Happy New Year's

I just had to get that out of the way as I expect the rest of this Sunday to be filled with much food, liquor, I don't know what else, and fireworks.

And for the New Year? I'm going to stick with more chocolate, alcohol, sex and yoga, and less procrastination with getting things done that need to be done to get on with this life I'm living.

So I'm planning to fly to Florida and watch the next space shuttle launch. I'm planning on buying an agenda calendar or an organizer.

But first is a trip to San Francisco and then Atlanta. And then off to Puerto Rico and Miami on the way back. I guess Florida, again - odd - and hopefully Amsterdam in the fall.

Best of luck to you and me!

Missed Connection

To the person who sent me an e-mail regarding Tanitha Kulsiri ... It somehow ended up in my Spam box on GMail, and was accidentally deleted for good with the too-quick click of a button. I saw the subject line while the "Delete Forever" was processing.

If you happen to stumble upon this ever again, I wasn't ignoring you!

'Tis the Season

So, to all: Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Season's Greetings, Happy New Year's, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Controlling, not banning, is the way to curb the gun population

My bi-monthly column for The Times Herald, December 23

I rarely revisit a topic two columns in a row, and for good reason. My last foray into that territory was a fiery tirade that didn’t do anybody any good.

But reader response leads a columnist into uncharted terrority sometimes, and I like to think I’ve grown as a columnist over the past year.

And so gun control it is, again, and that is the first point some people missed last time.

Control or regulation of firearms, not a ban, except in some instances, such as the semi-automatic ban, with plenty of exceptions, whose expiration was on the agenda of the National Rifle Association, is what I’ve been talking about.

I may own a gun someday. I’ve owned a rifle before, and I have shot clay pigeons with the full gamut of gauges. (I have a Boy Scout merit badge for rifle shooting, too). My father owned a gun shop for many years. He owns guns now. My grandfather owns gun, as do the friends with whom I now live.

But, the male genital is not a weapon, and it is not meant to kill, and so, dear letter to the editor writer, maiming someone is not on the books or the agenda of any gun control types who I know.

And neither is banning knives, as most are used for either the slaughter of animals — not a crime — or cutting up meat or some other foodstuff — also not a crime.

I contend that if knives were the only weapon readily available, not including the random pipe or tire iron, the number of murders would drop dramatically. It requires too personal an interaction, can be less fatal and has the added benefit of possibly increasing identification of the assailant.

Why?

Because to commit a murder or assault with a knife requires the attacker to be anywhere from a few inches to just a few feet from the intended victim. No drive-by, nothing from a window across the street or the trunk of a car at a shopping center.

But guns are a completely different issue, and when our Congress and states debated, drafted, signed and passed the Second Amendment, the only guns in existence were the rifle, musket and the pistol. One for hunting; the others for warfare. Oh, and for the absurd gentilia comment: Another for fun.

Six-shooters and the like were decades or more away from invention, along with semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms and rocket launchers.

The Second Amendment and the most common firearms used today to commit crimes do not mix.

So I say, a second look at amendment No. 2 is in order.

To counter dear letter writer again, I do not look to gun control to solve society’s ills.

I look to gun control because gun ownership should be a privilege. One should prove to be capable of handling a gun and the responsibility that goes with it. Many gun activists belong to, have at one time, or have at least been at a gun club, and so earning the privilege could require very little more than what many gun owners already put in.

I hardly think that gun control would have saved the young man who committed suicide in Montgomery County earlier this month or the other young man in western Pennsylvania who did the same thing.

In the first case, the gun was apparently kept how they should be in the home, unloaded and locked away. In the second, the young man was a member of a rifle club.

But if intelligent gun control were in place, imagine if the local suicide was the only gun fatality to show up in our paper this past year.

The media could focus on other subjects and not be so negative, as so many people feel it is.

Gun control issues come to light in Pennsylvania, D.C.

My bi-monthly column for The Times Herald, December 9

I can hardly take credit for this, but … Washington, D.C., thanks for listening!

What I’m talking about is the city’s firearm ban, which was enacted in 1976 and has so far managed to exist in a world where the NRA stands against anything sensible under the category of gun regulation.

The reasoning behind the ban, and what has kept it from being overturned throughout the years is the argument that the 2nd Amendment applies to militias, not individuals.

This was my argument in a column almost exactly a year ago after a friend of mine was robbed while a gun touched the back of her head.

When police caught the culprits later after numerous other gunpoint robberies, the gun was found loaded. My friend may have been a twitch away from death.

Following the shootings at the Amish school, The Times Herald took many a letter to the editor calling for teachers to have guns. Yes, let’s create a mini-arsenal that could easily be turned on the people the gun is supposed to protect.

A 2005 editorial in The Washington Times (if ever there was the proof the media isn’t “liberal”) makes the case that gun violence actually increased after 1976, but gun violence and the murder rate climbed everywhere, especially in cities, during the ’70s and ’80s as the inner cities were ravaged by gangs and the crack drug problem.

The case has also been argued that more guns will cut violence, because if everyone has one, then …
This sounds an awful lot like the nuclear arms race (in actuality and how it was depicted in Dr. Seuss’ Butter Battle Book).

If everyone has a gun, can we all see the chain reaction that could follow?

Does anyone who lived during the Cold War remember the tension of weapons build up? I’d rather be stressed about an errant pickle on my cheeseburger.

Remember how the U.S. was almost radiated by Russia via Cuba?

Certainly the U.S. isn’t going to be radiated by guns, but a lot of senseless killing is the outcome of the current state of gun laws.

Of course, Pennsylvania would allow me to show the opposite of sanity.

It comes from Cherry Tree, about 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. One councilman has decided it would be best for the borough if every home had a gun in it. The thinking is — you guessed it — every home with a gun would ward off crime.

If gun crime is a problem, what better way to thwart it than to increase the availability of guns to commit crimes with.

As a Philadelphia resident, this issue strikes deeper, because the city mired in gun violence got nowhere when the Pa. Legislature decided to take up a solution.

One solution included limiting firearm purchases to one per month. Is anyone else scratching his or her head over this absurdity?

If someone needs to purchase this many guns each year, someone should be checking up on them because they are plotting something sinister or they need checked into a psyche ward.

Am I crazy? No. Am I liberal? No. Actually an online quiz has me pegged as a Socialist-lite.
So before I lose you …

My previous column didn’t call for a complete ban on firearms. I exempted shotguns for (non-human) hunting season. As I said then, and still feel now, I may own a gun someday, but steps need taken to ensure safety, because many a sinister plan is behind gun purchases and thefts.

Ideas I put forth included a permit to purchase a gun — something missing in Pennsylvania, but other simple plans include preventing resale, ballistic fingerprinting, required registration, etc. etc.

I’m sure people take issue with some of these ideas as Big Brother, and I would, too, but under other circumstances.

The crazy idea that guns don’t kill people, people do, is a cop out. A gun is designed for one thing: To hurt or kill someone or something.

Because this is true, regulation is the right step in fighting gun violence. I say that because it puts responsibility squarely onto the people with the guns, and a lack of responsibility is behind a percentage of gun violence.

What could unfold on the national level with the Washington, D.C., ban would be the best solution, as gun laws change from state to state, opening up a big hole in the safety net.

I’m hoping for sanity and clarity on the federal level, but I can already hear the slanderous “activist judges” label. So sad.

Tower Topples

My former employer (about 4 former employers ago), Tower Records, is coming to an end. I secretly couldn't be happier.

My time there didn't end at that well, but I got an very real sense of being used, which sucked, because I actually enjoyed what I did, which was the information desk.

But alas, I'm still here, but Tower won't be. And to boot, today I was rewarded for holding out with a 70% discount on Seasons 5&6 of Seinfeld. My friend Chris got a couple of CDs for 50%.

Buying anything before this was practically a waste, and I was surprised at how quickly the stock went down in the early days of the Going Out of Business sale. Even at 20% or 30%, you could still get it cheaper at other places.

So, if you're in the Philly region and reading this right now. Take some time to buy what's left at a loss to the company and whomever or whatever is buying the assets.