’m not sure what part of “well regulated” people don’t seem to understand about the second amendment, but whatever.

Talking to a friend, he mentioned that Illinois was the only state left that absolutely prohibited concealed carry weapons.  I was incredulous.  It turns out he is right.  There has been a slow, steady push for right-to-carry laws in all states since about 1989.  Check out this Wikipedia map.  What surprised me the most is that Texas didn’t have a right-to-carry law until 1995.  Texas!

This is one of those cases that is almost guaranteed to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, so it’s going to be a while before it actually gets overturned.  But with the makeup of the Supreme Court the way it is, it’s almost certain that Illinois will join its brethren in arms.