Yep, I'm a "gun nut." ... At least that's what my anti-gun liberal friends like to call me.
I keep an eye on all the concealed carry news that happens around the country. I have a google news search set up to show me articles that come out pertaining to the topic. At the moment Wisconsin has a proposed law on the books to allow concealed carry without training. Ohio has a proposed law on the books that will allow concealed carry licensees to carry their firearm into restaurants that serve alcohol, including bars, provided they are not under the influence of drugs and alcohol and do not consume drugs or alcohol while armed.
Regarding the Wisconsin law, I see a real need for some revisions here. Some training needs to be a requirement to get a license. A background check needs to be a requirement as well. I did all of this to get my Florida CCW. It was a pain in the ass, but ultimately it was also reassuring, because I knew that everyone else who has a concealed carry license is a "good guy" too.
Regarding the Ohio law, I'm amazed and appalled at how ignorant, or to be more blunt, stupid, people are about this.
There are bar owners posting signs prohibiting guns in their bars.
The Ohio Restaurant Association is advising their membership to post signs on their restaurants.
Who will this keep out? The answer is, just the law abiding folks. The "bad guys" or unlicensed concealed carry folks will continue to carry their street guns into these places. Remember, they don't read or obey no stinkin' signs. They're outside the law.
The cops in Ohio can still carry in bars, which is a privelege the pro-gun folks stood behind them to allow. Now some of the cops out there oppose this law. Thanks a lot, fellas. Glad to know you're confident in the licensees you vetted us for.
The bar and restaurant owners are OK with this. They figure the less guns, the better.
This where I start to think of the philosophies of "The Matrix" - you know, that movie from 1999. See, there are people that believe that violent crimes only happen to others. They don't believe it will ever happen to them. In their reality, crime does not exist or only exists to someone else. They believe that if they are passive and just give the guy with the gun their money, they'll make it out alive. This brings me to one of my favorite movie scenes:
"What is real? How do you define real?"
"If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. This is the world that you know."
So, thought makes it reality to these folks. They believe that they are safe walking around unarmed in society, so they must be safe, right? This guy thought so. Look what happened to him... killed for the money in his drawer.
Here's the cold truth: anyone could be carrying a gun amongst us.
... No, it's better than that: there ARE people walking around with guns. They may be behind you in the grocery store, pumping gas at the gas station... they exist and they're everywhere.
"You've been living in a dream world, Neo."
The problem is that you don't know who they are, and you have no idea what their intentions are.
... They may be a concealed carry licensee whose aim is to protect themselves and their family, and even possibly you, if you needed defending.
... or they could be a thug from the wrong side of town, broke, unemployed, and addicted to crack cocaine, looking for any way to get more. You happen to look like you might be rich enough to have the money they need.
... or if you're female, perhaps they like the scent of your perfume, the sway of your dress as you walk, or just need someone to be their sexual release... and you'll do.
Regardless, the criminals with guns are out there, and they aren't going away.
"...This is the world as it exists today.... Welcome to the Desert of the Real."
So, here's the reality: you can try to ban guns. Guns are the problem, right? Except when you look at violent crime in other parts of the world where guns have been banned, the violent crime statistics don't go down, they go up. That's because when you ban guns, you just ban the guns for the good guys. The bad guys don't buy them in stores. They buy them in the streets. The streets have lots of guns. The street folks didn't buy them from the stores, either. They stole them or bought them from someone that smuggled them in.
Plus, think about it: If you're a criminal, wouldn't it be nice to know that only the criminals have guns? Much easier to pick off someone and rob them, rape them, and kill them, right?
No, banning guns doesn't work.
"... you think that's air you're breathing now?"
You may not like guns. I respect your viewpoint.
You may never want to touch a gun. I respect your choice.
You may never want to carry a gun. Fine with me, as long as you know that you could be a victim.
As for me and my family, we choose to be prepared for the possible reality that we have to protect ourselves. We own guns.
We teach kids gun education and gun safety classes through 4-H Shooting Sports. We go through over 30 hours of training ourselves every year on gun safety, gun responsibility, self defense with a gun, and gun safety in the home. And yes, we have our concealed carry permits so we can carry our guns with us. We do everything we can to be safe about them, as do most concealed carry licensees.
You probably think you can pick us out of a crowd. "Look at the funny looking gun nuts, ma!"
Bad news for you: we are normal, height and weight proportional people in our 30s. We have white collar professional jobs. We are strong in our faith and attend church regularly. We drive normal cars and own a normal house in a normal suburb. We do not have three eyes. We don't walk around in clothes with holes in them. We don't act like white trash in public. We are the epitome of normal. We are the prototypical concealed carry holder, and we carry our guns amongst you. There are over a quarter million of us in my home state of Ohio alone.
We're here, and we're not going away anytime soon.
Inevitably I'll get someone that says "if you're so strong in your faith, why do you carry a gun? Don't you trust God to protect you?" Let me cover that right now.
I think if God wanted to repeal the law of gravity for me and only me, I'd float off into space.
I think if God wanted me home in heaven with him, he'd have the tiniest of thoughts and I'd be there.
But I also think that you'd have to be awfully presumptuous to assume that God is your personal protection detail. My parents taught me a great maxim that I live by: Trust in God, but Lock Your Car. So, I trust in God, but I put my protection in my own hands and the good people at Smith & Wesson.
The reality is I'll likely never have to use my gun for self defense. I'm OK with that. The mere fact that I have a chance to defend myself, a choice to carry or not carry, is good enough for me. Remember the guy shot for the money in his till in the story above? Here's another kind of story - one where a guy was being harassed and assaulted, and was afraid for his life. When forced to defend himself, he did, and he's alive to tell about it.
That's the guy I'd rather be.
Think you're safe in our society? I think you're living in a dream world.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
6to4? What a moronic mess!
So, for those that don't know, the last of the version 4 IP addresses were distributed in February. ISPs and other large service providers (Google, Microsoft, et al) are hoarding what IP4 blocks they have. My guess is we will see far fewer 8 address (5 usable) IP block allocations from ISPs over the next months and years. I wouldn't even be surprised if ISPs come back saying that they want to reduce the contracted number of IP addresses.
With that in mind, and in my humble opinion, the ISPs created, or at the very least exascerbated, this problem themselves. The way they have chosen to provision IP addresses has turned this into a serious problem.
As an example, they have chosen to provision the IPs at the client-edge devices instead of in a head-end room somewhere. This means that each client-edge device needs a minimum of 3 IP addresses + whatever the customer needs, in blocks of 1, 5, 13, or more. So for a customer that needs 1 static IP address, they now are using up 4. For customers that need at least 2 static IP addresses, they are using up 8.
They use up the extra 3 IP addresses because they need a network IP, a broadcast IP, and a gateway IP for their modem or device that sits at the customer site. Then they give the customer the last IP, for a total of 4. This creates a /30 subnet or in long form, 255.255.255.252.
So then if the customer needs 2 static IP addresses, they do all of the above, taking up 3 IP addresses, plus the customer's two IPs. But the next highest block available is the /29 block, or 255.255.255.248 in long form. So now they are burning up 8 public IP addresses instead of just the 5 they needed.
Most clients only need 1 static IP address, but because of this subnetting and provisioning scheme the ISPs have cooked up, that means 4 or 8 IP addresses get used.
If, on the other hand, the ISPs did the subnetting or provisioning at the head-end room, there could be subnets of 128 or 256 IP addresses. They'd still lose 3 IPs: 1 to the broadcast, 1 to the network, and 1 to the next gateway in the lineup. But that would be 3 IP addresses lost out of 128, leaving 125 usable, or 3 IP addresses out of 256, leaving 253 usable. This would result in a ton less wasted IPs.
The downside to this is that the client-edge devices would no longer have outside, routable IP addresses anymore. It would just be a bridge device between the ISP and the customer's firewall. By the way, this is how AT&T does their bridged DSL modems. The modem has no IP address, but the subnet mask for the customer is /32 or 255.255.255.255 instead of /30 or 255.255.255.252, /29 or 255.255.255.248, or /28 or 255.255.255.240.
Subnetting was originally meant to allow logical parsing of IP blocks within companies and control broadcast traffic. These days companies use internal IP addresses and NAT, and broadcast traffic is controlled by Layer 2 or Layer 3 switches. The time for subnetting things down to a micron are dead. But rather than fix the problem, we're doing what typical Americans do; we throw away the old system and invent a brand new, bigger (but not better), obfuscated system that will allow for more sloth and laziness on the part of the ISPs and network admins. And then we shove it down the rest of the world's throat. IPv6 sucks. IPv4 makes sense, but it's been mismanaged for years.
This problem was avoidable!!
Everyone that knows next to nothing about IPv6 has been infatuated with it for years.
Everyone that has had a chance to play with it thinks it sucks and doesn't want to transition to it. The addresses and address schemas are difficult to follow and impossible to remember.
This whole IP6 vs. IP4 infatuation is a guage I use to tell where someone is technically. If they think IPv6 is awesome and they're excited for the change, I know they're still a little naive. If they're generally not happy about the whole thing and dreading the change, I know they're past the honeymoon stage on IPv6.
I for one will keep customers on internal IPv4 networks until it becomes next to impossible to stay there.
With that in mind, and in my humble opinion, the ISPs created, or at the very least exascerbated, this problem themselves. The way they have chosen to provision IP addresses has turned this into a serious problem.
As an example, they have chosen to provision the IPs at the client-edge devices instead of in a head-end room somewhere. This means that each client-edge device needs a minimum of 3 IP addresses + whatever the customer needs, in blocks of 1, 5, 13, or more. So for a customer that needs 1 static IP address, they now are using up 4. For customers that need at least 2 static IP addresses, they are using up 8.
They use up the extra 3 IP addresses because they need a network IP, a broadcast IP, and a gateway IP for their modem or device that sits at the customer site. Then they give the customer the last IP, for a total of 4. This creates a /30 subnet or in long form, 255.255.255.252.
So then if the customer needs 2 static IP addresses, they do all of the above, taking up 3 IP addresses, plus the customer's two IPs. But the next highest block available is the /29 block, or 255.255.255.248 in long form. So now they are burning up 8 public IP addresses instead of just the 5 they needed.
Most clients only need 1 static IP address, but because of this subnetting and provisioning scheme the ISPs have cooked up, that means 4 or 8 IP addresses get used.
If, on the other hand, the ISPs did the subnetting or provisioning at the head-end room, there could be subnets of 128 or 256 IP addresses. They'd still lose 3 IPs: 1 to the broadcast, 1 to the network, and 1 to the next gateway in the lineup. But that would be 3 IP addresses lost out of 128, leaving 125 usable, or 3 IP addresses out of 256, leaving 253 usable. This would result in a ton less wasted IPs.
The downside to this is that the client-edge devices would no longer have outside, routable IP addresses anymore. It would just be a bridge device between the ISP and the customer's firewall. By the way, this is how AT&T does their bridged DSL modems. The modem has no IP address, but the subnet mask for the customer is /32 or 255.255.255.255 instead of /30 or 255.255.255.252, /29 or 255.255.255.248, or /28 or 255.255.255.240.
Subnetting was originally meant to allow logical parsing of IP blocks within companies and control broadcast traffic. These days companies use internal IP addresses and NAT, and broadcast traffic is controlled by Layer 2 or Layer 3 switches. The time for subnetting things down to a micron are dead. But rather than fix the problem, we're doing what typical Americans do; we throw away the old system and invent a brand new, bigger (but not better), obfuscated system that will allow for more sloth and laziness on the part of the ISPs and network admins. And then we shove it down the rest of the world's throat. IPv6 sucks. IPv4 makes sense, but it's been mismanaged for years.
This problem was avoidable!!
Everyone that knows next to nothing about IPv6 has been infatuated with it for years.
Everyone that has had a chance to play with it thinks it sucks and doesn't want to transition to it. The addresses and address schemas are difficult to follow and impossible to remember.
This whole IP6 vs. IP4 infatuation is a guage I use to tell where someone is technically. If they think IPv6 is awesome and they're excited for the change, I know they're still a little naive. If they're generally not happy about the whole thing and dreading the change, I know they're past the honeymoon stage on IPv6.
I for one will keep customers on internal IPv4 networks until it becomes next to impossible to stay there.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Ohio Senate passes concealed carry in restaurants, Other changes
Yesterday (April 13th, 2011) Ohio's Senate passed two bills that will allow licensed concealed carry holders to carry their gun in establishments that have liquor licenses that allow people to consume alcohol on the premises, as long as they are not consuming alcohol and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You can read the story from the Columbus Dispatch here, if you'd like.
Bill for concealed guns in bars advances in state Senate
For the record my wife and I are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Our licenses are from Florida. There's a reason I won't bore you with here, but there are a lot of people that get their Florida CCW instead of their Ohio CCW. The Florida CCW does more and is licensed for a longer period. I tell you this because at present there are about 217,000 people in Ohio with their CCW from Ohio alone. There isn't a great way that I know of to get the number of people like us that have licenses from Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania, or other states. If you added them up I'd guess you'd get a number around 400,000 people licensed that are in Ohio at any given moment.
Take that number and look at how many of them lose their license because they are convicted of a crime. The number is astonishingly low. Perhaps once I'm done typing this I'll go dig the figure up, but it's like 150 people per year. If you use the official number of people that have an Ohio CCW (217,500) and divide that into 150, you get .068%. Of those people, most lost their license because they accidentally carried their gun into a place with a posted no guns sign and they got the police called on them.
Again, the stats don't tell us how many of those 150 people were Ohio CCW licensees and how many were licensed in other states.
The point is, overwhelmingly most CCW'ers are very conscientious about the law and making sure they are abiding by the law. Most of us have too much money wrapped up in our gun, our license, and our education expenses to make it something we want to lose.
The laws have changed significantly regarding where CCW'ers can carry as well. For instance, it used to be illegal to be on any school grounds while in possession of a gun. This meant that before I pulled up in my car to drop my daughter off for school, I would have to stop somewhere else and secure my gun in the safe under my seat. Once I dropped her off, I could stop somewhere else again and put my gun back in my concealed holster. A provision was enacted to fix this problem. When it came to the House and Senate for a vote, a bunch of anti-gun folks jumped up and down and stated that it would increase gun violence on schools. The law passed, and guess what? No additional gun violence.
Before 2006, Guns in parks used to be illegal, too. A reform law was proposed, the anti-gun advocates screamed and cried about increased violence, and yet the reform law still passed. Since then... anyone see an increase in violence? Nope. The violence level has remained the same or gone down. Why? Because the people that would carry a gun in a park with the intent to do harm would it whether it was legal or illegal, and because the people that are now legally and peacefully permitted to carry a gun in a park can protect themselves now.
So when the Ohio Restaurant Association opposes the passage of the bill in this Columbus Dispatch article, stating that:
"We simply feel that alcohol and guns are not a good mix," Richard Mason wrote in the missive. "We encourage you to vote against this or any proposal that would allow guns in restaurants with liquor permits."
and Sen. Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus) states:
"I see too many deaths in this community where there are guns and alcohol."
... I'm thinking they aren't really aware of who the bill will affect. It won't let gangbangers and non-licensed people carry a concealed weapon... well, not any more or less than they already do... remember, those folks don't care about the law. But it will let someone that has been fingerprinted, background checked, and trained in the use of their weapon and the legal aspects of carrying that weapon - do so. These folks really aren't the ones you should worry about.
Along the same lines, I recently emailed United Dairy Farmers regarding their policy on not allowing weapons in their stores, even by licensed concealed carry holders. I love their ice cream, and I'd love to continue giving them my business. But the response I got back, while polite, let me know that the management at UDF was not going to change their policy anytime soon. As a result, I now get my ice cream from Youngs Jersey Dairy. I get my soda and other things I would have gotten from UDF from Speedway SuperAmerica, who does not have such signs.
There's a group in Ohio called the Ohioans for Concealed Carry. They have a slogan on one of their cards that they give to businesses that exclude weapons, including CCW'ers. The card says "No Guns = No Money."
Well, perhaps the Ohio Restaurant Association should consider this as well. There are over 217,000 documented, licensed concealed carry holders in Ohio. More if you consider those of us with out of state licenses. Presently I'm required to disarm if I want to eat in your restaurant, and that does play into my decisoon on where to take my family of 5 to eat. At the moment I'll disarm if I really want your food, but that takes a little effort. If it turns out that Ohio passes this latest law and you then actively put up signs to keep CCW'ers out, that's fine. We'll be happy to avoid your restaurants. I wonder what 400,000 or so less people coming to your restaurants will do to your bottom line?
Bill for concealed guns in bars advances in state Senate
For the record my wife and I are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Our licenses are from Florida. There's a reason I won't bore you with here, but there are a lot of people that get their Florida CCW instead of their Ohio CCW. The Florida CCW does more and is licensed for a longer period. I tell you this because at present there are about 217,000 people in Ohio with their CCW from Ohio alone. There isn't a great way that I know of to get the number of people like us that have licenses from Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania, or other states. If you added them up I'd guess you'd get a number around 400,000 people licensed that are in Ohio at any given moment.
Take that number and look at how many of them lose their license because they are convicted of a crime. The number is astonishingly low. Perhaps once I'm done typing this I'll go dig the figure up, but it's like 150 people per year. If you use the official number of people that have an Ohio CCW (217,500) and divide that into 150, you get .068%. Of those people, most lost their license because they accidentally carried their gun into a place with a posted no guns sign and they got the police called on them.
Again, the stats don't tell us how many of those 150 people were Ohio CCW licensees and how many were licensed in other states.
The point is, overwhelmingly most CCW'ers are very conscientious about the law and making sure they are abiding by the law. Most of us have too much money wrapped up in our gun, our license, and our education expenses to make it something we want to lose.
The laws have changed significantly regarding where CCW'ers can carry as well. For instance, it used to be illegal to be on any school grounds while in possession of a gun. This meant that before I pulled up in my car to drop my daughter off for school, I would have to stop somewhere else and secure my gun in the safe under my seat. Once I dropped her off, I could stop somewhere else again and put my gun back in my concealed holster. A provision was enacted to fix this problem. When it came to the House and Senate for a vote, a bunch of anti-gun folks jumped up and down and stated that it would increase gun violence on schools. The law passed, and guess what? No additional gun violence.
Before 2006, Guns in parks used to be illegal, too. A reform law was proposed, the anti-gun advocates screamed and cried about increased violence, and yet the reform law still passed. Since then... anyone see an increase in violence? Nope. The violence level has remained the same or gone down. Why? Because the people that would carry a gun in a park with the intent to do harm would it whether it was legal or illegal, and because the people that are now legally and peacefully permitted to carry a gun in a park can protect themselves now.
So when the Ohio Restaurant Association opposes the passage of the bill in this Columbus Dispatch article, stating that:
"We simply feel that alcohol and guns are not a good mix," Richard Mason wrote in the missive. "We encourage you to vote against this or any proposal that would allow guns in restaurants with liquor permits."
and Sen. Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus) states:
"I see too many deaths in this community where there are guns and alcohol."
... I'm thinking they aren't really aware of who the bill will affect. It won't let gangbangers and non-licensed people carry a concealed weapon... well, not any more or less than they already do... remember, those folks don't care about the law. But it will let someone that has been fingerprinted, background checked, and trained in the use of their weapon and the legal aspects of carrying that weapon - do so. These folks really aren't the ones you should worry about.
Along the same lines, I recently emailed United Dairy Farmers regarding their policy on not allowing weapons in their stores, even by licensed concealed carry holders. I love their ice cream, and I'd love to continue giving them my business. But the response I got back, while polite, let me know that the management at UDF was not going to change their policy anytime soon. As a result, I now get my ice cream from Youngs Jersey Dairy. I get my soda and other things I would have gotten from UDF from Speedway SuperAmerica, who does not have such signs.
There's a group in Ohio called the Ohioans for Concealed Carry. They have a slogan on one of their cards that they give to businesses that exclude weapons, including CCW'ers. The card says "No Guns = No Money."
Well, perhaps the Ohio Restaurant Association should consider this as well. There are over 217,000 documented, licensed concealed carry holders in Ohio. More if you consider those of us with out of state licenses. Presently I'm required to disarm if I want to eat in your restaurant, and that does play into my decisoon on where to take my family of 5 to eat. At the moment I'll disarm if I really want your food, but that takes a little effort. If it turns out that Ohio passes this latest law and you then actively put up signs to keep CCW'ers out, that's fine. We'll be happy to avoid your restaurants. I wonder what 400,000 or so less people coming to your restaurants will do to your bottom line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)