The Open Road

"The cars hiss by my window, Like the waves down on the beach...

I got this girl beside me, But she's out of reach."
--Jim Morrison

There really is nothing like traveling the country by motorcycle. While an SUV or sedan does an adequate job of transporting one from Point A to Point B, only the destination is truly experienced. I prefer to become part of the countryside instead of a caged observer of it.

The smell of a summer shower as farmland rolls past... the exhaust reverberating against canyon walls... being enveloped by morning fog as the exploration of a gravel road begins...

Yes, it rained almost non-stop while journeying to and from our secluded country cabin. Yes, hairpin turns and deer presented certain hazards. And No, I wouldn't trade it for anything.




The only regret I have is that our cabin had a journal log of all previous visitors and my contribution was forbidden. Joanna and her English Literature degree blew past occupants out of the water. I so wanted to follow her beautiful 3 page opus with:

Joanna and Mike came from Dayton.

With the promise of adventure awaitin'.
They saw a few deer,
While drinking cheap beer,
And spent their nights in the hot tub a-matin'.

My rather PG-rated attempt got vetoed, and I now have to rethink this whole "freedom of the open road" thing.

Two For One

1) We just returned from Karaoke night at the closest bar to our home. Obviously, country tunes were well represented. I wonder if it's due to the clientele or due to the fact they're usually easier to sing. (I was very upset that after a few pitchers I finally noticed they had PBR bottles.)


2) We're heading to Hocking Hills for about 5 days starting Sunday. In case you find yourself missing me too much... join the NRA. You'll finally feel like an American.

To: Nick, Re: Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHLs)

Screw it... I'm not going to apologize to non-existent readers about moving a comment discussion onto the main page. Nick is the only person that talks to me anyway. So let's get comfy, crack open a PBR and get down to business...

Nick said:

I believe there are responsible individuals who should be allowed to carry. But there are certainly those who are licensed that shouldn't be licensed.

Simply put, almost everyone of age is licensed to drive a car, yet I would bet that 1/4 shouldn't be allowed to drive. They are just lousy drivers. So how do we know that licensing to carry is any different? Convince me I'm wrong.

I'm trying man... I'm really trying. :) I've presented direct quotes from high-ranking law enforcement officers, statistics from crime studies, personal accounts of people that would be dead without the presence of a CHL holder, actual views of criminals that are deterred by CHLs, our Constitutional guarantee, and philosophical logic regarding the innate rights of man. I gotta admit I've used just about every club in my bag and am wondering what "proof" would seal the deal for you.

Therefore, I would love to have you give some specific responses about what facts you think are bogus that's all over this ugly blog. I would prefer to tackle in-depth each point you can present rather than continuing my frantic attempt to cover 5 or 6 issues you bring up in each of your replies (e.g. the one short reply that made me defend semi-autos, hunting, 2nd Amendment, "high powered", "clip-fed" and then gun owners in general).

Nah, I'm not really complaining about that one. I actually enjoyed it.

Allow me to get back to your point and try to convince you you're wrong.... (But only partly, as there are certainly way too many shitty drivers on the road, and the number of auto accidents totally dwarfs the number of firearm accidents).

I have to vehemently disagree with you that "there are certainly those who are licensed that shouldn't be licensed." First, I hope you realize using a driver's license as an analogy is waaaay off base. It's like comparing the job requirements for being a Secret Service agent to those of a real estate agent. I've talked about the stringent requirements for getting a CHL before. Of course there will be one or two people that are the exception to any rule and no amount of rigorous FBI background check, fingerprinting, and training will prevent them from slipping through the system. I admit that. But that's a fact of life for anything and you can't hold that against this very needed practice of arming responsible adults for their own defense.

What you need to do is look at the actual statistics. That article I linked to with the Exec. Director of the Sheriff's Association quote about how angelic CHL holders are reported low number of CHLs that have been revoked since the law came into effect in 2004. I imagine these numbers would be important to you so you can prove how many wrong people get CHLs. Let's take a quick look:

• In 2004- 45,497 permits were issued, 78 were suspended and 42 were revoked.
• In 2005- 22,487 permits were issued, 219 were suspended and 75 were revoked.
• In the first three months of 2006- 5,546 permits were issued, 94 were suspended and 100 were revoked.

Overall, that means that close to 75,000 Ohioans have received a CHL. Only 391 have been suspended and 217 have been revoked.

This translates into 608/75,000 for revocations & suspensions, which means Less than 1% (~0.8%) of licenses have been suspended or revoked!

That in and of itself is amazing. I could stop here........ But I won't.

To make my case even stronger, you need to understand the reasons behind revocations and suspensions. First, did anyone move out of state? They go into the revoked column. Dead? Revoked. If anyone falls under a protection order (which is almost de facto for a man getting a divorce) - suspended. The rest of the reasons are admittedly bad... but may have absolutely nothing to do with a violent crime and happen to a large segment of society unintentinally. DUI? Revoked. Too many speeding tickets and have a BS warrant out for you that you didn't know about? Revoked. etc. etc.

Most importantly, once you factor all of those in, you need to re-read that article I linked to where it says that more than half of the 2006 revocations were due to a technicality because a firearms trainer had short-changed some people on their mandatory class. The Sheriff revoked those until the licensees re-applied after 2 more hours of training. Again, that's more than half of the revocations! Using only that fact and taking away those bogus 2006 revocations puts our figure at 511/75,000 = ~0.6% !!!

Do you trust policemen to carry firearms? Do you know that the percentage of CHL holders charged with crime is significantly less than the percentage of law enforcement officers charged? (I apologize I don't have those numbers right in front of me. But trust me, they're shocking.)

So... please try to convince me that "there are certainly those who are licensed that shouldn't be licensed." I expect statistics and math that are derived from the Ohio Attorney General's office (as that's where these figures originated).

The other major (philosophical) point that I wanted to bring up based on your very bad choice of analogies with driver's licenses is that there is a God-given right to protecting your life and that of one you love. It's been represented in human nature since the dawn of time. It's been represented in English Common Law. That God-given right is described (not granted) in our Bill of Rights. Last time I checked, there was nothing in the Bill of Rights about "government shall never infringe upon driving a car".


-----
Note: I wanted to point out another thing but fear that it would be asking you to walk before you crawl. Therefore, I reserve the right to mention something else about the licensing system in general so that no one can later call me a hypocrite when a more forward-thinking opinion of mine gets posted.
-----


Help me out. What statistics do you want to see? What doubts concern you the most?

Again... carrying isn't for everyone. I don't think carrying handguns should be mandatory. I just don't want some politician that happens to be scared of them to tell me I'm not allowed to have the necessary tools to protect my wife from being raped and murdered. Is that so much to ask?

Criminals Never Rest

Not Even at Rest Areas.

News sources are reporting that a 52-year-old Florida man was robbed at gunpoint while returning to his car from a rest area restroom in Vermilion, Ohio. The armed robbery took place around 5:30 PM on August 16 and the attacker is still at large at the time of this writing.

While an Ohio Concealed Handgun License allows law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in order to protect themselves from violent attack in most places, state legislators have specifically prohibited that innate right in certain locations. A rest area building is one of those locations.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry has always advocated that criminals may in fact target areas that are known to be free of licensed citizens properly equipped to defend themselves. Whether or not you believe this to be true, this recent incident certainly proves that violent crime can occur anywhere. A law-abiding person that merely wants to safeguard the welfare of his or her family should not be stripped of the most basic human right, that of self defense, for any reason. This includes the presence of four walls that happen to be maintained by tax dollars. The armed robbers, rapists, and murderers make no distinction as to where crime can occur, so why do those that are supposed to serve our community?

Criminals never rest. Why should our ability to defend our loved ones?

Originally published here. Also published as Letters to the Editor for the good people in Cincinnati and Toledo.

Scotland Sword Ban

Since Johnny H is craving more freedom-related posts and is currently visiting the United Kingdom, I thought it only appropriate to mention this wonderful tidbit:

On August 14th, Scottish Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson announced a new ban on swords.

According to the BBC:

Shops selling swords will need a licence, as will businesses dealing with non-domestic knives and other bladed weapons such as machetes.

The measures are the latest steps from the Scottish Executive to curb the problem of knife crime.

They come weeks after a nationwide knife amnesty.

I'm so glad that Scotland thought of this. I'm sure criminals will shape up and stop being criminals now. Just in case they don't, I hope people are drafting up tough legislation banning golf clubs and knuckles. Sure, you'll only have dull stumps at the ends of your arms, but it'll be for the children!

Hey John, how's the crime rate over there? Did you know that merely two years after the 1998 English handgun ban that "the use of handguns in crime rose by 40%?" 40%!

Again, let's remember places like Florida and Texas that have annual decreases in violent crime due to criminals realizing their intended victims may be armed. Then let's think about places like Washington, DC and the United Kingdom that have violent crime skyrocket after a complete and total ban on guns.

Why do some people keep supporting these measures?

Wikipedia is Thorough

I don't know what made me think to try this...

Go there and type in the slang for the nastiest sexual act you can think of.

To: Nick, Re: "Assault" Weapons

I hope Nick doesn't mind that I'm transposing the excellent comment discussion we're having here to the main page. I wanted to add some pictures to illustrate a point and don't think comments will let me do that. One disclaimer to anyone that may be coming in late: Legal definitions of "Assault Weapons" have nothing to do with fully automatic machine guns. Those have been severely restricted since the 1930's.

Allow me to post Nick's last words for our reference:

I re-read your definition of assault weapons, and agree that they are not as dangerous as they may often be perceived. But I ask again, why do civilians need high-powered, semi-automatic, clip-loaded rifles?

I don't know if you're a hunter, but I'm totally against bloodsports. The only hunting I might be willing to bend on is bowhunting.

That being said, I don't think you need much more than a simple handgun for home defense.

It's not so much that I have a problem with guns, it's the people who own them. With many of them, I simply don't trust their judgment.

Good stuff, Nick.

First, let me remind you that the definition of assault rifle we're discussing isn't mine, it's the legal definition of one as dictated in the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in the Columbus city code. I quoted and posted a link to the actual code section previously. It's basically word for word what the federal Clinton AWB said, and (I have no proof of this) but I bet that 98% of all AWBs in this country are also direct copies. So -- not from me. Our legislators have defined and banned a class of firearms based on looks and not function. I merely provided information as to what a "muzzle brake" or "pistol grip" actually meant for those not familiar with those terms.

I was giddy when you said "... and agree that they are not as dangerous as they may often be perceived." Excellent! But then you contradict yourself by saying, "why do civilians need high-powered, semi-automatic, clip-loaded rifles?" Since you are on record saying they are not as dangerous as they are perceived... I prefer to turn the tables on that line of thinking. Have someone give me definitive proof that they should be banned rather than asking me to prove that they should not. Variety is the spice of life. Should we ban automatic transmissions just because it's a different way of operating the car? Same with rifles. Since they're no more dangerous in function, what's the point of demonizing them? (By the way, the answer to that question is that the goal of anti-gun organizations is to ban all firearms. First they want to propose "common sense" legislation that goes after "high capacity". Then they have the precedent to go after semi-auto, then when crime doesn't magically disappear they go after everything... But I digress.)

Also, what does "high powered" mean and why are you picking on "clip-loaded"? There are hundreds of types of rifle ammunition out there and each has its pros and cons. Any bullet when shot at a human head is going to kill someone, so let's not go down the road of banning certain types of ammunition. Ammunition varies for the job. Distance to target, size of game one is hunting, etc. "Clip-loaded" is just a way to hold the ammunition. It doesn't affect the function or "deadliness" of the bullet. I don't think we should ban cardboard boxes and only allow people to store stuff in plastic boxes. Do you?

Moving on...

For the record, I'm not a hunter and don't think I'd ever go hunting, but I have no problem with people hunting so long as it's not endangered species and they eat what they take. People always complain every year about the number of crashes caused by deer and then try to outlaw hunting. Doesn't make sense. Humans have eliminated the natural predators for a lot of animals and need to help control populations. Also,I find it odd when people say they are for bowhunting but not rifle hunting. The point of ethical hunting as I understand it is to minimize the pain and suffering for the prey. Sure, bowhunting makes it more of a challenge for the hunter, but that means that it's harder to get a clean kill. Believe me, no one goes out bowhunting and misses. I bet a lot of people go out and being not as accurate or effective as they would be with a rifle, they'll wound the deer and make it suffer more.

You said that " I don't think you need much more than a simple handgun for home defense." Can I ask what a "simple handgun" is? There are basically two kinds:

Revolvers






and Pistols.







One is not more simple than the other -- just subtle differences in how they're loaded, unloaded, etc. Each one requires one pull of the trigger to expel one bullet. Which is more simple? Which don't you like? Why?

Also, allowing only handguns for home defense seems like an unneccessary restriction. What's the reasoning for that? The point of a home defense gun is to stop the violent attacker RIGHT NOW before he can kill your family. A shotgun is the best tool for stopping someone at close range instantly... then a rifle... then a handgun.

And finally, "It's not so much that I have a problem with guns, it's the people who own them." You've definitely got this part right! It's not the guns, it's the people that do bad things. You could leave a loaded gun sitting on a table with a camera on it indefinitely and it would never murder someone. We don't need to control the guns, we need to control the criminals.

As for "the people that own them" there are very very strict laws in place to make sure that bad people don't get guns. What other tool requires an FBI background check? There are close to 30,000 gun laws on the books. Now, if you're worried about the number of criminals that have guns, I agree with you 110%. Unfortunately, they still break all of those laws and Judges let them go with a slap on the wrist to become a repeat offender (a la the original post on "Columbus Justice Ban" that got this whole ball rolling). Since nobody can dispute that criminals have guns... I want to be sure that I am armed for the defense of myself and my family.

If my assumption is wrong and you're not worried about only criminals with guns, and instead you're worried about the average Joe such as myself... That would mean that you already think an average citizen will commit crimes with that tool. In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Once someone has a history of criminal activity, mental illness, dependence on drugs/alcohol, and a million other things, they can't legally buy a gun anymore. Remember that it's illegal for a felon to be in the presence of a firearm! We're not talking shooting. We're not talking carrying. We're talking about the fact that it's against the law for a felon to walk into his buddy's living room if that buddy has a gun on the wall. If that's the case, what do the other 29,999 laws leave out? Do we really need more?

Are you sure you want to start treating people as if they're guilty with absolutely no proof? Where will that line of thinking lead? What governments in our history (even currently) have acted on that line of thinking? Are those places you want to live?




Phewwwwww! That was a lot of ground to cover! But all good stuff and I thank Nick for asking these questions. To sum up, I'd very much like to have Nick's thoughts (and anyone else) on

A) Whether he thinks civilians should be allowed to have semi-auto rifles (if not... why not?)
B) If there are certain types of handguns you don't like... which ones? Why?
C) And the big enchilada: if banning more firearms and adding more gun laws to the 30,000 already in place will positively affect crime in this country?

Another Example of Misdirection for "Fighting Crime"

Unfortunately, it's been the norm for some time that legislators push for ineffectual "feel good" legislation that will get them elected by the uninformed, while Judges keep the most dangerous of criminals on the street with a slap on the wrist for heinous acts.

Also, was this a hate crime? Sure sounds like it to me... but no mention.

This lunatic will spend four years in a hospital for attempted murder in the process of committing a hate crime.

Shooter could get limited freedom
Jim Nichols
Plain Dealer Reporter

A Shaker Heights man who went on a psychotic, racially motivated shooting spree four years ago may soon be allowed to leave a mental hospital unsupervised.

Yusef DeJarnette, 29, has been institutionalized since being found not guilty by reason of insanity under a plea agreement that put him under court authority until 2029. He had been charged with four counts of attempted aggravated murder.

Court records depict DeJarnette as a paranoid schizophrenic black man who shot at white people from the seat of his bicycle because, he believed, God told him to avenge racial oppression.

He fired on at least four people in at least three incidents in Cleveland Heights and Beachwood in August and September 2002. The shootings wounded two victims, both of whom have recovered.

...

"We have very serious concerns that because of his mental illness, he's a danger to the community," [Assistant County Prosecutor Blaise] Thomas said. "He has a demonstrated history of violent delusions and a demonstrated history of not following his doctors' orders."

...

Columbus Justice Ban

You've heard me talk about the Columbus Assault Weapons Ban. With that in mind, I found a certain Columbus Dispatch report to be very discouraging.

(Note: I'm sure it doesn't matter due to the size of my audience, but technically most firearm stuff won't be my IP anymore, so I'm going to quote it in the future from the original source. I'm sure you'll also be pleased that so far it has resulted in less gun stuff on here.)

Read the original article here.

Columbus Justice Ban

When readers of this site see the words “Columbus” and “Ban” in the same sentence, they most likely think of unnecessary laws prohibiting firearms based on their appearance rather than function. The Columbus Assault Weapons Ban was proposed by anti-gun advocates to supposedly make the city’s streets safer. Those laws have proven to be ineffectual.

How could Columbus decrease its crime rate? Appropriate sentences for criminals would be a logical start. The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that Larry Laury, 25, was sentenced to only nine years in prison by Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Angela White after admitting to holding seven people at gunpoint in an apartment on October 25. His participation in this felonious act resulted in the death of one of his accomplices. Appropriately, Laury was originally charged with murder. That charge was dropped in exchange for his plea of guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery.

If Laury were to serve his entire sentence (which is rare these days) he would be back on the streets only nine years after terrorizing seven people at gunpoint and being responsible for murder.

Our local, state, and federal representatives need to realize that crime can not be prevented by inconveniencing the law-abiding with one more regulation the criminal will continue to ignore. The only way Columbus can protect its citizens is by punishing a murderer with a sentence appropriate for murder.

Miamisburg Woman Ruins Dining Experience

Preface: For those that don't know (read: Nick), my wife works as an office manager at a funeral home.

So we decide to go out for dinner last night. After we sit down at the bar, Joanna looks to the right and says, "Hey - I know that girl. She came in for a service last week." Our meal progresses and at some point the ladies exchange a wave and a "Hi."

I started thinking about it, and realized that this poor girl's evening probably went something like this:

"Hey, it's been pretty sad around here since Dad died. You wanna go grab a beer and some food to take my mind off things?"

"Ah... this is nice. Boy am I hungry. I could eat a -- WAIT! I know her.... But from where?... Oh yeah! I saw her last week when I had to bury Dad. Her courteous smile is a cold reminder that I will never again feel the warmth of my father's embrace."

Nice job, Joanna. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Necessary Evil

I'm sick of needing to verify random letters before Blogspot will post my comments. At the same time, I realize it keeps out most spam.

Anyway... if the word verification is more than ~5 letters, I keep hitting "Publish" until it gives me something reasonable. The whole time I play Rage Against the Machine tracks in my head.