I just finished watching the president's town hall and the after show. I want my 2 hours back.
The president spent the hour dancing around the tough questions. I have to give him credit, he is an excellent public speaker. However, he was all about emotion, hope and change and really not good factual answers on why his actions will make things better.
The follow up show was filled with an interesting array of people. I was most entertained by the prosecutor sitting next to the cop. Every hard question or comment brought forward by the cop was either danced around or not addressed at all by the prosecutor. It took CNN a full hour to get back to actively showing skewed polls, belittling gun supporters and generally carrying the president's banner. However, Don Lemon took that banner up with gusto.
Overall, it was somewhat entertaining, but not really informative.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
The madness officially begins...
The event we have been dreading is now officially moving forward. Super Bowl 50 is coming to Santa Clara. When it was announced my family was not amused. On a good day, traffic in the area sucks. Santa Clara has never really planned properly for the traffic surrounding the new stadium. The first events held there were famous for the traffic and parking failures. Game day, don't event bother driving in the area. Ridiculous "safety perimeters" are set up around the stadium for a normal game as well.
Now construction has started. Joy.
The only amusement that I have had out of this event is to see the level of shenanigans that go on surrounding the event. The city of Santa Clara decided to break the law and sign a contract with the NFL that violates both a previously existing contract and the city's own rules. The losers? 1600 kids who's soccer fields are being turned into a media village. Closed door meetings and legal back room decisions, in addition to a ill advised attempt by the city to sell the land to the Forty-Niners organization for pennies on the dollar, have marred event already. The current lawsuit has not stopped the NFL from destroying the field, but there may be legal issues later.
This event should (theoretically) be a great economic boon for the area. However, guess where Super Bowl City will be located? In San Francisco, almost fifty miles away. Fully half the events are actually happening in San Francisco. In normal traffic during the week, that is over an hour away. I found this to be really entertaining, since San Francisco did not bother to build a new stadium to house the team. Another event is planned for Walnut Creek, even farther away.
Homeland Security is shutting down everything withing 300 feet of the stadium for the entire weekend. So, if you were planning to come into the area during that weekend on Amtrak or CalTrain, you can't get any transportation from the station. No word on light rail, but I am sure it will be screwed up in some way. This is also shutting down a local restaurant, which they did contract out for the entire weekend, but unless that is the exclusive watering hole for the media village, they will miss out on serious money.
Most people I know are looking to either get out of town or not leave the house to avoid any of the fiasco we expect. Some are looking to AirBnB their place during the events to make money. I wish them good luck. Me, based on all the BS surrounding this event, I hope El Nino brings lots of rain.
Now construction has started. Joy.
The only amusement that I have had out of this event is to see the level of shenanigans that go on surrounding the event. The city of Santa Clara decided to break the law and sign a contract with the NFL that violates both a previously existing contract and the city's own rules. The losers? 1600 kids who's soccer fields are being turned into a media village. Closed door meetings and legal back room decisions, in addition to a ill advised attempt by the city to sell the land to the Forty-Niners organization for pennies on the dollar, have marred event already. The current lawsuit has not stopped the NFL from destroying the field, but there may be legal issues later.
This event should (theoretically) be a great economic boon for the area. However, guess where Super Bowl City will be located? In San Francisco, almost fifty miles away. Fully half the events are actually happening in San Francisco. In normal traffic during the week, that is over an hour away. I found this to be really entertaining, since San Francisco did not bother to build a new stadium to house the team. Another event is planned for Walnut Creek, even farther away.
Homeland Security is shutting down everything withing 300 feet of the stadium for the entire weekend. So, if you were planning to come into the area during that weekend on Amtrak or CalTrain, you can't get any transportation from the station. No word on light rail, but I am sure it will be screwed up in some way. This is also shutting down a local restaurant, which they did contract out for the entire weekend, but unless that is the exclusive watering hole for the media village, they will miss out on serious money.
Most people I know are looking to either get out of town or not leave the house to avoid any of the fiasco we expect. Some are looking to AirBnB their place during the events to make money. I wish them good luck. Me, based on all the BS surrounding this event, I hope El Nino brings lots of rain.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics...
So I watched the president speak at his support party today. I can't call it anything else since there was wild applause, supporting yells and hoots throughout the speech. He joked, he played the audience, I was surprised no one held up a lighter or yelled "Freebird!". He made reference to debunked studies and statistics once again. I had to laugh when he mentioned Chicago for gun violence, since they have such extensive gun laws and restrictions to go with their high gun violence record.
There was a lot of the speech dedicated to calling up memories of people slain that his executive action would not have saved. In fact, he admitted it in his speech. But despite that, he has to do something. And as such, something results in this executive action. And really, its about as much as he could do and hope to get away with maybe half of it. I went to the White House website to look at the actual documentation and found it to be both weak and worrying.
We'll see if he gets the funding approved for the extra ATF agents, but I am willing to bet it'll be approved in return for some other favor. The FBI will be hiring more people for background check staff and move to 24/7 operation. Based on the volume the have seen over the last 20 years, I really can't believe that this wasn't done long ago. And the real loophole that existed, the "Trust, Corporation or Legal Entity" for acquiring NFA listed items (and firearms in general) will be closed by ATF rules. However, I foresee a lawsuit at some point on that one. The gun safety research item looks to be a toothless request for reports that will in the end do nothing but waste some interns time.
The items that I see as an issue is the mental health area, because I see a lot of room for abuse of the system. The last line in the shows that they learned from past battles: "The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health." I worry that this item will be a back burner item, as it appears to be an afterthought and the rest will move forward immediately.
Overall, tho, it looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors. Creating the illusion of doing something, when it really is only stating that we need to enforce when is already on the books.
There was a lot of the speech dedicated to calling up memories of people slain that his executive action would not have saved. In fact, he admitted it in his speech. But despite that, he has to do something. And as such, something results in this executive action. And really, its about as much as he could do and hope to get away with maybe half of it. I went to the White House website to look at the actual documentation and found it to be both weak and worrying.
We'll see if he gets the funding approved for the extra ATF agents, but I am willing to bet it'll be approved in return for some other favor. The FBI will be hiring more people for background check staff and move to 24/7 operation. Based on the volume the have seen over the last 20 years, I really can't believe that this wasn't done long ago. And the real loophole that existed, the "Trust, Corporation or Legal Entity" for acquiring NFA listed items (and firearms in general) will be closed by ATF rules. However, I foresee a lawsuit at some point on that one. The gun safety research item looks to be a toothless request for reports that will in the end do nothing but waste some interns time.
The items that I see as an issue is the mental health area, because I see a lot of room for abuse of the system. The last line in the shows that they learned from past battles: "The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health." I worry that this item will be a back burner item, as it appears to be an afterthought and the rest will move forward immediately.
Overall, tho, it looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors. Creating the illusion of doing something, when it really is only stating that we need to enforce when is already on the books.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Oooh, shiny... Wait...
Bass Pro Shop just opened a store near me. I was shocked when I heard that they were building one here in the Bay Area. I just didn't think that there were enough people into the outdoor sports that included fishing and hunting in this area to support it. Also, not the most gun friendly area. Still, a real sporting goods superstore right here in my area. Sweet!
I went in during the opening week celebrations hoping to see some good deals. Sales on items that I have not bought at other retailers due to price or availability. Hope ran high. Parking on a Thursday in the early afternoon was still scarce. The place was packed. The restaurant and bowling alley both took me by surprise. The store was as I expected, extravagant upscale redneck. I looked at the archery equipment, since my daughter has shown an interest, but I did no research beforehand, so I don't know if anything was a good deal. However, they had a lot of choice.
So now we go on to the firearms department. Prepare to be amazed! They have a firearms counter that is measured in the tens of yards. Sweet! Brands are clearly displayed and there were plenty of people behind the counter. They even set up extra tables and computers to help with the expected overflow of paperwork. Excellent.
However, I notice that there are very few sale labels. While I was tempted by the Savage Axis for $299, it wasn't what I was looking for. So I went over to look at gun safes. Surely they would have a wide selection. Mmm, not so much. They had one safe that would do for holding both pistols and ammunition. They only had a few rifle safes that did not require a forklift, but a higher prices than Big 5. Then I went over to the recoil pad section and beheld the disappointment. Not a lot of selection, only two manufacturers and all way overpriced.
So after all that, I ended up going back to the happy little gun shop that I like (Sportsman Supply) and gave them my business. They may have lost my last shotgun purchase, but once again I received excellent assistance and advice from the salesperson. I'll be back. I'll treat Bass Pro Shop like I treat Fry's for my electronics: They will have something that will fulfill a need, not necessarily what you wanted, not necessarily at the price you wanted, but they will have something in a pinch.
I went in during the opening week celebrations hoping to see some good deals. Sales on items that I have not bought at other retailers due to price or availability. Hope ran high. Parking on a Thursday in the early afternoon was still scarce. The place was packed. The restaurant and bowling alley both took me by surprise. The store was as I expected, extravagant upscale redneck. I looked at the archery equipment, since my daughter has shown an interest, but I did no research beforehand, so I don't know if anything was a good deal. However, they had a lot of choice.
So now we go on to the firearms department. Prepare to be amazed! They have a firearms counter that is measured in the tens of yards. Sweet! Brands are clearly displayed and there were plenty of people behind the counter. They even set up extra tables and computers to help with the expected overflow of paperwork. Excellent.
However, I notice that there are very few sale labels. While I was tempted by the Savage Axis for $299, it wasn't what I was looking for. So I went over to look at gun safes. Surely they would have a wide selection. Mmm, not so much. They had one safe that would do for holding both pistols and ammunition. They only had a few rifle safes that did not require a forklift, but a higher prices than Big 5. Then I went over to the recoil pad section and beheld the disappointment. Not a lot of selection, only two manufacturers and all way overpriced.
So after all that, I ended up going back to the happy little gun shop that I like (Sportsman Supply) and gave them my business. They may have lost my last shotgun purchase, but once again I received excellent assistance and advice from the salesperson. I'll be back. I'll treat Bass Pro Shop like I treat Fry's for my electronics: They will have something that will fulfill a need, not necessarily what you wanted, not necessarily at the price you wanted, but they will have something in a pinch.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
F#$king California...
I went to the store today to purchase a new shotgun. I have determined that I hate shooting skeet and trap with a pump. A local store had a entry level over/under model on sale for very good price. I normally use a different store to purchase my guns (4 out of my last five, and the fifth was transferred to a new owner there) but both price and a poor sales person inspired me to take my money elsewhere for this purchase.
When I arrived, I found that the only person certified to complete the sale was at lunch. As I was going to get lunch after, I reversed my plan and had lunch first. When I returned I found the gentleman there and ready to help me.
I expected paperwork. California has decided that this is the first step in gun control. However, I forgot that a new law came into being this year. Last year I only needed a safety certificate to buy a pistol. Now you need one for all firearm purchases. I had my handgun safety certificate in my wallet, so when he told me of the change I thought I was set. Nope. I needed the new spiffy one. Okaayyy...
The salesman completely understood my annoyance. He thought it was stupid as well. So now I have to pay an additional $25 to take this test. Fine. Then I get the test and find it is just as worthless as the pistol test I re-certified on last year. I found that several of the questions were (in my opinion) trick questions. I basically went with what I thought the Brady Campaign would want as the answer and ended up with a perfect score. However, taking the test and having everything entered into the computer added a half hour to my experience.
Then we got to the rest of the paperwork, made more difficult behind the scenes by local ordinances, and spent another 45 minutes. After all of that, I still get to wait 10 days to pick up the gun. And I get to fill out more paperwork when I pick it up. Did I mention that I can't wait to move out of California?
When I arrived, I found that the only person certified to complete the sale was at lunch. As I was going to get lunch after, I reversed my plan and had lunch first. When I returned I found the gentleman there and ready to help me.
I expected paperwork. California has decided that this is the first step in gun control. However, I forgot that a new law came into being this year. Last year I only needed a safety certificate to buy a pistol. Now you need one for all firearm purchases. I had my handgun safety certificate in my wallet, so when he told me of the change I thought I was set. Nope. I needed the new spiffy one. Okaayyy...
The salesman completely understood my annoyance. He thought it was stupid as well. So now I have to pay an additional $25 to take this test. Fine. Then I get the test and find it is just as worthless as the pistol test I re-certified on last year. I found that several of the questions were (in my opinion) trick questions. I basically went with what I thought the Brady Campaign would want as the answer and ended up with a perfect score. However, taking the test and having everything entered into the computer added a half hour to my experience.
Then we got to the rest of the paperwork, made more difficult behind the scenes by local ordinances, and spent another 45 minutes. After all of that, I still get to wait 10 days to pick up the gun. And I get to fill out more paperwork when I pick it up. Did I mention that I can't wait to move out of California?
Monday, September 21, 2015
Strappin a gat or just shooting clays?
I have been reading a study on the correlation between "Youth Gun Carrying" and state gun laws. While reading the initial article, I saw an immediate red flag, that of the Brady Campaign. However, the study only uses their state gun law rating system as a baseline for gun laws, so that's minimal damage.
The study arrives at the conclusion that the states with more gun control laws have a lower incidence of youths carrying guns. But, after reading through the article, the study and all of the associated materials, I found one thing lacking. There is no actual definition of "Youth Gun Carrying" in the study. No definition between children taking a trip to the range with their parents for target practice and gang members "strappin a gat" in case of violence during their daily illegal business. The only reference to that particular piece of information in the note that the data is based on voluntary response to surveys, so the initial data is to me suspect.
I spent a considerable amount of time going through all of the links associated with the article and the links associated with those additional articles. Still have not found any of the actual details on what "Youth Gun Carrying" actually means. So I went to the source, the CDC to see what was asked regarding this subject. I went to the study in question, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
Guess what? The CDC is kinda vague on that item too.
The actual question on the survey is "During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a gun?". This is a specific statistic that can be represented many different ways. No clarification is asked for beyond that question. In my farming community high school (where duck, pheasant, pig and deer hunting were all popular) an honest answer from all would be just as damning as honest answers from a gang ridden high school in an urban area. There is no context, no difference between safe lawful use and unlawful use. The basic piece of information needed to get this study rolling is already in question.
So, after reading this study, all of the associated articles and information and researching what wasn't linked, I have come to the same conclusion that I have seen far too often. The study's conclusion was reached far before the evidence was collected. Everything else is just window dressing.
The study arrives at the conclusion that the states with more gun control laws have a lower incidence of youths carrying guns. But, after reading through the article, the study and all of the associated materials, I found one thing lacking. There is no actual definition of "Youth Gun Carrying" in the study. No definition between children taking a trip to the range with their parents for target practice and gang members "strappin a gat" in case of violence during their daily illegal business. The only reference to that particular piece of information in the note that the data is based on voluntary response to surveys, so the initial data is to me suspect.
I spent a considerable amount of time going through all of the links associated with the article and the links associated with those additional articles. Still have not found any of the actual details on what "Youth Gun Carrying" actually means. So I went to the source, the CDC to see what was asked regarding this subject. I went to the study in question, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
Guess what? The CDC is kinda vague on that item too.
The actual question on the survey is "During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a gun?". This is a specific statistic that can be represented many different ways. No clarification is asked for beyond that question. In my farming community high school (where duck, pheasant, pig and deer hunting were all popular) an honest answer from all would be just as damning as honest answers from a gang ridden high school in an urban area. There is no context, no difference between safe lawful use and unlawful use. The basic piece of information needed to get this study rolling is already in question.
So, after reading this study, all of the associated articles and information and researching what wasn't linked, I have come to the same conclusion that I have seen far too often. The study's conclusion was reached far before the evidence was collected. Everything else is just window dressing.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Common Sense... Not so common.
Hillary Clinton has finally admitted in clear speech that her use of a personal email server to conduct business as Secretary of State was a mistake. Now, technically, it was apparently allowed according to whatever rules she was following. Even investigators admitted that she is correct on this issue.
However, the colossal stupidity of this course of action should have been evident to anyone with even a small amount of experience in public office. The clear choice of proper and improper should have stood out. If this is the type of decision making that is evident as Secretary of State, how can the same person be trusted to make better decisions as President?
However, the colossal stupidity of this course of action should have been evident to anyone with even a small amount of experience in public office. The clear choice of proper and improper should have stood out. If this is the type of decision making that is evident as Secretary of State, how can the same person be trusted to make better decisions as President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)