Alright, its been awhile, so hopefully I'll make up for it with this rant....
I went to my local Wachovia bank today to deposit a check. While waiting in line, I noticed a six foot tall advertisement for their latest special deal. What the deal was, I couldnt tell you. Why? The sign was in Spanish. I spent 30 seconds scanning the room for an equivalent advertisement in English, but not luck. When I got to the teller, I commented on the sign to the teller, who advised me that there was in fact an English-language version of the sign... on the back of the Spanish one, facing the wall! She mentioned to me that a large number of their customers were Spanish speaking. I reminded her that a large number of their customers were English speaking too, and we arent going to bother pulling an advertisement off the wall and turning it around to read it. It was clear the conversation wasnt going to go anywhere, so I broke it off and left muttering to myself. The look in her eye said it all. I was racist for wanting signs that I can read in my own country.
I have begrudgingly become accustomed to dual signage, but Spanish-only is just too much for me to swallow. Obviously, Wachovia has the right to advertise to whatever demographic group they wish. However, if I'm not important enough to them that they are willing to bother putting up signs that I can read, it is my right to take my business elsewhere.
If there are still Spanish-only signs the next time I go in there, I am strongly considering withdrawing all my funds and moving to another bank.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
A Q&A Sesson
I answered a few questions recently for a reporter from my school paper. Though she ended up not needing my responses, I thought I would post them here just so they werent a total waste of my time:
What is the main idea behind your beliefs to allow the carrying of concealed guns on campus?
The driving force behind allowing individuals to carry a concealed handgun on campus, and of concealed carry in general, is to prevent those individuals from becoming victimized. There is simply no way for any police force to protect every location at once, and there is no way of completely disarming all criminals. Concealed carry’s advantages are two-fold. The first, most obvious, advantage would become readily apparent if there ever were to be a situation in which a shooter was to attempt a shooting on campus. The second advantage comes from the deterrence factor of knowing that in any classroom, dining hall, etc, there might be an individual carrying a concealed handgun. I feel that this deterrence alone might well be enough to discourage any potential shooter, even if only one in one hundred individuals on campus chose to exercise the right to carry.
In what ways have you and your peers conveyed your interest in this idea on our campus? Do you see an idea like this ever becoming apolicy on our campus?
Unfortunately, the current political and social climate makes concealed carry, and firearms in general, a very touchy subject with many individuals, especially in an academic environment where professors and students tend to have feelings which are liberally slanted. This makes concealed carry a tough sell, despite the fact that 48 states allow concealed carry in some capacity. Many individuals are simply unaware that, in any given public situation outside of campus, there may very well be one or more people who are legally carrying a firearm. While this may be a frightening thought to the uninitiated, they should be aware that concealed carry holders are significantly less likely to commit a crime, violent or otherwise (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html). Those carrying a concealed handgun may in fact be projecting a blanket of deterrence over those who aren’t carrying, because criminals cannot tell before a crime who is armed and who isn’t, and thus my be deterred entirely from committing a crime for fear of their own life. In contrast, in areas where concealed carry is not allowed, criminals are free to prey on virtually anyone, knowing that it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to defend themselves.
I find it unlikely that concealed carry will be permitted on campus in the near future. With fewer and fewer people exposed to firearms in any environment other than movies and the news, many misconceptions have been placed in the psyche of the average person about guns and the people who own them. I think peoples’ attitudes would be different if they understood that the vast majority of gun owners are law citizens who keep guns for sporting purposes, self defense, or simply to exercise their right protected by the second amendment.
Have you considered any of the cons to allowing a policy such asthis pass on Lehigh's campus or any college campus?
Many have pointed out the potential for disaster if firearms and alcohol are mixed. While I don’t argue with the dangers associated with mixing them, I think that the individual who goes through the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry permit generally understands the immense responsibility that goes along with carrying such a tool. In addition, under Pennsylvania’s laws, one must be at least 21 years old to carry a concealed firearm. It is my opinion that Lehigh’s juniors and seniors have a significantly higher level of maturity than the average freshman.
Any additional information would greatly help me to write aninsightful, thorough article. Please share your thoughts about anythingon this topic with me.
While the threat of a “shooting spree” type event is what has prompted the nationwide campaign to allow concealed carry on campus, I think an equally valid reason for carrying is one which our students face all too often. Headlines of assault, robbery, and burglary are very common in the school paper. I feel that students are seen by robbers as easy prey. We should not have to fear the walk home from from the library at night. Robbers who faced the potential of having to risk their life to steal someone’s wallet would think twice before attempting to do so.
And there you have it. Sorry if its a bit lengthy, but I guess if you are reading this you managed to make it though the whole thing. Thanks for reading.
What is the main idea behind your beliefs to allow the carrying of concealed guns on campus?
The driving force behind allowing individuals to carry a concealed handgun on campus, and of concealed carry in general, is to prevent those individuals from becoming victimized. There is simply no way for any police force to protect every location at once, and there is no way of completely disarming all criminals. Concealed carry’s advantages are two-fold. The first, most obvious, advantage would become readily apparent if there ever were to be a situation in which a shooter was to attempt a shooting on campus. The second advantage comes from the deterrence factor of knowing that in any classroom, dining hall, etc, there might be an individual carrying a concealed handgun. I feel that this deterrence alone might well be enough to discourage any potential shooter, even if only one in one hundred individuals on campus chose to exercise the right to carry.
In what ways have you and your peers conveyed your interest in this idea on our campus? Do you see an idea like this ever becoming apolicy on our campus?
Unfortunately, the current political and social climate makes concealed carry, and firearms in general, a very touchy subject with many individuals, especially in an academic environment where professors and students tend to have feelings which are liberally slanted. This makes concealed carry a tough sell, despite the fact that 48 states allow concealed carry in some capacity. Many individuals are simply unaware that, in any given public situation outside of campus, there may very well be one or more people who are legally carrying a firearm. While this may be a frightening thought to the uninitiated, they should be aware that concealed carry holders are significantly less likely to commit a crime, violent or otherwise (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html). Those carrying a concealed handgun may in fact be projecting a blanket of deterrence over those who aren’t carrying, because criminals cannot tell before a crime who is armed and who isn’t, and thus my be deterred entirely from committing a crime for fear of their own life. In contrast, in areas where concealed carry is not allowed, criminals are free to prey on virtually anyone, knowing that it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to defend themselves.
I find it unlikely that concealed carry will be permitted on campus in the near future. With fewer and fewer people exposed to firearms in any environment other than movies and the news, many misconceptions have been placed in the psyche of the average person about guns and the people who own them. I think peoples’ attitudes would be different if they understood that the vast majority of gun owners are law citizens who keep guns for sporting purposes, self defense, or simply to exercise their right protected by the second amendment.
Have you considered any of the cons to allowing a policy such asthis pass on Lehigh's campus or any college campus?
Many have pointed out the potential for disaster if firearms and alcohol are mixed. While I don’t argue with the dangers associated with mixing them, I think that the individual who goes through the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry permit generally understands the immense responsibility that goes along with carrying such a tool. In addition, under Pennsylvania’s laws, one must be at least 21 years old to carry a concealed firearm. It is my opinion that Lehigh’s juniors and seniors have a significantly higher level of maturity than the average freshman.
Any additional information would greatly help me to write aninsightful, thorough article. Please share your thoughts about anythingon this topic with me.
While the threat of a “shooting spree” type event is what has prompted the nationwide campaign to allow concealed carry on campus, I think an equally valid reason for carrying is one which our students face all too often. Headlines of assault, robbery, and burglary are very common in the school paper. I feel that students are seen by robbers as easy prey. We should not have to fear the walk home from from the library at night. Robbers who faced the potential of having to risk their life to steal someone’s wallet would think twice before attempting to do so.
And there you have it. Sorry if its a bit lengthy, but I guess if you are reading this you managed to make it though the whole thing. Thanks for reading.
Picture of the week
Taken in 2004 in Iraq, I think this is a pretty sweet shot taken a few milliseconds after the firing of a 155mm howitzer.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
A new feature?
Since I realize I am not posting all that often, Im going to try to add a new weekly feature so that I am at least posting something. I think this picture is cool not merely because this guy looks pretty badass, but because it was taken nearly 100 years ago. This picture was taken by photography pioneer Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky in 1911, and depicts Emir Mohammed Alim Khan, a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. I find the photo simply amazing for its sharpness and vivid colors. So, believe it or not, color photography was around back then, although it didnt become popular until decades later.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Two Popular Gun Myths Dispelled
I'm not going to get into some of the more controversial topics of guns; what I present here are going to be pure, technical facts. Not statistics which can be mis-interpreted, and not opinions. Just fact.
Myth #1) "Plastic Pistols"
In reference to the current Heller vs DC Supreme Court case, I have read in several prominant newspapers and heard on recent newscasts talk of plastic guns, which supposedly can be smuggled through metal detectors in airports and other high security areas. One newspaper even went so far to state that such guns are banned!
The truth is, when people talk about these so-called plastic guns, they are undoubtably referring to Glocks, or one of the many other polymer guns now on the market. The truth is that, by weight, these guns are more than 80% steel. They will show up on any metal detector.
Myth #2) "Fully Automatic Guns Are Banned"
While it is true that full auto guns have been heavily restricted since the 1930s, and banned from further manufacture since 1986, any machinegun manufactured and registered before 1986 is fair game in most states. If you want one, though, be prepared to dig deep into your savings account. Because the supply is fixed (no new examples since 1986) and demand is only increasing, basic laws of economics dictate that the price is only going upwards. Currently, a Thompson submachinegun like the one shown above will set you back about $15,000, possibly more if its in great condition or has a history. In addition, you have to get a $200 tax stamp, which essentially amounts to a registration fee and gets you your FBI backround check. And for those who will protest full-auto guns' legality, please note that, to the best of my knowledge, only one crime has ever been commited with a registered, full-auto gun.
Myth #2.1) One other thing many people and journalists misunderstand is the 1994 assault weapons ban, which sunsetted in 2004. The ban DID NOT REGULATE fully automatic guns. It instead banned semi-automatic guns which bore a cosmetic similarity to their fully automatic counterparts. For a more in depth look at the differences, and similarities between the two types of guns, you might want to take a look at this video. It was made at about the time of the 1994 ban.
Myth #2.2) The final myth I'll look at tonight is based on another common misconception that people have about fully automatic guns, and their semi-auto cousins. There are a good number of people who seem to think that the semi-auto guns you can buy at any gun store today can be easily modified to shoot full-auto, perhaps with little more than a screwdriver and a paperclip. While this was true of a few guns before 1986, this is almost univerally not true today. In order to convert a semi-automatic gun to full auto, one would need to have a machine shop to actually fabricate new parts out of raw steel. This is hardly an easy modification, and not one that your average person is capable of. Unless you have something like the above machine at your house, forget about it.
There you have it, 2.2 gun myths flushed down the toilet. Until next time...
Myth #1) "Plastic Pistols"
In reference to the current Heller vs DC Supreme Court case, I have read in several prominant newspapers and heard on recent newscasts talk of plastic guns, which supposedly can be smuggled through metal detectors in airports and other high security areas. One newspaper even went so far to state that such guns are banned!
The truth is, when people talk about these so-called plastic guns, they are undoubtably referring to Glocks, or one of the many other polymer guns now on the market. The truth is that, by weight, these guns are more than 80% steel. They will show up on any metal detector.
Myth #2) "Fully Automatic Guns Are Banned"
While it is true that full auto guns have been heavily restricted since the 1930s, and banned from further manufacture since 1986, any machinegun manufactured and registered before 1986 is fair game in most states. If you want one, though, be prepared to dig deep into your savings account. Because the supply is fixed (no new examples since 1986) and demand is only increasing, basic laws of economics dictate that the price is only going upwards. Currently, a Thompson submachinegun like the one shown above will set you back about $15,000, possibly more if its in great condition or has a history. In addition, you have to get a $200 tax stamp, which essentially amounts to a registration fee and gets you your FBI backround check. And for those who will protest full-auto guns' legality, please note that, to the best of my knowledge, only one crime has ever been commited with a registered, full-auto gun.
Myth #2.1) One other thing many people and journalists misunderstand is the 1994 assault weapons ban, which sunsetted in 2004. The ban DID NOT REGULATE fully automatic guns. It instead banned semi-automatic guns which bore a cosmetic similarity to their fully automatic counterparts. For a more in depth look at the differences, and similarities between the two types of guns, you might want to take a look at this video. It was made at about the time of the 1994 ban.
Myth #2.2) The final myth I'll look at tonight is based on another common misconception that people have about fully automatic guns, and their semi-auto cousins. There are a good number of people who seem to think that the semi-auto guns you can buy at any gun store today can be easily modified to shoot full-auto, perhaps with little more than a screwdriver and a paperclip. While this was true of a few guns before 1986, this is almost univerally not true today. In order to convert a semi-automatic gun to full auto, one would need to have a machine shop to actually fabricate new parts out of raw steel. This is hardly an easy modification, and not one that your average person is capable of. Unless you have something like the above machine at your house, forget about it.
There you have it, 2.2 gun myths flushed down the toilet. Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)