Saturday, June 23, 2012
The Grapevine (somewhat NSFW due to language)
So, recently I've been thrust into several situations dealing with rumors, backstabbing, and whispering behind people's backs. Now, I always have the same thing to say to these people: either tell them this to their face or keep your fucking mouth shut. Listen, I'm a person who tend to tell it like it is. I don't spread rumors, even if I know they happen to be true; this is mostly because I can't be bothered with anyone else's bullshit. And if you CAN find the time to be bothered with other people's dirty laundry, then you need to find a hobby and get a fucking life. Furthermore, I'm tired of people complaining about each other behind closed doors and smiling to their face. If you have a problem with someone, either tell them and try to fix it or keep your God damn mouth shut. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. A caveat here though; this is not the same as having a problem with someone that is not worth confronting them over and keeping it to yourself. Obviously, you have to pick your battles. But when you smile to someone's face, then go bitch to everyone about something they do then I have not patience for you. Either try and fix it, or shut up. It's that simple. And if you happen to be reading this and thinking "Christ, what a prick," then do me a favor and comment on this or message me on Facebook to let me know, or kindly cease reading my blog and unfriend me if applicable. I've got no time for people who won't speak their mind. The name calling, rumor-slinging, and passive-aggressive behavior I have witnessed in the past few weeks is enough to make me sick to my stomach, and I have stuck to my guns and told all involved as much to their face. You've got a gripe with me, tell me. Don't sneak around acting like what a dick I am, tell ME, not everyone else, me. I can't change how I treat you if I don't know what the problem is, especially if that problem is non-existent and you're just mud-slinging. This street goes both ways, by the way. If someone is saying shit about you, either confront them or let it go. And decide what's worth confronting someone for Christ's sake, don't fight every battle not worth your time. My male peers will probably read this assuming it's targeted at women. Not true, men and women are both guilty of this, so quit your shit.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Special Interests
Sorry that it's been a while folks, but I've really been wiped out lately and needed a break, but now I'm back at least for a little while. So, I've had an ever rising hatred of so called "Special Interest Groups" lately. Now, let me elaborate. I have no problem with any group wanting equality to all other people. In my opinion, all people, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, religion etc. should be equal. The only exception I have to this are those who commit such acts (murder, rape etc.) as to, in my mind, forfeit their humanity, but that's a post for another day. What I do take exception to, however, are groups that, under the guise of equality, attempt to gain preferential treatment or otherwise portray themselves as better than all other people. For instance, I have recently come into conflict with so called "feminists." I have no problem with the feminist movement. I think that women have gotten a shitty deal in the past and deserve the same opportunities, wages, and respect as men. What annoys me are people who call themselves feminists, but are really "man haters." A woman who hates all men is no mightier than a man who hates women, and the next time a "feminist" yells at me for holding a door open for her (a courtesy I extend to all people, male or female) and goes on a tirade about how she is an independent woman who does not need a man to hold a door for her, I may just slam the door in her face to prove a point. These high and mighty types will ruin any movement very quickly. Another example is the current "civil rights movement" in this country. During the 60s, Martin Luther King spread a message of equality for all. He marched for a future where African Americans were given the same rights and privileges as whites. He was seeking no reparations, he wanted no hand-outs or special treatment, he simply wanted to be treated as a full person. This was a noble cause. However, modern black leaders such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others have not upheld this philosophy. These men, and their followers, would like to see an America in which white people are punished for what their ancestors MAY or MAY NOT have done and in which black people are given more opportunities, wages, etc. than all others. Not only is this hypocritical and hateful, it is, in and of itself, racist on many, many levels. First, there is the obvious racism of basing anything at all on the color of one's skin. However, there is another level of racism that many will not even notice: the idea that all white people are just white. Today, whites have been stripped of their culture. Many African Americans do not celebrate the cultures of their families have been in the U.S. for hundreds of years. However, a large number, if not a majority of whites families in this country emigrated from Europe around the turn of the century. In the Hispanic community, it is very offensive to lump Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans etc. as one type of people. Why then is it not offensive for Polish Americans, Italian Americans, Irish Americans etc. to all be "white?" Never mind the oppression and discrimination that these people endured when they came here. People have forgotten the racial slurs of wop, dago, guinae, mick, patty, polock, fritz, kraut and other slurs used against people now considered "white." But this is a racists dream, isn't it? To have a whole group of people with an identical culture so you can easily pigeonhole all of them? This also compounds the issue a bit. How can you punish a person for something they (or their ancestors) did not commit? Many whites can trace their ancestors to having come over AFTER the abolition of slavery. Many of the countries they came from never practiced slavery to begin with. So how can one justify punishing them for an act that neither they nor their ancestors took any part in? And even for those who CAN trace their ancestors that far back in the U.S., how can you punish someone for something their ancestors MIGHT have done, or even did do? We're talking over 100 years ago, here. That's like me hating a black person because, since they're black they MUST be related to Kony and all of the people currently and recently committing Genocide in Africa. This logic just doesn't stand up. Toward the end of the 1960s, we were on our way to accepting that all people, regardless of skin color, are different in their own way and deserve to be treated equally and decently, but the folks who took over after Dr. King only served to divide blacks and whites further, painting blacks as the great victims and whites as "white devils." Again, this is not a phenomenon unique to African Americans and the Civil Rights movement, but it is an easy, relate-able example. This goes for any group, and these same corrupting powers can be found in evil, racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation. However, since these people often hide under the guise of "Special Interest," they are left alone to their own devices as no one wants to come off as racist, sexist, prejudiced etc. for speaking out against them. Thankfully, I don't have that problem! Again, I fully support all of these movements for their true purpose. I believe that homosexuals should have equal rights and should be able to get married. I believe all people should have equal rights regardless of who they are or what they identify as, but no one deserves to get treated specially because of who they are either. Anyway, just needed to rant about this, thanks for listening. Hopefully I'll be posting more often now. See you next time!
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Capital Punishment
So, I know I've been gone for quite a while, finals week and all that, but I'm back and looking to talk a bit about the death penalty. I won't voice my own opinion on the matter, as that is neither here nor there, but I will offer up some fact about the use of corporal punishment in the United States.
First off, there are a few different outlooks when it comes to the death penalty and its use. First is that it is a punishment to those who have been convicted; that it is a revenge of sorts that provides closure to the families of victims and acts as a deterrent and warning to others. The other most prevalent is that it is used to get rid of people who have harmed others; to remove them from society completely and prevent them from harming anyone else ever again.
The first argument is the one that is most criticized as it is A.) a vengeful, spiteful method that mirrors the killers' actions and B.) shown to be ineffective as a deterrent. Many studies have shown that the threat of capital punishment does not contribute to a lower crime or homicide rate. In fact, the South, which accounts for 80% of executions, has consistently had the highest murder rate in the country.
The second argument is one that more people agree with as it seems a logical solution. Most would agree that someone like Charles Manson has nothing to contribute to the world except for harm and that getting rid of him would be of no loss. However, this argument is hard to defend as it has little to no data to confirm it. The only way to defend it is monetary data. Many have argued that killing a prisoner is cheaper than keeping him fed, clothed, bathed, and sheltered. However, Texas spends about $2.3 million dollars on a death penalty case, enough money to imprison someone at high security for 40 years.
Currently, 33 states still allow the death penalty, as does the U.S. Government and the military. 17 states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty. Michigan is the only state with a constitutional prohibition of capital punishment. Since 1976 there have been 1,294 executions in the U.S., 1,061 of which have been in the South. Since 1973, there have been 130 exonerations. Currently it is illegal to execute someone with "mental retardation" or for crimes committed as a juvenile.
Contrary to popular belief and media claims, the majority of executions have been white prisoners, 56% in fact. In addition, the black to white ratio of current death row inmates is about equal, with 43% white, 42% black, 12% latino, and 3% qualifying as "other." However, race of the victim seems to be a large factor. 76% of victims whose death lead to an execution order were white. There have been 254 executions where the victim was white and the killer was black, but only 18 where the killer was black and the victim white. Caveat: Justice department data shows that the rate of black on white murder is 18 times that of white on black murder, so this data may have less to do with racial prejudice than it may seem. Since 1976, there have been 12 women executed in the United States. Currently, there are 62 women on death row. This is less than 2% of the death row population. Caveat: Statistically only 12% of homicides are committed by women.
Currently, the primary mode of execution is Lethal Injection. In the past, hanging, firing squad, electrocution, and gas chamber have all been common methods. Hanging has since lost favor as it is fairly unreliable, as has electrocution as it can result in a failed execution. Firing squad has also waned in popularity as it can cause severe emotional damage to the executioner(s). Gas chamber lost popularity after the Second World War due to its use by the Nazis. Since 1976 there have been 1120 lethal injections, 157 electrocutions, 11 deaths by gas chamber, 3 hangings, and 3 deaths by firing squad. Most states allow only lethal injection, but some allow one or more alternate options by request or in the case where lethal injection is not possible/viable.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/racewar.htm
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/opinion/09dow.html
First off, there are a few different outlooks when it comes to the death penalty and its use. First is that it is a punishment to those who have been convicted; that it is a revenge of sorts that provides closure to the families of victims and acts as a deterrent and warning to others. The other most prevalent is that it is used to get rid of people who have harmed others; to remove them from society completely and prevent them from harming anyone else ever again.
The first argument is the one that is most criticized as it is A.) a vengeful, spiteful method that mirrors the killers' actions and B.) shown to be ineffective as a deterrent. Many studies have shown that the threat of capital punishment does not contribute to a lower crime or homicide rate. In fact, the South, which accounts for 80% of executions, has consistently had the highest murder rate in the country.
The second argument is one that more people agree with as it seems a logical solution. Most would agree that someone like Charles Manson has nothing to contribute to the world except for harm and that getting rid of him would be of no loss. However, this argument is hard to defend as it has little to no data to confirm it. The only way to defend it is monetary data. Many have argued that killing a prisoner is cheaper than keeping him fed, clothed, bathed, and sheltered. However, Texas spends about $2.3 million dollars on a death penalty case, enough money to imprison someone at high security for 40 years.
Currently, 33 states still allow the death penalty, as does the U.S. Government and the military. 17 states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty. Michigan is the only state with a constitutional prohibition of capital punishment. Since 1976 there have been 1,294 executions in the U.S., 1,061 of which have been in the South. Since 1973, there have been 130 exonerations. Currently it is illegal to execute someone with "mental retardation" or for crimes committed as a juvenile.
Contrary to popular belief and media claims, the majority of executions have been white prisoners, 56% in fact. In addition, the black to white ratio of current death row inmates is about equal, with 43% white, 42% black, 12% latino, and 3% qualifying as "other." However, race of the victim seems to be a large factor. 76% of victims whose death lead to an execution order were white. There have been 254 executions where the victim was white and the killer was black, but only 18 where the killer was black and the victim white. Caveat: Justice department data shows that the rate of black on white murder is 18 times that of white on black murder, so this data may have less to do with racial prejudice than it may seem. Since 1976, there have been 12 women executed in the United States. Currently, there are 62 women on death row. This is less than 2% of the death row population. Caveat: Statistically only 12% of homicides are committed by women.
Currently, the primary mode of execution is Lethal Injection. In the past, hanging, firing squad, electrocution, and gas chamber have all been common methods. Hanging has since lost favor as it is fairly unreliable, as has electrocution as it can result in a failed execution. Firing squad has also waned in popularity as it can cause severe emotional damage to the executioner(s). Gas chamber lost popularity after the Second World War due to its use by the Nazis. Since 1976 there have been 1120 lethal injections, 157 electrocutions, 11 deaths by gas chamber, 3 hangings, and 3 deaths by firing squad. Most states allow only lethal injection, but some allow one or more alternate options by request or in the case where lethal injection is not possible/viable.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/racewar.htm
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/opinion/09dow.html
Saturday, April 7, 2012
50 Mission
So, been a while, I admit, but I'm back for a bit. End of the semester tends to take a toll. Not a whole lot to report, but a few pics from Spring Break here. I was in Ann Arbor Michigan for a spell. Nice town.
So, first thing to report is a trip to Cabela's. Usually not terribly noteworthy, but the fellas at the gun library were kind enough to let me have a look at a long coveted specimen.
Okay, so it's the 1927, semi-auto version, and not the 1921 or 28, but still. I was drooling a bit. Had I the money, it would've been mine.
Next off, we headed to Hell.
Yup, Hell, Michigan. A one horse town if ever I saw one. Apparently the settler's couldn't pick a name, so the leader said something along the lines of "Name it Hell for all I care!" So they did. Go figure.
And lastly, our own personal hell, the 30 inch pizza at Bella Italia.
3 of us had to do it in 30 minutes...We failed terribly and the "after" pics are too depressing to post...anyway, that was spring break in a nutshell. Luckily, when I got home, there was a present waiting for me. I picked up a WWII Enlisted Man's crusher cap on Ebay. I popped a repro Officer's cap badge on it (just 'cause I like the look better) and popped a few pics.
The framed picture in the last photo is me and my younger sister at my cousin's wedding a few years back. Well, that's about all there is to report for now. Hopefully I'll have some more for you later. 'Night for now!
So, first thing to report is a trip to Cabela's. Usually not terribly noteworthy, but the fellas at the gun library were kind enough to let me have a look at a long coveted specimen.
Okay, so it's the 1927, semi-auto version, and not the 1921 or 28, but still. I was drooling a bit. Had I the money, it would've been mine.
Next off, we headed to Hell.
Yup, Hell, Michigan. A one horse town if ever I saw one. Apparently the settler's couldn't pick a name, so the leader said something along the lines of "Name it Hell for all I care!" So they did. Go figure.
And lastly, our own personal hell, the 30 inch pizza at Bella Italia.
3 of us had to do it in 30 minutes...We failed terribly and the "after" pics are too depressing to post...anyway, that was spring break in a nutshell. Luckily, when I got home, there was a present waiting for me. I picked up a WWII Enlisted Man's crusher cap on Ebay. I popped a repro Officer's cap badge on it (just 'cause I like the look better) and popped a few pics.
The framed picture in the last photo is me and my younger sister at my cousin's wedding a few years back. Well, that's about all there is to report for now. Hopefully I'll have some more for you later. 'Night for now!
Monday, March 19, 2012
More information to disturb you.
So, yesterday I wrote about HR 347. Hopefully, some of you were disturbed or outraged by this law, which shows that you actually care about where this country is headed and about your individual rights. If so, I've got a few more things coming out of the government that will probably shock and anger you even more. First, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). Under the NDAA (specifically, section 1021), the President has the power to detain, indefinitely, any person deemed a danger to the United States, including U.S. citizens. Also, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that the President also has the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a terrorist threat. Now, this doesn't seem too shocking at first, but who decides whether a person fits the criteria for detainment or assassination? The President himself, along with a few, secret advisors. So, in other words, the President, at any given time, can declare any individual a threat to the nation and have them killed or detained without trial. This is an obvious overuse of power if ever there was one and every American should be scared for their lives. This harkens back to medieval Europe, where kings could imprison anyone they saw fit. Conceivably, President Obama could imprison any blogger (myself included), news anchor, or politician that disagreed with his views or spoke out against him. Now, I'm not saying he will do that or has done it, but dammit he has the power to and that's a problem. This is the United States of America, not Nazi Germany. We are the "Land of the Free," or at least we used to be. Who could imagine that, at one time, the President of the United States would have this kind of power? It is time for us to assert ourselves to our elected officials and remind them that they work for us, not the other way around. This is yet another ploy by our government to silence and control the people, and we should not have to endure it any longer. Please spread this information if you can. I'd post a copy of the NDAA, but it's right around 550 pages. Do a quick Google search and it'll show up, along with a thousand news stories about it. Until next time.
HR 347
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
These are some of the first words written in the United States Bill of Rights and the first amendment to our Constitution. Yet, under the Obama administration, a bill, titled HR 347, essentially stating that public protest in the vicinity of any restricted area as designated by the Secret Service, was passed into law. This law gives the Secret Service power to push all protesters far away from any official/event/area and arrest any protesters they see fit. People arrested under this law will see punishments of up to 10 years in prison. Now, I don't know about you, but this definitely seems like a violation of the first amendment. One of the main ways we voice are grievances in this country, and have since day one, is through organized protest. This law intends to keep the protesters so far away from government officials that this method will be rendered useless. No longer can protesters show up at campaign speeches or political rallies to voice their opinions. This law insulates our politicians from any difference of opinion outside of the government. This is but one in a long line of steps the government has taken in recent years to silence and ignore the public, allowing them to pass legislation based on personal gain and gain to their party, rather than gain for America. It is also part of the ongoing campaign to undermine the Constitution and destroy the sacred laws that have governed us since our first days as a nation. What gives our elected officials the right to mute us? They are taking away one of the only methods of change we have. No less, this law was passed through congress UNCONTESTED! Unanimously, with the notable exception of 3 congressmen/women, every representative we have voted this into law. In my opinion, this alone should necessitate a clean sweep of congress with new officials elected immediately. We have a right to be heard, as written by our founding fathers, and no politician has the right to silence us. In addition to all of this, the law was amended to delete the word "willingly" from "willingly and knowingly" in regards to how one can break it. In other words, you could have no idea you are committing a crime and be arrested anyway. The Secret Service can suddenly designate a restricted area and, without informing anyone within that area, immediately make arrests. This is a blatant overuse of power and wreaks of fascism. If you give a damn about this country, please spread the news of this infringement on our rights. This country is slowly being turned upside down by greed and corruption.
Read the bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112rdGK21::
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Playing Soldier
Ok, so I know I've posted quite a bit about guns lately, but it's been coming up a lot and I keep hearing circular and assumption based logic (a<b b>c therefore a=c...wait, what?) to defend disarmament/over-regulation of firearms. For today, however, I'm not even talking about real firearms, but rather toys. In a recent argument, I was sent a link to this webpage "proving" that toy guns are a danger to our children.
http://www.irol.com/avc/fact_sheet_about_toy_guns.html
So, I humored myself by giving it a read. My with nearly EVERY instance here is either A.) Parenting, in the case of children being involved, B.) Common sense when it's an adult involved or C.) Over zealousness on the part of police. This site states that children can't tell the difference between a real gun and a fake gun, which may be true for many, but I know this was not true for me when I was a child. If a parent let's their child play with toy guns, they should make sure to give that child the common sense necessary to NOT pick up a foreign, gun-like object and ASSUME that it's fake. Hell, the first entry is about two kids bringing pellet guns into school and being suspended...Okay? Where's the issue here? Two kids got suspended for doing something wrong. I don't see how this is even a valid argument. It's like saying "A man yesterday was pulled over for breaking the speed limit." Yeah, no shit. Also, a fair number of these are instances like numbers 3 and 5, where a grown man is waving around a fake gun, in public, in a threatening fashion and, of course, he gets shot by police. Well, again, no shit. Police are trained to treat any gun, real or fake, like a real gun. Anyone brandishing a fake gun in public and acting as though it is real deserves what they get. There are also a decent number of reports of children being shot and killed by police because they had toy guns. Now, there isn't enough detail to tell the exact circumstances, but this seems like it could have been remedied by simply talking to the kid and getting him to put the gun down instead of immediately shooting. Let's be honest, you're average 8-12 year old isn't looking to go shoot someone, so I think it's safe to assume that the gun is either fake, or the child thinks it is and means no harm in carrying it either way. Some of these cases, though, involve the child POINTING the gun at a police officer in a deliberate fashion. Remember what I said about parenting and common sense earlier? Please, make sure your kid is smart enough to not point a toy gun at a cop before getting them one. There are also several like number 22 which make little sense in an anti-toy gun argument. The entry tells of a kid in a school-yard being shot by a pellet gun from across the street. So what? Yes, the kids who did it should be held accountable, but pellet guns usually will leave about a quarter inch bruise, which is hardly a serious injury. Hell, they could have thrown rocks and the kid would've been hurt more. Back to the police, there are a number of cases, like 26 and 45, where the gun is not being brandished or handled, but is stored (in the first case in a child's waistband, the second stored while riding his bike). What ever happened to "freeze!" Both suspects were shot immediately because they had something that might be a firearm. Do police no longer stop a subject to investigate?
Now, what is my point here? We are increasingly becoming a nanny society where, instead of holding people accountable for their actions or teach them responsibility, we want to confiscate or outlaw anything that they could conceivably misuse to hurt themselves or others. I spent most of my childhood playing with toy guns, playing cowboys, cops and robbers, army, spies etc. From what I can tell, it didn't turn me into a psychopath who wants to shoot anything that moves. I've never shot someone, I've never intentionally harmed someone if not in self defense. Hell, I'm an actor and I can probably link that career choice back to the play-acting I did as a kid WITH my toy guns. Toy guns and airsoft guns are not the cause of any of these events. Irresponsible people are the cause. So, let's instead of banning a plastic, children's play thing, reinforce the message of responsible parenting, common sense, and reason. Putting a child in a cushioned box with little to no access to the outside world will make that child dumb and naive. Let's not do the same to our society at large.
P.S. If you click on the link at the bottom of the "fact-sheet," there's a quick visual quiz to see if you can tell the difference between a real or fake gun. Despite the intentionally horrendous picture quality, it took me about 4 seconds to pick out the toy. Your mileage may vary.
http://www.irol.com/avc/fact_sheet_about_toy_guns.html
So, I humored myself by giving it a read. My with nearly EVERY instance here is either A.) Parenting, in the case of children being involved, B.) Common sense when it's an adult involved or C.) Over zealousness on the part of police. This site states that children can't tell the difference between a real gun and a fake gun, which may be true for many, but I know this was not true for me when I was a child. If a parent let's their child play with toy guns, they should make sure to give that child the common sense necessary to NOT pick up a foreign, gun-like object and ASSUME that it's fake. Hell, the first entry is about two kids bringing pellet guns into school and being suspended...Okay? Where's the issue here? Two kids got suspended for doing something wrong. I don't see how this is even a valid argument. It's like saying "A man yesterday was pulled over for breaking the speed limit." Yeah, no shit. Also, a fair number of these are instances like numbers 3 and 5, where a grown man is waving around a fake gun, in public, in a threatening fashion and, of course, he gets shot by police. Well, again, no shit. Police are trained to treat any gun, real or fake, like a real gun. Anyone brandishing a fake gun in public and acting as though it is real deserves what they get. There are also a decent number of reports of children being shot and killed by police because they had toy guns. Now, there isn't enough detail to tell the exact circumstances, but this seems like it could have been remedied by simply talking to the kid and getting him to put the gun down instead of immediately shooting. Let's be honest, you're average 8-12 year old isn't looking to go shoot someone, so I think it's safe to assume that the gun is either fake, or the child thinks it is and means no harm in carrying it either way. Some of these cases, though, involve the child POINTING the gun at a police officer in a deliberate fashion. Remember what I said about parenting and common sense earlier? Please, make sure your kid is smart enough to not point a toy gun at a cop before getting them one. There are also several like number 22 which make little sense in an anti-toy gun argument. The entry tells of a kid in a school-yard being shot by a pellet gun from across the street. So what? Yes, the kids who did it should be held accountable, but pellet guns usually will leave about a quarter inch bruise, which is hardly a serious injury. Hell, they could have thrown rocks and the kid would've been hurt more. Back to the police, there are a number of cases, like 26 and 45, where the gun is not being brandished or handled, but is stored (in the first case in a child's waistband, the second stored while riding his bike). What ever happened to "freeze!" Both suspects were shot immediately because they had something that might be a firearm. Do police no longer stop a subject to investigate?
Now, what is my point here? We are increasingly becoming a nanny society where, instead of holding people accountable for their actions or teach them responsibility, we want to confiscate or outlaw anything that they could conceivably misuse to hurt themselves or others. I spent most of my childhood playing with toy guns, playing cowboys, cops and robbers, army, spies etc. From what I can tell, it didn't turn me into a psychopath who wants to shoot anything that moves. I've never shot someone, I've never intentionally harmed someone if not in self defense. Hell, I'm an actor and I can probably link that career choice back to the play-acting I did as a kid WITH my toy guns. Toy guns and airsoft guns are not the cause of any of these events. Irresponsible people are the cause. So, let's instead of banning a plastic, children's play thing, reinforce the message of responsible parenting, common sense, and reason. Putting a child in a cushioned box with little to no access to the outside world will make that child dumb and naive. Let's not do the same to our society at large.
P.S. If you click on the link at the bottom of the "fact-sheet," there's a quick visual quiz to see if you can tell the difference between a real or fake gun. Despite the intentionally horrendous picture quality, it took me about 4 seconds to pick out the toy. Your mileage may vary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)