I have played the excellent game of Minecraft for a week now, and am entirely hooked. I have built up a little base in what appears to be a massive map. I have read that it could be as large as Earth (wow) Is anyone crazy enough to try and explore it all.
Each map is random. So everybody's environment is different. It is a huge somewhat silly looking sandbox game. Play it in Peaceful mode, or try Survival against a host of enemies. Careful, some enemies explode.
Here's a recent overview map I created of my Minecraft I explored so far.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
My BOB is not a BOB !?!?
My BOB is not a BOB. According to some folks opinions I have encountered online, and in person, my BOB just isn't.
What's a BOB (you might wonder)? It is a Bug Out Bag. Wikipedia calls it:
... a portable kit that contains the items one would require to survive for seventy two hours when evacuating from a disaster.
I have more than one matching bag of items I determined would best support myself, spouse, and child in the case of emergency. It has items that are likely similar to the kits every other prepper or survivalist has, so I won't bore you with the big list. As well, people's opinions on the proper items vary quite a bit, so I won't get into it. If you are curious about creating your own kit, you can look here, or Google it.
Other survival bags or packs exist, and of course the Internet is full of acronyms to describe them. There is the GHB (Get Home Bag), for helping you get home from work or wherever else you might be. The there is also the BOV (Bug Out Vehicle). This either a vehicle prepared to aid in escape or survival in emergencies, or containing the necessary items to ensure survival while getting out of Dodge.
Our intention for the bags is this: If we are at home, the bags are placed in locations so they can be easily grabbed when we GTFO (Get The **** Out). OR .... when we travel in either of our vehicles, we simply take a bag (or two) with us. Our thinking is that if SHTF "you-know-what Hits The Fan" while we are at home, we can simply leave, either on foot or by truck/car. If on the other hand, all hell breaks loose while either one of us is away, we are better prepared to make it home.
So my kit is a BOB but it isn't. I guess it magically is a BOB, a GHB, or a BOV (sort of). We planned on what I simply refer to as survival packs long before I became aware of the popular acronyms preppers and survivalist use. I think that sometimes some people get a little too tied up in the terms.
Plan ahead. Be safe.
What's a BOB (you might wonder)? It is a Bug Out Bag. Wikipedia calls it:
... a portable kit that contains the items one would require to survive for seventy two hours when evacuating from a disaster.
I have more than one matching bag of items I determined would best support myself, spouse, and child in the case of emergency. It has items that are likely similar to the kits every other prepper or survivalist has, so I won't bore you with the big list. As well, people's opinions on the proper items vary quite a bit, so I won't get into it. If you are curious about creating your own kit, you can look here, or Google it.
Other survival bags or packs exist, and of course the Internet is full of acronyms to describe them. There is the GHB (Get Home Bag), for helping you get home from work or wherever else you might be. The there is also the BOV (Bug Out Vehicle). This either a vehicle prepared to aid in escape or survival in emergencies, or containing the necessary items to ensure survival while getting out of Dodge.
Our intention for the bags is this: If we are at home, the bags are placed in locations so they can be easily grabbed when we GTFO (Get The **** Out). OR .... when we travel in either of our vehicles, we simply take a bag (or two) with us. Our thinking is that if SHTF "you-know-what Hits The Fan" while we are at home, we can simply leave, either on foot or by truck/car. If on the other hand, all hell breaks loose while either one of us is away, we are better prepared to make it home.
So my kit is a BOB but it isn't. I guess it magically is a BOB, a GHB, or a BOV (sort of). We planned on what I simply refer to as survival packs long before I became aware of the popular acronyms preppers and survivalist use. I think that sometimes some people get a little too tied up in the terms.
Plan ahead. Be safe.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
What the Hell Happened to Scouts Canada ???
When I was a kid my folks placed me in Cubs and then Scouts. I loved it. All my friends were in it, and I made new friends too. We did fun stuff, went camping, learned cool skills, etc. So I figured that since my son is now 6 and a half years old, he can join the junior ranks of Scouts Canada, called Beavers. I could picture him in the cute little Beavers outfit. So Tammy and I took him to a nearby Beavers group to check it out and sign him up. What a major disappointment. Shame on you Scouts Canada. You suck.
It is very expensive. I realize that my days as a Scout were long, long ago, and that as times change, financing has changed as well. I expected a cost in getting my son involved, but not $230. Seriously, $230 !! I couldn't believe it. The total divides as follows; $160 just to join Scouts Canada (I assume the $160 is a combination of provincial and federal costs) and another $70 just for the local group. They quickly explained that we can volunteer to help with future costs. Heck if we volunteered enough we wouldn't have to pay as much next year. So what?
Just what does $230 get my 6 year old? Not a uniform. Yup, the uniform will be an extra cost on top of the $230. Holy crap. How can they justify $230 to simply have a little kid in a Beavers group?
Then we found out that the last half hour of the meeting was devoted to sitting a small group of 6 and 7 years old boys in front of some sales posters while they were instructed how they and their parents were expected to sell merchandise to further support the organization. I am not kidding. They actually want us to push the sales of popcorn, trail mixes, and other crap to further provide funds to Scouts Canada. They explained how selling X number of dollars of products got the kids gift cards and other rewards. Big deal! Seriously, they are encouraging us to sell $600 worth of crap to get our kid a cheap plastic gun that shoots marshmallows. They discussed the rewards for selling $1200 and even $2500. I felt like I was trapped in an Amway meeting.
I suppose there are some costs in sending a kid to camp (if they go), and perhaps there is some overhead, like insurance, but requiring $230 to put a 6 year old kid in a Beavers group is crazy? Give me a break. They actually tried to encourage little kids to peddle merchandise. Just how bad does Scouts Canada need the money? Shame on you Scouts Canada.
My kid will do something else instead. He will join other organizations (which are far cheaper) where he will have fun and not have to sellout. I was hoping to protect my kid from capitalistic scumbags for at least a few more years. Thanks Scouts.
It is very expensive. I realize that my days as a Scout were long, long ago, and that as times change, financing has changed as well. I expected a cost in getting my son involved, but not $230. Seriously, $230 !! I couldn't believe it. The total divides as follows; $160 just to join Scouts Canada (I assume the $160 is a combination of provincial and federal costs) and another $70 just for the local group. They quickly explained that we can volunteer to help with future costs. Heck if we volunteered enough we wouldn't have to pay as much next year. So what?
Just what does $230 get my 6 year old? Not a uniform. Yup, the uniform will be an extra cost on top of the $230. Holy crap. How can they justify $230 to simply have a little kid in a Beavers group?
Then we found out that the last half hour of the meeting was devoted to sitting a small group of 6 and 7 years old boys in front of some sales posters while they were instructed how they and their parents were expected to sell merchandise to further support the organization. I am not kidding. They actually want us to push the sales of popcorn, trail mixes, and other crap to further provide funds to Scouts Canada. They explained how selling X number of dollars of products got the kids gift cards and other rewards. Big deal! Seriously, they are encouraging us to sell $600 worth of crap to get our kid a cheap plastic gun that shoots marshmallows. They discussed the rewards for selling $1200 and even $2500. I felt like I was trapped in an Amway meeting.
I suppose there are some costs in sending a kid to camp (if they go), and perhaps there is some overhead, like insurance, but requiring $230 to put a 6 year old kid in a Beavers group is crazy? Give me a break. They actually tried to encourage little kids to peddle merchandise. Just how bad does Scouts Canada need the money? Shame on you Scouts Canada.
My kid will do something else instead. He will join other organizations (which are far cheaper) where he will have fun and not have to sellout. I was hoping to protect my kid from capitalistic scumbags for at least a few more years. Thanks Scouts.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Do Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Suck?
I think compact fluorescent bulbs suck. Perhaps I think this because I lack some important details about them, or simply don't know all the facts. Why do I think these curly little devils suck?
Tonight my spouse simply turned on the bathroom lights and in no time was hit by a horrible, almost acrid smell. You know, the horrible burning electric smell that makes you wonder what the hell is going on. Turns out that the cause was simply a failed compact fluorescent bulb. That made me think of a number of things I don't like about compact fluorescents.
1. These bulbs simply don't last as long as many claim. That very bulb had only been installed about two or three months ago. This is one of many bulbs, all over the house, that simply died long before expected. I just don't believe all the claims about how they are supposed to last three to five times longer than a regular incandescent bulb.
2. Cost. They are obviously worth more. I know that in terms of the environment, a little extra cost is supposed to worth it, right? But what about the fact that I had to dispose of numerous CF bulbs. They apparently contain mercury, and have huge plastic bases. That can't be good for the landfill. As well, these can't be environmentally friendly in their production. So every time one fails (long before it's time), more resources and energy are used to create a replacement. This doesn't seem right to me.
3. Are they hazardous? I think so. From what I have read, simply breaking one, say, by dropping it, could put you and yours at risk. I have read in numerous places that the contents become airborne, and are dangerous to breath or touch. Other sources say don't worry, as the bulbs only contain approximately 4 to 5 milligrams of mercury each. Oddly enough the EPA recommends that you immediately open windows, clean up the broken glass and dust immediately, but not to use a vacuum or your hands. They also recommend you then wipe the area with a wet paper towel to remove traces of glass, dust and mercury. I don't recall having those worries with the old incandescent bulbs.
4. The light they give off sucks. It's not just me either. Others have voiced the same opinion on this. These CF bulbs just don't stay bright white through their lifespan. Sometimes with half a year, they begin to give off a duller, more yellowy light. I also find them much less brighter Long before a year has passed.
So what do I do? I can't really just change everything back to incandescent bulbs. First, they do use a lot of power in comparison to compact fluorescents. Second, they are getting harder and harder to find. I think I may need to find a completely different lighting alternative. Someone told me that I should look into the new offerings in LED bulbs. No, not the single, dinky little things such as the ones on your remote control, but a group of them nested in large household bulbs. Supposedly they actually look like good old incandescent bulbs too. I need to research this more. The claims for LED household bulbs is that they last longer then both incandescent and fluorescents, while giving off a nicer, whiter light, while using little energy.
Are they costly? I guess they probably are. But some LED bulbs are providing something like 1200 lumen output. That's a 75-85W incandescent equivalent. Many reports on these lights claim that these bulbs can stay turned on for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and last for many years. There is also the claim that the energy needed to operate these bulbs for their entire life will likely cost less than the price of the bulb itself . Not bad.
LED household bulbs are sadly in their infancy. They need to be brighter. They also tend to be of the spotlight type (although good old round style bulbs exist). Since these household LED bulbs are new (in terms of household use), the general public (ya' that's us) need to hang in there a while until technology and production improve.
I going to try a few anyways. Maybe when they burn out they won't smell like I baked a Frisbee in the oven at 450.
Later.
Tonight my spouse simply turned on the bathroom lights and in no time was hit by a horrible, almost acrid smell. You know, the horrible burning electric smell that makes you wonder what the hell is going on. Turns out that the cause was simply a failed compact fluorescent bulb. That made me think of a number of things I don't like about compact fluorescents.
1. These bulbs simply don't last as long as many claim. That very bulb had only been installed about two or three months ago. This is one of many bulbs, all over the house, that simply died long before expected. I just don't believe all the claims about how they are supposed to last three to five times longer than a regular incandescent bulb.
2. Cost. They are obviously worth more. I know that in terms of the environment, a little extra cost is supposed to worth it, right? But what about the fact that I had to dispose of numerous CF bulbs. They apparently contain mercury, and have huge plastic bases. That can't be good for the landfill. As well, these can't be environmentally friendly in their production. So every time one fails (long before it's time), more resources and energy are used to create a replacement. This doesn't seem right to me.
3. Are they hazardous? I think so. From what I have read, simply breaking one, say, by dropping it, could put you and yours at risk. I have read in numerous places that the contents become airborne, and are dangerous to breath or touch. Other sources say don't worry, as the bulbs only contain approximately 4 to 5 milligrams of mercury each. Oddly enough the EPA recommends that you immediately open windows, clean up the broken glass and dust immediately, but not to use a vacuum or your hands. They also recommend you then wipe the area with a wet paper towel to remove traces of glass, dust and mercury. I don't recall having those worries with the old incandescent bulbs.
4. The light they give off sucks. It's not just me either. Others have voiced the same opinion on this. These CF bulbs just don't stay bright white through their lifespan. Sometimes with half a year, they begin to give off a duller, more yellowy light. I also find them much less brighter Long before a year has passed.
So what do I do? I can't really just change everything back to incandescent bulbs. First, they do use a lot of power in comparison to compact fluorescents. Second, they are getting harder and harder to find. I think I may need to find a completely different lighting alternative. Someone told me that I should look into the new offerings in LED bulbs. No, not the single, dinky little things such as the ones on your remote control, but a group of them nested in large household bulbs. Supposedly they actually look like good old incandescent bulbs too. I need to research this more. The claims for LED household bulbs is that they last longer then both incandescent and fluorescents, while giving off a nicer, whiter light, while using little energy.
Are they costly? I guess they probably are. But some LED bulbs are providing something like 1200 lumen output. That's a 75-85W incandescent equivalent. Many reports on these lights claim that these bulbs can stay turned on for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and last for many years. There is also the claim that the energy needed to operate these bulbs for their entire life will likely cost less than the price of the bulb itself . Not bad.
LED household bulbs are sadly in their infancy. They need to be brighter. They also tend to be of the spotlight type (although good old round style bulbs exist). Since these household LED bulbs are new (in terms of household use), the general public (ya' that's us) need to hang in there a while until technology and production improve.
I going to try a few anyways. Maybe when they burn out they won't smell like I baked a Frisbee in the oven at 450.
Later.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Learning from Blogger Stats
I had a quick look at my stats today. Here's what I learned:
- My little corner of the world is actually viewed regularly. That surprised me, since I really only post to entertain my self and share a little.
- People view my blog from all over. Of course North Americans account for the most views, but it seems some folks from Russia, Lebanon, and other countries are stopping by. How cool is that?
- Even though some of my postings are entirely non-gun related, many people only come here to look at the gun related stuff. Maybe I need to change the blog's title?
Take it easy.
- My little corner of the world is actually viewed regularly. That surprised me, since I really only post to entertain my self and share a little.
- People view my blog from all over. Of course North Americans account for the most views, but it seems some folks from Russia, Lebanon, and other countries are stopping by. How cool is that?
- Even though some of my postings are entirely non-gun related, many people only come here to look at the gun related stuff. Maybe I need to change the blog's title?
Take it easy.
Painting in a tiny studio........
Painting in a tiny studio sucks. I measured my studio workspace. It is about 5 x 4 feet in size. Not only is it smaller than a standard bathroom, it had no windows, and was illuminated by a single, curly, florescent bulb. Talk about depressing. After about 20 minutes of airbrushing, I couldn't wait to get the hell out. It was weird. I actually looked forward to leaving, so I could strip and clean all the equipment.
That's it! The decision is made. I am rearranging the basement floor and creating a nice, roomy space to blow paint. It will only be about 10 x 10 feet, but that's plenty. It will be beside a window to provide natural light (a heavy effect on colors). I will set up be filtering and ventilation, along with some decent shelving and brush stands. Maybe one day when I am rich and famous (at least rich) I will invest in a studio that you can park a bus in. Until then the new area will have to do.
Ya', I know this entry is pointless without pics. Sorry.
That's it! The decision is made. I am rearranging the basement floor and creating a nice, roomy space to blow paint. It will only be about 10 x 10 feet, but that's plenty. It will be beside a window to provide natural light (a heavy effect on colors). I will set up be filtering and ventilation, along with some decent shelving and brush stands. Maybe one day when I am rich and famous (at least rich) I will invest in a studio that you can park a bus in. Until then the new area will have to do.
Ya', I know this entry is pointless without pics. Sorry.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Practicing Airbrushing Again
Although I have been screwing around with my airbrushes for a couple decades, I decided to get back into serious practice again. So I dusted off my trusty Paasche VSR90#1, tried out my Badger 150 knockoff (HSENG, I think) and grabbed my son a cheap Badger 350 knockoff.
Damn, I like spraying paint. Trouble shooting a few issues right now with media reducing and pressures, but so far, so good. Maxwell (my 6 year old) has played around a few times and really seems to love it. I have him practicing dots and lines right now, and he is always into experimenting with shapes and scribbles.
My studio area is small and far too cramped. I need to find a roomy, well lit spot somewhere downstairs. Right now it feels like I am airbrushing in a dank cave.
Damn, I like spraying paint. Trouble shooting a few issues right now with media reducing and pressures, but so far, so good. Maxwell (my 6 year old) has played around a few times and really seems to love it. I have him practicing dots and lines right now, and he is always into experimenting with shapes and scribbles.
My studio area is small and far too cramped. I need to find a roomy, well lit spot somewhere downstairs. Right now it feels like I am airbrushing in a dank cave.
Monday, May 17, 2010
UPDATE: Knoxx SpecOps stock for the Dominion Arms Grizzly
I finally got the KNOXX SPECOPS stock in,. I was happy to see they included the forend grip. Putting the buttstock on is super easy. I thought I'd have an issue with the bolt perhaps having the wrong threads, but it fit nice and tight. The forend was a hassle. Damn it was way too tight. After a little sanding and filing I finally got the grip on too. I have to say that I actually like the new forend. Take a look at my last post to see the difference. Here's how the Grizzly looks now:
I like the new look. All I need now is to find a decent light system on a budget. I guess I will also have to find a new home for the spare parts that are left over. I doubt I'll have any need for the old folding stock and forend.
I can't wait to head out to the range again and see just how much this new stock reduces recoil.
I like the new look. All I need now is to find a decent light system on a budget. I guess I will also have to find a new home for the spare parts that are left over. I doubt I'll have any need for the old folding stock and forend.
I can't wait to head out to the range again and see just how much this new stock reduces recoil.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
My New Box Magazine Fed Shotgun
I just got my new 12 gauge Grizzly shotgun today. I was excited to get, as I find the fact that it feeds cartridges from a box magazine instead of the standard tube magazine pretty cool. This shotgun is a Dominion Arms manufacture, and likely not available in the US (at least not yet). This shotgun is a copy of the Remington 870, and is gaining popularity up here in Canada.
Opening the Box. The box and manual both have the YJ12-2 designation, which reminded me of a Norinco naming scheme from a Ithaca clone I owned years back. Unlike the SKS I purchased years ago, the shotgun was not entirely covered in grease or cosmoline. Everything was packed great. It arrived with the stock folded, and the complete unit wrapped in a sealed plastic bag, all packed in ample styrofoam.I was pleasantly surprised to find a couple little goodies two. The supplier, Canadaammo.com, provided me with a stack of targets and a free trigger lock. That's a nice touch. I love surprises.
The Shotgun Itself. What can I say? I find it to be a thing of beauty. I immediately took it down to the gunroom for a strip, degrease, lube, and reassembly job. I have been looking online lately and found some YouTube videos handy in the disassembly/reassembly process. I also have the AGI videos, so that helps someone like me who hasn't owned an 870 (or clone) before. The shotgun is great looking. The dark black parkerized finish looks really nice. SSince it resembles teh Remington 870, stripping it was easy. I did find a few surprises though. The shotgun lacked the maching marks I am accustomed to in Chinese made arms. The reciever was excellent, smooth and free of unwanted maching marks. Another surprise was the slide plate unit. It is held onto the breech bolt via some sort of bracket or holder. It can still slide back and forth under the bolt, but is limited in movement by the retainer. All my 870 research showed slide plates that were entirely seperate from the breech bolt. I am curious why this plate is attached. Once I had the bore cleaned I found it nice and shiny. The chamber does show some very slight grinding marks, but nothing that caused me any worry. I don't expect issues with extraction, but if necessary, I will simply polish the chamber lightly if I encounter anything. I was also found the trigger to be quite nice.
Notice the slide plate is retained by the screwed on device at the front bottom of the bolt?
The Obvious. Of course there is no follower visible in the tube mag, as that area is completely covered to allow for the box magazine. There is no carrier attached to the trigger group either, as it is unneeded.
The Stock. The folding stock is solid and locks in position tightly, requiring a proper amount of effort to depress the stock button. I am thinking that the small size of the butt will make for some sore shoulders when firing the big stuff. I plan on saving for a Knoxx Specops anyways, so this isn't going to be a big issue.
The Manual. Wow, it is actually in decent readable english. Some of the Chinese made manuals I have encountered in the past were actually pretty funny in their use of english. This one was actually pretty good.
So there you have it. It seems like I got one very nice shotgun. Unfortunately the weather here sucks, so perhaps in a week or so I will hit the range and try out some birdshot, 00 buckshot, and some Federal slugs.
Opening the Box. The box and manual both have the YJ12-2 designation, which reminded me of a Norinco naming scheme from a Ithaca clone I owned years back. Unlike the SKS I purchased years ago, the shotgun was not entirely covered in grease or cosmoline. Everything was packed great. It arrived with the stock folded, and the complete unit wrapped in a sealed plastic bag, all packed in ample styrofoam.I was pleasantly surprised to find a couple little goodies two. The supplier, Canadaammo.com, provided me with a stack of targets and a free trigger lock. That's a nice touch. I love surprises.
The Shotgun Itself. What can I say? I find it to be a thing of beauty. I immediately took it down to the gunroom for a strip, degrease, lube, and reassembly job. I have been looking online lately and found some YouTube videos handy in the disassembly/reassembly process. I also have the AGI videos, so that helps someone like me who hasn't owned an 870 (or clone) before. The shotgun is great looking. The dark black parkerized finish looks really nice. SSince it resembles teh Remington 870, stripping it was easy. I did find a few surprises though. The shotgun lacked the maching marks I am accustomed to in Chinese made arms. The reciever was excellent, smooth and free of unwanted maching marks. Another surprise was the slide plate unit. It is held onto the breech bolt via some sort of bracket or holder. It can still slide back and forth under the bolt, but is limited in movement by the retainer. All my 870 research showed slide plates that were entirely seperate from the breech bolt. I am curious why this plate is attached. Once I had the bore cleaned I found it nice and shiny. The chamber does show some very slight grinding marks, but nothing that caused me any worry. I don't expect issues with extraction, but if necessary, I will simply polish the chamber lightly if I encounter anything. I was also found the trigger to be quite nice.
The Obvious. Of course there is no follower visible in the tube mag, as that area is completely covered to allow for the box magazine. There is no carrier attached to the trigger group either, as it is unneeded.
The Stock. The folding stock is solid and locks in position tightly, requiring a proper amount of effort to depress the stock button. I am thinking that the small size of the butt will make for some sore shoulders when firing the big stuff. I plan on saving for a Knoxx Specops anyways, so this isn't going to be a big issue.
The Manual. Wow, it is actually in decent readable english. Some of the Chinese made manuals I have encountered in the past were actually pretty funny in their use of english. This one was actually pretty good.
So there you have it. It seems like I got one very nice shotgun. Unfortunately the weather here sucks, so perhaps in a week or so I will hit the range and try out some birdshot, 00 buckshot, and some Federal slugs.
Friday, April 23, 2010
I am not a dangerous killer...
If you are a firearms owner, you should be warned that the following will most likely be viewed upon as me just "preaching to the choir". You may want to continue reading the following anyways. Who knows, you might encounter some new information that may be of value to you.
For anyone who knows me, it's obvious I am a gun owner. I no longer hide that fact from people I meet. When the topic of gun control comes up, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that I have a strong opinion on the issues. Why do I have such strong opinions? Do I simply disagree with anti-gun people just because I own firearms, and it's my unspoken duty? No. I disagree with many anti-gun individuals because they simply have a lot of their facts all wrong. I try hard to be reasonable in my discussions with anti-gun folks, but often run into a too familiar brick wall. Just presenting that idea openly that some of their facts may be incorrect will most likely cause anti-gun folks to block out my opinions and resist anything I have to present, no matter how logical my view is. Perhaps some will take the time to reconsider their beliefs, and maybe even see some of the logic behind my point of view.
First off, I would like to say this, "gun control is really people control". It's just laws and regulations that control millions of good, honest, law-abiding peoples ability to enjoy gun related activities, sports and lifestyles. I believe that gun control is based predominantly on fear. As fear is an emotion, it makes it difficult to counter emotional responses with logical debate. I'll try to present some facts here in a logical manner. I hope that my presentation of truth will cause others to rethink their stand on gun control. I would also like to add that sometimes I am defensive when confronted by anti-gun people. As soon as I inform them that I enjoy
firearms and gun related activities, they treat me differently. Some respond by saying idiotic things like, "Oh no, I better not get you angry". Really? So if I am a gun enthusiast, I'm suddenly labelled as dangerous or unstable? Gee, thanks for the insult. At other times they ask me, "Why do you need guns?". It's not about need. I can live without them just as others can live without the items they use to support and enjoy their hobbies or ways of life. I wish anti-gun people wouldn't so quickly pigeon hole gun owners. There are tens of millions of us. Trust me, we are all quite different from one another. we are not all crazy, violent, potential offenders waiting to "go off" like some sort of unstable bomb.
Here are some facts about gun ownership, use, and gun control. I present them as the common questions and statements I usually encounter.
Countries with more gun control are safer?
This is simply not true. Using Britain as an example, firearms use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. The result is a society that is now more dangerous. The handgun banned failed to keep people safe. In fact weapons sell there for as little as 50 Pounds. Here is something else to consider:
Many countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of crime. Consider Australia and England. Each have very strict gun control,yet have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force among the top 17 industrialised countries. In contrast Switzerland, with lenient gun laws for Europe, has the 3rd lowest homicide rate of the top 9 major European countries. Do you still think gun control works after being presented with facts like this?
Registration and control is the answer.
There is definite proof that this is simply not the case. New Zealand repealed their gun registration laws in the '80s after police acknowledged its worthlessness. Consider Canada. Here is an important quote regarding the effectiveness of gun control:
"The gun registration as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns, but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation." (Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police.)
Calgary isn't some little hick town, and even officials there know that registration was clearly not the answer. It's not just Calgary either. Six Canadian provinces refuse to prosecute firearm owners that fail to register. Those provincial governments didn't just make this decision on a casual whim. They consider the registry an expensive, ineffective waste that treats lawful citizens as criminals. The billions of dollars wasted on a long gun registry could have been better spent on real social issues. That $2,000,000,000 could have been spent feeding hungry children, putting roofs over the heads of the homeless, financing health institutions, etc.
Registration keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
Real information clearly shows that this is untrue. Registration of firearms by government does not keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. In Canada, homicide rates are virtually identical to those before registration. The ratio of 1.8/100,000 in 1998 evenly matches 1.8/100,000 in 2007. (Statistics Canada) The truth is that criminals simply don't care about registration. Registration requires the obedience. Criminals obviously aren't concerned with following regulations. It would be contrary to their nature and role in society. The guns possessed by criminals are either smuggled in, stolen, or created. How does registration affect these felons? It doesn't. Some might argue, "If citizens didn't own guns, criminals couldn't steal them". They're criminals, they would then just smuggle them in, or just hang on the firearms they already illegally possess. Registration is not the answer.
Gun availability is a factor in school shootings.
This is untrue. In rural areas for example, where guns are more common, school shooting are almost non-existent. School shootings are not simply caused by the availability of guns. School shootings are an deeply unfortunate result of a much deeper factor. Resources should perhaps be concentrated on determining what the real underlying issues might be.
Guns kill.
This is one I hear quite a lot. It is as if guns are simply produced with one, and only one purpose, that of killing. Saying "guns kill" is not the best argument for gun control. The fact is that the large percentage of deaths by guns is actually suicide. It is foolish to think that these potentially suicidal individuals would simply chose against it just because guns didn't exist, or required registration. The argument that guns make suicide easy is not accurate either. Should we ban all items used in suicides? Should we regulate of ban rope,
or just the most popular tools of suicide? Guns are used thousands and thousands of times each day in entirely safe non-killing activities. They don't leap off shelves and begin killing all by themselves. It's not a gun issue, it's a people issue. Guns are used for many other activities besides killing the innocent, those activities are called sport and recreation, not killing practice.
Does gun ownership prevents crime?
Yes it does. In America, firearms are used 60 times more to protect lives than to take lives. This information surprises many anti-gun individuals. The statistic can't be disputed. Believe it or not, gun ownership actually protects lives.
It is crazy to say guns save lives?
No. In fact, in America, for every accidental death, homicide, or suicide, 10 lives are saved through defensive gun use. That's quite the ratio. Every day over 6,500 people (that's one every 13 seconds) uses a firearm to defend themselves. Who would be protecting these precious live if guns were outlawed? The police?
Only police should have guns.
Not if you want to be safe. Here is some information even I found alarming. According to the "Independent Issue Institute Paper, October 17 1994), 11% of police shootings in America resulted in the death of an innocent person, while only about 2% of shootings by citizens resulted in killing innocent people. I understand that accidents happen, and that honorable law enforcement officers have my best interests at heart, but the statistics are disturbing. Here is another fact to consider: Criminals are more worried about meeting an armed citizen then actually encountering the police. Why is that? Criminals are most likely to not even encounter police during a criminal act, but instead have to deal with a possibility of meeting up with an armed citizen.
What about protecting women? Can guns protect women?
Of the 2,500,000 instances of a firearms being used in self defense, more than 7.7% are women protecting themselves from rape or sexual abuse. The fact is, that when a woman was armed with a knife or gun, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to the 32% of women who were unarmed.
Publicly displaying a gun is asking for trouble.
Not true. displaying a firearm actually prevents crime. Every day in America, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other crimes are prevented by simply showing a gun in an act of defense. Less than 1% (actually 0.9%) involved firing the gun. Why is that? Criminals will take the easy way. Properly defended citizens are simply not easy victims.
Privately owned guns are used to commit crimes.
This statement is wrong. In America 90% of all violent crimes didn't involve firearms of any type. (BATF statistics from 1998)
The police are here to protect us, so we don't need guns.
I frequently hear this one. Unfortunately the statement is wrong. According to U.S. News and World Report, June 17, 1998, 95% of the time, the police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest a suspect. I don't blame police departments for this. I only wish that the funds wasted on gun control and ineffective registration be instead spent on expanding police budgets. Those funds could recruit, train, and equip more officers, providing them with the tools and manpower to effectively stop crime.
Children are killed each day in North America by guns.
This is sad, but true. These statistics also include death by criminals. Half of those are gang or drug related. Is gun registration helping? No. Recent American statistics show that approximately 13 children die every day from guns. That number unfortunately matches the number of children killed in automobiles. What is the answer? Should we ban cars too? I am a father, and the thought of losing my child deeply troubles me. I keep all my firearms secured, and absolutely out of reach of my child or anyone else. Would safe storage and proper firearms education help lower the number of children killed by firearms? Yes. Did you know that four children die every day in the U.S. from parental neglect and abuse. Why do gun control advocates only single out the gun related deaths.
Children should not have access to guns.
As hard as it may be to believe, this is not true. Boys who legally own guns have much lower rates of delinquency and drug abuse and are even less delinquent than non gun owning boys of the same age. Why is this contrary to what many gun control advocates believe? Considering the thousands of crimes prevented each day by gun defense (remember it is over 6,500), the number of children protected by firearms far outweighs the number of children harmed. Banning or registering guns is not stopping children from being
harmed by guns, it is the other deeper issues such as education, crime, drugs, gangs, and social or family issues that need to be considered. Gun registration and control are simply a bandage solutions to the cuts that run far deeper in our society.
Without gun control, more people will start to carry guns. Citizens should not be legally able to carry guns.
It surprises many people to find out that citizens legally carrying guns may actually aid society. 39 states (comprising the majority of the American population) are actually "right to carry" states. Statistics show that in these states crime rates actually fell, or at least didn't rise. In Texas for example, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average after their concealed carry law passed. Rapes fell 93% faster after the first year. These facts are more than just interesting reading. Can citizens, legally carrying guns, positively affect crime rates? Of course they can, and these numbers prove it. Unfortunately gun control advocates like to say these numbers may be the results of other non-gun related effects, but those same advocates never provide any information as to what those non-gun effects might be.
Lastly, gun control treats law abiding, gun owning citizens like criminals.
It portrays them as part of the problem, when they only want to exercise their rights to simply enjoy the benefits of firearms ownership. Owning a gun does not automatically make you a dangerous criminal. Please consider this;
Yesterday, well over 65 million gun owners in North America did not commit a crime. They simply lived their lives in peace. Some gun owners were even fortunate enough to protect thousands of precious ives (remember it's over 6,500 daily in America).
For anyone who knows me, it's obvious I am a gun owner. I no longer hide that fact from people I meet. When the topic of gun control comes up, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that I have a strong opinion on the issues. Why do I have such strong opinions? Do I simply disagree with anti-gun people just because I own firearms, and it's my unspoken duty? No. I disagree with many anti-gun individuals because they simply have a lot of their facts all wrong. I try hard to be reasonable in my discussions with anti-gun folks, but often run into a too familiar brick wall. Just presenting that idea openly that some of their facts may be incorrect will most likely cause anti-gun folks to block out my opinions and resist anything I have to present, no matter how logical my view is. Perhaps some will take the time to reconsider their beliefs, and maybe even see some of the logic behind my point of view.
First off, I would like to say this, "gun control is really people control". It's just laws and regulations that control millions of good, honest, law-abiding peoples ability to enjoy gun related activities, sports and lifestyles. I believe that gun control is based predominantly on fear. As fear is an emotion, it makes it difficult to counter emotional responses with logical debate. I'll try to present some facts here in a logical manner. I hope that my presentation of truth will cause others to rethink their stand on gun control. I would also like to add that sometimes I am defensive when confronted by anti-gun people. As soon as I inform them that I enjoy
firearms and gun related activities, they treat me differently. Some respond by saying idiotic things like, "Oh no, I better not get you angry". Really? So if I am a gun enthusiast, I'm suddenly labelled as dangerous or unstable? Gee, thanks for the insult. At other times they ask me, "Why do you need guns?". It's not about need. I can live without them just as others can live without the items they use to support and enjoy their hobbies or ways of life. I wish anti-gun people wouldn't so quickly pigeon hole gun owners. There are tens of millions of us. Trust me, we are all quite different from one another. we are not all crazy, violent, potential offenders waiting to "go off" like some sort of unstable bomb.
Here are some facts about gun ownership, use, and gun control. I present them as the common questions and statements I usually encounter.
Countries with more gun control are safer?
This is simply not true. Using Britain as an example, firearms use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. The result is a society that is now more dangerous. The handgun banned failed to keep people safe. In fact weapons sell there for as little as 50 Pounds. Here is something else to consider:
Many countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of crime. Consider Australia and England. Each have very strict gun control,yet have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force among the top 17 industrialised countries. In contrast Switzerland, with lenient gun laws for Europe, has the 3rd lowest homicide rate of the top 9 major European countries. Do you still think gun control works after being presented with facts like this?
Registration and control is the answer.
There is definite proof that this is simply not the case. New Zealand repealed their gun registration laws in the '80s after police acknowledged its worthlessness. Consider Canada. Here is an important quote regarding the effectiveness of gun control:
"The gun registration as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns, but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation." (Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police.)
Calgary isn't some little hick town, and even officials there know that registration was clearly not the answer. It's not just Calgary either. Six Canadian provinces refuse to prosecute firearm owners that fail to register. Those provincial governments didn't just make this decision on a casual whim. They consider the registry an expensive, ineffective waste that treats lawful citizens as criminals. The billions of dollars wasted on a long gun registry could have been better spent on real social issues. That $2,000,000,000 could have been spent feeding hungry children, putting roofs over the heads of the homeless, financing health institutions, etc.
Registration keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
Real information clearly shows that this is untrue. Registration of firearms by government does not keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. In Canada, homicide rates are virtually identical to those before registration. The ratio of 1.8/100,000 in 1998 evenly matches 1.8/100,000 in 2007. (Statistics Canada) The truth is that criminals simply don't care about registration. Registration requires the obedience. Criminals obviously aren't concerned with following regulations. It would be contrary to their nature and role in society. The guns possessed by criminals are either smuggled in, stolen, or created. How does registration affect these felons? It doesn't. Some might argue, "If citizens didn't own guns, criminals couldn't steal them". They're criminals, they would then just smuggle them in, or just hang on the firearms they already illegally possess. Registration is not the answer.
Gun availability is a factor in school shootings.
This is untrue. In rural areas for example, where guns are more common, school shooting are almost non-existent. School shootings are not simply caused by the availability of guns. School shootings are an deeply unfortunate result of a much deeper factor. Resources should perhaps be concentrated on determining what the real underlying issues might be.
Guns kill.
This is one I hear quite a lot. It is as if guns are simply produced with one, and only one purpose, that of killing. Saying "guns kill" is not the best argument for gun control. The fact is that the large percentage of deaths by guns is actually suicide. It is foolish to think that these potentially suicidal individuals would simply chose against it just because guns didn't exist, or required registration. The argument that guns make suicide easy is not accurate either. Should we ban all items used in suicides? Should we regulate of ban rope,
or just the most popular tools of suicide? Guns are used thousands and thousands of times each day in entirely safe non-killing activities. They don't leap off shelves and begin killing all by themselves. It's not a gun issue, it's a people issue. Guns are used for many other activities besides killing the innocent, those activities are called sport and recreation, not killing practice.
Does gun ownership prevents crime?
Yes it does. In America, firearms are used 60 times more to protect lives than to take lives. This information surprises many anti-gun individuals. The statistic can't be disputed. Believe it or not, gun ownership actually protects lives.
It is crazy to say guns save lives?
No. In fact, in America, for every accidental death, homicide, or suicide, 10 lives are saved through defensive gun use. That's quite the ratio. Every day over 6,500 people (that's one every 13 seconds) uses a firearm to defend themselves. Who would be protecting these precious live if guns were outlawed? The police?
Only police should have guns.
Not if you want to be safe. Here is some information even I found alarming. According to the "Independent Issue Institute Paper, October 17 1994), 11% of police shootings in America resulted in the death of an innocent person, while only about 2% of shootings by citizens resulted in killing innocent people. I understand that accidents happen, and that honorable law enforcement officers have my best interests at heart, but the statistics are disturbing. Here is another fact to consider: Criminals are more worried about meeting an armed citizen then actually encountering the police. Why is that? Criminals are most likely to not even encounter police during a criminal act, but instead have to deal with a possibility of meeting up with an armed citizen.
What about protecting women? Can guns protect women?
Of the 2,500,000 instances of a firearms being used in self defense, more than 7.7% are women protecting themselves from rape or sexual abuse. The fact is, that when a woman was armed with a knife or gun, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to the 32% of women who were unarmed.
Publicly displaying a gun is asking for trouble.
Not true. displaying a firearm actually prevents crime. Every day in America, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other crimes are prevented by simply showing a gun in an act of defense. Less than 1% (actually 0.9%) involved firing the gun. Why is that? Criminals will take the easy way. Properly defended citizens are simply not easy victims.
Privately owned guns are used to commit crimes.
This statement is wrong. In America 90% of all violent crimes didn't involve firearms of any type. (BATF statistics from 1998)
The police are here to protect us, so we don't need guns.
I frequently hear this one. Unfortunately the statement is wrong. According to U.S. News and World Report, June 17, 1998, 95% of the time, the police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest a suspect. I don't blame police departments for this. I only wish that the funds wasted on gun control and ineffective registration be instead spent on expanding police budgets. Those funds could recruit, train, and equip more officers, providing them with the tools and manpower to effectively stop crime.
Children are killed each day in North America by guns.
This is sad, but true. These statistics also include death by criminals. Half of those are gang or drug related. Is gun registration helping? No. Recent American statistics show that approximately 13 children die every day from guns. That number unfortunately matches the number of children killed in automobiles. What is the answer? Should we ban cars too? I am a father, and the thought of losing my child deeply troubles me. I keep all my firearms secured, and absolutely out of reach of my child or anyone else. Would safe storage and proper firearms education help lower the number of children killed by firearms? Yes. Did you know that four children die every day in the U.S. from parental neglect and abuse. Why do gun control advocates only single out the gun related deaths.
Children should not have access to guns.
As hard as it may be to believe, this is not true. Boys who legally own guns have much lower rates of delinquency and drug abuse and are even less delinquent than non gun owning boys of the same age. Why is this contrary to what many gun control advocates believe? Considering the thousands of crimes prevented each day by gun defense (remember it is over 6,500), the number of children protected by firearms far outweighs the number of children harmed. Banning or registering guns is not stopping children from being
harmed by guns, it is the other deeper issues such as education, crime, drugs, gangs, and social or family issues that need to be considered. Gun registration and control are simply a bandage solutions to the cuts that run far deeper in our society.
Without gun control, more people will start to carry guns. Citizens should not be legally able to carry guns.
It surprises many people to find out that citizens legally carrying guns may actually aid society. 39 states (comprising the majority of the American population) are actually "right to carry" states. Statistics show that in these states crime rates actually fell, or at least didn't rise. In Texas for example, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average after their concealed carry law passed. Rapes fell 93% faster after the first year. These facts are more than just interesting reading. Can citizens, legally carrying guns, positively affect crime rates? Of course they can, and these numbers prove it. Unfortunately gun control advocates like to say these numbers may be the results of other non-gun related effects, but those same advocates never provide any information as to what those non-gun effects might be.
Lastly, gun control treats law abiding, gun owning citizens like criminals.
It portrays them as part of the problem, when they only want to exercise their rights to simply enjoy the benefits of firearms ownership. Owning a gun does not automatically make you a dangerous criminal. Please consider this;
Yesterday, well over 65 million gun owners in North America did not commit a crime. They simply lived their lives in peace. Some gun owners were even fortunate enough to protect thousands of precious ives (remember it's over 6,500 daily in America).
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
My Take on Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Even as I write this I wonder, "Who really cares what I think about Bad Company 2?' Maybe voicing my opinion just makes me feel better. Anyways, here goes...
What an awesome game. I know that everyone was concentrating on the multiplayer aspect (more on that later), but I was hoping for a great single player experience. I wasn't dissappointed. The single player campaign was a blast, and as usual the dialogue was hilarious. I finished it on Normal, and can't wait to try a few of the levels again. Single player was always interesting, challenging (for me at least), and beautifull to behold.
Now for the multiplayer experience: It is defintely well crafted. The game servers were overwelmed at first, but all those issues have been addressed. Multiplayer kicks ass. They created great maps and added nice upgrades and unlocks as you progress and hone your abilities. Getting in with a good squad and driving tanks, flying helicopters, and launching unmanned recon craft is pure fun.
Is multiplayer perfect? No, it isn't. This isn't the developers fault, it's the fault of some players. Bad Company 2 is a great SQUAD based game. The loners and campers out there (likely used to other inferior games) are just ruining it for the rest of us. Seriously. While most are trying hard to defeat the enemy through team play, there is always some idiot who thinks he can just sit on his ass, far from the action and snipe all day. He thinks he can hide in a building and take pot shots at the enemy, playing only for himself. This doesn't work. As I mentioned, Bad Company 2 is a squad based game. When these campers and loners join a game, they are crippling their team. It is multiplayer after all. It's not just you playing. Half the team is getting their ass kicked working against an organized group, while some dumb ass thinks he's helping by killing 2 enemies every 20 minutes with multiple sniper shots to a single enemy. You can't hide in this game. Nowhere is safe. Don't just sit there, move dammit! If you don't believe me, just keep sitting there in the trees, looking through your scope, oblivious to all your team suffering because of you. Just keep trying to kill everyone with a headshot, while I sneak up behind you and stab you in the head.
Of course when I am lucky enough to join a great team, we work together to capture flags or destroy M-COMM stations. We love the ability to launch an RPG at a building holding that one lonely sniper, who thinks we haven't seen him. Team play rocks. Everyone fightoing together makes all the points you gain feel even better. Nothing beats a good squad battling it out against another. Buildings crumbling under heavy tank fire, helicopters strafing your position, and getting rushes by four guys at once is just part of the excitement.
Play the game and look me up. I'm schick1911
What an awesome game. I know that everyone was concentrating on the multiplayer aspect (more on that later), but I was hoping for a great single player experience. I wasn't dissappointed. The single player campaign was a blast, and as usual the dialogue was hilarious. I finished it on Normal, and can't wait to try a few of the levels again. Single player was always interesting, challenging (for me at least), and beautifull to behold.
Now for the multiplayer experience: It is defintely well crafted. The game servers were overwelmed at first, but all those issues have been addressed. Multiplayer kicks ass. They created great maps and added nice upgrades and unlocks as you progress and hone your abilities. Getting in with a good squad and driving tanks, flying helicopters, and launching unmanned recon craft is pure fun.
Is multiplayer perfect? No, it isn't. This isn't the developers fault, it's the fault of some players. Bad Company 2 is a great SQUAD based game. The loners and campers out there (likely used to other inferior games) are just ruining it for the rest of us. Seriously. While most are trying hard to defeat the enemy through team play, there is always some idiot who thinks he can just sit on his ass, far from the action and snipe all day. He thinks he can hide in a building and take pot shots at the enemy, playing only for himself. This doesn't work. As I mentioned, Bad Company 2 is a squad based game. When these campers and loners join a game, they are crippling their team. It is multiplayer after all. It's not just you playing. Half the team is getting their ass kicked working against an organized group, while some dumb ass thinks he's helping by killing 2 enemies every 20 minutes with multiple sniper shots to a single enemy. You can't hide in this game. Nowhere is safe. Don't just sit there, move dammit! If you don't believe me, just keep sitting there in the trees, looking through your scope, oblivious to all your team suffering because of you. Just keep trying to kill everyone with a headshot, while I sneak up behind you and stab you in the head.
Of course when I am lucky enough to join a great team, we work together to capture flags or destroy M-COMM stations. We love the ability to launch an RPG at a building holding that one lonely sniper, who thinks we haven't seen him. Team play rocks. Everyone fightoing together makes all the points you gain feel even better. Nothing beats a good squad battling it out against another. Buildings crumbling under heavy tank fire, helicopters strafing your position, and getting rushes by four guys at once is just part of the excitement.
Play the game and look me up. I'm schick1911
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tinfoil Hat or just Responsible Thinking?
I have actually started researching emergency preparedness and survival. No kidding. I didn't watch a bunch of disater movies or sit glued to the TV watching documentaries about Katrina or Haiti either. I just suddenly got the urge to consider the "what if" questions?
Here's part of my thinking behind this. Last winter the power went out for nearly 6 hours. This is actually pretty serious up here in Saskatchewan. It was frickin' cold out that night. No power meant no furnace. The first few hours were okay, we had flashlights and candles to occupy us. After about the fourth hour the house got quite cold. In the fifth hour, it was very cold, and I was starting to get concerned. Luckily the power was restored. What if it went on longer? How long could we stay there with the temperature dropping?
Now my plan is to install a secondary heat source. But why stop there? I decided that we should be prepared for future emergencies. The Canadian government (as well as the American government) is actually recommending that citizens be prepared for at least three days. Are you prepared to survive for 72 hours in an emergency situation? I am guessing most people aren't.
After carefull research on the topic, I have begun to store food, water, and medical supplies. The food is all long shelf life food, that we will rotate to ensure freshness. Water is easy to store, and we are already planning on gaining filtering and purification supplies. Looking at our present first aid supply, I realized that we are in serious need of better medical too.
There's a lot more to it of course. Many factors have to be considered. I am actually planning on water, food, medical, heating, waste management, electricity, lighting, vehicle fuel storage, auxillary shelter, and more. Does this all sound paranoid? Maybe it does, but I am now thinking that having and not needing, is better than needing and not having. I am expecting something from the Road Warrior? No.
My goal is to be prepared for months, in any climate. I also plan on creating portable solutions for each vehicle, as well as preparing the obligatory BOB (Bug Out Bag). What's a BOB? Essentially, it is a pack or bag, packed carefully with the proper items and equipment to prolong survival in the event I have to leave in a hurry. Sounds crazy, doesn't it.
Here's part of my thinking behind this. Last winter the power went out for nearly 6 hours. This is actually pretty serious up here in Saskatchewan. It was frickin' cold out that night. No power meant no furnace. The first few hours were okay, we had flashlights and candles to occupy us. After about the fourth hour the house got quite cold. In the fifth hour, it was very cold, and I was starting to get concerned. Luckily the power was restored. What if it went on longer? How long could we stay there with the temperature dropping?
Now my plan is to install a secondary heat source. But why stop there? I decided that we should be prepared for future emergencies. The Canadian government (as well as the American government) is actually recommending that citizens be prepared for at least three days. Are you prepared to survive for 72 hours in an emergency situation? I am guessing most people aren't.
After carefull research on the topic, I have begun to store food, water, and medical supplies. The food is all long shelf life food, that we will rotate to ensure freshness. Water is easy to store, and we are already planning on gaining filtering and purification supplies. Looking at our present first aid supply, I realized that we are in serious need of better medical too.
There's a lot more to it of course. Many factors have to be considered. I am actually planning on water, food, medical, heating, waste management, electricity, lighting, vehicle fuel storage, auxillary shelter, and more. Does this all sound paranoid? Maybe it does, but I am now thinking that having and not needing, is better than needing and not having. I am expecting something from the Road Warrior? No.
My goal is to be prepared for months, in any climate. I also plan on creating portable solutions for each vehicle, as well as preparing the obligatory BOB (Bug Out Bag). What's a BOB? Essentially, it is a pack or bag, packed carefully with the proper items and equipment to prolong survival in the event I have to leave in a hurry. Sounds crazy, doesn't it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)