When it comes to the subject of gun control, it seems sometimes that there are only two opinions.
It’s as if half of the American population believes that the best bet for safety is for everyone to have a gun, and possibly a concealed carry permit.
The other half believes that strict laws should be passed against all guns, and that no one should have them.
As with most things, the truth, and probably 80 percent of the population, is somewhere in between those two extremes.
Now personally, I like guns. I also feel that I am a strong environmentalist, as is the case with most hunters.
I enjoy the tactile pleasure of killing and consuming the things I hunt. I feel it helps me understand the order of the world, and keeps me close to the fact that things die for my body to go on living.
Of course, as a hunter and gun enthusiast, I know a few things about gun safety. Rule number one, taught to me by my dad when he bought me my first BB gun, is that you never point a gun at something you don’t intend to kill.
I feel sometimes like they should have tacked that rule on to the second amendment when they wrote it, but our forefathers probably didn’t have any way of knowing that 200 years later men would have guns capable of firing 100,000 rounds per second.
A hunting argument only goes so far. It’s a simple fact that a person doesn’t need an M249 SAW machine gun to hunt ducks, a shotgun will do the job just fine.
Of course, as the old cliche goes, “a well-armed populace Is the best defense against tyranny.” Which means that citizens owning guns is the only way to ensure that a government doesn’t overstep its bounds and trample the rights of its citizens.
The problem is that, occasionally, a member of that populace utilizes their well armed status against the perceived tyranny of the guy who cut them off in traffic.
Tragedies like the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University and Columbine High School can serve to show what happens when guns get into the wrong hands.
However, in both of the cases mentioned above, the shooters were in possession of guns that were acquired through illegal means.
This is where another cliche comes into play, “when guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.”
This is a bit humorous in one sense in the fact that such legislation would indeed make a criminal of all gun owners, but is also a very serious admonision against violating the rights of responsible gun owners.
Currently laws are in place to keep a few very specific guns, classified as ‘assault weapons,’ from being legally sold to the public even though assault weapons are used in less than one percent of violent crimes.
Other legislation, such as waiting periods and background checks are aimed at reducing the sale of handguns, which are used in 57 percent of murders nationwide.
Despite these efforts, gun crime continues to rise, which makes me think that perhaps new laws aren’t what is needed. A person who breaks today’s relatively lax gun laws is just as likely to break stricter codes put in place in the future.
Now someone out there is saying that phrase which I hate, “think of the children.”
Statistically speaking there are about 1300 accidental gun deaths in the United States each year, including the 200 or so which claim the lives of children 14 or younger.
While this statistic is tragic, it is almost nothing when compared to the other types of accidental deaths such as bicycle accidents, drowning, electrocution and fires.
The fact is that a child is 14.5 time more likely to die in a car accident than from a bullet wound. As a matter of fact, car accidents claim far more people each year than guns. If we’re really worried about people’s lives then perhaps we should implement stricter automobile laws.
Simply put, the answer to gun violence isn’t more laws. Rather it is better enforcement of laws that are already in place coupled with better education for gun owners.
In the end a compromise must be reached between those who want to be armed and those who don’t want to be shot at, because the second amendment and the freedoms it represents are hopefully here to stay.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Who to take to dinner
1. Pick a single person past or present who works in the film industry you would like to have dinner with. And tell us why you chose this person.
2. Set the table for your dinner. What would you eat? Would it be in a home or at a restaurant? And what would you wear? Feel free to elaborate on the details.
3. List five thoughtful questions you would ask this person during dinner.
4. When all is said and done, select six bloggers to pass this Meme along to.
5. Link back to Lazy Eye Theatre, so people know the mastermind behind this Meme.
My good friend James (see his movie blog posted to the left) posted this a whiel ago and listed me as a person who should write a little something. I feel slightly honored that I'm thought of in this situation, but am also a bit shamed that I can't come up with a good answer on my own.
Part of my difficulty is that I don't really like participating in these responsorial type things. The other portion is that, like James, I have difficulty coming up with someone in a film whom I care about enough personally to want to meet.
I said that I couldn't come up with an answer by myself, but like most Americans I was assisted by a commercial.
The commercial was a radio ad for "Two and a Half Men" a god awful laugh-track ridden POS sitcom which, from what the commercial says, occupies the number one slot.
As I listened to the commercial I remembered this littler survey and thought to myself, "I wonder if Charlie Sheen is as big of a douchebag as I've always just assumed he is?"
Despite the fact that I'm sure the answer is yes, I think I'd like to sit down with him over beer and pizza to find out. I don't feel I need to get into what I would wear, I mean it's beer and pizza, not a five-star restaurant. As to which pizza joint, I don't think it matters, so long as they have beer and it's not a chain (not Godfather's then, sorry Collin).
What would I ask him? Questions that are likely to offend him no doubt.
How many hours do you spend on your hair every day?
What's it like to have a brother who is a more talented actor but not as big of a commercial success?
Do you think you'll ever be as good as your dad or are you just planning to sponge off of his good name for the rest of your life?
Couldn't you just get a corral of about 10 beautiful women and be content rather than passing around the STDs which no doubt plague your gonads?
What's with this fascination with child porn that I hear you have? That's really sick man.
I'd try to be a little more subtle about asking these questions than the way in which they are posed here. I figure if I manage to make it past the fourth, the fifth is garunteed to get him to slime his way out the door.
A pressing question of mine is who is going to pay for this outing. If he's paying then I may switch up that last question to get him to stay and pick up the tab.
Well, that's my anwer
2. Set the table for your dinner. What would you eat? Would it be in a home or at a restaurant? And what would you wear? Feel free to elaborate on the details.
3. List five thoughtful questions you would ask this person during dinner.
4. When all is said and done, select six bloggers to pass this Meme along to.
5. Link back to Lazy Eye Theatre, so people know the mastermind behind this Meme.
My good friend James (see his movie blog posted to the left) posted this a whiel ago and listed me as a person who should write a little something. I feel slightly honored that I'm thought of in this situation, but am also a bit shamed that I can't come up with a good answer on my own.
Part of my difficulty is that I don't really like participating in these responsorial type things. The other portion is that, like James, I have difficulty coming up with someone in a film whom I care about enough personally to want to meet.
I said that I couldn't come up with an answer by myself, but like most Americans I was assisted by a commercial.
The commercial was a radio ad for "Two and a Half Men" a god awful laugh-track ridden POS sitcom which, from what the commercial says, occupies the number one slot.
As I listened to the commercial I remembered this littler survey and thought to myself, "I wonder if Charlie Sheen is as big of a douchebag as I've always just assumed he is?"
Despite the fact that I'm sure the answer is yes, I think I'd like to sit down with him over beer and pizza to find out. I don't feel I need to get into what I would wear, I mean it's beer and pizza, not a five-star restaurant. As to which pizza joint, I don't think it matters, so long as they have beer and it's not a chain (not Godfather's then, sorry Collin).
What would I ask him? Questions that are likely to offend him no doubt.
How many hours do you spend on your hair every day?
What's it like to have a brother who is a more talented actor but not as big of a commercial success?
Do you think you'll ever be as good as your dad or are you just planning to sponge off of his good name for the rest of your life?
Couldn't you just get a corral of about 10 beautiful women and be content rather than passing around the STDs which no doubt plague your gonads?
What's with this fascination with child porn that I hear you have? That's really sick man.
I'd try to be a little more subtle about asking these questions than the way in which they are posed here. I figure if I manage to make it past the fourth, the fifth is garunteed to get him to slime his way out the door.
A pressing question of mine is who is going to pay for this outing. If he's paying then I may switch up that last question to get him to stay and pick up the tab.
Well, that's my anwer
The idea of a Wisconsin smoking ban is lighting fires.
You can hear about it all over the state these days, a debate over a smoke-free Wisconsin.
I’m a non-smoker myself. I long ago decided that I didn’t like the way cigarettes made my mouth taste the next morning.
If you listen to the radio these days you’ve probably heard advertisements promoting a smoke-free Wisconsin.
So far I’ve heard the same two ads repeated over and over again and I’m rather unimpressed with both.
The first commercial features a woman who took her daughter to a bowling alley after being told that it was non-smoking during the day.
She then proceeds to complain that the alley’s bar had patrons who were smoking. Apparently the alley made the distinction between smoking on the lanes and smoking in the bar.
While I agree that it was wrong for the bowling alley to be less than candid about their policy when she first asked, her next statements are where I get lost.
She claims her daughter was sick for three days after bowling in a smoky environment.
“It’s scary to think what second-hand smoke can do to your body.”
Regardless of the fact that this ad relies on a “think of the children” formula, which I hate, there are a number of reasons I find it to be ridiculous.
Now I’ve been to alot of bowling alleys, and have never seen one where the bar was less than 25 feet away from the lanes. They might exist, but I tend to think they’re rare.
I understand that the smell of smoke carries a long way, but at 25 feet I just don’t see it making someone sick, and especially not for three days.
The woman in the commercial never states how old her daughter was, but if I had to guess I would say she’s at least five if she’s strong enough to shove a bowling ball down the lane.
If your five-year-old is sick for three days after smelling smoke, then you should probably put them in a plastic bubble and have them under 24-hour medical care.
As a person who likes to consider himself quite logical, I find it much more likely that this woman’s daughter used one of the alley’s loaner balls which hundreds of other children had touched.
It’s a simple fact that objects out in the world and covered in germs.
So, to my mind, the arguement is that this little girl picked up a cold from a bowling ball and that’s why we should ban smoking.
Of course there is another commercial which I am more sympathetic to.
A gentleman who owns a bar tells the story of his battle with throat cancer. He says he has employees whom he cares about, which I find admirable.
At first glance this really does seem like a valid arguement for a smoking ban.
Only there’s a catch. Couldn’t this gentleman make his bar non-smoking all on his own?
It is the legal right of any establishment to ban smoking. There exist a number of bars which are non-smoking, and they continue to enjoy fine custom with a number of regular patrons.
Non-smoking establishments do tend to have four or five smokers standing right outside the doorway, but in general the inside of the bar, tavern or pub smells quite clean and fresh–or possibly like spilled beer.
Of course, not all bar owners are so generous to their employees, and the claim is that those employees should not be forced to put their life on the line for a pay check.
Being a journalist, I have news for you. Lots of people put life and limb and health on the line for a pay check. A drastically abridged list of these people would include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nuclear technicians, demolitions crews, farmers and everyone who rides a bus or drives a car to work.
Bar employees just face a different sort of hazard.
Just because something is dangerous or unpleasent to some doesn’t mean that it needs to be banned.
Today they’ve come for the cigarrettes, tommorow they’re coming for the spicy and fatty foods. The day after that they’ll be coming for the alcohol, again.
Where does it all end? When we’re left with nothing but tofu and wheat grass juice. My tastebuds shudder to think of the day.
Not to mention that state legislators just raised the tax on cigarettes this year. If, in theory, a ban on smoking in taverns is carried out, wouldn’t that mean less people smoking and less money from the new tax?
With government spending continuing to grow, you just know that revenue lost on that tax is going to come back to bite your wallet in a different way.
Of course, the advertisements don’t stop on the radio. Other newspapers are carrying full pages of ads depicting Wisconsin as an ashtray between Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.
It’s good advertising, there’s no doubt about that, but is it really fair?
I personally would rather see the flame of freedom burning brightly, even if someone does occasionally use it to light a cigarette.
I’m a non-smoker myself. I long ago decided that I didn’t like the way cigarettes made my mouth taste the next morning.
If you listen to the radio these days you’ve probably heard advertisements promoting a smoke-free Wisconsin.
So far I’ve heard the same two ads repeated over and over again and I’m rather unimpressed with both.
The first commercial features a woman who took her daughter to a bowling alley after being told that it was non-smoking during the day.
She then proceeds to complain that the alley’s bar had patrons who were smoking. Apparently the alley made the distinction between smoking on the lanes and smoking in the bar.
While I agree that it was wrong for the bowling alley to be less than candid about their policy when she first asked, her next statements are where I get lost.
She claims her daughter was sick for three days after bowling in a smoky environment.
“It’s scary to think what second-hand smoke can do to your body.”
Regardless of the fact that this ad relies on a “think of the children” formula, which I hate, there are a number of reasons I find it to be ridiculous.
Now I’ve been to alot of bowling alleys, and have never seen one where the bar was less than 25 feet away from the lanes. They might exist, but I tend to think they’re rare.
I understand that the smell of smoke carries a long way, but at 25 feet I just don’t see it making someone sick, and especially not for three days.
The woman in the commercial never states how old her daughter was, but if I had to guess I would say she’s at least five if she’s strong enough to shove a bowling ball down the lane.
If your five-year-old is sick for three days after smelling smoke, then you should probably put them in a plastic bubble and have them under 24-hour medical care.
As a person who likes to consider himself quite logical, I find it much more likely that this woman’s daughter used one of the alley’s loaner balls which hundreds of other children had touched.
It’s a simple fact that objects out in the world and covered in germs.
So, to my mind, the arguement is that this little girl picked up a cold from a bowling ball and that’s why we should ban smoking.
Of course there is another commercial which I am more sympathetic to.
A gentleman who owns a bar tells the story of his battle with throat cancer. He says he has employees whom he cares about, which I find admirable.
At first glance this really does seem like a valid arguement for a smoking ban.
Only there’s a catch. Couldn’t this gentleman make his bar non-smoking all on his own?
It is the legal right of any establishment to ban smoking. There exist a number of bars which are non-smoking, and they continue to enjoy fine custom with a number of regular patrons.
Non-smoking establishments do tend to have four or five smokers standing right outside the doorway, but in general the inside of the bar, tavern or pub smells quite clean and fresh–or possibly like spilled beer.
Of course, not all bar owners are so generous to their employees, and the claim is that those employees should not be forced to put their life on the line for a pay check.
Being a journalist, I have news for you. Lots of people put life and limb and health on the line for a pay check. A drastically abridged list of these people would include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nuclear technicians, demolitions crews, farmers and everyone who rides a bus or drives a car to work.
Bar employees just face a different sort of hazard.
Just because something is dangerous or unpleasent to some doesn’t mean that it needs to be banned.
Today they’ve come for the cigarrettes, tommorow they’re coming for the spicy and fatty foods. The day after that they’ll be coming for the alcohol, again.
Where does it all end? When we’re left with nothing but tofu and wheat grass juice. My tastebuds shudder to think of the day.
Not to mention that state legislators just raised the tax on cigarettes this year. If, in theory, a ban on smoking in taverns is carried out, wouldn’t that mean less people smoking and less money from the new tax?
With government spending continuing to grow, you just know that revenue lost on that tax is going to come back to bite your wallet in a different way.
Of course, the advertisements don’t stop on the radio. Other newspapers are carrying full pages of ads depicting Wisconsin as an ashtray between Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.
It’s good advertising, there’s no doubt about that, but is it really fair?
I personally would rather see the flame of freedom burning brightly, even if someone does occasionally use it to light a cigarette.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Marriage
“When are you guys getting married?”
It’s a question my friends know better than to ask, but one my girlfriend’s friends seem to have no trouble tossing around.
I think some of them expect me to have a real answer like “June” or “2014,” but it’s just not like that.
It seems almost blasphemous to ask, but what is the big deal with getting married? Can’t people just be happy that we’re not rushing into things?
One of my many opinions on the subject of marriage is that with just over 40 percent of all marriages ending in divorce, why not do my part to bring that number down by just not getting married?
That way, if for some reason (God forbid) one of us feels like walking away, there is no legally binding document to mess around with before we divide our assets and get separate homes.
Of course, one of my best friends, Joe, tells me that this is a stupid way to think about it. He might be right.
According to him I need to, “Lock that (expletive deleted) down.” In other words, I need to get a gold ring on her to keep her from leaving.
I’m really hoping that keeping her around doesn’t require expensive jewelry, that my personality and charm are enough, but maybe I should take my friend’s advice.
What is marriage though? I mean, sure it’s a great loophole in the legal systems which might keep you protected from certain uncomfortable questions in court and lets you pay less in taxes, but as far as the social ramifications go it’s not much more than a promise to stay together, one that about 40 percent of people don’t keep if you believe the U.S. Census Bureau.
Other, more practical and legally-minded compatriots of mine tell me that a prenuptial agreement is a must-have for any man thinking about getting married.
I’m not so sure though; seems to me like it’s admitting to failure before even trying.
Besides, those agreements are really meant for millionaires and movie stars who really have something to lose. I on the other hand don’t really own anything of greater value than my television, and if she really wants to divorce me to get half of that, then I’ll gladly take an axe and divide it myself, no lawyer necesary.
They say that love means never having to say you’re sorry, which must mean that I’m not in love since I find myself apologizing quite often–mostly for arriving late or forgetting to send a card on some special day or write a column that pokes a bit of fun at a hallowed social institution (like marriage).
It’s nice to know that my brain is safe from the mental malady sometimes referred to as love; it leaves me free to make
rational decisions which concern how the rest of my life will play out.
On the other hand there are many comedians who would tell you that love really doesn’t have much to do with marriage. I’m really hoping that isn’t true.
Of course no digression on the sacrament of marriage could be complete without some thoughts on religion.
It should surprise no one who has read my column in the past to know that I’m what is sometimes referred to as a “lapsed Catholic” or “recovering cathoholic” as a witty Mormon friend of mine once quipped.
Marriage in the Catholic Church is a solemn ritual of union with a number of rules. It is also a pain in the behind to be married in the Catholic Church to someone who isn’t Catholic. Since my girlfriend is of a Ukranian Orthodox background, a church wedding doesn’t appear to be in our future.
That’s fine by me–but not by my maternal grandmother–because I don’t want to get married inside of a building (another Catholic rule).
If I have my way–which I probably won’t– we’ll get married next to a river, stream, or creek and neither of us will be wearing shoes when it comes time to slide on the rings.
I’m also hoping to avoid that part of the wedding where the bride and groom smear cake onto each other’s faces, but that is also unlikely.
I suppose the desire to be outdoors for the joining process precludes a winter wedding (at least in Wisconsin) which means that I’m a bit closer to answering the “when” question.
As you can probably tell, I’m more concerned right now with the “how” and “why,” which I feel get left out of many marriage equations as I’ve watched friends try to budget and plan.
Suffice to say that I’m not in any big hurry and, luckily, neither is she.
It’s a question my friends know better than to ask, but one my girlfriend’s friends seem to have no trouble tossing around.
I think some of them expect me to have a real answer like “June” or “2014,” but it’s just not like that.
It seems almost blasphemous to ask, but what is the big deal with getting married? Can’t people just be happy that we’re not rushing into things?
One of my many opinions on the subject of marriage is that with just over 40 percent of all marriages ending in divorce, why not do my part to bring that number down by just not getting married?
That way, if for some reason (God forbid) one of us feels like walking away, there is no legally binding document to mess around with before we divide our assets and get separate homes.
Of course, one of my best friends, Joe, tells me that this is a stupid way to think about it. He might be right.
According to him I need to, “Lock that (expletive deleted) down.” In other words, I need to get a gold ring on her to keep her from leaving.
I’m really hoping that keeping her around doesn’t require expensive jewelry, that my personality and charm are enough, but maybe I should take my friend’s advice.
What is marriage though? I mean, sure it’s a great loophole in the legal systems which might keep you protected from certain uncomfortable questions in court and lets you pay less in taxes, but as far as the social ramifications go it’s not much more than a promise to stay together, one that about 40 percent of people don’t keep if you believe the U.S. Census Bureau.
Other, more practical and legally-minded compatriots of mine tell me that a prenuptial agreement is a must-have for any man thinking about getting married.
I’m not so sure though; seems to me like it’s admitting to failure before even trying.
Besides, those agreements are really meant for millionaires and movie stars who really have something to lose. I on the other hand don’t really own anything of greater value than my television, and if she really wants to divorce me to get half of that, then I’ll gladly take an axe and divide it myself, no lawyer necesary.
They say that love means never having to say you’re sorry, which must mean that I’m not in love since I find myself apologizing quite often–mostly for arriving late or forgetting to send a card on some special day or write a column that pokes a bit of fun at a hallowed social institution (like marriage).
It’s nice to know that my brain is safe from the mental malady sometimes referred to as love; it leaves me free to make
rational decisions which concern how the rest of my life will play out.
On the other hand there are many comedians who would tell you that love really doesn’t have much to do with marriage. I’m really hoping that isn’t true.
Of course no digression on the sacrament of marriage could be complete without some thoughts on religion.
It should surprise no one who has read my column in the past to know that I’m what is sometimes referred to as a “lapsed Catholic” or “recovering cathoholic” as a witty Mormon friend of mine once quipped.
Marriage in the Catholic Church is a solemn ritual of union with a number of rules. It is also a pain in the behind to be married in the Catholic Church to someone who isn’t Catholic. Since my girlfriend is of a Ukranian Orthodox background, a church wedding doesn’t appear to be in our future.
That’s fine by me–but not by my maternal grandmother–because I don’t want to get married inside of a building (another Catholic rule).
If I have my way–which I probably won’t– we’ll get married next to a river, stream, or creek and neither of us will be wearing shoes when it comes time to slide on the rings.
I’m also hoping to avoid that part of the wedding where the bride and groom smear cake onto each other’s faces, but that is also unlikely.
I suppose the desire to be outdoors for the joining process precludes a winter wedding (at least in Wisconsin) which means that I’m a bit closer to answering the “when” question.
As you can probably tell, I’m more concerned right now with the “how” and “why,” which I feel get left out of many marriage equations as I’ve watched friends try to budget and plan.
Suffice to say that I’m not in any big hurry and, luckily, neither is she.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)