|
||||
"Being too charming was never one of my faults." - Kill Me Later
Webcam 
Mine ::
about me.
wishlist
Powered by Blogger. |
The newest addition to our family...
To celebrate the Heller decision Paul and I took a trip to High Bridge Arms (the city's last remaining bastion for 2nd amendment enthusiasts) this past Sunday and on a whim we decided it would be a great time to start our collection. Only nine days to go before we can go to the range and test her out! Labels: Guns
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Wow. Just, wow. I think Newsom has completely lost touch with reality. Way to "protect your citizens" Newsom. I'm sure Danielle Bologna appreciates it...oh wait...maybe not. Labels: Guns, San Francisco, those whacky liberals
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Good lord, this story is absolutely gut wrenching. I spent about four and a half months in Turlock when I was at CSU Stanislaus and it is a great little, small town and I'm sure the people there are absolutely devastated by this. This is the kind of place where people are kind to strangers and hold doors open for each other. I'm not surprised that it sounds as though several different people tried to help though it was in a remote area and must have all unfolded very quickly. I am surprised that one of the passerby's didn't have a gun (or if they did, didn't use it) since Turlock is a pretty gun friendly neighborhood. Maybe that baby would have had a chance... Rest in peace little one...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
I'm not surprised that it has come to this in a city that averages a murder every two or three days. I am surprised to see an SF Gate article actually suggest that it might not be a bad thing when good guys have access to some firepower and the balls to use it when the useless politicians have done nothing to clean up their city. Labels: Guns, those whacky liberals
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
I'm starting to feel like this city is just chock-full of random It's probably just my perception but I feel like I read a lot more about crimes like this now then when I lived in Los Angeles. Maybe I just read the local news up here more consistently than I did down there. It's funny though isn't it, in the two San Francisco cases, how the bad guys still managed to get guns into the city despite the fact that there is a law against guns and everything. A law. Written down on paper somewhere and everything. How in the world did guns get past that? Paul and I always have the discussion about how utterly lawless this city is in so many ways. Like the time we saw a guy run a redlight - nearly hitting a cop making a left turn - and he didn't even get pulled over! Paul actually told me later that I didn't see the first car which ran the redlight before the guy I saw went through...that's how red the light was. I have literally gone days without seeing a single police officer anywhere. Edited to add: Hm, I must have seen something shiny or something because not only is that where this leaves off, I also forgot to hit publish. Genius! Labels: Guns, San Francisco
Friday, April 20, 2007
It's late here but truth be told I've had a few too many glasses of champagne (or as the the French call it "champ-ane") and I've got the Virginia Tech tragedy on my mind. Reading this post reminded me of a couple questions that crossed my mind once I found out exactly what sorts of weapons Cho was armed with. How did he kill so many and why didn't anyone try to stop him? He was armed with a .22 caliber and a 9mm glock. Though I've never fired a glock before I did have the opportunity to shoot a .22 and a 9mm and while they can both do serious damage at close range (and I would NOT want to come face to face with either weapon in the hands of a person as deranged as Cho) they are not the most frightening weapons out there and he must have had to reload at least a couple times to kill and wound as many as he did. Granted I'm sure people were afraid as anyone would be, but still, with so many young men around how is it that none of them had the stones to be the hero/heroes? It was not a situation where you think if you sit back you might be spared, it was one where if you hide under the desk and cower, you and everyone around you will probably get shot and be killed. I know how it must sound but I'm really not trying to criticize any of those young men that were injured, killed, or just there when it happened, but I'm curious and a little bit confused. Dr. Clouthier puts it better than I can when she says: Dr. Clouthier brings up an excellent point when she alludes to how different things might have been if only there had been armed men (or women) around during the massacre. I am reminded of another shooting which also occurred in Virginia but turned out very differently from the V-Tech shootings thanks to the presence of two armed students who were able to disarm the shooter with their own guns. How many would have been spared if only one of the V-Tech students or professors were armed themselves? Unfortunately, we will never know. But of course the press and the libs out there will continue screeching about gun control and how wonderful the world would be if only Americans would give up their guns. Because surely criminals and murderous lunatics would obey gun-banning laws seeing as how much they respect the law and all. Of course the media bias against guns is made blatant by their coverage of the Appalachian shooting, note that in this CNN article it claims that the shooter was "apparently tackled" and makes no mention at all of the fact that the shooter was actually disarmed by armed students. Anyway, like I said it's late here and I should sleep, just had to get a few things off my chest. Sorry if it wasn't exactly all coherent and tied together. I may try to edit it in the morning. Labels: Criminals, Guns, Media Bias
(c) 2001-2006 transcended.net - all rights reserved |
|||